Talk:Disarmament
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Military history WikiProject (Rated Stub-Class) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. | ||||||||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
 To-do list for Disarmament: |
|
|---|---|
|
|
[edit] POV
The article seems a personal essay, favouring a definition of "real disarmament" that does not seem consensual. --84.20.17.84 10:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Removed the following section which appeared after the Japan example, which is clearly not even close to being appropriate.
"That is funny that you say that, it shows how niave you are. Japan is site of a large Fabrique Nationale Factory that produces arms for civilian and military use. The civilian arms they produce are highly prized in the U.S. There are, in fact, several arms factories in Japan. They are highly productive and produce high quality arms. Get your facts straight before you begin an anti-gun tirade. Then think about it and stop blaming inanimate objects for the actions of evil people." Endos (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
This idea that the truth is based on "consensual" knowledge has no foundation. At one point, many people thought the earth was flat. Does that make the earth flat?
[edit] Disarmament prior to the 1940s
The article suffers from Wikipedia:Recentism; as of this writing, the only reference that predates the nuclear era is a brief mention of the Tokugawa shogunate. The Washington Naval Conference is one example of an omission. 68.167.253.27 03:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC).
I think that the writer of the article aims to argue that arms control is different to disarmament...although he does so quite inefectivly.
Nevertheless, the Tokugawa Shogunate remains to be a better example as it (contrary to the Washington/London Naval Treaties) was successfully in its aims. However there are some clear mistakes in the the article such as the part talking about nuclear disarmament; where the author divides it into three types which, if read, obviously have nothing to do with nuclear weapons. I don't think any nations police force uses those to preserve order:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.33.212 (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
REBUTTAL
In contrast to what this author claims, there is plenty of evidence that arms control is not disarmament. We are not talking about opinions here, we are talking about history. I suggest that the author look at a few key citations before going off into abstract references that hardly anyone would compare to the contemporary situation, the Shogunate. Read Melman's classic essay on the topic in The Nation.
