Talk:Intermediate-range ballistic missile: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:02, 11 September 2013

Military history: Technology / Weaponry Start‑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

Start

This article has been rated as Start-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 not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Current Users

The article lists a whole host of current operators of IRBMs that dont match the criteria listed in the start of the article. How on earth do either the US or the UK qualify as current operators of IRBMs? America's only current ballistic missiles (I'm excluding the various MLRS missiles here, since they're extremely short range and non-strategic) are trident 2 and the minuteman 3, both of which are clearly of intercontinental range. The only thing they have that could be accused of being an IRBM or even MRBM is a target missile that doesnt have a warhead. Britain only operates the trident 2. Come to that, Russia doesnt operate any missiles in that range either afaik, they were forbidden from doing so under the terms of the intermediate range forces treaty, and I dont believe they've actually deployed an IRBM despite recent threats to leave the IRF treaty.

Does anyone have a definitive list of those countries that actually still operate IRBMs? The same complaint applies to the SRBM and MRBM articles. Quadbox (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antiship missiles

Whether the British and Irish like it or not, these are the correct spellings: antiship missile and antiship ballistic missile.
The prefix "anti" does not require a hyphen. See these phrases and words: antiradiation missile, antitank weapon, antisubmarine warfare, antipersonnel bomb (a fragmentation bomb), antiaircraft gun, antimissile missile, the antinuclear movement, anticommunist, antifascist, antiballistic missile, antisemitic, antivenom, antibacterial, antivirus, antimatter, antiproton, antineutron, antineutrino, antielectron, antiscientific.
The exceptions are anti-American, anti-British, anti-Irish, anti-French, anti-Castro, anti-Catholic, anti-Protestant, etc.98.67.174.134 (talk) 04:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 Does anyone have a definitive list of those countries that actually still operate IRBMs?  The same complaint applies to the SRBM and MRBM articles.
 [[User:Quadbox|Quadbox]] ([[User talk:Quadbox|talk]]) 16:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
+== Antiship missiles ==
+Whether the British and Irish like it or not, these are the correct spellings:
+'''antiship missile''' and '''antiship ballistic missile'''.<br>
+The prefix "anti" does not require a hyphen. See these phrases and words:
+antiradiation missile, antitank weapon, antisubmarine warfare, antipersonnel bomb (a fragmentation bomb), antiaircraft gun, antimissile missile, the antinuclear movement, anticommunist, antifascist, antiballistic missile, antisemitic, antivenom, antibacterial, antivirus, antimatter, antiproton, antineutron, antineutrino, antielectron, antiscientific. <br>
+The exceptions are anti-American, anti-British, anti-Irish, anti-French, anti-Castro, anti-Catholic, anti-Protestant, etc.[[Special:Contributions/98.67.174.134|98.67.174.134]] ([[User talk:98.67.174.134|talk]]) 04:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)