Talk:National security

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

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)

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))

"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.

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

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)

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)

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).

Ditto: looking for citations, finding few. Internal/External security? Where's that from? etc. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.143.154 (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"National Security and Rights & Freedoms"
I put the 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.

tellin you
this may need a little updating, but just look at the structure, the tone and the no redlinks. I think ppl don't know it used to be this good. and the rest of you aren't really focused on making it good. Ban-gher-ang (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Fix: National Security of the United States
I believe the correct conceptual move would be to re-title this article "National Security of the United States." A parallel case is "Conservatism in the United States." There would then be a recognized body of knowledge and discourse that contributors could cite and describe. Unless anyone has strong objections to this I will edit this page accordingly. Timoleon212 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timoleon212 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Addition of feminist material/Hillary doctrine
In this dif, a new user User:Iwanwilliams123 added a long section that had some content on feminist theories of national security based mostly on one source (a book, with no pages cited) and a section on the "hillary doctrine" (based on a single Atlantic article), with no edit note. I reverted in this dif, with edit note "not encyclopedic, mainstream discourse. prob. too much WP:WEIGHT. please bring to Talk as per WP:BRD". The next day, Iwanwilliams123 reverted in this dif, again with no edit note. I left a note on Iwanwilliams123's Talk page, in this dif and have opened this thread.

Iwanwilliams123, I have two main issues.
 * 1) There is a concept called "weight" (see WP:WEIGHT) that we use in editing Wikipedia, that is a key part of one of the five pillars of WIkipedia, namely, that articles must have a "neutral point of view"  - the whole pillar is here.  As the section on "Due and undue weight" describes, a given article must give physical space to a given topic, that is correlated with the prevalence and importance of that topic in reliable sources that discuss the whole topic.   One of the biggest issues with the content you added, is that it gives a lot of weight to feminist analysis in general, and to the Hillary Doctrine in particular, that is out of sync with the importance of this topic in an overall article on National security.  I could see it potentially being a whole article in and of itself but in an article about the topic of National security overall, it needs to have appropriate weight.
 * 2) More tricky, are notions of tone and encyclopedic content.  The key policy document here is the 1st pillar, which describes what Wikipedia is, and what it is not.  See WP:NOT.  We strive to write in encyclopedic tone, and to reflect what mainstream, secondary sources say on a topic;  we do not publish original thought, and we are not a soapbox for any single point of view.  Much of the content that you added was essay-like, with sweeping generalizations that were not grounded in specific sources.  Also, some of the content you added was off-topic and not focused on the subject of the article, national security.

In my edits today, I moved the content into the "elements" section and edited it down to give it appropriate WEIGHT, part of which involved removing essay-like content and off-topic content. Happy to discuss.Jytdog (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Serious article?
This is supposed to be serious article but recently activists post text and sources and they are totally different. Sources need to be sources and to claim what is writen. AaronGray (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * AaronGray - I don't understand what you mean. Can you elaborate further and explain?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * AaronGray Please be collaborative and discuss here first. To answer your question about whether the Swedish and Spanish security strategies mention militarisation: the Swedish one on p. 12 mentions as security challenges the rearmament of Russia and the increased NATO presence in the Baltics; the Spanish on on p.24 mentions the illicit proliferation of arms and on p. 30 the proliferation of nuclear weapons - all evidence of these two states' concerns about militarisation as a security challenge. They are not the only sources that could be used for this, but I believe they suffice. In addition, both states mention the other issues noted in the same sentence, which were also deleted in your edit. The same two paras also emphasise the importance to states of military defence. Do you still have concerns about this? Fugitivedave (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Militarization is too big therm to be used, and it is not used in that word. Proliferation of nuclear weapons, should be writen there instead, it is something about what many governments agree. Spanish and swedish papers can t be example for all governments. Sources is important, let say, if I take Heritage foundation source all what you wrote could be changed and removed. There need to be some balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AaronGray (talk • contribs) 01:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Abuse of the concept of national security
This article could use some info how allegations have been made (especially in the U.S.) against the military industrial complex, multinational corporations, etc. of claiming national security interests in going to war or buying weapons, messing in other countries politics, overthrowing other governments/leaders, etc. when in fact they where simply trying to line theirs or other's pockets. The fact is the many critics of u.s. foreign policy has accused the U.S. of relying on a vague definition national so as justify all sorts of questionable actions aimed at making money for corporations or individuals while either not really benefiting the national interest (i.e. Vietnam war) or even harming the national interest (i.e. the Iraq War, leading to the rise of Isis, leading to Isis terrorism). National security, like the similar term national interest, is a vague term easily abused, something many notable critics have pointed out in the past, not just with the U.S. but with other nations such as Israel, Russia, U.K., Saudi Arabia, etc) and as such, their views should be included in this article. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 01:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Confused definitions
Why is it that the overview sections of some nations (such as China) seem wholly concerned with its internal security apparatus and abuses, while with others (such as the United States) the overview is solely concerned with the military and external security and seems to leave people with the impression that parallel organizations to the ones in China don’t exist?

