Talk:Project Excalibur

Recent improving edits

Hey, I've recently revamped this article considerably as can be seen in the edit history. All the large IP user edits in the last while were by me, the Irish IP. I'm just here looking for feedback on the edits and any assistance with:

(a) more info on the testing history and its results.

(b) a complete explanation for how the W71, its predecessor, morphed into the Excalibur. It appears to me rather suspect that seen as the W71 was established tech at the time, George Chapline seemingly didn't realize that "heavier metals"/high Z materials would make the x-ray laser work. With the story going that, it took Peter Hagelstein to "calculate" that heavier metals would work. I find this story strange as, like I said, the heavy metal utilizing W71 already existed and so heavier metals, shouldn't have been a surprise to either of them?

(c) Was it really "cancelled"? Or did it just get re-named and the project go dark/ceased public releases of info - as often happens in this murky world of nuclear gadgetry? I mean, sure the infinite range focused "star wars" laser beam that the concept brings to mind probably didn't transpire, but as an improvement over the W71, it surely was more energetic & focused than that design, and for all intents and purposes fit the design requirements, no? Sure we've all read that, in particular, with respect to the degree of focusing. It probably was oversold by Teller etc, but for the life of me I can't understand why it wasn't fielded - unless it was a complete and utter failure. Therefore as I haven't got that impression, I personally think it is on US subs, an opinion that rightly doesn't have any evidence to support it, but I have a hunch. 178.167.254.22 (talk) 04:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

In the interest of balance, for another view on it see this book

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nv2v0fCAONwC&pg=PA128#v=onepage&q&f=false

which suggests the whole thing is an overhyped idea by Teller based on a single not very conclusive experiment during a nuclear test

I wonder if this point of view could do with being mentioned in the article? Also see

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2004/apr/01/science.research1

Move to Launch on Warning - citations needed and alternative reason for it

What this section says seems plausible. But the citations here doesn't support what is said, that it was moved to idea of popups in Alaska for compliance with the OST. The source given just says

"Pop-up A mode of deployment for a weapon or sensor system that is based on the ground or on ships at sea and is launched or popped-up into space where it operates when needed. Frequently used in reference to the Excalibur X-ray laser that would be launched from submarines."

Which doesn't mention a motive at all, just defines the term.

This is another source I found that says it was done because of military vulnerability of satellites in orbit, that if the satellite itself was targetted by an enemy, it can only protect itself by blowing itself up.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nv2v0fCAONwC&pg=PA135#v=onepage&q&f=false

Of course it could easily have more than one motivation.

The OST prohibits weapons of mass destruction in orbit, and though not intended for mass destruction, rather for defence, I think it probably would be against the OST because of its possible use for mass destruction. So the reasoning does seem quite plausible.

My question though is, is this stated as the actual reason for moving to a popup status anywhere - or alternatively - is it perhaps a later chain of reasoning in support of a decision already made for other reasons - or what is it? If we had a proper cite, we could check details like that. Anyone got a cite for it? It should be removed of course if OR. But I think probably more a case of "citation needed". Robert Walker (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Error: inverse square law also applies to lasers

It says in the Conceptual predecessors section:

"However as this warhead's kill range was limited due to the inverse-square law, unlike the range of focused beams afforded by Lasers, this in part led the W71 to be fielded only for a very short period of time in the US."

Although this statement correctly identifies the limitation of a nuclear warhead as an x-ray antiballistic missile weapon as due to the drop in intensity due to the inverse square law, the inverse square law applies to all radiation, including laser beams. A laser beam is not perfectly collimated and has an angular spread and its intensity also falls as the square of the distance. It is just that since the energy is concentrated into such a narrow angle the decrease in intensity is very slow. --Chetvorno^TALK 13:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Corrected statement. --Chetvorno^TALK 03:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Broad reference

What's "Broad (1986)" meant to be a cite to? I guess this is Star Warriors, but that was published in 1985. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

BMD & politics

Does this article really need a big section on BMD history? Or more importantly, does it need to invent dubious political opinions like SDI had a"negative impact" upon negotiations? Along with pushing the earlier "hawks"/doves dichotomy that I seem to have successfully convinced Maury to remove? Though perhaps most emblematic, the still standing use of caricatures imagined by 1 journalist of events they weren't even privy to be a part of?...I mean come on, do we really need any of this kind of thing in an encyclopedia?

Yes, I am aware of the Dem-Republican political circus is real big stuff in the US, but why do editors let their personal feelings dictate how to present the "other team", it is not only sad but I'm not comfortable with how distorted this article is being written.

William Broad, the journalist,with his fantasy "imagination" of events, is utter junk. Why is User:Maury Markowitz even motivated to include this literal garbage? You even reveal that you're aware that it's garbage and the product of a sad man's imagination, with this edit summary: [1] As a bit of a backstory, I tagged this paragraph as dubious initially. With the edit summary:William Broad, was not in the oval ofice so where exactly does this tale come from? Broad's imagination? It certainly looks that way & In your above edit summary, you write back, Yes, precisely!"...So let me get this straight, you were fully, 100% aware that it's caricaturing junk. Yet you (1) initially mischaracterized it as "Broad described the meeting", then (2) agree with me that it's actually just imagination-land stuff but (3) You don't think to just strike it all out? You see no issues with readers of the article wasting their time reading about the caricaturing nonsense that 1 nobody-jounalist dreamt up?

Can you see why I find this all a bit troubling?

