Talk:Project Excalibur

message: What this section says seems plausible. But the citations  here doesn't support what is said, that it was moved to idea of popups in Alaska for compliance with the OST.  The source given just says
Which doesn't mention a motive at all, just defines the term.
This is another source I found that says it was done because of military vulnerability of satellites in orbit, that if the satellite itself was targetted by an enemy, it can only protect itself by blowing itself up.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nv2v0fCAONwC&pg=PA135#v=onepage&q&f=false
Of course it could easily have more than one motivation.
The OST prohibits weapons of mass destruction in orbit, and though not intended for mass destruction, rather for defence, I think it probably would be against the OST because of its possible use for mass destruction. So the reasoning does seem quite plausible. 
My question though is, is this stated as the actual reason for moving to a popup status anywhere - or alternatively - is it perhaps a later chain of reasoning in support of a decision already made for other reasons - or what is it? If we had a proper cite, we could check details like that. Anyone got a cite for it? It should be removed of course if OR. But I think probably more a case of "citation needed". Robert Walker (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to Launch on Warning - citations needed and alternative reason for it

message: It says in the Conceptual predecessors section:
:"However as this warhead's kill range was limited due to the inverse-square law, unlike the range of focused beams afforded by Lasers, this in part led the W71 to be fielded only for a very short period of time in the US."
Although this statement correctly identifies the limitation of a nuclear warhead as an x-ray antiballistic missile weapon as due to the drop in intensity due to the inverse square law, the inverse square law applies to all radiation, including laser beams.  A laser beam is not perfectly collimated and has an angular spread and its intensity also falls as the square of the distance.  It is just that since the energy is concentrated into such a narrow angle the decrease in intensity is very slow. --ChetvornoTALK 13:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected statement. --ChetvornoTALK 03:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error: inverse square law also applies to lasers 

message: What's "Broad (1986)" meant to be a cite to?  I guess this is Star Warriors, but that was published in 1985. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broad reference 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Project Excalibur. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/22/documents/reykjavik/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311033905/http://www.danielgraham.net/content/Chapter14.htm to http://www.danielgraham.net/content/Chapter14.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) 11:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The redirect Excalibur (make a separate article) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Excalibur (make a separate article)]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]