Talk:Cox Report

Timeline

Instead of using a jpg image that cannot be further edited, it should be changed into regular wiki paragraph formatting or a table at least. Yay or Nay?--Hypo 06:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Nay. You can edit it. Go to Template:GovernmentNotification‎. --Jayzel 19:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Damage Assessment

The paragraph "Damage Assessment" under Criticism supports the report - why is it under criticism? It should be moved somewhere esle. Nada (talk) 06:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cox Report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051105021618/http://www.armscontrol.org/act/1999_04-05/rgam99.asp to http://www.armscontrol.org/act/1999_04-05/rgam99.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cox Report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604182655/http://www.asianweek.com/2000/09/28/wen-ho-lee-to-be-released/ to http://www.asianweek.com/2000/09/28/wen-ho-lee-to-be-released/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080621185135/http://www.loralpresscenter.com/inthenews/020109.html to http://www.loralpresscenter.com/inthenews/020109.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/10331/cox.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced text

The following texts have been removed as per the citation needed tags until they can be properly sourced:

In response, the PRC has maintained that its nuclear technology was indigenously developed and was not the result of espionage.

The report inflated the SLBM JL-2's range, classifying it 12,000 km rather than the conventional 8,000 km figure used within the intelligence community. Using this inflated figure, the report went on to speculate on how the PLA could change its basic nuclear policy and doctrine.

Jonathan D. Pollack, an expert on Chinese technological and military development, criticized the report for failing to disclose the context in which U.S.-Sino relations dating back to the 1970s had fostered the enhancement of Chinese power as a counterbalance to the Soviet Union. Thus the environment in which these illegal transfers of technology took place may have been taking place in a relaxed or even complicit environment.

Wingwraith (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)