Talk:Revolution in Military Affairs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

[edit] History of RMA

I'd like to fill in more on the history of the RMA. Everything I've read indicates its evolved from the Soviet idea of a "military technical revolution". Does naybody have any more info on this concept?--Herda05 21:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The current link attemtpung to substantiate the claim that The original theorizing was done by the Soviet military in the 1970s and 1980s, particularly by Marshall Ogarkov does not support the claim well:

The notion of military revolutions grew from Soviet writing of the 1970s and 1980s, particularly a series of papers by Marshal N.V. Ogarkov analyzing the revolutionary potential of new military technologies. [...] But analysts quickly found an exclusively technological focus too limiting and the MTR evolved into the more holistic concept of revolutions in military affairs.

The history section as it stands is thus misleading. --85.164.182.247 20:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

A suggestion for those working on this article: currently, the introduction explains what RIMA is "tied to" and "associated with." I think it would be helpful to state exacly what RIMA is. --Alex S 06:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That's an understatement.

"The military concept of Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) is a theory about the future of warfare,.." OK. It's a theory. What does it say? What part of the world does it theorize about? Where does it get it's data and opinions for theorizing with? What are the competing theories? Who takes these theories seriously and bases decisions on them? What effect do these decisions have on the rest of the world (not just humans)? It seems to be part of MOST military theories that the environment is, in general, worthless, and any amount of environmental destruction whatsoever is a non-issue, or worse, that environmental destruction can be localized in a way so as to use it as a weapon against the enemy. This assumption, too, needs to be articulated as part of the military theory, as there are other theories about the functioning of the planet that may contradict it.

As far as one can tell from actually reading the article, RMA is the situation where your resources outweigh your enemy's resources by factors of hundreds or thousands, both in technological advancement and sheer quantity. If the USA's "stunning, one-sided victory" were against a country with approximately equal military and intellectual resources, this would merit paying serious attention to the theory, even if it is secret.

And the author talks of the "emerging international order" as though they were a member of the religion, rather than an observer writing an encyclopedia article. They consistently write as though there were perfect correspondence between the wishes of a small number of military theorists and the welfare of nations and more.

I think the article needs a ground-up rewrite from someone who can place military theory in a meaningful context. And if part of the military theory is that military might and economic forces are to be the major forces shaping society, they need to state that these beliefs are PART OF THE THEORY, not part of the context of the theory.24.17.180.126 (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Economic aspects?

I wonder if there are sources regarding the economic impact of RMA doctrines. Seems to me that a de-emphasis on "boots on the ground" means less expenditure on the human needs of soldiers and veterans (housing, food, rehabilitation, widows' benefits, etc. etc.), which don't bring hefty returns to corporate shareholders, and more expenditure on high-priced weapon systems, which do - whether or not they actually work in the field. So in one sense, is RMA/Rumsfeld Doctrine warfare nothing more that "lower-overhead/higher-profit" warfare?