Talk:Shock and awe
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
/Archive1 - up to May 24, 2007 i have searched the book art of war and could not find shock and awe referenced there. is that a mistake in wikipedia where it claims historical references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 11:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I have a researched video called battle plans. In that video it talks about the so-called Shock and Awe, if you look closly it works on the exact same principles as Blitzkreg. I suggest that Wikipedia consider merging Shock and Awe into the existing article on Blitzkreg. What probably throws people off is the fact that the 2003 campaign was transformed by today's modern technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freesoler01 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The etymology comes from the Greek: Δεῖμος καὶ Φόβος Deîmos kaì Phóbos "Horror and Fear" Deimos and Phobos, the moons of Mars, are named after the sons of the Greek god Ares (Roman Mars): Deimos "horror" and Phobos "fear".220.127.116.11 (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
This Article is Garbage
Riddled with POV at face value (some of which I corrected), and hardly informative. Actually, useless as far as information on the actual Iraq operation goes. The entire article is nothing but criticism masked by subsection titles. You all should be ashamed of yourselves. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm... You may be right. In fact, to prevent the article being garbage, there should be no criticism of 'Shock and Awe' at all, and the article name should be changed to 'Uncompromising Peace Initiative'. All liberal Muslim treehuggers editing this article should henceforth first indicate their bias on this talk page.
- It's a shame you've been banned, otherwise you might be able to make other helpful comments here. Centrepull (talk)
Iraq War Buildup
The statement, "Before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, officials in the United States armed forces described their plan as employing shock and awe" is incorrect. It's a bad attempt at paraphrasing the cited CBS News article. The US government never described the March 2003 bombing campaign as "shock and awe." The press has a love affair with the words shock and awe, similar to the way they add the suffix "-gate" to anything resembling a scandal. And I agree with the sentiment of Haizum; this article stinks. Hildenja (talk) 12:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Redirect goes the wrong way!
The page for Rapid Dominance redirects to Shock and Awe, but that's backwards. Shock and Awe is a slang, informal name for Rapid Dominance. This article should be called Rapid Dominance and Shock and Awe should forward to it. --Tobor0 (talk) 06:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
"Shock and Awe" is state terrorism. This fact is so obvious that it hardly needs to be stated. How, then, could this be a matter of controversy?
- Because the definition of terrorism does not allow "state" terrorism. In fact, the term is an oxymoron. If "state terrorism" was a real term defined as a state attacking civilians to achieve shock of enemy government, it would apply to basically every war ever. I dare you to find a war where civilian population was unaffected. NineNineTwoThreeSix (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that calling any military campaign an example of "shock and awe" might be an example of Cognitive bias, in all probability the effect of the campaign on the enemy will often not be to "Shock and awe" but to "shock and enrage". Mahjongg (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I notice this article focuses on the doctrine in a strategical or operational standpoint but can it be applied to small unit tactics such as raids? Many spec ops units use the tactic of clearing a building with extreme speed, accuracy, and violence of action with the intent of having the enemies dead/surrendering before they even realize what is happening. Perhaps I am looking for a different term or doctrine here? Dietcoketm (talk) 17:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)