Talk:Man-portable air-defense systems
It's actually misleading to only state that these are proscribed weapons because of any threat to civil aviation posed if they come into the wrong hands -- because the REAL reason they are proscribed is that they pose a threat to the military dominance of the imperialist states: a dominance which relies almost completely on advanced and overwhelming airpower. And this airpower dominance will be severely checked with this stuff out there, generally available to anyone who opposes imperialism.
So someone start thinking about posing that angle in this article. Unless, of course, they really don't want to -- in which case we have another problem here.
Pazouzou 21:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm afraid Wikipedia isn't the place for your conspiracy theories about the military-industrial complex or whatever. LordAmeth 22:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's not a conspiracy - they are very, very effective weapons. Look at the Soviets in Afghanistan - they got their asses handed to them by shoulder-launched missiles. It's the effectiveness of the weapons against ANY target that makes them proscribed, not their effectiveness against one specific type of air traffic. 22.214.171.124 17:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Dude, chill. The terrorist page is that way.
Could we organize the missiles by country? 126.96.36.199 16:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand that the article was moved from MANPADS to Shoulder-fired missile, but is the current name really appropriate? The article is specifically about anti aircraft missiles, and not any shoulder-fired missiles. As far as I know, "man-portable air defense systems" is a common name for man portable SAMs, whether or not they're employed in a defensive role or not. I noticed that the media tend to use the term "shoulder-fired missiles" when referring to missiles that can be used to attack civilian aircraft in terrorist attacks, however that term seems to broad to describe the systems listed in the article. --daranz[ t ] 00:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Article name should be "MANPADS" not "shoulder fired missile"
I agree with Daranz. "shoulder fired missile" is not a technical name used by the military. By breaking down the lay-man phrase, a "shoulder fired missile" would mean a shoulder fired guided missile. Air defence missiles are not the only shoulder fired guided missile. A Javelin ATGM (not to be confused with the british Javelin) can be fired from the shoulder and it is primarily an anti tank weapon.
The current article regarding portable air defence systems should be renamed "MANPADS". This is how the military categorises them. What's more, the term MANPADS will encompase other man portable airdefence systems in the same class such as the RBS-70, which has been excluded by the layman term "shoulder fired missile".
Chuckye 10:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
"Literally" riding a laser beam?
Laser guided missiles do not "ride" the beam. The "see" the reflection of the beam on the target and direct themselves towards it. That bit of hyperbole seems out of place in this article. 188.8.131.52 11:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Beam riding seems an actual, but obsolete system, where the missile senses the beam directly instead of aiming at the point at which the beam points . I changed it to laser guidance.--Patrick 14:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
It says in the "countermeasures" section that MANPADS are sold illegally for a little as a few hundred dollars, but there's no source cited that supports this. I want to know where this information was acquired. Deathbyfreezeray (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
It seems like the first thumbnail image has nothing to do with Man-portable air-defense systems if I'm not terribly mistaken (it's a sanitary pad). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 08:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)