It almost seems like you want me to know you vote democrat, or at the very least that you have a real personal biasing antipathy directed at Reagan & Teller. I wasn't even born at the time, and though I'm no fan of Reagan's Guatemalan involvement, could you at least attempt to write neutrally?

I get it, you don't like Teller, you're in the Oppenheimer camp and you vote democrat. Are we really still stuck in this same tired loop? It's 2017. Readers expect quality not reading about how 1 reporter liked to imagine things when he was writing his hit-piece. Come on Maury you're better than this. Let go of the politics and step away from Demo/Repub-kool-aid counter.

Boundarylayer (talk) 06:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Boundary, you've been inserting "literal garbage" into this article repeatedly, often without cites. This includes lengthy sections speculating on what various people did or did not know, believe or do, questioning various people's motives, or inserting completely OT material about bioweapons to support some SYN argument about the Reykjavík meeting. Not to stop there, you continue to make question my motives, a personal attack, both in the edit notes and now here on the talk page.

But to answer you directly, why insert the section on Broad? His narrative of the SDI era forms the "base story" that is widely quoted in other historical materials. And by "widely quoted", I mean that practically every article from that period of time quotes or riffs off Broad's opinion that SDI was a joke pulled on Reagan by Teller. This does not appear to be objectively true, as other materials written later note, which is precisely why I wrote this section in order to clearly point out that Broad's version of events should not be considered reliable in spite of being widespread.

And to put a cherry on top of all of this, you once again accuse me of "wantIing) me to know you vote democrat", "pushing the earlier "hawks"/doves dichotomy" and "let(ting) their personal feelings dictate" because "the Dem-Republican political circus is real big stuff in the US,". Have you even bothered to look at my user page? I'm Canadian. Boundary, if you can't get that right...

But if you still feel so strongly about all of this there's an easy solution, we can let the broader editor community at MILHIST take a look at it. How's that sound?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I was under the impression that when writing an encyclopedia, it's important not to regurgitate propaganda. Even if that propaganda was popular at the time. Agreed? However you are acutely aware that Broad engaged in propaganda, yet you made not the slightest effort to clearly convey this to readers, who would be entirely unfamiliar with the topic. Every time you-rewrite this section on Broad you inject ambiguity as to whether the meeting really did happen the way he "describes". You have used the wholly inappropriate adjective that "broad described the meeting this way: xyz"

When Broad wasn't there, and come on let's get real, Broad had an obsessive dislike of Teller. He even wrote a book almost entirely focused on Teller being a very-very-bad-man. So despite Broad being popular amongst a sub-community in the US at the time, he wasn't "describing" anything, he was painting a satirical caricature. A caricature is completely devoid of the objectivity that the word "describe" elicits. So, don't mislead readers please. That's all I'm asking.

I earlier edited the section to accurately convey what Broad was doing, |here], yet you have reverted this edit back to your preferred, and clearly ambiguous formenting, "Broad described the meeting this way: xyz". So look, can we come to some understanding on this?

You have also pushed your own pet slant that Excalibur had a negative effect on negotiations in Iceland. Which I have also had to temper with this edit, |here here here. "Negative effect on negotiations" might be your opinion but when the truth came out about old-Gorbachev, and what they were up to, breaking treaties and what not. Your personal view of "Excalibur had a negative effect" on negotiations is entirely without merit. In fact, factually, it had a positive impact, as the Soviets weren't going to give up nuclear weapons, they hadn't given up their bio-weapons, so looks to me like it was a "positive impact on negotiations". Considering what Reagan might have been suckered into with noble intentions, had Excalibur not caused the friction. However I'm not here to push my views on this. Our since agreed "Escalibur had an impact on negotiations" is reasonable to both us. As it's entirely free from being slanted.

So can you perhaps see now why I see a strand of personal&political opinion entering this article that I find especially troubling?Maury Markowitz

Furthermore, while you may be Canadian, that does not mean you are free from the Cultural imperialism of US politics that invades just about every english speaking country the world over, but correct me if I'm wrong? You have no affinal compassion towards the Demo party? As a Canadian you are essentially by default the Demo parties wet-dream, as you're pro-social medicine, pro-abortion etc. etc. so the fact that you turned out Canadaian is actually not much of a surprise, is it?

As an editor and a reader, I do not appreciate having the political leanings of whomever wrote the article, practically exuding from the page. That is a problem, don't you see that?

Lastly, I'm all for more editors being involved, so by all means invite MILHIST, they sound like a fun bunch of editors! I'd be interested to hear what they have to say.

Boundarylayer (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, lets. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Right...so when exactly are we to expect them to arrive, it has been 10 days and only you have continued to edit the article? You know, I highly doubt you even notified them Maury Markowitz, why the bluff? You get the pick-of-the-litter of who you want to invite as re-enforcements, yet you don't even do so? Is this some sort of Canadian political trait were you say you're going to do something and then you don't even do it?

Boundarylayer (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: I think this is an excellent article on a controversial topic. This well researched and sourced article properly covers the personalities and politics which were behind this divisive research project. Congrats on a job well done. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Project Excalibur. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/22/documents/reykjavik/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311033905/http://www.danielgraham.net/content/Chapter14.htm to http://www.danielgraham.net/content/Chapter14.htm

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) 11:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

"Excalibur (make a separate article)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Excalibur (make a separate article) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 16 § Excalibur (make a separate article) until a consensus is reached. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)