Jump to content

Talk:AirSea Battle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Schwartz will be with us always

[edit]

http://breakingdefense.com/2013/07/16/air-sea-battle-is-more-about-bin-laden-than-beijing-former-csaf-schwartz/

I think The Schwartz is still notable enough to mention. Hcobb (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://breakingdefense.com/2013/06/03/dod-document-sheds-first-new-light-on-airsea-battle-warfare-unfettered/

And a media view of the paper. Hcobb (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC) DoD Sheds First Clear Light On AirSea Battle: Warfare Unfettered[reply]

amitai etzioni? anyone willing to give an opinion on whether this guy is sufficiently recognized an expert on military affairs so as to include his evaluation of ASB in this and other articles? my sense is that this is somewhat outside his competencies. however, he is evaluating it from more of a social/peacenik perspective, not conducting a detailed military analysis, so maybe it is fine. what do others think?Happy monsoon day 18:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Background" and "history" sections are kinda the same thing, no?

[edit]

These two sections are kind of amorphous and overlapping. I don't know what the obvious answer is right now, but something to keep in mind when the article fills out. --Jprg1966 (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "Doctorine" section

[edit]

Uhm, wouldn't a section that actually describes what the doctorine is be useful, rather just discussing its history, who is coordinating it, and a bit of criticism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.6.191 (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

These links have been tagged so are being reviewed per Wikipedia:External_links#Maintenance_and_review. They do not appear to meet the requirements at WP:EL, failing WP:ELNO#1 at least. However, they may be of use to editors wishing to work on the article so they have been moved here. If, after examination, a link is found not to be useful it can be removed from this list. If, however, the link does prove useful, the first approach is to see if appropriate information can be summarised in the article, using the link as a reliable source if it meets the WP:RELIABLE criteria. Be aware that, per WP:ELBURDEN, none of these links should be returned to the article without first gaining consensus that it meets the requirements at WP:EL or Wikipedia:Further reading. SilkTork (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]