Talk:National security
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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?
Extended WP:FORUM/opinion |
|---|
|
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)
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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)