Talk:Missile

Categories

I would add a discussion of various categories (surface-to-air, surface-to-surface, &c) if I knew more on the subject. Would someone who knows the topic well please contribute? Also, I think identifying the differences between cruise and ballistic missiles (and any other type) would be appropriate. 172.166.68.74 (talk)RKH —Preceding comment was added at 10:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There are two main systems: vectored thrust (for missiles that are powered throughout the guidance phase of their flight) and aerodynamic maneuvering (wings, fins, canards, etc).

Actually, both of these are aerodynamic maneuvering since they both rely on redirecting fluid movement.

67 kilo warheads

According to the article, all guided missiles carry 67 kilo warheads. This is simply not true!! The weight of a missile varys greatly from missile to missile. I've deleted that statement in the article.

Agreed. That makes absolutely no sense. Nonsensical. ICEBreaker 15:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Guided missile

According to the article, "Rocket-powered missiles are known as rockets if they lack post-launch guidance or missiles or guided missiles if they are able to continue tracking a target after launch." It follows that missile and guided missile are the same thing. Therefore I believe the articles should be merged, otherwise a casual reader will get the impression that they are two different things. --Zvika 08:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe there are also Ballistic Missiles, which are unguided and are normally in unpowered flight. ICEBreaker 15:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually you would do well to make a good sized article by fuzing this artical and Precision Guided Munitions together seeing how as most military missiles are just a smart bomb with a rocket motor strapped to them in some fashion.

That's true. The basic definition of a rocket is an unguided explosive, and the basic definition of a missile is a guided explosive. Yes, there are exceptions to this (such as the Ballistic Missile), but that could be put in a section under "exceptions". So let's just redirect the page and merge them.

O—— The Unknown Hitchhiker 03:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I merged the two articles, but it's a little messy still. Raingirl85 (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Missile definition

The first words of the article are: A missile is a projectile propelled as a weapon at a target. I believe that this description fits a bullet as well, which is why i have changed it to:A missile is a self-propelled, explosive projectile used as a weapon towards a target. This where anyone who does not like this change should voice thier opinion.

Change "a target" to "a pre-determined target"David171 13:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)David171

Not all missiles have warheads- see the LOSAT. --64.65.225.114 (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think missiles are explosive, right? And not all missiles are self-propelled. I don't really know, so how do someone define a missile?

If you want to get technical: a missile is any object or weapon that is fired, thrown, dropped, or otherwise projected at a target —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.101.183.137 (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

O—— The Unknown Hitchhiker 03:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It should say, at least in the etymology section, that originally, a missile means any object or weapon sent towards a target. According to dictionary.com, which also says that it originally meant something like "throw" or "send", http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=missile. Example of such use: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Increased_turnout,_reports_of_violence_at_worldwide_May_Day_demonstrations, where it says "(...)protestors pelting the police with missiles(...)".

Velle (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it to "A missile is a self propelled, guided weapon system.", as it's a much less convoluted description. I've removed the 'internal combustion' part as well - athough current missiles are powered by internal combustion, any form of self-propulsion would qualify as a missile (such as SLAM). Jellyfish dave (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a standardization agreement between the air forces of the US, UK, Canada, Australia and NZ, that defines a missile as "A weapon or object to which propulsive energy is applied or continues to be applied after launch." See AR 310-25. Since those are the air forces of the major English speaking countries, that would seem to be the best source for the current military use of the term. 67.187.136.140 (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Although that would seem to be a fairly authoratative source, in practice all of those countries seem to name unguided weapons as 'rockets', saving 'missile' for guided systems only. So whilst all missiles do fit the definition, in practice I'd say that use of the term missile is more defined than that. Jellyfish dave (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

vs bombs

In the opening definition, should we not also make the distinction with bombs, eg.

In modern usage, a missile or guided missile is a self-propelled precision-guided munition system. This is as opposed to an unguided self-propelled munition, referred to as a rocket, or a bomb, which has no means of propulsion and falls under gravity (and can be either guided or unguided).

Mmitchell10 (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Ballistic Missile

There are two main types of missiles: guided and ballistic. Could someone with knowledge of ballistic missiles please contribute a short entry? In addition, ICBMs should be mentioned. ICEBreaker 15:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

General Meaning

I think that "missile" should be the disambiguation page, and this page should be "missile (weaponry)" or something like that.67.160.147.2 (talk) 04:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Credentials

"Civilization Revolution," a game for the Xbox 360, uses references for the Civilopedia from reliable sources such as National Geographic, and PBS. It credits Tippu Sultan as the inventor of the rocket, a primitive, however very similar relative in weaponry to the missile. Tippu Sultan isn't, however, credited anywhere at all in the whole article, not even in Early Development. What gives? The missile wouldn't have been invented if it weren't for him. 最後の最初のチップを提供する (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC) (Please, mature response, for any noobs that want to debate on that subject)

The history section does mention that further reading can be found under history of rockets, which seems sufficient as this article specifically discusses guided weapons.Jellyfish dave (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Facts/Records

I've moved the fact about the TOPOL M being the fastest missile in the world to the ballistic missiles section, and removed the part about DF15 being the longest ranged - the fact was uncited and would appear to be false, as versions of the SS-18 have a longer range than 15,000km.Jellyfish dave (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead Images for Basic Roles Section

The original lead pictures of that section consisted of:

