Talk:Air Force Global Strike Command

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject United States / Louisiana / Military history (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Louisiana (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.
 

Article name[edit]

This article is about the complete planned, proposed, and operational Global Strike Command, not just its current provisional status. All of the given sources routinely use the form "Global Strike Command" in multiple places, even when referring to the provisional status. Please leave the article title, title line, and infobox title as "Global Strike Command". Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 13:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Speculation[edit]

There's a lot of speculation on this page. Shouldn't we wait until it's official before making statements about possible shields or 'most likely' command headquarters? If there's a source for it ok, but without a source speculative information should be removed. Ndunruh (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

isses addressed Ndunruh (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Reinventing the Wheel or Musical Chairs?[edit]

There probably needs to be a section in the article discussing the seeming reinvention of the wheel situation or musical chairs (moving air assets) in forming a "Global Strike Command" out of the nuclear capable resources of the Air Combat Command (ACC). Basically, it appears to be a reactivation of the Strategic Air Command (SAC) which was deactivated c. 1993. The only difference that is apparent is that a residual conventional bomber force (B-52's, etc.) which is not nuclear capable would likely remain with ACC. Also, the air refueling assets of the former SAC would seemingly remain with Air Mobility Command (AMC).

That also brings to mind that the newly residual ACC would then become a reinvention of the former Tactical Air Command (TAC) minus the transportation and cargo aircraft which now reside with AMC.

Please discuss my submissions relating to the logic of the mission and command moves.--TGC55 (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's probably not so much a "reinvention of the wheel" as simply returning to what works. You'd need reliable sources, such as quotes form well-known opponents of the plan, that actually state or claim that this is a reinvention of the wheel" or "musical chairs" in order to add such a section. Otherwise this would be considered Original research, and as such would not be allowed in the article. - BillCJ (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
"Reinvention of the wheel" and "musical chairs" were just my shorthand way of describing some of the elements of the resource moves. I wasn't proposing to add original research, but was looking for possible information which may/may not support such a view.--TGC55 (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I understand your argument, but it's important to remember that SAC wasn't strictly a nuclear force; it was a 'strategic' force. Yes it had the nuclear mission, but it also conducted all Air Force strategic missions (such as Operation Rolling Thunder). TAC had the tactical mission (close air support, air superiority, tactical airlift, etc). As the capabilities of the Air Force's aircraft have blurred or even eliminated the lines between tactical and strategic employment the moniker SAC and TAC don't really apply to today's Air Force. It's also important to remember that SAC was a both an Air Force MAJCOM and a Combatant command, meaning that when the nation went to war SAC assets flew under SAC's command, not one of the other combatant commands. In my interpretation GCS's mission is far more narrow than SAC's was. It exists strictly to serve the nuclear mission. Yes the B-52s and B-2s of GCS will continue to perform both tactical and strategic missions they will not do so under the command of one of the Air Force's components to the combatant commands (i.e. AFCENT, AFSOUTH, etc.). So, the bottom line is that there are far more differences than similarities between SAC and GSC, in my opinion anyway. I will add that I do appreciate you discussing it here before you added something to the main page. Ndunruh (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Excellent points and well thought out with supporting references and yes, I understand all of what you said, and knew the historical SAC/TAC stuff. I guess that we will have to let the command and missions changes play out. From my viewpoint there seems to be more similarities than differences, but it isn't worth going into at this point without independent supporting references. As both you and user BillCJ indicate.--TGC55 (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Two commands?[edit]

The second reference specifically states that the provisional command is a separate entity that will cease to exist upon the activation of the new command (which I might add does not exist yet wp:crystal). I quote:

Air Force Global Strike Command (Provisional) is a temporary unit that will not have any manpower authorizations and will be inactivated upon the standup of the permanent command. Headquarters Air Force and major command staffs provided temporary personnel to fill a core headquarters element of 55 members who are subject matter experts capable of developing the functional requirements for Air Force Global Strike Command.

For the sake of clarity, I would like to ask one of the major editors here to differentiate between the two. It seems as if there has already been a minor dispute about this content. 71.126.48.98 (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added a statement to clarify the specific role of the provisional command. The cited news article does state that the provisional command deactivates when the MAJCOM activates. While that is technically accurate, on a practical level it doesn't have any really impact. The core members of the provisional command will remain on with the MAJCOM operating under that same name. I didn't add any statements about that on the main page as it will likely only serve to confuse laymen. Ndunruh (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was NO CONSENSUS to move page at this time, per discussion below. There seems to be some agreement to wait a little while until the name becomes clearer from reliable sources. Therefore, I'm closing this discussion and removing the request from the backlog at WP:RM. If a move is indicated later by sources, please let us know if you need admin assistance with it. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


