Talk:Revolution in military affairs

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jayjohnson540.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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?

No Knox?
This article needs a rewrite, not by me, to include the work of MacGregor Knox, I'm pretty sure he coined the term 'RMAs'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.112.231 (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

ecotopian warfare as opposed to RMA
In the book 'Ecotopia' (Kallenbach) warriors learned to fight each other with stone age weapons, as opposed to the most advanced weaponry. This would have more positive effects in the long term for society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B028:2089:51A0:11C5:C751:4B78 (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ecotopia is a science-fiction novel. Your comment on it, "warriors learned to fight each other with stone age weapons, as opposed to the most advanced weaponry. This would have more positive effects in the long term for society." isn't helpful to making this article just now. It doesn't support any statement relevant to real-life Revolutions in Military Affairs.
 * However, if we can fix the unsourced discussions of RiMA and other problems, a short mention of Ecotopia and other cultural works influenced by or relevant to the main topic might be used in a future "Cultural Impact" section in the article. Thanks for making us aware of the novel and its handling of futuristic war. loupgarous (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Article reads like a plagiarism
Going by the style of writing, this article has been copied from another publication from the 1990s. Is this OK? A Google search suggests that the publication might be the World Heritage Encyclopedia. If not that publication, it may be lifted directly from one of its 1990s cited sources, possibly Metz & Kievit. Anyone who can figure out where this WP article originated, prior to the existence of WP, kudos to you. It needs to be rewritten so as to read like a general-interest encyclopedia article, rather than a plagiarism.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * As a comparison, look at how antiquated this recent version is, compared to the current version. It's contemporaneous with a time before WP existed: the 1990s.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * In addition, consider the following sentence and ask yourself whether it came out of a tome for the military cognoscenti or is original writing for Wikipedia:

"If nothing else, given the record of precision air power application, aerospace power advocates should not still have to spend as much time as they do arguing the merits of three-dimensional war and precision attack's value to it." I call plagiarism.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)