• Trident II for Ballistic Missiles
• Tomahawk cruise missile for cruise missiles
• Harpoon Block II for Anti-Ship
• FGM-148 Javelin for ATGMs
• SM-3 Launch for Surface-to-Air
• Arrow missile for ABM
• AIM-120 for Air-to-Air
• ASM-135 ASAT for Anti-Satellite

I have thus changed it to:

• R-36 for Ballistic Missiles
• Tomahawk cruise missile for cruise missiles
• Exocet for Anti-Ship
• FGM-148 Javelin for ATGMs
• Tor missile Launch for Surface-to-Air
• Arrow missile for ABM
• AIM-120 for Air-to-Air
• DF-21 for Anti-Satellite

Reasons for such is quite simple. The page would seem to note that Missiles are a pure American enterprise by the simple display of supposedly representative weaponry. This is not so. The Trident II is a reverred missile, but the R-36 is a far more notable, due to some Westerners considering it a gap of Missile technologies between Soviet and American missiles at that time. The R-36 was the missile the Soviets would of used to flatten America, which is far more notable than a Trident.

The Exocet is a far more famous Anti-ship missile compared to the Harpoon. Comparing combat records, the Exocet has damaged and sunk more ships than the Harpoon has. One example of the Harpoon's failure is shown against the Iranian ship, the Sahand, which took multiple direct hits from Harpoons and many more munitions and did not sink(until the fires reached it's ammunition and caused a far more catastrophic explosion).

The Tor missile is revered for being the first missile system designed to intercept attacking munitions like a Tomahawk or an AGM-86. Finally, the DF-21 is far more significant than the ASM-135, as the ASM-135 was an air-launched ASAT weapon, compared to the DF-21 being surface launch. It does not take an expert to say the significance of a Surface launched ASAT weapon, compared to something that's fired from a F-15.

The lead images of the Basic Roles are up for negotiation, but it will be ill-advised for one to simply revert or remove without discussion, and that is what this section is for. Victory in Germany (talk) 08:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:BRD applies here. You seem to not be adhering to this rule. When you make changes to an article and they are reverted you need to discuss the changes on the talk page with other editors and gain consensus amongst them. You have to gain consensus with other editors on the talk page before you can implement your changes. Gain consensus with other editors on this talk page first rather than edit warring. The images on this article were long standing and changing them without consensus is likely to cause dispute. Unionin (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a simple flow chart on the page. I made the changes, a few days later, you reverted me. And if you follow said flowchart, I am adhering to it's rules, and here is the discussions. You were not adhering to WP:BRD by continuing the Revert war, as my changes were generally fine until you came along. But that is irrelevant. Give me your argument for why all pictures save the Israeli Arrow should be of American equipment. Victory in Germany (talk) 07:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

NO, you have BRD completely the wrong way around. BRD states that when someone's changes to an article have been reverted by someone else the person who made those changes needs to gain consensus with others on the talk page before again implementing those changes so to avoid edit warring. You made changes to the article, a couple of days later I reverted those changes, and now you need to gain consensus on this talk page before again implementing those changes, in accordance to the BRD rule. Your changes were not fine, they had been in effect for only a couple of days. You changed images without consensus which had been in effect for as long as a year. If you want the images on this article to be changed for whatever reasons then you must convince the majority of other regular editors on this talk page before you can change them, according to the BRD rule. I for one oppose your changes as the original images are more relevant to English language readers and are of better quality. Unionin (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No, you've misunderstood. Take a look at the flow chart carefully, I made "bold changes" to this article, you reverted them, I disagree, and we are here to discuss a compromise. Your argument is that "the pictures that were on the page are far more relevant to English language readers" is flawed. For one, the majority of English language readers in the World are Indian. The English language started in England. So for a compromise on your "point", I think we should replace all images relevant to Indian and British readers. But again, your argument of relevancy is flawed in that it holds no objectivism and is composed of pure subjective thought.

Secondly, your argument of, "better quality" is also a subjective argument. You really have yet to discuss a reason to put images on a Base-line page which explains an entire line of weaponary full of American equipment. My argument has been used before, and pages which are NOT supposed to be American-centric are filled with American photos have been duely edited. Simply said, Missiles are not an American monopoly, as the lead images suggests. I've diversified those lead images from 4 different countries as apposed to 2. 3 Pictures are of American equipment, 1 are of Israeli and Chinese equipment, and 2 of are Russian equipment. It is far fairer and abides closer to WP:NPOV. Your changes have been reverted. Victory in Germany (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You still just don't get it. You MUST gain consensus amongst editors here before you can again implement your changes as they were reverted. If you continue to edit war rather than seek a consensus I shall have to refer this to the Administrator's Noticeboard. Unionin (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are mistaken, the pictures of my edits WERE NOT CHANGED OTHER THAN ME for 23 days. According to WP:Consensus, a new consensus was reached. I have already contacted an editor to advise the situation. Victory in Germany (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

