Talk:Missile defense

message: I made multiple changes to improve completeness and accuracy. Any issues or questions, please discuss here. Joema 15:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discuss changes 

message: These two topics sseem to overlap significantly as the missile defense article generally describes the history of ICBM intercepts. Certainly, there is the possibility of expanding missile defense to include the airborne laser and sea-launched midcourse, but current emphasis on ICBM suggest significant merging.
:I disagree with the idea of merging entirely and at the same time think this article is misdirected. The term missile defence is much broader then what is implied here. On the base level of it, medieval armour could be considered 'missile defence' and using the definition of a self propelled missile you could still include it if you remember that the Chinese have used military rockets for 700 years. By WW2 Britain was attempting AND shooting down incoming rockets before they reached their intended targets. In the 1970's Russia began experimentation with shooting down man portable missiles and deployed successful systems in the Afghanistan war.--Senor Freebie (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Missile Defense & Anti-ballistic missile merge

message: "However non-missile defenses such as lasers will be operational within about two years." - This needs a source and a date. It's intriguing if it's true. 151.203.178.253 00:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Initially the Boeing YAL-1 was planned to be operational by around 2008, but it has recently been delayed due to development difficulties. Revised wording to reflect this. Joema 14:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lasers 

message: Paragraph 2 introduces the concept "Hit-a-bullet-with-a-bullet" for the first time.  This concept is fist explained in para 3 as "Hit-to-kill".  Would make sence to bring the para 3 info forward to para 2 and given the significance of the phrase "hit-to-kill" maybe give it its own page.  "Hit-to-kill" is not necessarily self describing.  When I first read it I presumed the concept was one of a ratio number of hits to number of lethal hits.  MalFarrelle 13:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: "endoatmospheric intercept means balloon-type decoys won't work." - Why? MalFarrelle 13:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balloon Decoys 

message: I think it should certainly be mentioned that large parts of the informed scientists and publics disaree with the very idea of missile defense. After all, with the thousands of deployed warheads of both the US and russia, any attempt at defense would be futile, and also smaller states could easily get through such a defense system. You need at least 2, if not 4, interceptors for each incoming missiles, the balloon thing and various other systems make it highly unlikely that such an interception would be successful, not to speak of virtually unhaltable MIRV-systems...the stratospheric costs of such projects, the focus on defense rather than the officially stated goal of disarmament, the irritation of Russia (which, in light of the futility of the defensive potential rather suspects an intended upgrade of offensive capabilities) and the damage done to the deterrence concept of Mutually Assured destruction (MAD) are considerable cons.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhoaxt (talk • contribs) 13:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of the concept itself 

message: Should there be some mention of defenses against missiles other than ballistic missiles (example: close-in weapon systems aboard ships for defense against anti-ship missiles)? --Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 18:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-ballistic missiles 

message: Where the fnord does this go?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/news/2011/space-110922-rianovosti02.htm
The fiction section? Hcobb (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian Navy 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.army-technology.com/features/feature67668/
*:Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Missile defense. 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/20060526140148/http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/docops/operate.htm to https://fas.org/spp/starwars/docops/operate.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/6/20/105617.shtml
*Added archive https://archive.is/20150308193144/http://www.bioprepwatch.com/news/nato-signs-contract-to-update-missile-defense to http://www.bioprepwatch.com/news/nato-signs-contract-to-update-missile-defense
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) 22:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Missile defense. 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/20150402125544/http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/rdenever/Proliferation/Evans.pdf to http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/rdenever/Proliferation/Evans.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) 03:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Shouldn't be there be separate a criticism section for the ballistic missile defense system. Like how some ballistic missile can't distinguish between dummy and real missile? There are other defects also, so I was thinking that there should be a separate criticism section for the ballistic missiles. 7Achilles7 (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism