Talk:Space warfare

message: Sources are needed. I'm suspicious of the claim about the delta wing being included for military purposes.
The claim of a "space to space" nuclear test should be documented or linked to an article.  nuclear testing lists series of rocket-propelled warhead tests, but it's unclear what specifically this item is referring to. Delmonte 03:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: I removed a paragraph of speculation, as it was decidedly non-encyclopedic.  May I suggest some material on the ABM treaty, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, the deadlocked UN Conference on Disarmament talks and the similarely deadlocked PAROS committee? Harald Hansen 07:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed speculation 

message: I added an expansion tag, as this article is very short compared to the other Battlespace pages. Sharkface217 20:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion 

message: Wikipedia currently has articles on: "Space warfare" (covers only near-Earth warfare between nations); Interstellar war and Space warfare in fiction (fiction only); and Spacewar, Space War and [[Space Wars (all games). An overall structure is needed to determine how Wikipedia should cover: games, fiction and realistic possibilities; near-Earth, interplanetary and interstellar warfare. "Realistic" articles need to cover, in addition to technologies and tactics, possible war aims (extermination by relativistic kill vehicles may be the only realistic aim for interstellar and perhaps interplanetary war).Philcha 17:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Need for overall structure to tie articles together

message: No way is it similar - USA 193 was in a decaying orbit - it was destroyed before it started falling into the thicker atmosphere. (If the atmosphere was warmer, it could have entered at a much earlier date) The PRC destroyed their aged weather satellite that was in a nominal altitude for a stable orbit.--MEENAggie (talk) 10:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  USA 193 similarity to the PRC ASAT  

message: Should we say, "heavily onanized upon"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.138.81.124 (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Space warfare is a topic often touched upon in science fiction" 

message: Do we actually need a citation for the claim that the definition of "space warfare" is "combat which occurs in space?" If so, what sort of citation precisely would answer for this? Would citing dictionary definitions of "space" and "warfare" be sufficient? Otherwise, this seems so self-evident that I don't see why you need a citation for it. What, besides warfare related to outer space, could "space warfare" be? Atypicaloracle (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of space warfare

message: Since the NASA incidents brought up the question (which is not resolved), should cyber space warfare get a link or mention in this article? Hcobb (talk) 06:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop being obtuse. State exactly what you are talking about here, with specific sources and links to the "incidents" in question. "NASA incidents" doesn't cut it, and you know it. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 06:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyber warfare 

message: Some things that might be considered for inclusion would be the orbital interceptor destroyer called polyus, which was launched, but failed to insert itself into orbit. It was intended as the base for MIR-II and it's failure paved the way for the International space station. 
Project West Ford was a military communications project to provide an unjammable communication path in space for battlefield communications. It was launched, and is still up there today, or a lot of it is. 
The Chinese have plenty of anti-satellite weapons and there are images plotting the debris fields that have been created by testing. The US and China have both made a mess up there in this way. Penyulap  ☏ 18:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  the article is rather coldwar centric, or simply american 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Space warfare. 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/20121002081838/http://www.defensenewstv.com/video.php?bctid=1866650787001 to http://www.defensenewstv.com/video.php?bctid=1866650787001
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news%2Faw012207p2.xml
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 

message: Should the United States Marine Corp be mentioned here, for looking into the use of suborbital vehicles to deliver Marines around the world very quickly? https://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-space/article/2006-12/semper-fly-marines-space/ It's not warfare in space, but it *is* the use of spacecraft to conduct warfare.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.194.150 (talk) 10:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not, considering the program never left the conceptual stage. Garuda28 (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literal (Suborbital) Space Marines 

message: Recently Israel intercepted a ballistic missile in space shot from Yemen. 1 dov (talk) 01:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think we can remove it if it happens a few more times, or if more people agree.  LuxembourgLover (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I just saw the paragraph  “In November of 2023, as part of the Gaza War, Israel intercepted a Houthi ballistic missile, with the weapons colliding above the atmosphere, marking the first time that military conflict has occurred in space.” I think because of this, we can most  definitely say Isn't hypothetical anymore.  LuxembourgLover (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

text: "Hypothetical" to me means "never", while it is now at 1 (one) instance. 1 is larger than zero, so it is no longer hypothetical, just exceedingly rare. Juxlos (talk) 05:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't hypothetical anymore