23 days without a revert is not a consensus, nor is it considered such by WP:Consensus. A consensus is editors agreeing with the changes made, not opposing them as in this instance. This has now been refered to the Administrator's Noticeboard as you are not following BRD and are clearly now edit warring in an attempt to force your changes made without consensus upon the article. Unionin (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Correction, it was actually only 17 days before I reverted your changes.* Unionin (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You might have to reread that article again. "Editors usually reach consensus as a natural and inherent product of editing; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, then everyone who reads it has an opportunity to leave the page as it is or change it." I don't count, but I am quite sure that more than a few editors have seen the edits I've made before you reverted them. Therefore, because they did not revert or change my edits, it has become the consensus. And thus, the wrong was on you, for shoving your edits down the throats of the consensus. Victory in Germany (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Your changes were not a new consensus because I reverted them 17 days later. The original images on this article had been in effect for a year. It is you trying to change year old images with your 17 day old images and then forcing them upon the article despite opposition to them. I have made NO changes to the article, only restoring it back to its original self. Unionin (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, please read this again: WP:Consensus. Images that have been there for over a year and is suddenly changed does not mean that the consensus is of the year old pictures. You have made edits as the Consensus was changed to my edits of the section. Victory in Germany (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how you fail to understand that because your changes to the article were reverted you need to seek consensus amongst editors here before implementing them again rather than edit warring, according to WP:BRD? Unionin (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact is your changes WERE reverted, by me, just 17 days later. Changes made to articles don't just automatically gain consensus. If they are reverted you must gain consensus with other editors before implementing them again rather than edit warring. Unionin (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, the problem with your argument is that you reverted my changes after a Consensus was reached. And again, I urge you, just urge you, to read WP:Consensus, there is no "time-zone" for a change to become consensus, but because not one editor other than yourself has disagreed with my edits, my edits have become thus, the consensus. And that is where WP:BRD comes to mind as my edits has became the consensus when you reverted them and when I reverted your edits, you again disagreed, which eventually led me to create this Section. What you should of done was to take it to the talk page instead of inciting the edit war. Victory in Germany (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oh by the way, the images prior to my edits were less than 8 months old.* Victory in Germany (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem to think that changes made to an article instantly become the new consensus. If other editors disagree with your changes and revert them in a reasonable amount of time then you must seek consensus with other editors before again implementing those changes again. Unionin (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I covered that in my above posts. No editors disagreed with my edits and after a reasonable period of 17 days, my edits only had one disagreement and that was from you. Again, read the WP:Consensus page, there is no specified amount of time for a page to become consensus, but it is a consensus when no changes/reverts were made to one's changes after a period of time. Victory in Germany (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I have read WP:Consensus many times before. Changes to article do not instantly become a new consensus. If other editors revert those changes in a reasonable amount of time then you must seek consensus with editors in order to again implement those changes. Your changes were only 17 days old. I think you'll find 8 month old images have more of a consensus than 17 day old images. Your 17 day old images NEVER became a new consensus because there were reverted in a reasonable amount of time. The 8 month old images are STILL the consensus, hence they were in effect for 8 months without being reverted. Unionin (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

But an editor did revert your changes after only 17 days, that editor being me. Changes DO NOT instantly become a new consensus, there must be time for other editors to revert them, as I did yours after only 17 days. Hence now you must follow BRD. No one changed the original images for 8 months. Unionin (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Protected because of the endless rounds of reverts. Don't discuss and revert, simply discuss. Woody (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The original images clearly had consensus as they remained in place for 8 months. The new ones didn't as they were reverted after only 17 days. Unionin (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) This argument is quite frankly bizarre. I recommend that you both cease editing the page altogether and discuss it here. Victory in Germany is correct in that he is indeed discussing the changes here, but is wrong in that he is engaged in a revert war. Unioin is wrong in that other editors did silently approve of the changes made, and perhaps it would have been more polite had he discussed the issue here before blanket reverting all of the changes made by 2 editors with such a simple edit summary. Either way, who's interpretation of BRD is correct is now redundant. Please focus on the content. Ranger Steve ^Talk 17:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Editors have to have time to revert a change. A change does not instantly gain consensus amongst editors. How can it when all have not yet had a chance to oppose it? Unionin (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Please listen to Woody and Ranger Steve. We are not discussing who has the consensus but what should be the lead images for the Basic Roles Section. I have posed my case for keeping them the way they are, and my arguments are presented in the original post of this section. Please present yours, Unionin. Victory in Germany (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

17 days is not long enough for it to be considered accepted by all. If someone reverts a change after 17 days then the person who made the change must seek and gain consensus before implementing it again. The original images had been accepted for 8 months. There's no comparison between the two. Unionin (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are talking about the Consensus, which is irrelevant as you and I are the only ones talking here and no 3rd opinion has yet to show. We are discussing what pictures are going to be in the lead images, not which pictures are older or younger. Victory in Germany (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I have said why I oppose your change to new images. Your new images are of worse quality and are less notable. Your have clearly only chosen the images because they are of Russian missiles. Your account is a single purpose POV pro-Russia account, judging by your contribution history. Unionin (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the 8 month old images but the 17 day old images are of worse quality and less notable. Please revert your 17 day old images and restore the article back to the original 8 month old images. Unionin (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Side opinion

A side opinion - saw this debate advertized on WP:ANI. You guys got it all wrong. Both of your versions are barely readable. Either way, it's a mess! Have you (each of you) ever tried to look at the article at a readers' angle?

• Why four (or three) images in the lead? Make it one lead image, and choose an uncontroversial and easily recognizable model. A cluster of anti-tank rounds on a common pod (Brimstone - current #1 pick) is neither easily recognizable (some plumbing stuff isn't it) nor uncontroversial (in the sense that is a fairly obscure system compared to the Minutemen, Patriots or SS-20s - it begs to be contested and changed). Re-read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). Again: one pic for the lead, and choose a recognizable missile. Or maybe a video?
• You're too busy discussing if the exocet photo is representative enough to illustrate the Anti-ship section. You are both wrong. Right now, the exocet photo illustrates the Anti-tank section. D'oh... My Wikipedia settings command a lowly 120px default image size, but the photos are still all over the place, their actual placement is completely unrelated to your good intentions. Guess what happens on screens with 300px default. Your discussion about individual choices is moot: these choices live their lives separately, away from the text they're supposed to illustrate. Have you considered alternating left/right images, at all?

May I just quote from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout)#Images (bold formatting by yours truly):

You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can. Unless clearly better or more appropriate images are available, the existing images in the article should be left in place.

Images should ideally be spread evenly within the article, and relevant to the sections they are located in. All images should also have an explicative caption. An image that would otherwise overwhelm the available text space on a 800×600 window should be shrunk, or formatted as a panorama. It is a good idea to try to maintain visual coherence by aligning the sizes of images and templates on a given page.

When placing images, be careful not to stack too many of them within the lead, or within a single section to avoid bunching up several section edit links in some browsers. Generally, if there are so many images in a section that they strip down into the next section at 1024×768 screen resolution, that probably means either that the section is too short, or that there are too many images.

May I also add that while it's easy to simulate a low-res (800x600) screen, it's not so easy for screens with higher-than-yours resolutions. Think of "will it still look reasonable on a 2400x1600 px screen"? At this resolution your sections thin down to just one or two lines of text.

Cheers, East of Borschov 17:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The number of lead images could be reduced down to just one. I think an image per catagory further down the article is good for illustrative purposes. Unionin (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong there, I have chosen a Chinese Missile and a French missile. I added 2 Russian made missiles in their most notable(and stereotypical) categories of Nuclear weaponry and Air defense. Your argument of, "worse quality" is very, very subjective, and is thus really irrelevant. Again, reread my argument again, the Exocet is one of, if not, the most well known AShMs because of it's effective usage in the Falklands war. The Harpoon has not been used to much great effect nor notoriety in comparison to the Exocet.

The Trident II is also a lesser known ICBM as compared to the R-36. If you disagree with me, please read the R-36 page, it was the sole reason for Western analysts to consider that the U.S.A. had a Missile lag. That is far more significant than the Trident II, which wasn't very game changing. The DF-21 is also more notable than the AGM-135, as it was widely publicized that China had shot down one of their own satellites for weapons testing. The impact that the DF-21's shoot down is felt far wider than the AGM-135's, as some say that the only reason why the U.S.N. shot down their falling satellite was in response to the DF-21.

For Air-defense weaponry, the Tor missile system is unique in that it was the first missile system designed to engage attacking projectiles. That means that things that used to need many tonnes of armor to protect it from a weapon could be protected by an accurate weapon like the Tor. Finally, your simple judgment that my edits on this page violates POV because I edit mostly Russian military equipment-based articles is unfounded. If you'd notice, the majority of all Articles relating to Western militaries are fairly fine articles, with many references and good article structure. That is not so with Russian articles, and that is why I edit mostly them. Now, offer me a less vague response, other than, "better quality" or "more notable".

Also, I do agree that the 3 Lead images for the entire article needs to change. Victory in Germany (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You didn't add an image of a French missile as it was already on the article. Well I say your new images are worse and you say they are better so it should be for other editors to help form the consensus rather than your opinion be taken as superior than mine, especially as my opinion is also backed by all those editors who edited the article for 8 months without changing the images. Unionin (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The United States is far ahead of any rival in the field of ASAT weapons so any ASAT picture should be of a U.S. missile. The Chinese have only just aquired ASATs whereas the United States has possessed ASATs since the mid 1980s. The Chinese DF-21 is far less notable than the U.S. ASM-135. Unionin (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

We are not discussing the images in the article, but in particular, those in the Basic Roles section. I moved the Exocet picture from the cramped lead images of the entire Article to the Lead image of the AShM paragraph of the Basic Roles section. And yes, we do need more opinions on this, but still, you have yet to put up any defense for the notability of any of the missiles you want on the page.

You misunderstood my point. When the U.S. test fired the AGM-135, there were no stories around the world pertaining to it. When the Chinese fired their DF-21 at one of their satellites, the world freaked from it. That is far more significant than simple, "we have more experience" or, "we did it first". Besides, the Chinese were the first to do a surface based satellite shoot down. Victory in Germany (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure which country you live in but the U.S. shooting down USA-193 in 2008 was just as big news here in the United Kingdom as when China shot down a weather satellite in 2007. The United States was the first to shoot down a satellite in 1985, with an ASM-135. Unionin (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

As for surface to air missiles I would say the MIM-104 Patriot is more notable than the Tor. The MIM-104 Patriot is operated by more countries than the Tor is. Unionin (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I live in the U.S. but you should realize that 2007 came before 2008, and sure, it was a big deal in America that we shot down 193, but many people see that shoot down as the U.S.'s response to China's shootdown earlier, so China being the cause and 193 being the effect, China would be more significant.

If you want to talk about which SAM is operated most, you'd know that this is a battle I'd win...S-75, S-125, S-300 family, all have equal or more operators than there are operators of Patriots. To be quite honest, the S-300 is highly notable as it has sent politicians and defense analysts screaming around because Russia has a contract to sell them to Iran and that the S-300 is claimed to have anti-stealth capabilities. Victory in Germany (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the U.S. is far more significant than China in the ASAT field. The U.S. shot down its first satellite in 1985, long before China shot down its first in 2007. The U.S. has a far greater ASAT capability than China does. The U.S. has many of its cruisers and destroyers fitted with RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 which can shoot down satellites, such as when one shot down USA-193. Unionin (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, I do not think you understand the significance of the 2007 Chinese anti-satellite test. It was the first surface based interception of a satellite, the ASM-135 was the first interception in general but surface based interceptors are superior in that you don't need an aiforce to accomplish the mission and because your deployment times are higher. The 193 shootdown again, too a lot of people was the U.S.'s response to China's earlier tests, and you have to remember that the SM-3 can only hit targets at the very end of LEO, the DF-21 can hit satellites many miles higher than the SM-3 can. Victory in Germany (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Could I just interject my opinion that as far as 'household' names for missiles go, Patriot, Scud, Excocet and Tomahawk are all pretty well known and cover pretty much everything except anti-tank and air-to-air.Jellyfish dave (talk) 12:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Right now, I'm perfectly fine with how the images are set up as is. For a compromise to come out of this, it will be up to Unionin to propose the images for all 8 paragraphs of the Basic Roles section. Victory in Germany (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer Jellyfish dave's proposed images as I believe they are more recognisable examples. Unionin (talk) 04:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Mig 29 firing AA-10.JPG

That would be fine however that would compromise the "diversity" in which I inputted. Also, the Patriot should not be in the Anti-aircraft missile category as it's a ABM system. If the Patriot is to be inputted, than it'd take the place of the Israeli Arrow. For now, I'll fix that and replace the Arrow with the Patriot and replace the Patriot with the SA-6 Gainful which earned the nickname of "three fingers of death" for quite obvious reasons. However, these changes would compromise the diversity that I have inputted. The Picture count now goes: US-3, Russia-2, China-1, France-1, which doesn't skiff away my claims of Americancentric. Because of the difficulties of finding a relevant weapon outside of the U.S./Russia, I'd propose this picture to replace the current one in the Air-to-air missile section. Victory in Germany (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Once again you make unilateral changes to the images of the article without any discussion or consensus whatsoever. The Patriot missile image was only added to the article after a majority of users on this talk page agreed to it. I oppose changing the Air-to-air missile section to your proposed picture. You claim the article is Americancentric, yet the proposed change would cause the picture count to be: Russia-3, US-2, China-1, France-1, making the article Russiancentric. Therefore your claims of Americancentricity would be hypocricy. Your proposed picture is of less quality than the current picture and is of a less notable missile than the current picture. Wikipedia articles are not required to have a "diversity" or quota of images at the expense of quality and relevancy. Unionin (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

New argument

So, 2 pictures of an ABM system is relevant? Yes, we've established that the patriot is of relevancy, but it does not represent the Anti-aircraft paragraph as it's not even designed for that task. Replacing the Arrow in favor of the patriot was what you've should of done instead of sitting idle. Next, you lost count. Changing the Air to Air picture to my proposed one will give: US-3, Russia-3, France/China-1 each. And finally, you're making a highly subjective "argument" of quality. Both pictures shows an Aircraft firing a missile, both are relativley high resolution, so there really isn't much difference between the two other than the origin of the equipment in the pictures. Also, it was never established whether or not the AIM-120 is as relevant compared to the R-27, so you're just making more weak, baseless, and diversionist arguments. 76.219.244.100 (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I agreed to the change of images for the Anti-aircraft and Anti-ballistic sections so I don't know why you're saying I disputed that change. Why does there have to be an equal number of images of U.S. and Russian missiles? As I stated earlier there is no requirement for quotas of images on Wikipedia. Quality and relevancy is what matters on Wikipedia articles, not satisfying national pride. Quality and relevancy is no more subjective than diversity and editors here will decide which images are of better quality and relevancy. Unionin (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I have also changed the Anti-satellite section image to an image of an actual ASAT test, which is far better than an image of some vehicle at an exhibit with a missile sat on the back. In fact in the previous image we couldn't even see the missile itself for the casing it's in. Unionin (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Your second argument contradicts your first. The ASM-135/SM-3 would therefore be irrelevant and not fit to be the lead image. As for your first argument, wP:Neutrality defeats it, equal statements from both sides of an argument. In this case, it's not an argument at all, but pictures. Therefore, for every "NATO" picture, should be a "Warsaw" picture, for neutrality sake. For your first statement, you have disputed those changes by inputting 2 ABM systems, one in the ABM category and one in the AA category. Victory in Germany (talk) 05:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure just how many times I have to repeat this before you get it, there is no quota for images on Wikipedia. Furthermore, I must shatter your delusion and inform you there's no Warsaw Pact anymore. Therefore, there are 2 reasons why there should not be a quota of NATO and Warsaw Pact missile images. I have reverted your edits which contravened earlier consensus on this talk page. Unionin (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