The FBI‘s security department in the United States serves the role of internal security organization analogous to China’s Ministry of State Security. Of course people will object and say that the FBI has legal limits on its behavior and such that other organizations do not - but such organizations, by their very nature, are notoriously difficult to limit and control, and the FBI has been well documented before to use various tactics such as illegal surveillance, torture, and even assassination, and it has done so with the explicit purpose of suppressing political opposition it found disagreeable (see COINTELPRO).

The thing is that it’s extremely difficult to pass a law that effectively binds the enforcer of the law, they do not investigate and punish themselves, so such safeguards become advisory at best. The most these legal guarantees can really provide is protection from information obtained through such methods being used against someone in court of law, however, the methods of suppression often do not involve legal charges so this is of limited utility. Such methods are always claimed to be a thing of the past, but we keep on finding examples of them being used again. The security agencies word on this is of very limited use, as they have always claimed to not be doing this stuff at all times when they were. And infiltration, monitoring, and disruption of emerging political movements (especially on the left) is definitely ongoing to this day.

The problem with the framing of national security between these nations, it’s simply a narrative that is in service of the particular national security goals of the United States. It is of course a desirable narrative for any one power, to describe the national security policy of a rival as just the evil government bullying and spying on the people who are desperate to rise up, and to downplay and not mention their external national security at all because that can’t conceivably have any legitimate role in protecting the people can it. While the opposite is true of the power itself, it’s national security policy is purely about it’s proud external security apparatus protecting the people from the vast multitude of threats from abroad that threaten to swoop down at any moment and take away their peace and happiness, and as for internal security let’s just not talk about that, the people are perfectly happy and would never think of rebellion, or it’s solely targeted at “foreign terrorists” and the like or something, and plus it’s perfectly all above board and never does anything bad because there are some words on a piece of paper telling them not to.

A balanced view on this subject would admit that America’s internal security apparatus exists, that it is in fact sometimes targeted towards the civilian populace, and that it has been well known to participate in abuses. It would also probably dedicate more to describing the military of America’s enemies than a few words stating it exists, as if it doesn’t really have any strategy and has no legitimate reason to exist because nobody has anything to fear from America of course.2601:140:8900:61D0:8CE1:2CB7:AB8B:8865 (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please suggest specific article changes based on what What Wikipedia defines as WP:Reliable sources See the WP:Talk page guidelines too NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Roles of citizens in promoting national security
1. Citizens must keep to law and order of the country. 2. All citizens must be patriotic. 3. They must be ready to provide necessary information to the security agencies when the need arise. 4. Every citizens must be very careful not to keep largeeeee sum of money at home use the bank. 105.112.190.93 (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * F-14A VF-114 over burning Kuwaiti oil well 1991.JPEG