Talk:Space weapon

message: You may want to read the German article (22 p. in print) about this topic entitled Weltraumwaffe (= space weapon); it's been heavily updated and includes most recent information. - 84.146.221.186 14:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Holy cow. The German article is much longer. - Rollo44 21:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  German article 

message: *Oppose merger from Anti-satellite weapon.  --Dual Freq 17:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: close as no-consensus 76.66.193.224 (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: * Time - Sun Gun
* The Third Reich's Diabolical Orbiting Superweapon
:I've added mention of the Sun gun. -- œ™ 05:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sun Gun

message: Hi, I've merged Orbital bombardment and Orbital weapons here, and attempted a general cleanup. These articles were generally redundant to this one, and had little actual content once the incredible laundry lists of appearances in fiction were removed. There's still overlap with Space warfare and Militarisation of space; perhaps further mergers are in order. Oh, and there are still no sources. Sandstein (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger notice 

message: ===Does the U.S. already have weapons of orbital bombardment?===
In some circles, of the more paranoid speculative and conspiracy theory type, it has been suggested that the United States might already have orbital bombardment technology, albeit on small scale. An object, such as a chunk of dense rock - perhaps depleted Uranium - could be lifted into orbit via the space shuttle or other means. There, it could be fitted with a high-powered propellant, like a small nuclear device, provided the object was sufficiently shielded from the propelling blast. When detonated, the blast would propel the the object to the ground at etremely high velocity at a selected target, being as precise and at least as effective as a nuclear weapon. It would also have the benefit of not being covered by existing weapons treaties and away from the prying eyes of weapons inspectors. It would also be prohibitively expensive to build.
This is, of course, entirely speculation.
Kevyn 05:30, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No comment. --Kizor 19:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: On a slightly more lucid level, using a nuclear explosive as propellant would in fact be covered by existing treaties that prohibit the deployment of nuclear weapons in space. Not to mention being a horrendously inefficient use of a nuclear bomb that could be much more effectively used directly on the target. Doesn't sound very plausible to me. Perhaps it's a misunderstanding of a description of the Project Thor concept? Bryan 00:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Maybe expand space weapon as a general overview of all of these, and have separate more-specialized articles for each of these specific types of weapon system? Bryan 08:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussions moved in from [[Talk:Orbital bombardment]] after merge of its article page 

message: In some circles, of the more paranoid speculative and conspiracy theory type, it has been suggested that the United States might already have orbital bombardment technology, albeit on small scale. An object, such as a chunk of dense rock - perhaps depleted Uranium - could be lifted into orbit via the space shuttle or other means. There, it could be fitted with a high-powered propellant, like a small nuclear device, provided the object was sufficiently shielded from the propelling blast. When detonated, the blast would propel the the object to the ground at etremely high velocity at a selected target, being as precise and at least as effective as a nuclear weapon. It would also have the benefit of not being covered by existing weapons treaties and away from the prying eyes of weapons inspectors. It would also be prohibitively expensive to build.
This is, of course, entirely speculation.
Kevyn 05:30, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No comment. --Kizor 19:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: On a slightly more lucid level, using a nuclear explosive as propellant would in fact be covered by existing treaties that prohibit the deployment of nuclear weapons in space. Not to mention being a horrendously inefficient use of a nuclear bomb that could be much more effectively used directly on the target. Doesn't sound very plausible to me. Perhaps it's a misunderstanding of a description of the Project Thor concept? Bryan 00:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Maybe expand space weapon as a general overview of all of these, and have separate more-specialized articles for each of these specific types of weapon system? Bryan 08:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Does the U.S. already have weapons of orbital bombardment?

message: I do not think that it was introduced during the Clone Wars, as I remember that in Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, the Sith fleet performed a similar order on Taris. Therefore, I will change it. Thank you. Totema1 04:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order: Base Delta Zero 

message: I specifically remember the game mentioning that it was an illegal "atmospheric deprivation weapon" that destroyed Kharak, not orbital bombardment, although I'm sure that took place as well. If I remember correctly, the Taiidani had to use the ADW because Kharak's defenses proved too strong for conventional orbital attacks. Chronolegion 14:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homeworld 

message: There are some diagrams that could be transferred from de.wp: 
* :de:Bild:Pillar-of-space-capabilities-strategic-master-plan-FY04 AFSPC.png
* :de:Bild:Man-Made-Threats-of-Objects-In-Space DoD 1-800x485.jpg
--pfctdayelise (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: {{tl|reqdiagram}}

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Space weapon. 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/20100102201428/http://astronautix.com/craft/polyus.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/craft/polyus.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061029063843/http://spacedebate.org/ to http://www.spacedebate.org/
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) 09:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified