Talk:Missile defense

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Missile defense 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.

Article policies

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

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Skip to table of contents

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 2 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Balbiek19, BeeSeahawk, QuestionableInquiry, CornLord Icarus, Syssrq2016.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

There seems to be some inconsistencies in regards to the way 'defense' is spelled, either being spelled the American way "Defense" or the original way "Defence". Perhaps someone could choose one, and stick to that particular choice.

U.S. missiels in Europe

Maybe some mention of this new fiasco with the U.S. putting more missiles into Europe?

-G

Discuss changes

I made multiple changes to improve completeness and accuracy. Any issues or questions, please discuss here. Joema 15:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missile Defense & Anti-ballistic missile merge

These two topics sseem to overlap significantly as the missile defense article generally describes the history of ICBM intercepts. Certainly, there is the possibility of expanding missile defense to include the airborne laser and sea-launched midcourse, but current emphasis on ICBM suggest significant merging.

I disagree with the idea of merging entirely and at the same time think this article is misdirected. The term missile defence is much broader then what is implied here. On the base level of it, medieval armour could be considered 'missile defence' and using the definition of a self propelled missile you could still include it if you remember that the Chinese have used military rockets for 700 years. By WW2 Britain was attempting AND shooting down incoming rockets before they reached their intended targets. In the 1970's Russia began experimentation with shooting down man portable missiles and deployed successful systems in the Afghanistan war.--Senor Freebie (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lasers

"However non-missile defenses such as lasers will be operational within about two years." - This needs a source and a date. It's intriguing if it's true. 151.203.178.253 00:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)John S.[reply]

Initially the Boeing YAL-1 was planned to be operational by around 2008, but it has recently been delayed due to development difficulties. Revised wording to reflect this. Joema 14:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History

Paragraph 2 introduces the concept "Hit-a-bullet-with-a-bullet" for the first time. This concept is fist explained in para 3 as "Hit-to-kill". Would make sence to bring the para 3 info forward to para 2 and given the significance of the phrase "hit-to-kill" maybe give it its own page. "Hit-to-kill" is not necessarily self describing. When I first read it I presumed the concept was one of a ratio number of hits to number of lethal hits. MalFarrelle 13:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balloon Decoys

"endoatmospheric intercept means balloon-type decoys won't work." - Why? MalFarrelle 13:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the concept itself

I think it should certainly be mentioned that large parts of the informed scientists and publics disaree with the very idea of missile defense. After all, with the thousands of deployed warheads of both the US and russia, any attempt at defense would be futile, and also smaller states could easily get through such a defense system. You need at least 2, if not 4, interceptors for each incoming missiles, the balloon thing and various other systems make it highly unlikely that such an interception would be successful, not to speak of virtually unhaltable MIRV-systems...the stratospheric costs of such projects, the focus on defense rather than the officially stated goal of disarmament, the irritation of Russia (which, in light of the futility of the defensive potential rather suspects an intended upgrade of offensive capabilities) and the damage done to the deterrence concept of Mutually Assured destruction (MAD) are considerable cons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhoaxt (talk • contribs) 13:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-ballistic missiles

Should there be some mention of defenses against missiles other than ballistic missiles (example: close-in weapon systems aboard ships for defense against anti-ship missiles)? --Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 18:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Navy

Where the fnord does this go?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/news/2011/space-110922-rianovosti02.htm

The fiction section? Hcobb (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.army-technology.com/features/feature67668/
Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 12:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 20:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Missile defense. 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:

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) 22:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Missile defense. 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/20150402125544/http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/rdenever/Proliferation/Evans.pdf to http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/rdenever/Proliferation/Evans.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) 03:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

Shouldn't be there be separate a criticism section for the ballistic missile defense system. Like how some ballistic missile can't distinguish between dummy and real missile? There are other defects also, so I was thinking that there should be a separate criticism section for the ballistic missiles. 7Achilles7 (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Why is it a "Missile Defence" that mean its aimed to defend the missiles and not against them? The same thing is why using the "Aircraft Defence" for a counter-Air Defence (the Air mean type of armed forces) would be wrong and Air Defence (the Air mean area/territory) are correct to some level.

Ilias48rus (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "Missile Defence " can also mean a defence against something, that use missiles, in this case the 1st sentence in the Article's description are wrong.

Ilias48rus (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]