Talk:National security

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

48px} This article is part of WikiProject Human rights, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the Project page, where you can join the Project and contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale.


Contents

[edit] i don't think national defense and national security should be merged.

This is a preliminary post while i gather my thoughts and sources.

I don't belive the two should be mereged... the first thing that comes to mind is that national security is not limited to within a nations boders, while defense typically is; and second that security implies keeping something "out", while defense has no such connotations.

(This comment posted on 3 December 2005 by User:Mitayai (203.198.237.30))

[edit] Recent reversions

Regarding the recent arbitrary reversion, talk through your issues here. 203.198.237.30 03:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] National security at Wikipedia

Decent enough article to start off with. I'm going to rework the opening hook a little bit but keep the essence of it intact. --Rev Prez 07:18, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted " since many of the sources of global insecurity today (such as terrorism and global warming) are immune to unilateral state military responses." from the section of Human Security, and have moved it to the previous section " Criticism of national security" , to go with other criticisms. Sannieauyeung (talk) 03:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)SannieauyeungSannieauyeung (talk) 03:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "preservation of national culture..."

Nzzl, what does the last dot point mean(Really): "preserve a national culture unfamiliar with true dissent or antinationalism, especially in the most mainstream entertainment spaces"? Can you please edit for clarity? 203.198.237.30 08:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

hey bro. where you been? the non-complete sentence pattern in the other bullets is not easy to work with. hmm. perhaps you disagree that the "national culture" (a rough idea I'll admit) is indeed unfamiliar w/ true dissent or anti-nationalism? and the last part is worded a little retarded unless you'r already thinking like I do. - mainstream entertainment is one of the best places (if you were a pro-gov info-warrior) to preserve "pro-gov" thought- aka "patriotism" more/less. Where does public support for wars come from? I'll be back like tomorrow. we'll work something out. something like that 02:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
PS- can you getta name? I don't insist on a userpage w/ any content but name would be nice. I'm sure you'd prefer to blend into the sea of numbers. not that you do when one looks at the content of your edits. time to become neo, mr. anderson. step up.

[edit] hawks, doves, ultrahawks (etc)

Hi Nzzl, I think that the use of terms like "hawks" (etc) and "non-terrorist folk" are not appropriate here...but any haggling over such terminology has been overtaken by a reworking of certain paragraphs in light of your edits. 203.198.237.30 03:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

sounds good. ultrahawks should so be it's own article. check out G. William Domhoff's Who Rules America?. he talks about how the the upper social circles in government are mostly dominated by conservatives and ultraconservatives. I gott read that jaun again tho it is becoming dated. something like that 07:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
IGNORED on the name thing. to resist is to piss in the wind...something like that

[edit] curbing pollution

I removed this from the top, although it may in fact be true...

   * curbing pollution to ensure edible food and clean water supply 
         and to decrease the potential for abrupt climate change

It seems to be a stretch of the meaning of the word "national security" as originally applied... I won't object if someone throws it back in, but it seems to require an example to justify its inclusion.. more so than the other examples at the top.. LordBrain 17:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concept of Threat and National Security

This section is in urgent need of a total rewrite. The original editor clearly does not have English as his/her native language, the material is not of sufficient generality for the subject matter, and it is filled with unreferenced claims and the author's own points of view. I didn't delete the section because it makes good sense to have a "Concept" section here. I may be able to rewrite this someday, but it needs help today. — Aetheling 18:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've had a go at this article but it's only a start for someone else to play with. - Adrian Pingstone 21:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Just edited the section and changed the name of the heading and added content from other subsection. Citations are needed to back the claims made. Brz7 19:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does not cite

This page does not cite its sources. However, I can't tell where in the page to place the tag. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.255.122.196 (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] "National Security and Rights & Freedoms"

I put the {{Inappropriate tone}} tag on this section because it reads like a lecture from an advocate or advocacy organization. Specifically, the questions posed to the reader about this are suggesting a POV and are unencyclopedic, despite the fact that I agree with them in principle.