  • Global Strike CommandAir Force Global Strike Command — Full name, currently a redirect. --Pmsyyz (talk) 08:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Is there an official document that clearly states the name? A Google search doesn't turn up any 'Air Force Global Strike Command' and there isn't a fact sheet in the Air Force library [1]. Currently I'd suggest tabling the subject until the command officially stands up (loses provisional status) later this year. Ndunruh (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - At least until it can be proved via reliable definitive sources that the suggested name is "official". I've looked at the sources provided in the article, and the current name is used in most cases. - BillCJ (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't requesting a move. I only wanted to point out that the first paragraph states that the provisional command will take over the nuclear assets whereas the material I quoted above states that the provisional command will inactivate upon the standup of the pending major command. If the reference is to be believed, this statement is incorrect. If the reference is not to be believed, why is the reference included in the article? I know nothing about this (I was simply surfing), but I do know how to read. I just wish the three of you could get together and make this a little more clear. Within the article would be fine with me, maybe a section titled "Provisional Command" as this article seems to concentrate on the major command. A layman like myself is bound to be confused by statements claiming that two distinct things are the same thing, or on the other hand, one thing is in fact two distinct things 72.70.5.156 (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The move request was made by Pmsyyz, that's what BillCJ and I were responding to. I too am a bit confused by the reference you point out. My understanding is that the new MAJCOM will simply lose provisional status and become a regular unit, but I honestly don't know so I didn't address that question. Hope that helps clear up the misconception. Ndunruh (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Every official news release at af.mil uses both Air Force Global Strike Command and the acronym AFGSC. Oct 2008 recommendation Jan 2009 provisional activation candidate bases; Same pattern as Air Force Space Command, Air Force Materiel Command, and Air Force Cyber Command. --Pmsyyz (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Several of those sources use "Global Strike Command" in the title and/or lead paragraph, but you are right that it only uses AFGSC as an abbreviation. I'll support it for now, but we'll see what the actual title is when the full command stands up. I still don't think we need "(Provisional)" in the title, and the this article is sufficient to cover both the provisional and permanent entities. As top the other commands you listed, those seem to be as much as for disambiguation as anything. Air Combat Command and Air Mobility Command do not use "Air Force" in the title, presumably because there are no commands with the same or similar names in the other services, which is why my support for changing the name is temporary and conditional. - BillCJ (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
      • They use "Global Strike Command" as a nice shorthand, the full title is a bit much for use in a headline. And since they are AF news sources, they assume readers know they are reading about the Air Force. When AFGSC gets a public website, probably at http://www.afgsc.af.mil/, we will see in the top graphic what name they use. If anyone is still opposed, I suppose we could wait a bit longer. --Pmsyyz (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
    • The commander's bio also states Air Force Global Striek Command, so there's solid evidence. However, I still suggest waiting until the MAJCOM stands up as there's no real urgency here and I'd recommend against changing it now with the possibility of needing an additional change later this year. Just my two cents. Ndunruh (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article/Org title[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was PAGE MOVED. Although there may still be a question (but as of yet, no consensus) of putting "United States" at the front, but there seems to be no objection to adding "Air Force", in either case. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


Let's take another look at the name. Check out this article: Air Force Global Strike Command activated. --Pmsyyz (talk) 02:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Concur Air Force Global Strike Command--Ndunruh (talk) 03:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Concur Air Force Global Strike Command. See AFGSC shield. Compare also article names and shield names for Air Force Space Command and Air Mobility Command. --Preuninger (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Concur - Per http://www.afgsc.af.mil/, the full title is Air Force Global Strike Command. I have no ojections to the article being moved, but it will have to be perfomed by an admin. - BilCat (talk) 07:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
United States Air Force Global Strike Command please. I wish WP would stop considering USA as the default option. Hcobb (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
United States is listed in the military infobox on the upper right. The formal name is not 'United States Air Force Global Strike Command' it is 'Air Force Global Strike Command,' so unless there is another country with a Global Strike Command including United States in the title isn't really necessary.--Ndunruh (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
http://www.defenselink.mil/advisories/advisory.aspx?advisoryid=3135 U. S. Air Force Global Strike Command Briefing Announced

http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills091/biltxt/intro/HCR0025I.htm United States Air Force Global Strike Command Headquarters

http://wwwprd.doa.louisiana.gov/LaNews/PublicPages/Dsp_PressRelease_Display.cfm?PressReleaseID=2126&Rec_ID=0 United States Air Force Global Strike Command Center will result in 1,000

It ain't something I made up. Hcobb (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have the same opinion towards Royal Navy, Royal Air Force, Lok Sabha, and Rajya Sabha? It's not about "considering USA as the default option", but using the actual name of the organization as the title, as on http://www.afgsc.af.mil/. Accocrding to WP's naming conventions, we are to use the actual or most common names. DABing, which is what adding "United States" to names that don't officialy have it in the name is, is unnecessary unless there are other organizations with the exact same title. A good example is National Security Council, a name used in several countries besides the one in the US, so that title is a DAB page. ("Primary topic" also figures in here.) We aren't making this stuff up either: Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use common names of persons and things, Wikipedia:Disambiguation. - BilCat (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
On the GSC front page itself it calls itself AFGSC 4 times and just plain old GSC 3 times. So why not keep the GSC name and add redirect pages for AFGSC and USAFGSC? Hcobb (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Becasue the large title at the top of the page states "Air Force Global Strike Command", because that title alo appears at the bottom of the main page as the title, and because its web address is at afgsc.af.mil, not gcs.af.mil, or usgsc.af.mil. All that is evidence that "Air Force Global Strike Command" is the primary title. - BilCat (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of comparison, I looked at each Air Force MAJCOM to determine the following:

  1. The title of the Wikipedia article
  2. The name used on the MAJCOM shield
  3. The name used in the banner on, and as the title of, the official website
  4. The abbreviated used in the URL of the official website
Comparison of Air Force Major Commands Naming Conventions
Wikipedia Article Name Shield Name Website Title Website URL
Air Combat Command Air Combat Command Air Combat Command www.acc.af.mil
Air Education and Training Command Air Education and Training Command Air Education and Training Command www.aetc.af.mil
Global Strike Command Air Force Global Strike Command Air Force Global Strike Command www.afgsc.af.mil
Air Force Materiel Command Air Force Materiel Command Air Force Materiel Command www.afmc.af.mil
Air Force Space Command Air Force Space Command Air Force Space Command www.afspc.af.mil
Air Force Special Operations Command Air Force Special Operations Command Air Force Special Operations Command www.afsoc.af.mil
Air Mobility Command Air Mobility Command Air Mobility Command www.amc.af.mil

You'll notice that the naming conventions are consistent for every MAJCOM except for the AFGSC Wikipedia article. Even if merely for the sake of consistency, I recommend moving to Air Force Global Strike Command.--Preuninger (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I propose merging the Strategic Air Command article into Air Force Global Strike Command. The justification is that AFGSC is a re-designation and reactivation of SAC.

According to the Air Force Historical Research Agency:[1]

Lineage. Established as Continental Air Forces on 13 Dec 1944. 
Activated on 15 Dec 1944. 
Redesignated Strategic Air Command on 21 Mar 1946. 
Inactivated on 1 Jun 1992. 
Redesignated as Air Force Global Strike Command, and activated, on 7 Aug 2009.

Please, comments and thoughts below: Bwmoll3 (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

If this is a new unit, it should have its own article, but if it is only a renaming of a unit, it should share the same article space. See 200th Coast Artillery (United States) and 194th Tank Battalion as examples.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose rewrite both articles to be a parent article and child article. SAC article is very large, there's no point in merging so much material here, since you'd just make a new subarticle again. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
So like the 40th Infantry Brigade Combat Team (United States) and the 79th Infantry Brigade Combat Team (United States).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I wrote this article years ago because it was a different command, and there was no official lineage beyond what was out there. What should exist is notations on each article that one resulted from the other, but to merge the two would result in a super article that barely mentions the AFGSC. Furthermore, they are related, but there are many instances on this site of us splitting up page histories (group, wing histories, for instance), and I think it would be a tough argument renaming SAC to the GSC title, since SAC is a very historical organization in its own right. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose This is another case where the lineage rules make no sense for Wikipedia. SAC had an enormous history and gravitas for fifty years (Kevin's 'a very historical organization in its own right'), and should not be linked with a post-Cold War organisation like this. As already noted, it would also result in a split by page size again - so why not keep the page split under the two different names that currently exist? I would note that the two organizations have been historically linked by the Air Force, in both pages, but keep them separate. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Buckshot - SAC is probably the most famous military organisation of the Cold War era in the English-speaking world, and has a vast and complex history. It would be much better to have two articles here. Nick-D (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Extremely strong oppose these are both noteworthy in their own right. The mission of SAC was Cold War deterrence. The mission of GSC is more than just dissuading the former Soviet Bloc. Buffs (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even though the strike command name is the most recent, Strategic Air Command is far more notable. I would suggest, though, adding a hatnote to the SAC article for anyone redirected from Continental Air Forces that the current name is AF Global Strike Command.--Lineagegeek (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Lineagegeek. In addition, the SAC and AFGSC are separated by 17 years from 1992 to 2009, during which the nuclear forces were split up and transferred among the USAF's commands. This period is long enough for me to warrant two articles. If the two were merged, what would you write for the 1992-2009 period? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions
Many units are inactive for extended periods of time. That's not an issue Bwmoll3 (talk) 12:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The result of this proposal was OPPOSE. I'm closing this discussion as the consensus is clear not to merge these articles. I will modify both of them to reflect their shared lineage and history. Bwmoll3 (talk) 12:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
  1. ^ http://www.afhra.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=15047