Talk:Space warfare

Quote in Fiction Section

I feel that the caption should describe the image in a clearer fashion. The quote works if you know what the Death Star is, otherwise it is unclear what the picture is and weather or not it is a fictional or real space weapon. I am going to change it back for now. I thought of combining a description with the quote but it gets a little long for such a small image.

Sourcing

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)

I looked up the article about the delta wing in my college's microfilim files. While the article does discuss the shuttle's design, the only mention of military purposes for the shuttle is that it would be useful for both NASA and DOD missions.173.184.205.247 (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Removed speculation

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)

Although it is not in the near future, i think that ship against ship fighting should be added. Because that would, technically be qualified as "space" warfare. Phytos 01:45:08, 5 Febuary 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars

I think Star Wars should be mentioned here, it is probably the World War II of Space warfare

FICTIONAL WW2 of Space warfare. I doubt there's no such a leader who really would do anything as clumsy, conservative and risky way as presented in those movies. Even various today warfare weapons and tactics represent theirself more powerful and better way than those(except SW-techical sites, which number of zeroes speaks by theirself).

Images

The images of the video game Freelancer, and the movies Starship Troopers and Star Wars are not, I think, suitable for this article. They are not instructive, and just make the article look ridiculous. Real space warfare does exist in the form of anti-satellite missiles, and is likely to play a major part in any future significant war. These flippant images, and the generally ridiculous sci-fi nature of the article don't address the main aspects of space warfare as it is known currently. --Corinthian 13:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This looks like a geocities page.205.206.59.245 17:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Chairboy, did you even look at the freaking image that you just put back there? Honestly, what does the Death Star have to do with anything on this page? Maybe you think there should be a picture of Kirk with a phaser in the Theoretical Small Arms page? Wikipedia is enough of a joke as it is. 205.206.59.245 18:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for participating in the discussion! Personally, I think the picture improves the article. There aren't very many pictures of actual space weapons, and I figured that the death star pic was a nice style decision by the person who put it in originally. As I noted on your talk page, I reverted your change because you were just deleting an image without any edit summary. That, plus being an IP user = probable mischief. I've un-reverted the change, but I'd like to argue for restoring the image. I think it makes the article better, but that's personal opinion. BTW, have you considered creating an account? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC) (PS, disregard my last two reverts on the main page, I missed your talk entry here this last time)

Just because there are no good pictures of actual space weapon systems doesn't mean the article needs a bad one. I'm sure it's not at all OK to put up on Wikipedia, but a quick google turned up a nice render of a kinetic bombardment satelite. Alternatively, we already have a great shot of an anti satelite missile being launched. Green Genes 19:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but look at the section the image was in. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The Death Star is not a theoretical weapon system. It's fantasy. Aside from raving lunatics I pass on the sidewalk, nobody has any idea as to how a moon-sized space craft with a planet vaporizing super-weapon would actually function. If this article just needs some images to help the look of it, I'd say stick the missile launch pic in the History seciont. Waddaya think?

I think that this is a dumb thing to edit war about. The image does not hurt the article (in fact, personally, I think it is a fine item to leave on artistic merit, nobody actually thinks we're talking about death stars, c'mon) and at the same time isn't required. The borderline revert war in progress is not appropriate, I think this needs to be worked out here. BTW, I am not a raving lunatic, last time I checked, but I still think that the image is A-OK because it is an example of why Wikipedia is more interesting than Brittanica. C'mon folks, lighten up. Whatever is decided, remember that this is a volunteer project that's supposed to be fun. That doesn't mean it has to have jokes everywhere, but the occasional death star doesn't hurt. Well, unless you're Alderaan. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If we can't compromise on this I propose someone create a Space wafare in fiction section. --NEMT 01:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I spun off the Space warfare in fiction section. Hopefully, this will end the battle over the picture rights and fair use.Sharkface217 22:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Expansion

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

Need for overall structure to tie articles together

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)

USA 193 similarity to the PRC ASAT

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)

"Space warfare is a topic often touched upon in science fiction"

Should we say, "heavily onanized upon"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.138.81.124 (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Definition of space warfare

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)

I was about to write this same complaint. At what point does something have to be too obvious for a citation needed tag? I'm removing it. Silv the Something (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Cyber warfare

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)

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)

• http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20111028/IT01/110280301/
• http://boingboing.net/2011/04/02/nasa-cybersecurity-r.html
• http://www.dailytech.com/Govt+Report+Warns+of+Chinese+Plans+to+Cripple+US+Space+Defenses/article23314.htm
• http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/21/us_sat_hack_mystery/

It was so widely reported that I thought anybody who cared about current space warfare would have read it a dozen times by now. My bad. Hcobb (talk) 06:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

the article is rather coldwar centric, or simply american

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)