This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Operation Hurricane article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 730 days

	Operation Hurricane is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	Operation Hurricane is part of the Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 3, 2022.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 25, 2017 Good article nominee Listed June 13, 2017 WikiProject A-class review Not approved July 22, 2017 WikiProject A-class review Approved May 5, 2019 Featured article candidate Promoted June 26, 2019 Good topic candidate Promoted A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 14, 2017. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in Operation Hurricane, an atomic bomb was exploded in the hull of HMS Plym? Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 3, 2017, October 3, 2019, October 3, 2023, and October 3, 2024. Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Australia: Western Australia / Military history Low‑importance Operation Hurricane is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force (assessed as Low-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Western Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Military history: Technology / Weaponry / South Pacific / British / European This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force British military history task force European military history task force Additional information: /  This article has passed an A-Class review. Politics of the United Kingdom Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

What effects did the McMahon Act have on British nuclear development? Without shanghaiing the British contingent at Los Alamos or arranging an "accident", there was no way the US could keep the detail design of an implosion nuclear weapon away from Britain; in that sense, Congress was way too late to prevent the British from development of a nuclear weapon. What the McMahon Act did was to cut the British off to go it alone, making further developments in their own way, away from the US head start in industrialization of the process, and proceeding to new and better developments, such as the elevated core and experimentation with mixed core material, as well as a lack of a decent location for testing. The "super" was just a gleam in Teller's eye. It was the further development that the McMahon Act was designed to stop, and stop it did, to almost everyone except the Soviet Union. Even they had to develop their own version of the Teller-Ulam design, so it cannot be said the act was ineffective. The British were immensely displeased and hobbled by this lack of expected cooperation, not to speak of penurized by trying to "go it alone".

In short, I can't agree that the McMahon Act was side-stepped by the fact that British members of the Los Alamos team went home with their heads fill of nuclear data. It had its intended effect. Oh, and a BBC film on the development of the British bomb, if you can actually trust a dramatization to be factual, doesn't negate that, either. SkoreKeep (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2015-11-28T21:52:00.000Z","author":"SkoreKeep","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-SkoreKeep-2015-11-28T21:52:00.000Z-Britain's_access_to_US_secrets","replies":["c-Cancun771-2015-12-04T23:13:00.000Z-SkoreKeep-2015-11-28T21:52:00.000Z"]}}-->

Have you watched the documentary?--Cancun771 (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2015-12-04T23:13:00.000Z","author":"Cancun771","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Cancun771-2015-12-04T23:13:00.000Z-SkoreKeep-2015-11-28T21:52:00.000Z","replies":["c-SkoreKeep-2015-12-05T22:04:00.000Z-Cancun771-2015-12-04T23:13:00.000Z"]}}-->

Yes, I've watched it. Have you read all four of Richard Rhodes' books on the history of the cold war? Come on, we could be at this all day. If you have an argument, state it. This is not argument by video. (Also, have you watched the other members of the series? There is some room for speculating about a biased viewpoint from the BBC there.) SkoreKeep (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2015-12-05T22:04:00.000Z","author":"SkoreKeep","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-SkoreKeep-2015-12-05T22:04:00.000Z-Cancun771-2015-12-04T23:13:00.000Z","replies":["c-Cancun771-2016-01-16T15:26:00.000Z-SkoreKeep-2015-12-05T22:04:00.000Z"]}}-->

So you're saying the ey-witness in that documentary that talks about how they got massive amounts of crucial information directly from Fuchs is lying to further some agenda of the BBC.--Cancun771 (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-01-16T15:26:00.000Z","author":"Cancun771","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Cancun771-2016-01-16T15:26:00.000Z-SkoreKeep-2015-12-05T22:04:00.000Z","replies":["c-95.149.173.13-2017-03-14T11:26:00.000Z-Cancun771-2016-01-16T15:26:00.000Z"]}}-->

The McMahon Act was a great mistake. Without it both the US and UK would have had 'The Bomb' while the Soviet Union didn't. This would have stopped the Cold War dead in its tracks before it had had time to start. In addition it would have made any plans Stalin had for an invasion of Western Europe suicidal, because while Stalin might have had doubts about the US going to war for Europe, he would have had no doubts Britain would.

In fact the McMahon Act wasn't just a mistake. It was stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-03-14T11:26:00.000Z","author":"95.149.173.13","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-95.149.173.13-2017-03-14T11:26:00.000Z-Cancun771-2016-01-16T15:26:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

"The bomb was successfully detonated at 09:29:24 on 3 October 1952 local time, which was 23:59:24 on 2 October 1952 UTC, 00:59:24 on 3 October in London, and 7:59:24 on 3 October in Perth." As the Monte Bello islands are part of Western Australia, wouldn't local time on the islands be the same as the time in Perth? 14.202.71.217 (talk) 09:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-10-03T09:11:00.000Z","author":"14.202.71.217","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-14.202.71.217-2017-10-03T09:11:00.000Z-Local_Time","replies":["c-Hawkeye7-2017-10-03T20:04:00.000Z-14.202.71.217-2017-10-03T09:11:00.000Z"]}}-->

No. I included the Perth time to let people know this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-10-03T20:04:00.000Z","author":"Hawkeye7","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Hawkeye7-2017-10-03T20:04:00.000Z-14.202.71.217-2017-10-03T09:11:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

