Talk:Militarisation of space

message: Perhaps it would be a good idea to specify which authors were fantasizing about the militarization of space first?  I would do it, but I don't know.  That's the first thought that came to my mind when reading it.  brianh6630
OK, I've worked on the Cold War section.  What do you all think.  There is still plenty of room for improvement.  I would like to find out the first arms control treaty which used spy satellites as a monitering agent. --Brian 06:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talking Points 

message: I know that, at least in the US, the civil space program (NASA) emerged from military research, and before that from German military space research (the scientists of which were brought to the US and started the Redstone space program through project paperclip). Is that within the scope of this artical?Themissinglint 10:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military as the roots of the non-military space programs 

message: "For most of human history, regions outside Earth's atmosphere were not considered useful for military operations because they were inaccessible."
I'm not certain regions outside Earth's atmosphere were considered at all before the 20th century. I can't see Sun Tzu looking skyward and thinking "If I had some kind of enormous cannon orbiting the Earth in space, I could rain fire down on my enemies! Too bad I lack a suitable rocket booster." --Sum0 16:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno. Early myths (like Sodom and Gemorrah) indicate people thought of it. They just didn't have any way of doing anything about it. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 19:53, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
I rewrote the history intro.  Better?--Brian 06:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Ah, nicely done. Good job. --Sum0 00:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: This article seems a bit lop-sided.  Granted, a discussion of militarization of space is going to be naturally limited to a few nations, but how come the actually-built offensive weapons FOBS and the Polyus spacecraft are in the "see also" section, while a large chunk of text is dedicated to Star Wars (which isn't an offensive weapons system and hasn't ever been built?)  And on a side topic, what about military communications satellites?  Isomorphic 05:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: U.S.-centric?

message: Shouln't there be a "z" instead of an "s" in the title?  --Brian 06:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Only in American spelling.  Apparently the article was started by someone using British spelling, and Wikipedia policy is use the form of whoever starts the article unless it's like United States where the choice of spelling should depend on topic. There's something on it in the Manual of style.Isomorphic 11:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You can use -ize in British English as well, but -ise is more common. I suppose that more than 95% of British Wikipedians use -ise. SpNeo 22:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Militarization

message: Someone added some text into the following passage of the "Conservative Position" section. (Added text is in bold; struckthru text was removed.)
:The conservative view, energetically put into action by Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Bush, is that war is attacks against the United States by rogue nations or terrorist organizations are inevitable, and that it is foolish not to use the current American hegemony to place the United States in an unassailable position to counter such attacks and win future wars.
I think this is inaccurate. Non-state terrorist actors cannot launch ICBMs. No one, that I know of, claims that a missile defense system will prevent terrorism. (If I'm wrong about this, please provide a reference.) I therefore think the change should be reverted. Comments? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 17:54, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
:The whole post-cold war "conservative vs. liberal" position section needs to go.  It's factually incorrect (Bush Sr. did not support Star Wars or weaponization of space), totally unsupported (no presidential speeches have advanced either of these positions), and substantively tangential to the actual topic as currently written. —thames 18:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your opinion that "terrorist organizations" should be removed from the paragrph. While I don't necessarily think that the whole section should go, I do think using terms such as conservative, energetically, liberal, mildly, etc. convey (or seem to convey) bias. Perhaps using something like "one point of view", or something similar is better. The references to Bush Sr should be removed and other parts rewritten to remove phrases (unless there is supporting evidence) such "the most important way to do this...". If no one else takes a stab at it, I'll try a little later today. sgb 19:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks challenging. Good luck! – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 19:43, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
The whole section should be scratched and the article should focus on current application.  Missile Defense System is being researched and built.  GPS, reconnaissance satellites, navigation (both aerial and nautical), networking, and communication satellites are in practical use today.  Who cares what liberal and conservative thought?  That section of the article should focus on the application of the technology along with it’s strengths and weaknesses.   Or that’s my vote for what it counts.--Brian 23:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The conservative position 

message: Just a heads up, satellite navigation was a cold war (not post-cold war) development, and began with Transit and Parus / Tsikada (not GPS and GLONASS). Granted, its a dual-use technology which has become popular since the end of the cold war but that doesn't change its origin. - Davandron | Talk 19:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had no idea satellite navigation began with a titmouse. Sorry, I couldn't help myself. ~ Rollo44 23:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satellite navigation 

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class.  Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines not met.  With proper citations and references, this article would easily qualify as B class or higher.    --dashiellx (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: Even with proper citations and references, this article would still need work.  It should discuss the various kinds of weapons available for use in space (including EMP); it should include the full range of Chinese intelligence gathering satellites in its list of spay satellites; and it should refer to both the Chinese and US ASAT tests.  It needs to discuss Soviet plans to arm Soyuz and Salyut space vehicles with 23mm cannons.  PorkchopLarue (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag and Assess 

message: The aforementioned section is currently a list of spy satellites. If possible, could someone write a textual introduction to such satellites? The list does not really belong in this article.
MopSeeker (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement of Spy satellites section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Militarisation of space. 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/20090601040059/http://www.russianspaceweb.com/almaz_ops2.html to http://www.russianspaceweb.com/almaz_ops2.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040815133801/http://www.k26.com/buran/Info/Polyus/polyus-energia.html to http://k26.com/buran/Info/Polyus/polyus-energia.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Militarisation of space. 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/20131922172000/http://www.astronautix.com/craft/polyus.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/craft/polyus.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified