Talk:Military doctrine

message: :The National Security Strategy of the United States of America is a document prepared periodically by the executive branch of the government of the United States which outlines the major
security concerns of the United States and how the administration plans to deal with them. The latest National Security Stategy was issued on September 27, 2002, see National Security Strategy of the United States .
The NSS is different from military doctrine.  The NSS influences military doctrine but the linkage isn't extremely close.
I think this article should focus more on the main aspects of the nations doctrine and how they are executed rather than just listing information on how and who created the doctrines.--Gw099 02:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed strategic doctrine document

message: There are several issues with this article, primarily because no sources are used, and because there is some confusion as to what a doctrine is.
A doctrine is a concept of how something is executed in specific terms.
However, because it is often applied in environments that are ambiguous and abstract in nature, as the level of abstractness increases, so does the specificity of terms decreases.
Military doctrine is explicitly connected with the national defence policy which considers:
* Defence of its population, including health threats
* Defence of its territory, including threats to environments and resources of economic value such as water and clean air
* Defence of society and social structure when the internal security judicial systems such as the police can't cope
* Defence of national wealth and economic freedom, including when trade networks external to the nation are threatened 
* Defence of national political process, and its external diplomatic relationships within the scope of foreign policy
* Lastly, direct military force threats for reasons other than those given above
Because of these complex and multidimensional issues, the scope of Military doctrine covers several degrees of abstraction
* Strategic doctrine - high degree of of ambiguity about decision-making processes and intentions with a great degree of abstraction in what military forces can, should and will do as a response; it is marked by usually unreliable warning estimates that seek to provide months of warning to hundreds of thousands of personnel 
* Operational doctrine - intermediate degree of ambiguity about actual actions as threats, where abstraction is largely about decisions about known capabilities of military forces, relatively well understood options on what should be done, and at least one concrete scenario on what will be done; warning is given preferably in weeks, and actions are executed by tens of thousands
* Tactical doctrine - low level of ambiguity about almost any aspect of using military forces, with a great degree of clarity on the what will be done, generally with only few options available; warning is given in days and executed by thousands of personnel of which 50% will be combat arms
* Special operations doctrine - represents situations when there is no ambiguity about the situation, and use of military force is explicitly understood and unavoidable; warning is provided in hours and executed usually by hundreds of personnel of which only 10% will engage in combat. This is not a modern concept, and is documented in the ancient world though used of assassins, or heroic legends of valiant princes that would rescue princesses from the clutches of evil magicians, now replaced with hostages held for political reasons
There are therefore at least four military doctrines, and the foreign policy is usually a diplomatic doctrine that includes the specified threshold at which diplomacy stops and war starts.
I would propose that rather than dividing the article into national sections, that it be divided into the doctrinal sections, and within each the different national approaches are discussed and contrasted--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Military doctrine - structure

message: I've trimmed the China section. This isn't Diehard 4 where uber-hackers can hack secure military communications with a modem. I also have my doubts that economic attacks are part of China's military doctine, rather that a theoretical tactic. Hell I'm not even sure it even IS a military doctrine. --Armanalp (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  China 

message: Some contributions don't seem to have grasped the notion of doctrine.  The text on India is about a defence strategy, that about China is mainly irrelevant waffle, and Yugoslavia deals mainly with a particular concept not overall doctrine. Nfe (talk) 04:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Not Doctrine

message: This was in the lead but is unreferenced and sounds like either personal opinion or OR so I moved it to talk. RJFJR (talk) 01:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreferenced opinion

message: There are a number of sections titled military doctrines of county XYZ.  These are all at level 2, should all the headings be increased one level and a single level two heading be put over all of these? RJFJR (talk) 01:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Layout

message: It is getting on for a quarter of a century since the Soviet Union existed. I suggest that the current section is move from "Military doctrine by country" is into "Development of doctrine" under the heading "Soviet Union" and the section 2010 Military Doctrine from the article Military doctrine of Russia is copied into the section called  "Military doctrine by country" under the subsection heading of Russia. 
Also the section SFR Yugoslavia either need moving or removing for the same reason. -- PBS (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia