Talk:Arms race: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 15:53, 2 April 2024

Military history: Technology / Weaponry

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Cold War Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

International relations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

This passage needs citation or removal];#################There is an interesting economic idea here, but since the model was made after the war, it did not have the prophetic power it might have had.

Not really an NPOV violation, but that's independent reasearch or something in between.

Could we merge this article with another article about arms races or expand it? it seems rather redundant and not really all that informative or well written. In my opinion it would be easier to merge it with another article. Thoughts? MattW93 (talk) 12:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Soviet Union might have did achieve a "first strike" capability with the deployment of the SS-4. Even the most wack hawks now, such as the "Committee on the Present Danger", claimed that the large throw weight of the SS-18 made America's land based ICBM's vulnerable to attack the so called "window of vulnerability". However, this does not equate to "first strike" capability because the US has a strategic nuclear triad including Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles. Even the more limited "window of vulnerability" is conceded by most analysts to have been a fraud. Indeed, this was the conclusion that was essentially reached by Reagan's own Scowcroft Commission.

List Examples

Like US/Russian, Greek/Turkish, etc. of current arms races. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikoz78 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty more . . . Argentina/Chile in the 1960s, for example Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 17:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apple and Microsoft example

Worst. Example. Ever. Microsoft had to pay to keep Apple in business. That would be like the US sending missiles to the USSR in 1981. How 'bout Chevy and Ford?

Actually, now that I dig into the history of this, it looks like this line may have been someone's subtle attempt to name either Apple or Microsoft the 'host' and the other the 'parasite,' given the context. I'm just going to delete it, as it just doesn't make enough sense to add anything to the article.

Racing with your arms

There isn't a need to hatnote-disambiguate this to Wheelchair racing, is there? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 13:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. Anyone looking for that would almost certainly use "wheelchair" in any of their searching. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|vital=yes|1=
---[[User:70.88.222.93|70.88.222.93]] 12:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)I removed: the giant turd.  its all a lie the government is brain washing you .
+{{WikiProject Military history
+|class=Start
+|B-Class-1=no
+<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
+|B-Class-2=no
+<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
+|B-Class-3=yes
+<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
+|B-Class-4=yes
+<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
+|B-Class-5=no
+|Weaponry-task-force=yes
+}}
+{{WikiProject Cold War|importance=Low}}
+{{WikiProject Technology}}
+{{WikiProject International relations|importance=Low}}
+{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Low}}
+}}
+==Untitled==
-<math><
-Dont be Outrageous</math>
+This passage needs citation or removal];#################There is an interesting economic idea here, but since the model was made after the war, it did not have the prophetic power it might have had.</s>
-This passage needs citation or removal.
+Not really an NPOV violation, but that's independent reasearch or something in between.
-The Soviet Union devoted their command economy to the arms race and with the deployment of the SS-18 in the late 1970s achieved first strike superiority.
+Could we merge this article with another article about arms races or expand it? it seems rather redundant and not really all that informative or well written. In my opinion it would be easier to merge it with another article. Thoughts? [[User:MattW93|MattW93]] ([[User talk:MattW93|talk]]) 12:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
-As a history student i was suprised to learn that the USSR acquired a 'first strike superiority'. This section is not only historically inaccurate - if the USSR had the abaility to strike the USA without the US being able to counter-attack then why didn't it use it, but it also doesn't ake gramatical sense. The correct term would be 'first strike capability' if this had even been the case.
+----
+The Soviet Union might have did  achieve a "first strike" capability with the deployment of the SS-4. Even the most wack hawks now, such as the "Committee on the Present Danger", claimed that the large throw weight of the SS-18 made America's land based ICBM's vulnerable to attack the so called "window of vulnerability". However, this does not equate to "first strike" capability because the US has a strategic nuclear triad including Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles. Even the more limited "window of vulnerability" is conceded by most analysts to have been a fraud. Indeed, this was the conclusion that was essentially reached by Reagan's own Scowcroft Commission.
+==List Examples==
+Like US/Russian, Greek/Turkish, etc. of current arms races.  <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Nikoz78|Nikoz78]] ([[User talk:Nikoz78|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Nikoz78|contribs]]) 14:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+:Plenty more . . .  Argentina/Chile in the 1960s, for example [[User:Vernon39|<span style="color:green;">Vernon White</span>]] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">[[User talk:Vernon39|. . . Talk ]]</span></small></sup></b> 17:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
+== Apple and Microsoft example ==
+Worst. Example. Ever. Microsoft had to pay to keep Apple in business. That would be like the US sending missiles to the USSR in 1981. How 'bout Chevy and Ford?
+Actually, now that I dig into the history of this, it looks like this line may have been someone's subtle attempt to name either Apple or Microsoft the 'host' and the other the 'parasite,' given the context. I'm just going to delete it, as it just doesn't make enough sense to add anything to the article.
+== Racing with your arms ==
+There isn't a need to hatnote-disambiguate this to [[Wheelchair racing]], is there? --[[User:Damian Yerrick|Damian Yerrick]] ([[User talk:Damian Yerrick|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Damian Yerrick|stalk]]) 13:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
+:I doubt it. Anyone looking for that would almost certainly use "wheelchair" in any of their searching. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[majestic titan]]]</sup> 21:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)