Don't Merge Safeguard (nuke) With NMD
In the this article, it says merging that info with NMD is being discussed. I'd suggest against merging, but rather link from the NMD article to Safeguard, and vice-versa. Why?
Because although Sentinel/Safeguard was an early missile defense system, it was (a) never national in scope, and (b) entirely different technology than the current NMD. IOW, NMD as currently used is not just a descriptive term -- it refers to specific current missiles and technologies totally different from Sentinel/Safeguard. Joema 16:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Those are both good points. How about paragraph(s) for Sentinel/Safeguard in National missile defense with a see main article note, like the section on SDI? Tom Harrison (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- That sounds OK. This is a difficult symantic issue dealing with current common usage of the term NMD. NMD technically means any national missile defense. In that sense Nike/Hercules or Sentinental were close to that, although even in the largest envisioned Sentinal configuration, Sprint missiles would only provide very geographically limited lower level coverage. So from that standpoint it was never even planned to be truly national (from a geographic standpoint). It was a "national" project, however.
- By contrast the current NMD when operational will truly provide coverage for all (or most) of the continental US, so the term is correct in that case.
- However NMD as generally used nowadays means only the the new system, not the older systems. This is despite Sentinel being a "national" missile defense. I think what you suggest is the best plan, unless somebody has a better idea. Joema 18:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Should we have two pages, one for Sentinal and one for Safeguard? Or one page for both? Tom Harrison (talk) 20:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'd say one article. They both shared much of the same technology. Also I doubt there's enough discrete information about each program for a stand alone article. Technically Sentinel was never deployed, but Safeguard was actually operational, if briefly. Joema 01:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Move article to Safeguard (weapon)
I'm adding this because A.R. copied and pasted this article to Safeguard (weapon). I'm not sure I agree with the current Safeguard (nuke) name, but Safeguard (weapon) doesn't seem right to me either. Maybe Safeguard Weapon System or some other official title would be better, maybe Safeguard Program or Stanley R. Mickelsen Safeguard Complex. If the page is to be moved, then it needs to be done properly so that the history and talk pages move with it. See WP:Move. Additionally, this page has been adopted by the WikiProject North Dakota, so they may need to be involved. If this is a vote, I vote against a straight copy paste move to Safeguard (weapon). Any other ideas? --Dual Freq 14:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree with rename/move in current form. I've always thought Safeguard (nuke) was a poor name, just never changed it. Safeguard (weapon) is a little better, but as Dual Freq said, you shouldn't move (rename) an article without caring for the history, talk pages, checking for and correcting any double-redirects, plus placing a note in the renamed article's talk page about what you did and why. I agree Safeguard Program is one good possibility (but see below). It's more than the Mickelsen complex, which was only the physical site and emplaced equipment.
- A totally separate issue is Sentinel, for which there's currently no article. From a technology standpoint, it's essentially the same as Safeguard. A Safeguard site was actually constructed and activated (abeit briefly), whereas Sentinel was not. But they are so intertwined, they are often referred to as Sentinel/Safeguard. Another possibility is rename the article "Sentinel/Safeguard Program" with redirects from "Sentinal Program" and "Safeguard Program". Joema 16:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I also think that Safeguard (weapon) is not the right name. I would go with Safeguard Program as my number one choice, Sentinel-Safeguard Program as a second choice and Safeguard weapon system or just Safeguard system as a third choice. I'm not sure that the "/" works well in wikipedia. I suggested the Mickelsen option because of the Wikiproject North Dakota association and looking at the history of the page, it looks like the complex was an initial focus of the article and the focus of the current article could easily be limited to just the complex. On the other hand, Sentinel is not even mentioned in the article, so that would all have to be added to properly cover Sentinel. --Dual Freq 00:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with your choices. Sentinel not being mentioned is a shortfall that should be corrected. Maybe if I have time... Joema 00:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Wait, I have another thought. To what extent should the title immediately reflect the article content, vs just disambiguate it? Maybe "Safeguard (ABM system)", or "Safeguard (ABM program)" would be better. Joema 00:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Skimming WP:NAME and WP:DAB doesn't seem to help. I think we've already thought about this longer than the anon user who initially created this article. I'm no wikipedia expert, so I can't argue with the dab versions, Safeguard ABM system, Safeguard Program, Safeguard system with or without parenthesis seem fine to me. Any of those are better than Safeguard (nuke) or (weapon). --Dual Freq 01:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Move article to Safeguard Program
Since no one, excluding Joema, seems to care what the name of this article is, I'm suggesting Safeguard Program and modifying the template. I consider that the move to Safeguard (weapon) was rejected. If I receive no input for a while, I'll move the article to Safeguard Program, since it seems most appropriate to me. Though I wouldn't object to those listed above. --Dual Freq 01:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Article moved. Main space articles redirected here. --Dual Freq 03:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Why was this program started, and why was it cancelled? -- Beland 17:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Good points; we contributors often get bogged down in describing the topic without answering the key questions. Added wording to briefly answer. Joema 20:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Only two PARs?
I believe this statement is in error. I seem to recall that there was going to be one PAR per base, not just two PARs for the whole system. Maury 20:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- I may have been wrong when I added the #2. I guess it depends on the year of the "plan" that the article talks about. SRMSC.org has an image of the 1969 "plan" and is shows 7 PAR's, located on the US perimeter, not Whiteman AFB. In any event, construction began on only 2 and only 1 was completed. I have no idea when the plan was changed. --Dual Freq 01:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I will note this on the Wiki Project Military history page - we seem to be missing an article on missile farms, significant to both ICBMs as well as ABM systems. Would be nice to be able to link it from here. Student7 (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)