Talk:Military science

message: I applaud your judicious use of both the comma and the term 'military' in the introduction.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.117.209.85 (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This is the first crack at this topic.  My question, is this page a good place for this discussion?  The reason I am placing it here, is because I am seeking to cover tactics, op art, and strategy together as a whole.  This is military theory, and is just a part of the overall science.  Should the topic be split off into other pages, or is that going to risk splintering the entire area into shards so small, it will be next to impossible to get the entire picture?  Thoughts?
Another question.  Should the info here also be cross posted into the specific sections (and vice versa) on strategy, op art, and tactics?  Or is this needlessly cluttering the 'pedia.....
Dobbs 15:39 Sep 17, 2002 (UTC)
I'd go with putting most of the stuff in the individual tactics/opart/strategy
sections. Things that are common to all three areas, or that describe how
the three fit together, should go in here IMO. And I'd certainly not be
in favour of redundant "cross posting" - not only is it clutter, but the
fragments are likely to get out of step - Khendon 12:24 Sep 24, 2002 (UTC)
:A template could be created that links all of the relevant articles/sections, should this main article be split into several. --Impaciente 04:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military science & Operational Art 

message: I don't see any discussion of merging yet, so I'll start. Merging this article with Principles of War would be a bad move. However, there is currently too much information on the Principles of War here which should be moved to that article. The first few sections (organization, education and training, history, geography, and technology and equipment) are good, single paragraph, concise summaries, and link to the more detailed, longer articles. But the strategy and doctrine section is far too voluminous for this article. Instead of merging, move the detailed information to the appropriate article, and write a brief paragraph that summarizes it here. Nathanm mn 16:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging with Principles of War 

message: This section is outright dreadful.   Two major systems?
How about the "Scandinavian" system, where highly trained conscripts are combined with a high ratio of officers?   (it is in fact vaugely based on the German "jaeger"(ranger) troops tradition, but extended to encompass the whole military)
What about all the third world militaries that draw their main doctrines from elsewhere than "Russian" doctrine?   (some are very firepower based, like French and american doctrine for example, others operate more like German recon troops from WWII)
Is Iranian and Hezbollah doctrine "western" or "Russian"?   Quite obviously neither i would say.   (they are more like Scandinavian but not quite to be called the same category)
Brazilian or Indian doctrines likewise are also quite departed from either of those categories even if simplified extremely.
Russian vs Western is just an outright wrong way of dividing it up, it was never even truly right during the cold war.
"the russian system borrows from these systems as well"?   The Soviet military theories was part of the creation of them both before the different doctrines split up and later, as for example USA has after WWII in a few cases adopted almost unchanged parts of Soviet doctrine.   More than the opposite, although thats likely because USSR was less able to make direct use of such due to technical or political reasons.
Modern Russian doctrine is different by far from Soviet doctrine however, therefore bundling together the both is simply terrible.   And equating USSR with Russia is simply just very offensive for no good reason.
"Western military doctrine relies heavily..." this part seems more like bragging than any serious differentiating description.
81.224.32.80 (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military strategy and doctrine 

message: I think the article should have a section on military sociology. Any objections? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  16:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Military sociology

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.army-technology.com/
*:Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 09:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect Military preparedness should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 24#Military preparedness until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.  Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Military preparedness" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: A new section, titled Military and Society, has been recently added to this article.  I don't think it fits here.
The subject, "Military and Society", is capitalized like a proper noun.  Not only is it not a proper noun, AFAIK, it's not even a coherent term -- something identified and discussed by name in multiple sources.  Further, even if it was, how is it a sub-category of military science?  Maybe some form of how some military might interact with its society (or some other society?) could be studied or discussed, but that doesn't automatically make it fall under military science.  Maybe something like this could go in some other article, like Civil–military relations or some such, but I see no reason to include it in this article.
Unless multiple sources identifying this as an agreed and coherent subject under military science are presented, I'm for deleting this whole section, including its new subsection titled "Recruitment and Retention".
Pinging recent editors , , , , .  Comments?  --A D Monroe III(talk)  00:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military and Society? 

message: What is/are proper Post-nominal letters for someone with a 
"doctorate of military science" or "doctorate in military science"? D.Sc.Mil., D.MSc, or both?  John McCain has D.MSc, but the sources don't match.   This page doesn't say.   Anyone know? RudolfoMD (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post nominals for military science doctorate 

message: The redirect العلوم العسكرية 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  until a consensus is reached.  Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:العلوم العسكرية]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect Funds for defense industries 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  until a consensus is reached.  Steel1943 (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Funds for defense industries]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Nothing on troop rotation, which complements troop replacement. "Multiple R" programmes (rotate, refresh, recover, etc.) go hand in hand with repair and training, are essential and keep the army running. Totally left out so far. Arminden (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rotation" not even mentioned