Talk:Strategic Defense Initiative

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Strategic Defense Initiative article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 180 days

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 23, 2004, March 23, 2010, and March 23, 2013.

Cold War High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States C‑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

C

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Spaceflight High‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Military history / Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Test Videos?

A video I've been looking for is a flight test video of a 'brilliant pebble' wherein a kinetic interceptor is put through a series of manuvers in a room over a catch net. A voice calls out each manuver, then the interceptor does it. The video runs from the start of the test through the interceptor running out of fuel and dropping into the net. Actual runtime of the interceptor would be much longer in space because during th test it had to constantly pulse whichever thruster(s) pointed down to hover.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 08:23, January 16, 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Strategic Defense Initiative. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Strategic Defense Initiative. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121215032809/http://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/552562 to http://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/552562

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian benefits of military-funded basic research

This is a point often brought up, that even a mostly failed military project that costs a lot of money (how much was eventually spent, apparently we’ll have to look elsewhere- not a npov question I guess!!) ends up having basic research side-effects that help the civilian (well, read “business”, in many cases) sector as well. Why one should never help the actual civilian sector more directly is never made clear. ELSchissel (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some Links i Found, but Haven't Yet, also Pointing out the Issue of Dead Links

I Found the Following Interesting Sources:
- ResearchGate “Space‐Strike Weapons” and the Soviet Response to SDI*" October 2008
- Archives . gov "REPORT TO CONGRESS ON THE STRATEGIC DEFENSE SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE (U)"
Finally the "Missile Wars" and "Possible Soviet Responses to the US Strategic Defense Initiative (CIA document)" are both dead links

--Eric Lotze (talk) 13:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undermining MAD

Moved from Article awaiting citations and copy edit for clarity and conciseness:

"Another destabilizing scenario was countries being tempted to strike first before SDI was deployed, thereby avoiding a disadvantaged nuclear posture. Proponents of SDI argued that SDI development might instead cause the side that did not have the resources to develop SDI to, rather than launching a suicidal nuclear first strike attack before the SDI system was deployed, instead come to the bargaining table with the country that did SDI and MAD SDI was criticized for potentially disrupting the strategic stability afforded by the doctrine of mutual assured destruction. MAD postulated that intentional nuclear have those resources and, hopefully, agree to a real, sincere disarmament pact that would drastically decrease all forces, both nuclear and conventional. Furthermore, the MAD argument was criticized on the grounds that MAD only covered intentional, full-scale nuclear attacks by a rational, non-suicidal opponent with similar values. It did not take into account limited launches, accidental launches, rogue launches, or launches by non-state entities or covert proxies." Chino-Catane (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]