Talk:Space weapon

German article

You may want to read the German article (22 p. in print) about this topic entitled Weltraumwaffe (= space weapon); it's been heavily updated and includes most recent information. - 84.146.221.186 14:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Holy cow. The German article is much longer. - Rollo44 21:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• Oppose merger from Anti-satellite weapon. --Dual Freq 17:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support merger to Militarization of space. --Dual Freq 17:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose merger with Anti-satellite weapon. That is a substantial article that should remain independent. - Rollo44 21:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• No Opinion regarding merger of Space weapon into Militarisation of space. - Rollo44 21:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly Support Satellite Weapons are invariably space-based weapons or related to them, no need to have two articles
• Support merger to Militarization of space

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

close as no-consensus 76.66.193.224 (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sun Gun

• Time - Sun Gun
• The Third Reich's Diabolical Orbiting Superweapon

I've added mention of the Sun gun. -- œ^™ 05:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Merger notice

Hi, I've merged Orbital bombardment and Orbital weapons here, and attempted a general cleanup. These articles were generally redundant to this one, and had little actual content once the incredible laundry lists of appearances in fiction were removed. There's still overlap with Space warfare and Militarisation of space; perhaps further mergers are in order. Oh, and there are still no sources. Sandstein (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussions moved in from Talk:Orbital bombardment after merge of its article page

Does the U.S. already have weapons of orbital bombardment?

In some circles, of the more paranoid speculative and conspiracy theory type, it has been suggested that the United States might already have orbital bombardment technology, albeit on small scale. An object, such as a chunk of dense rock - perhaps depleted Uranium - could be lifted into orbit via the space shuttle or other means. There, it could be fitted with a high-powered propellant, like a small nuclear device, provided the object was sufficiently shielded from the propelling blast. When detonated, the blast would propel the the object to the ground at etremely high velocity at a selected target, being as precise and at least as effective as a nuclear weapon. It would also have the benefit of not being covered by existing weapons treaties and away from the prying eyes of weapons inspectors. It would also be prohibitively expensive to build.

This is, of course, entirely speculation.

Kevyn 05:30, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If the son of a Bush had it, he would almost certainly have used it by now. A whole lot more Iraqi children could be more easily murdered that way.

No comment. --Kizor 19:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

On a slightly more lucid level, using a nuclear explosive as propellant would in fact be covered by existing treaties that prohibit the deployment of nuclear weapons in space. Not to mention being a horrendously inefficient use of a nuclear bomb that could be much more effectively used directly on the target. Doesn't sound very plausible to me. Perhaps it's a misunderstanding of a description of the Project Thor concept? Bryan 00:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I was going to start an article on orbital weaponry but this seems to be the closest thing. Orbital weaponry could inludde weapons that assaulted the body they orbited, as wel as other orbiting bodies or objects outside of a planets orvital field, should i add that to this article, move this article, or start a new one? thoughts? Solidusspriggan 07:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe expand space weapon as a general overview of all of these, and have separate more-specialized articles for each of these specific types of weapon system? Bryan 08:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this article could be expanded science-fiction vise, and a link to real world (albeit quite theoretical) occurences be provided with Space warfare (or Space weapon). Scoo 15:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Star Destroyer firepower

According to the Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross - Sections, an outdated Acclamator class troop transport's individual medium turbolasers are rated at 200 gigatons each. This seems to suggest that the firepower of a single turbolaser blast from an Imperator class Star Destroyer is far greater than a simple atomic bomb.

That is true. Michael Wong wrote articles on Star Destroyer firepower, as well as Saxton's SWTC -SWF

Order: Base Delta Zero

I do not think that it was introduced during the Clone Wars, as I remember that in Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, the Sith fleet performed a similar order on Taris. Therefore, I will change it. Thank you. Totema1 04:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I remember that the Sith also bombarded the planet Telos IV, which was actually earlier than the bombing of Taris. Just pointing that out. Totema1 17:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Homeworld

I specifically remember the game mentioning that it was an illegal "atmospheric deprivation weapon" that destroyed Kharak, not orbital bombardment, although I'm sure that took place as well. If I remember correctly, the Taiidani had to use the ADW because Kharak's defenses proved too strong for conventional orbital attacks. Chronolegion 14:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

{{reqdiagram}}

There are some diagrams that could be transferred from de.wp:

• de:Bild:Pillar-of-space-capabilities-strategic-master-plan-FY04 AFSPC.png
• de:Bild:Man-Made-Threats-of-Objects-In-Space DoD 1-800x485.jpg

--pfctdayelise (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Space weapon. 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/20100102201428/http://astronautix.com/craft/polyus.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/craft/polyus.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061029063843/http://spacedebate.org/ to http://www.spacedebate.org/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 09:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)