Talk:Orbital weaponry

This redirect 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

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

The bit about "RUMI" smacked of pure fabrication on account of A) A weapon that happened to share it's proposers nickname B) A ridiculously impractical proposal (no remote weapon, no matter how effective, can fight a ground war) that no man experienced in military matters would likely make. If the pie in the sky proposal was really made, please inclued a citation before re-adding it.

Orbital battle stations

This section may be needed soon in the present article, or the topic could be divided into "orbital weaponry in fiction" and "orbital weaponry." Conservative and liberal blogs are reporting that the Bush administration plans to call for "Orbital battle stations" which would fire kinetic weapons at ICBMs during their boost phase. I have not seen any print media or other reliable source reporting this yet, but I heard a reference to the blogs on the mainstream media today, so it may percolate its way into encyclopedic status. See Pajamas Media Dec. 1, 2006(concervative) and RawStoryDec. 2, 2006 (liberal, reporting on the previous story). There are 946 Google hits for "orbital battle station" as of Dec. 4, 2006, so it is not yet of high notability even in the blogosphere. Edison 16:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh

"Many countries and non-government organizations are proponents of a Space Preservation Treaty which would ban placing any weaponry into outer space. " Compare to Space Preservation Treaty. "It should also be noted that no country has yet signed the Treaty, only the City of Berkeley and a few municipalities in Canada" 70.101.32.218 20:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the second reference to the Unreal Tournament 2003 orbital cannon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.46.169 (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No citations whatsoever?

There is no available information on this GAPS putative program, and this smacks of an "anti-US imperialism" bias. How does the writer know that the Pentagon is "keen on developing space weapons"...? For that matter, is the Hamblin attribution correct?

I am tempted to delete the last two entire paragraphs and replace with a link to theoretical kinetic energy weapons.Dfoofnik (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]