This article uses the former, while the article itself has the latter spelling. Which is correct? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-10-03T07:34:00.000Z","author":"Lugnuts","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Lugnuts-2019-10-03T07:34:00.000Z-Monte_Bello_Islands_or_Montebello_Islands","replies":["c-Hawkeye7-2019-10-03T19:50:00.000Z-Lugnuts-2019-10-03T07:34:00.000Z"]}}-->

The former was used at the time; the latter is used today. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-10-03T19:50:00.000Z","author":"Hawkeye7","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Hawkeye7-2019-10-03T19:50:00.000Z-Lugnuts-2019-10-03T07:34:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Hello @Hawkeye7: so I see you reverted my grammatical change to clarify the Operation Hurricane location. This has since been further edited to improve the original wording, but Im of the opinion that using the term "in Western Australia" is not correct, as it is not "within" WA at all. In fact it is far enough off the coast I do not believe it remains within the Australia maritime boundaries of 12km limits, unless im mistaken. Hence my wording of "off the coast of WA". What are your thoughts, as I see your academic credentials on Australian Military History are why you have interest in the page. I'm doing mature aged Uni at UNSW as I write and am formulating an essay on Nuclear Proliferation, hence my interest and subsequent edit. Again your thoughts on the actual location and a correct description? Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 01:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-10-29T01:27:00.000Z","author":"Nuro Dragonfly","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Nuro_Dragonfly-2019-10-29T01:27:00.000Z-The_coast_of_WA","replies":["c-Hawkeye7-2019-10-29T05:29:00.000Z-Nuro_Dragonfly-2019-10-29T01:27:00.000Z"],"displayName":"N\u00fcr\u00f6"}}-->

I'm at ANU now. The Montebello Islands are indeed part of Western Australia. [1] Following a recommendation by the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) on 9 April 2008, Australia has a confirmed outer limit to its continental shelf extending beyond 200 nautical miles from the territorial sea baseline associated with both the continent and its remote offshore territories. [2] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-10-29T05:29:00.000Z","author":"Hawkeye7","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Hawkeye7-2019-10-29T05:29:00.000Z-Nuro_Dragonfly-2019-10-29T01:27:00.000Z","replies":["c-JarrahTree-2019-10-29T08:19:00.000Z-Hawkeye7-2019-10-29T05:29:00.000Z"]}}-->

From a WA editor - Montebello_Islands have always been part of WA in its administrative existence, and of no other provenance of any sort - not sure where the distance from the coast stuff comes from - but please note that distance has nothing to do with the islands, if they are there they are west australian, in the full length of Coastal_regions_of_Western_Australia there is no other island or reef that is of other jusrisdiction other than the state of western australia apart from the territories that are way out such as Ashmore_and_Cartier_Islands and Christmas and Cocos. JarrahTree 08:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-10-29T08:19:00.000Z","author":"JarrahTree","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-JarrahTree-2019-10-29T08:19:00.000Z-Hawkeye7-2019-10-29T05:29:00.000Z","replies":["c-Nuro_Dragonfly-2019-10-29T11:39:00.000Z-JarrahTree-2019-10-29T08:19:00.000Z"]}}-->

As im not a mariner, and clearly wrong on the outer limits of our oceanic territory, ill readily accept that you both have more than proven the facts; thought id put it forward though. I certainly didn't know we had a 200km nautical limit to our territory... Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 11:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-10-29T11:39:00.000Z","author":"Nuro Dragonfly","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Nuro_Dragonfly-2019-10-29T11:39:00.000Z-JarrahTree-2019-10-29T08:19:00.000Z","replies":["c-Hawkeye7-2019-10-29T19:08:00.000Z-Nuro_Dragonfly-2019-10-29T11:39:00.000Z"],"displayName":"N\u00fcr\u00f6"}}-->

Not kilometres, but nautical miles; a nautical mile is 1,852 metres precisely. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-10-29T19:08:00.000Z","author":"Hawkeye7","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Hawkeye7-2019-10-29T19:08:00.000Z-Nuro_Dragonfly-2019-10-29T11:39:00.000Z","replies":["c-Nuro_Dragonfly-2019-10-30T08:47:00.000Z-Hawkeye7-2019-10-29T19:08:00.000Z"]}}-->

Typing error as im just used to adding km to such numbers... ...but back to nuclear deterrence theory for me now Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 08:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2019-10-30T08:47:00.000Z","author":"Nuro Dragonfly","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Nuro_Dragonfly-2019-10-30T08:47:00.000Z-Hawkeye7-2019-10-29T19:08:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"N\u00fcr\u00f6"}}-->

The crater in the seabed is shown on marine charts at -20.410033S 115.566120E. That is 935 metre south of the coordinates given 20°24′11″S 115°33′53″E on this page. I guess it depends on the different coordinate references used. WGS84 ? King of Tea Tree (talk) 06:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-06-21T06:42:00.000Z","author":"King of Tea Tree","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-King_of_Tea_Tree-2020-06-21T06:42:00.000Z-Exact_Location","replies":[]}}-->

I was going to read more of this to help out with the daily article but it seems I won't have the time. While glancing over I did notice some stylistic inconsistency between captions with some ending in a full stop/period while others did not. Additionally, the intro also had some unnecessary commas which I trimmed, sampling suggests it might be worth reviewing other sections for that as well. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:E5B1:3387:8DD1:AAFA (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20221003142100","author":"2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:E5B1:3387:8DD1:AAFA","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:E5B1:3387:8DD1:AAFA-20221003142100-Minor_nitpicks","replies":[]}}-->