Talk:Missile defense: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 08:46, 5 June 2007

Military history: Technology / Weaponry Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Spelling

There seems to be some inconsistencies in regards to the way 'defense' is spelled, either being spelled the American way "Defense" or the original way "Defence". Perhaps someone could choose one, and stick to that particular choice.

U.S. missiels in Europe

Maybe some mention of this new fiasco with the U.S. putting more missiles into Europe?

-G

Discuss changes

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

Missile Defense & Anti-ballistic missile merge

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.

Lasers

"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)John S.[reply]

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)[reply]

History

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)[reply]

Balloon Decoys

"endoatmospheric intercept means balloon-type decoys won't work." - Why? MalFarrelle 13:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 |Weaponry-task-force=yes
 }}
+==Spelling==
+There seems to be some inconsistencies in regards to the way 'defense' is spelled, either being
+spelled the American way "Defense" or the original way "Defence".  Perhaps someone could choose one, and stick to that particular choice.
 ==U.S. missiels in Europe==