There is still Russia, a leading producer of weapons of all shapes and sizes. Not to mention India and China, Germany, France, etc. I hate to shatter your bubble, but there is also no quota saying "consensus" to U.S. built weaponry as the representing image of it's class. Therefore, I have reverted your edits as per discussion. Victory in Germany (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I just interject that this is the missile page, not the TEL page. The ASAT is a picture of a missile, the current DF-21 picture is not, and therefore the ASAT is a much better image for that section.Jellyfish dave (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd actually agree with that. I will change the picture to something more suitable to the page. Victory in Germany (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Victory in Germany, you are the only one here who wants most of the images on the article to be changed to that of Russian missiles, and not on the merit of the images but merely for the fact that they are Russian. I'm not surprised though, your account is obviously an Pro-Russia POV account. Consensus here is clearly against your changes I'm afraid, hence them being reverted. Unionin (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ad hominem. I don't want Russian missiles (because before you came in, there were French, Chinese, and Israeli missiles). Also, the images on this page has not been disturbed for a very long time, until you came back. The consensus via non-disturbance has already been reached. And your disturbance is preluding to a edit war. Please stop now and get a better argument and more support. 76.219.244.100 (talk) 02:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

By that notion, why don't we simply include images of missiles produced by anyone and everyone that produces them and have an article full of pictures! I hope the point is obvious. If not, please read Sarcasm. -- Kharay1977^TC 02:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Because U.S. missiles are not representative of missiles in general, which is what the article is about, missiles. Victory in Germany (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Victory in Germany, your changes being in effect for however many days before being reverted does not mean consensus was automatically reached. It is clear on this talk page that you are the only one who supports changing many of the images to that of Russian missiles for the sake of them being Russian rather than for the quality or relevancy of the images. Consensus on this talk page is clearly against your changes. Please adhere to the consensus on this talk page. Note, consensus is achieved by discussion on the talk page and not by enforcing your version of the article the most. Unionin (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Unionin, we've been over this, consensus is reached after how many days and how many edits, as long as those fellow editors do not change it, consensus therefor has been reached. You were gone for many days and by due process of different editors editting this page, and their due silence, consensus therefore has been reached. You are the one that are changing images for the very sake that they are American and not of their relevancy, because really, who has heard of ASM-135? Not a lot. More people have heard of the 2007 Chinese Satellite shootdown then the ASM-135, which therefor makes the DF-21 far more relevant. Victory in Germany (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Title

Given the scope over the meaning of "missle" in the Lead, would not this article be better at the more-specific title "Guided missile, since that is what the article is actually about, and have the Missile (disambiguation) page moved to plain Missile? - BilCat (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Internally to Wikipedia, it seems to be linked correctly in the vast majority of cases, but putting the disambiguation page at missile would break that, so I would be very reluctant to make the change, unless we used a bot to change them all over. But I think the most common use is likely to be the military one anyway, just due to the large number of military missiles there are, so I think we should stick with what we have.Planetscared (talk) 05:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Basic Roles section is confusing

The Basic Roles section is confusing, because as well as defining roles for missiles, it also includes headings which are not "roles" but types of missile, namely cruise and ballistic. A cruise missile can have many roles; it could be used to target ships, buildings or other enemy assets.

In this article, the Exocet missle is described under the heading "Anti-Ship Missiles", which is correct, but its technology is that of a cruise missile, so it could equally have appeared under that heading.

I'd suggest separating the two types of missile, i.e. ballistic and cruise, from the missile roles, such as anti-ship or anti-aircraft, and discussing them in a separate section. Marchino61 (talk) 05:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I like the idea. Cruise missiles as subcategory of ballistic missiles may contradict "Ballistic missile" article where the two are contrasted. (I understand "ballistic" as motion without thrust influenced by moment of inertia, gravity, and air resistance only for significant part of the trajectory.) Your note is of a more specific manner, but we consider the same thing being opportunity for improvement. Szozdakosvi (talk) 13:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Translations

• Greek: τηλεκατευθυνόμενος πύραυλος
• Greek: αυτοπλοηγούμενος πύραυλος — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410A:800:542D:3D0D:8533:9945 (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Missile. 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/20100530062700/http://www.independent.co.ug/index.php/reports/world-report/74-world-report-/172-worlds-military-powers to http://www.independent.co.ug/index.php/reports/world-report/74-world-report-/172-worlds-military-powers

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) 19:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Minor typo

Apologies for this inelegant and perhaps unwanted method of suggesting an edit to this page, I have only registered my account today with the intent of correcting a minor typo on this Wikipedia page, which was likely created accidentally by changing the structure of the sentence in question:

"Rockets [...] were used as propulsion systems for arrows as early as the 10th century by in[sic] China."

As marked by the italic characters and the sic tag, the construction "Arrows [...] were used [...] by in China" is simply grammatically incorrect. My proposed correction would be to simply omit the "by"-agent in order to fix the grammar here. Alternatively one could specify a faction, organisation or entity who have used rocket propelled arrows in China, for example "X was used by Able in Y", that would certainly be a Wikipedia page I'd be eager to read. MichaelFBerthold (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

It has been corrected. Thanks for pointing it out!

