Talk:Survivability

Quality and context

This is the worst written article on the subject matter I've ever seen. Things are so out of context it's hard to know where to begin. Most of the statements in the article have someone fundamentally wrong with them.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 16:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why not rewrite the bits you don't like and bring them up to a standard you approve of? This is Wikipedia, after all :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.51.246 (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operationally Oriented Vulnerability Requirements

I wish I could get a copy of this document. If anyone knows how, please contact me. Thanks.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 19:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naval Survivability

I think Naval Survivability should be subordinate to Military Survivability. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 14:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Network?

There are two sentences in this section, but they are 75% identical. Im wondring if Im missing something, or if one should be removed, or what? id do it on my own but i can't figure out if it'd be correct. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 13:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it's speaking to computer networks. It is rather ambiguous and should be completely rewritten. Have at it. You should create an account and become a full fledge wikipedian. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split military

it's a notable concept. fgnievinski (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]