Talk:AirSea Battle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject United States / Government (Rated C-class, High-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.
 

The Schwartz will be with us always[edit]

http://breakingdefense.com/2013/07/16/air-sea-battle-is-more-about-bin-laden-than-beijing-former-csaf-schwartz/

I think The Schwartz is still notable enough to mention. Hcobb (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

http://breakingdefense.com/2013/06/03/dod-document-sheds-first-new-light-on-airsea-battle-warfare-unfettered/

And a media view of the paper. Hcobb (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC) DoD Sheds First Clear Light On AirSea Battle: Warfare Unfettered

amitai etzioni? anyone willing to give an opinion on whether this guy is sufficiently recognized an expert on military affairs so as to include his evaluation of ASB in this and other articles? my sense is that this is somewhat outside his competencies. however, he is evaluating it from more of a social/peacenik perspective, not conducting a detailed military analysis, so maybe it is fine. what do others think?Happy monsoon day 18:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

"Background" and "history" sections are kinda the same thing, no?[edit]

These two sections are kind of amorphous and overlapping. I don't know what the obvious answer is right now, but something to keep in mind when the article fills out. --Jprg1966 (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The "Doctorine" section[edit]

Uhm, wouldn't a section that actually describes what the doctorine is be useful, rather just discussing its history, who is coordinating it, and a bit of criticism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.6.191 (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)