Talk:Power projection

Ranking of countries

Why doesn't it say that the USA is the nation with the most power projection?207.6.113.119 06:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

--While most people are aware the U.S is highly militarily capable, this is not a ranking list, just a explanation of power projection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.139.21 (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge

Shouldn't this be merged to expeditionary warfare? --Vuo 11:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

- No, expeditionary warfare is a military strategy; power projection is an element of grand strategy, a political science concept, and a policy issue.

"Intimidation

"i.e. to intimidate other nations" is either NPOV or simply not correct terminology. Power projection is a means of deterrence, coercion, or compellance - if used - not a means of "intimidating" countries. While that may indeed describe the effect or the intent, it is not the proper language for the purpose of power projection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.124.162.98 (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You could argue that coercion is a form of intimidation, when a country notices a large military presence nearby they are far less likely to disagree with that nation out of fear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.139.21 (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Simpler title?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per request. No article exists for any other type of "power projection" on Wikipedia currently. If one arises, then we can talk about what to do. - GTBacchus^(talk) 08:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Military power projection → Power projection —

Is there any reason why this article is at military power projection, rather than power projection? Is there any other kind of power projection that would require disambiguation? If so, wouldn't a more appropriate title be power projection (military)? I request it be moved. 70.250.198.35 (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment there is electric power projection. 76.66.197.151 (talk) 05:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

If the UK has global power projection, then certainly Russia does as well.

Russia has an aircraft carrier that 220% of the tonnage of the UK's one remaining carrier, they have the su-33 to fly off that carrier when the British can only use their aircraft carrier as a helicopter tender with the retirement of the harrier (and the su is a much better plan regardless), they have an amphibious assault ship that was built by the french that has been launched but not yet commissioned, the heaviest missile cruisers in the world, bombers that can fly from Vladivostok to Seattle and back unrefueled, the two largest military transport aircraft in the world (which btw, are being leased by NATO at this very moment) and the most substantial nuclear submarine fleet next to the U.S. Just sayin'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.55.17.185 (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Lots of talk of carriers and bombers. But not much talk of logistics and capabilities. A major aspect of Power projection is the ability to deploy and sustain military forces overseas. Logistics is a primary factor in power projection. Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Use of annotation

Named refs, especially those in CamelCase can be annotation for future development of the article. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 05:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Propaganda and Jargon

This article has the bad habit of a lot of US military influenced pages where it takes the ridiculous jargon of the military, "power projection" and "strength gradient" etc., as given and doesn't explain how this language was developed, in response to what used to be called good old fashioned imperialism, imperial outposts, hegemony and the like. A history of the language, it's cultivation, and a better eye on resisting using the propagandistic implications of using it uncritically, would be useful here. Perhaps fewer editors paid by the US military too! Infocidal (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Japan

Japan's information is not up to date in terms of number of vessels and capability. While they are formally a self-defense force, they have the ability to operate as a blue water navy and do so frequently both alone and in cooperation with the US and other states. 198.7.238.130 (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)