Magentic Manifestations (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Missile vs guided missile vs rocket

Previously, there were some discussions about the definition of missile and if it is the same thing as guided missile. #Merge with Guided missile #Missile definition Provided that guided missile has been redirected to missile for more than a decade, the consensus seems to be that missiles and guided missiles are the same thing, and all missiles are guided. There are indeed arguments that ballistic missile is an exception as it is unguided. This does not seems to be the case, ballistic missile can indeed be guided. (The first U.S. ballistic missile with a highly accurate inertial guidance system was the short-range PGM-11 Redstone. Zarchan, P. (2012). Tactical and Strategic Missile Guidance (6th ed.). Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. ISBN 978-1-60086-894-8.)

In other words, the consensus that missiles and guided missiles are the same thing is unchallenged, though also unsupported. Definitions from dictionaries do not help to clarify in this case, as the definitions of missile and rocket are mixed and there is no consensus. While I prefer to claim that all missiles (in the modern sense) are guided missiles, I have no source to support this and likely there are none to definitively support or oppose this consensus. My edit trying to address this is reverted.

If we decide that missiles are not necessarily guided, we need a new definition of missile AND rocket (military) with sources and split missile into guided missile. The more elegant solution seems to be that missiles are all guided and rockets are all unguided. What would be better? Throowa (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

A missile is a big fucking projectile. A guided missile is a big fucking guided projectile. A rocket is a fucking rocket-propelled missile. People who say otherwise do not know what they are talking about and just want to simplify things. The same type of people call the RPG-7 the backronym rocket-propelled grenade and the Carl Gustaf 8.4 cm recoilless rifle a rocket launcher. If people agree that all missiles are guided then we need to move articles such as shoulder-fired missile.--Blockhaj (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

A missile is basically a projectile with some sort of propulsion. While dictionaries offer standard definitions, there is no clear demarcation of rocket and a missile in usage. If the demarcation is that rockets are not guided and missiles are guided, we have guided rockets where the term "rocket" is used while technically they may be missiles (e.g. Direct Attack Guided Rocket) and missiles which have no/limited guidance (e.g. Man-portable missile as pointed out by @Blockhaj), also missiles using the term "unguided missile" (e.g. NLPR-70). The article also brings out that while the definition is as such, unguided missiles are generally termed as rockets and missiles are generally guided. Referring to 1, Almost all missiles contain some form of guidance and control mechanism. We should not impose a strict criterion if we still have alternate usage and a credible source to definitively support the classification. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 12:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Missiles does not need to be self-propelled, just projected. A thrown boulder intended as a weapon is still a missile. Blockhaj (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you are confusing the topics. While the word 'missile' may indeed refer to any projectile in general, in the modern sense (e.g. in news nowadays), the word 'missile' takes a new and narrower meaning, that is some sort of projectile with propulsion and a warhead (explosive or otherwise), which is exactly this page is about, 'missile' in the general sense (including cold weapon missile) goes to the page projectile. I must insist 'missile' as in projectile is irrelevant to this discussion, which concerns only the 'hot' missile. Please do not bring up that any thrown projectile is a missile, this page is not about that. We take the narrow definition of missile here. (other languages may invent a new word for hot missile but English do not get such luxury, so we stick with that word) Throowa (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The "new" narrower meaning is incorrect and it is not really new. The oversimplification of missile goes back to WWII, yet 80 years later, the formal terminology is still in use by experts, specialists and the like. Wikipedia should aim to be formal, not continuing to spread 80 year old terminological missinformation. With that said, this page should not change subject, but i would argue it is relevant to move it to guided missile, with the broader term missile getting its own article, as it is a munition category in both historical and modern combat.--Blockhaj (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. Could you clarify and elaborate further? What is oversimplified and into what? What is the 'formal terminology'? Also, are you claiming that the broader term missile is not the same as projectile? As in, we should have:

1. projectile (projectile in general)
2. missile (narrowed and formal, before WWII)
3. guided missile (narrowed and oversimplified, since WWII)

Is that what you are saying? Throowa (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Throowa missile means larger projectile in short, its a relative term Blockhaj (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Some modern given definitions:

“ (formal) any object that is thrown with the intention of causing injury or damage: Stones, bottles, and other missiles were thrown at the police. ” — Cambridge, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/missile

“ a weapon that is sent through the air and that explodes when it hits the thing that it is aimed at; an object that is thrown at somebody to hurt them (synonym projectile) ” — Oxford, https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/missile

“ A missile is a tube-shaped weapon that travels long distances through the air and explodes when it reaches its target.; Anything that is thrown as a weapon can be called a missile. ” — Collins, https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/missile

Note that none says anything about guidance. A missile is either a synonym for projectile or a explosive projectile/projected bomb. The latter definition here can be simplified as larger projectile to make a long story short, which is why guided missiles got that name from the start, as they were larger types of munitions (missiles). So what i suggest is that we should have projectile (in general), missile (either in the article projectile or in its own article if we can clear up definitions, lastly guided missile. Blockhaj (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

To add to the point that missiles are large projectiles and not necessarily explosive i bring the example of the MGM-166 LOSAT, a non explosive kinetic energy missile. Blockhaj (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I understand missiles are not necessarily explosive so i used the word 'warhead', but your example shows that even a warhead is not necessary, though at least it (seemingly) has propulsion mid-flight. Do you have an example that a missile without propulsion as well? If so, does it has a warhead (explosive or otherwise)? Throowa (talk) 06:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I must again reassert that we must not rely on dictionaries because they often lack the specialties in professional fields, but yes, they can provide reference. Therefore, I have compiled the definitions of missile from 5 online dictionaries (Cambridge Dictionary, Oxford Learner's Dictionaries, Collins Online Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English), they agree missile may refer to:

