Talk:Revolt of the Admirals

message: A great start! I've read Isenberg's account, but it's back at the library so I can't get page numbers right now. I would like to have a fuller body count, because eventually we'll have bios to connect to/from. The last paragraph is OK neutralitywise, but it would be nice to have a general account of strategy to link to - I immediately thought of Kosovo, and the cruise missile vs bomber issue is an article all by itself. Another thing to explain is that it's not entirely obvious why any admiral would get the boot - the mouths-shut tradition of senior military wrt politics is not universal, witness Israel for instance. I wonder if there's a picture from hearings or something that would illustrate usefully. Stan 14:11, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the language from the SECDEF's bio, which seemed as neutral a place as possible. The prior language seemed very anti-Navy, and had come staight from the AF association article. I'm willing to listen to other ideas. And will keep looking for the Committee's actual report. Jinian 20:06, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The article says that the episode led to the dismissal of Admiral Denfield, and later that Congress protested the dismissal of Admiral Denfield, but nowhere directly describes the exact events and circumstances surrounding the actual dismissal.  While the reader can presume that he was dismissed becasue he continued to lobby for the construction of the United States or a similar supercarrier after the SecDef cancelled the project, details here would be greatly appreciated.  Rlquall 14:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I just read several AFA articles. Wow, they don't hold anything back. Very biased and anti-Navy. Not just about the Revolt, but the Navy in general. Not a good source. Jigen III 15:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Old comments

message: The fourth (currently last) paragraph in the Background section starts off with a comparison of carriers vs strategic bombers opinions, but concludes with an objective description of their capabilities. The sentence starting with "Though" is not even a proper sentence.
This is as much a note to myself as a suggestion to others. I'll do it when I get some time if no one beats me to it.
JC, son of a swabbie  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jchyde (talk • contribs) 09:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Rewrite of Background:Paragraph 4 

message: Has anyone ever seen Admiral Gallery's "Don't let them scuttle the Navy!" article from the SEP? It's become kind of legendary in the naval history community, but SEP doesn't make it available, and I can't see to find a transcript of it on the web anywhere. It would not only be an interesting read, but some direct quotes would be nice for this article. DesScorp (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saturday Evening Post article 

message: The Revolt of the Admirals Page is rather markedly "pro-Navy" in its bias.  I attempted to neutralize this in the summer of 2008 by reworking some of the content of the articles cited as references.  Whoa, there!  It turns out that this article is under the special aegis of one of Wikipedia's senior editors.  I was threatened with everything short of the Spanish Inquisition if I did not quit attempting to emend it.  So, I quit.  But, the article is still quite flawed and still needs corrected to recognize that the matter was not just a denigration of the US Navy.  I doubt that this posting will do any good, but it is a necessary attempt to provide some balance to a rather unbalanced article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc James Small  (talk • contribs) 
Tried to clean this up a bit while supporting the point already present. Especially the need to fight conventional wars with naval assets... To be clear startegic bombing was used in Korea and massively. But it wasn't "Nuclear" strategic bombing so I tried to defferentiate what was two points and, I think, was a flaw in wording relative to what is strtegic from what is nuclear strategic. :)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.120.110 (talk) 08:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As it stands right now, the article's point of view seems to have shifted anti-Navy.  One example of this is that factoid "All efforts to develop a viable carrier based, heavy nuclear bomber during the 1950s from the: P-2 Neptune, AJ Savage to the P6M SeaMaster resulted in failures and cancellations."  I don't know what source was cited in support of that, but the AJ Savage wasn't cancelled, and was part of the national nuclear deterrent for years. The P-2 Neptune, while not famous as a nuclear bomber, did serve for a long time in the Navy and was never cancelled.  We need to review the article exhaustively for errors like this and make it truly NPOV. loupgarous (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the problematic sentence and replaced it with reference to the two carrier-based nuclear bombers actually deployed in that role, the AJ Savage and A-3 Skywarrior, both developed at the same time and despite the cancellation of the original USS United States-class supercarrier. I also mentioned that carrier-based attack aircraft such as "Spads" (A-1 Skyraiders) were also considered nuclear-capable as nuclear weapons were miniaturized. loupgarous (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I also added the list of carrier-based attack aircraft and fighter-bombers which could deliver nuclear weapons - many of the later ones could drop late-generation thermonuclear weapons, long after Polaris meant the end of dedicated heavy strategic carrier-based bombers. More powerful attack and fighter-bombers, together with lighter thermonuclear weapons meant the US Navy had a carrier-based nuclear strike force well into the 1990s. While the US Navy as a matter of policy (nuclear surety, mainly) took nuclear weapons off the carriers back then, the Navy still has access to nuclear weapons, and aircraft capable of delivering them. The F/A-18 and AV-8B are both capable of delivering B61s, thermonuclear gravity bombs with an adjustable yield from 0.3 to 340 kilotons. loupgarous (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Pro-Navy

message: I am a senior(age/retired) research author who is an expert on the revolt with family connections on all sides who lived thru this. I have made significant informative and detail changes to better communicate what actually happened from all viewpoints while removing completely false and irrelevant points. To reduce confusion and false conclusions, I have endeavored to enable a flawless chronological order to the events at hand. The timing of the events, literally drove, cause and effect results.  This budget drawdown was a difficult time for the nation and all the services, but it was an especially terrible time for the US Navy. 
The "exuberant" ones (Air Force) were doing what they thought was right militarily to best defend the country. The "ardent" ones (Army) were following orders from the administration and that those orders were right fiscally and economically. The "reluctant" ones (Navy) were afraid of losing the machines/ships they grew to love, that the country would need them again, and many (Navy family lineage) were also afraid to lose their jobs/careers (the Air Force did not communicate in 1949, the cost effective intent to make use of experienced Naval and Marine Aviators to fly the new nuclear bombers sometime in the future). With hindsight today, we can see that all parties had valid points to make.
Some have inferred this revolt as driven by technological developments inside the soviet union at the beginning of the cold war. There is some truth to this... I will add in a few lines regarding the Tu-4 bomber reveals and the first soviet nuclear tests. The timing of these events did have an impact on both political and public opinion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:191:200:DD30:5929:B99E:AA2A:8A0C (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure these additions are all in good faith, however many of the additions add detail that is not necessary to the article and they tend obstruct the narrative. Many are also uncitated. We may need to trim some of this back. Gunbirddriver (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significant Updates 20 Nov-Dec 30 2016 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Revolt of the Admirals. 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/20070809213846/http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/korea/large/week2/kw_78_1.jpg to http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/korea/large/week2/kw_78_1.jpg
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: and others: 
There are quite a number of "broken English" instances in this article. It could well benefit from a cleanup if I could find these in a quick read through:
* "none of the three services had the resources implement the war plan"
* is 'adjointed' supposed to be 'adjourned' ?
* "that could a bomb that wide"
* "and articles for public released had to be cleared"
* "through official channels to Matthews's office"
* "Matthews and Johnson to block the promotion of Burke by crossing out his name on the promotion list,"
Shenme (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Did you know nomination