Talk:Conventional warfare

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 articles

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

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

untitled

Is Conventional Warfare lack of something?

Where do the following examples of warfare against a civilian population fit in the pre-nuclear age? As conventional warfare or unconventional warfare

converserly, where do popular uprising's and the phenomenae of a people in arms fit when civilian populations rise up against a conventional force? Examples:

--nobs

Value of ON content and quality of reference

The content added from the ON reference remains in this article, but the reference has been removed. This action is disputed and a conversation is ongoing here. Uriah923 06:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged linkspam

Discussion is ongoing at User:Uriah923/ON#Recent ON controversy.

HarryPotter's edits

Harry, the changes you made might fit elsewhere, but I don't think they fit in the definition of conventional warfare. Let's discuss what you want to add and then decide where it can be best worked in. uriah923^(talk) 20:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I want to add:

Conventional warfare is a form of warfare conducted by using conventional military weapons and battlefield tactics between two or more states in open confrontation. The forces on each side are well-defined, and fight using weapons that primarily target the opposing army. It is warfare considered as being fought through means other than with psychological warfare or weapons of mass destruction, namely chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.

The general purpose of conventional warfare is to destroy the opponent's will to fight thus forcing them to negotiate. However, secttions of the opposing army may refuse to accept suurender and resort to unconventional warfare in order to achieve their goals.

Please say why you find this problematic.Harrypotter 00:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on the subject, but your definition seems to concentrate on psychological warfare too much; it's too specialized. Two questions for you and others:

Why would psychological warfare be included as a part of conventional warfare? Documentation?
If it should be included, what would you think about making a subtitle and addressing the psychological warfare topics there?

uriah923^(talk) 04:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments make no sense as there never was any suggestion that psychological warfare was part of conventional warfare, rather that it was necessary to say that CV was other than Psycho war. I have no revert to my previous edit as the comments here are misguided. Harrypotter 22:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you fixed the parts with which I had problems. I'm cool with the changes. uriah923^(talk) 05:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harry. I reverted your changes, simply because they worsened the introduction. It seems as if you are trying to make the intro more inclusive of other points of view, by using phrases such as "The forces on each side are seen as being well-defined," instead of "The forces on each side are well-defined." While I appreciate a desire to seem NPOV, I think this is too vague for an intro. Check out this diff to see what the differences are, and I think you will agree that the old version is better. If you do want to make any major changes (especially to the intro), I agree with Uriah that you should suggest them on the talk page. TheJabberwock 01:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something I think this article needs

I think this article needs a list of conventional wars, especially those taking place post WW2. Well known ones like the Iran-Iraq war, the Israeli-Arab wars, Korean war, India-Pakistani wars, Vietnam war, as well as the lesser known ones (like those in Africa) like the Ethiopia-Eritrea war. I would do it but I don't have the time, so I thought I would at least suggest it. --Skyler Streng 22:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Conventional warfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]