Talk:Strategic Defense Initiative

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Strategic Defense Initiative. 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/20070311033905/http://www.danielgraham.net/content/Chapter14.htm to http://www.danielgraham.net/content/Chapter14.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081224034505/http://www.mda.mil/mdaLink/html/milstone.html to http://www.mda.mil/mdaLink/html/milstone.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060113224616/http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/oneilltest.html to http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/oneilltest.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101019035528/http://www.missilethreat.com/missiledefensesystems/id.13/system_detail.asp to http://www.missilethreat.com/missiledefensesystems/id.13/system_detail.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060317104832/http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/upload/87946_1.pdf to http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/upload/87946_1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081224034505/http://www.mda.mil/mdaLink/html/milstone.html to http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/milstone.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061012060608/http://www.llnl.gov/timeline/1980s/Highlights/pebbles.html to http://www.llnl.gov/timeline/1980s/Highlights/pebbles.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060910113725/http://www.sais-jhu.edu/pubaffairs/SAISarticles04/Nitze_NYT_102004.pdf to http://www.sais-jhu.edu/pubaffairs/SAISarticles04/Nitze_NYT_102004.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090227050446/http://www.smdc.army.mil/2008/Historical/Eagle/WheredowegetStarWars.pdf to http://www.smdc.army.mil/2008/Historical/Eagle/WheredowegetStarWars.pdf
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) 08:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Strategic Defense Initiative. 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/20121215032809/http://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/552562 to http://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/552562
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) 00:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: This is a point often brought up, that even a mostly failed military project that costs a lot of money (how much was eventually spent, apparently we’ll have to look elsewhere- not a npov question I guess!!) ends up having basic research side-effects that help the civilian (well, read “business”, in many cases) sector as well. Why one should never help the actual civilian sector more directly is never made clear. ELSchissel (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civilian benefits of military-funded basic research 

message: *I Found the Following Interesting Sources:
**ResearchGate “Space‐Strike Weapons” and the Soviet Response to SDI*" October 2008
**Archives . gov "REPORT TO CONGRESS ON THE STRATEGIC DEFENSE SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE (U)" 
*Finally the "Missile Wars" and "Possible Soviet Responses to the US Strategic Defense Initiative (CIA document)" are both dead links
--Eric Lotze (talk) 13:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Links i Found, but Haven't Yet, also Pointing out the Issue of Dead Links 

message: Moved from Article awaiting citations and copy edit for clarity and conciseness:
"Another destabilizing scenario was countries being tempted to strike first before SDI was deployed, thereby avoiding a disadvantaged nuclear posture. Proponents of SDI argued that SDI development might instead cause the side that did not have the resources to develop SDI to, rather than launching a suicidal nuclear first strike attack before the SDI system was deployed, instead come to the bargaining table with the country that did SDI and MAD SDI was criticized for potentially disrupting the strategic stability afforded by the doctrine of mutual assured destruction. MAD postulated that intentional nuclear have those resources and, hopefully, agree to a real, sincere disarmament pact that would drastically decrease all forces, both nuclear and conventional. Furthermore, the MAD argument was criticized on the grounds that MAD only covered intentional, full-scale nuclear attacks by a rational, non-suicidal opponent with similar values. It did not take into account limited launches, accidental launches, rogue launches, or launches by non-state entities or covert proxies." Chino-Catane (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undermining MAD