1. a thrown weapon (=an object thrown to hurt), note: all 5 agree, uncontroversial
2. a weapon
   • that travels through the air [Merriam-Webster does not have such requirement]
   • that explodes at the target [Merriam-Webster does not have such requirement, MGM-166 LOSAT disagrees]
   • that can travel long distances [Oxford Learner's Dictionaries does not have such requirement]
   • Cambridge Dictionary mentions missile has its own engine
   • Cambridge Dictionary mentions missile and Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English can fly (probably just mean travel through the air)
   • Collins Online Dictionary mentions missile is tube-shaped
   • Merriam-Webster mentions missile is projected (probably just mean propelled at a stage)

Firstly, I need to correct myself that missiles do not refer to projectiles in general, they refer only to THROWN projectiles only, that is a subset of projectile, not necessarily synonymous, which seems reasonable and uncontroversial. Secondly, do note just how terribly is missile defined in dictionaries, they are really just referring to artillery shell, that is why I claim they lack the specialties.

Yes, none mention guidance, that is why I suggested using guidance for distinction, adding extra requirements on top of the requirements stated by the dictionaries. I am now persuaded not to do that due to the lack of definitive evidence and a few exceptions.

I like your suggestion, but what should 'missile (either in the article projectile or in its own article if we can clear up definitions)' write about? Throowa (talk) 07:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Modern definitions are all over the place yes. I've had an interest in the subject for a very long time due to the wack nature of its definition and to make a long story short, the best definition i have after many years is just bigger projectile/heavier munition fired at the enemy etc. A projectile intended to combat heavier/protected threats so to speak, thus often explosive, armor-"breaking" or just simply big. One book on medieval combat described arrows and small sling stones as projectiles with throwing spears and larger stones described as missiles. @Throowa "Merriam-Webster mentions missile is projected (whatever that means)"; projected is sort of a hyperonym and synonym to propelled, if that is what you are asking? Propelling/propulsion requires given force (sort of), were as projection doesn't (a shadow is projected for example). Anyway, due to the unclear definition of missile, as a starter, we should move this existing article to guided missile, since that is defined, recognized and clear; example by FMV: Unmanned self-propelled objects (projectiles) that are launched, thrown or dropped, intended to move in a trajectory wholly or partly above the surface of the earth, controlled by signals from outside or from built-in own organs. Due to existing linking, missile would initially have to redirect to guided missile until we can get a bot to replace the links with guided missile. Then on i assume missile would end up as a disambiguation page (replacing Missile (disambiguation)), listing examples such as guided missile, shoulder fired missile etc. Were to put the definition of just missile is up to debate. Since its definition is unclear it would as a starter mostly just be a etymological text either way, going over the different definitions and examples etc. We could put it as a segment in projectile or in guided missile, alternatively we can give it its own dictionary article. Blockhaj (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I adore your plan to move this page to guided missile, though I am not sure if we should rely solely on FMV's definition on guided missile. It would be great to add a few more sources to that. The rest of your plan seems very reasonable. Also, thanks for clearing up what 'projected' means, which seems to refer to artillery shell mistakenly, I suggest ignoring that 'projected' requirement. Throowa (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

FMV's definition is the only military one i have at hand and it was just an example. As for projected; it is more open ended than propelled and directly related to the word projectile (a projectile is projected :P). An a artillery shell can be called a missile, which is why some media use the word regularly when they don't know what munition was used. Merian Webster example: Waves of Russian missile attacks have continued to pound civilian areas across Ukraine as the war approaches its second anniversary, killing scores of Ukrainian civilians, often in their own homes. Blockhaj (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Understood. I suppose 'projected' in this case just mean 'propelled at a stage' then. Throowa (talk) 04:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

"A missile is basically a projectile with some sort of propulsion. While dictionaries offer standard definitions, there is no clear demarcation of rocket and a missile in usage." That was exactly what I was thinking. I bet the arms industry think more or less the same when it comes to naming their big metal projectile and see whatever slaps. In other words, there are literally no rules, which is actually what @Blockhaj suggests. I was indeed foolish to think there is somehow a consistent way to name such weapons. If such is the case, the About template of this page should not claim that this page is about guided missile, and that guided missile should warrant its own section in missile, if not an entire new page. If we are serious about this, we might need to consider having rocket artillery merge with missile. While this might seem absurd at first sight, if missile and rocket basically describe the same thing but with different impression, they should be the same in an encyclopedia. Also, I found it incredibly tempting to just call the exceptions to the missile(guided)/rocket(unguided) definitions misnomers. Of course, we are in no power to do so and it is highly controversial. Any thoughts, anyone? @Magentic Manifestations Throowa (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Rocket artillery is a specific use of "missiles" and should have its own article. It is distinct from regular barrel artillery due to the way systems are setup for barrage fire and the way the projectile travels, having propullsion for up to minutes and gaining maximum flight speed beyond the firing platform. Also, note that a missile doesn't need to be self propelled. A regular artillery shell, a javelin and a rock are all missiles if yeeted. Blockhaj (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Temporary summary

The word missile may refer to:

• a thrown projectile (projectile) (precisely defined by dictionaries)
• a big or heavy projectile (missile) (loosely defined)
• a guided missile (guided missile) (precisely defined by professionals)