Talk:Interservice rivalry

Air Force's "traditional responsibilities"

"The latter case can arise, for example, when the navy operates an aircraft carrier, which may be viewed by the air force as an infringement of its traditional responsibilities."

The aircraft carrier was used by the Navy extensively, well before the U.S. Air Force was ever created. Recommend removal.--131.122.62.80 04:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with removal. The fact that the US navy had aircraft carriers before there was a USAF does not change the fact that USAF officers have argued against aircraft carriers as unnessary ( the job can be done by heavy bombers ). See revolt of the admirals. Also who said anything about America; the Royal Navy faced the same arguement by the RAF in the 1950s ( in a famous case RAF officers hid a blank spot in the middle of the Indian ocean where their bombers could not reach by moving New Zealnd! ). David.j.james 23:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Helicopters

Another arguement in several nations is over control and funding of helicopters : army, navy or airforce? In the UK apaches are army, transport are RAF and rescue is RAF, Royal Navy and CoastGarud! David.j.james 23:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Policy Making

In several cases inter service rivilry has adversly affected policy making in time of war. examples include WWII imperial Japan ( Army invades CHina, Navy invades the Pacific islands ), WWII US in the Pacific ( Army want to recapture the Philipines then attack Japan, USN goes straight west across the Pacific towards Japan ), Argentina during the Falklands war etc David.j.james 23:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Merger with Sectionalism

This entry and the entry about Sectionalism actually talked about the same thing. I think it's necessary to merge these two entries.--Aronlee90 (talk) 02:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed globalize tag

I removed the globalize tag (template) on this article because at the time that I checked the article (13 October 2014), it had content about diverse countries, even if there are not a great number of individual nations. Also, the tag was placed without discussing the article's alleged shortcomings on this talk page or even in the edit summary. In addition, saying that an article is too focused on the western world is very vague given the span of the term. Not all articles can have content that focuses on the entire world because the issue is limited.

An example of an extremely limited article would be the celebration of St. Patrick's Day. There is a large Irish diaspora, but I do not think that the Middle East, the entire Asian and African continents, Latin America and even most of Europe outside the U.K. would be involved in such an article.

The "interservice rivalry" article has some limitations, but it can still have content about countries around the world. As an example of limitations, there are many countries that do not have a big enough military for much rivalry, or they may not even have divisions, such as army, navy and air force. These are often either very poor countries or countries that maintain neutrality, having a small military that is sufficient only for self-defense. Some of the poorest countries have no organized military at all, let alone branches that are big enough to start rivalries. Other countries are land-locked, and may not have a Navy at all. This still leaves room for army and air force rivalry, I suppose, and perhaps they still have a third or fourth branch of the military like "border patrol". Some small countries do not have a military at all, often because they are protected by a larger country, such as one in close proximity and/or the one it gained independence from.

There are many countries around the world that we have very limited knowledge about, especially when it comes to internal problems, such as interservice rivalry in the military. Extreme examples include Burma/Myanmar, North Korea and Iran. Less extreme examples include large swathes of the world's land area and population, China and Russia (largest country in area, but only half the population of the United States). I am not saying that we should stop trying to create articles that have a worldwide impact and perspective, but we should also recognize the limitations that we have to work with.

I am also not trying to say that the person who placed the tag was wrong to do so, as the article was much less representative at the time, and it is still not as representative as it could be. If you do happen upon an article that needs a more global perspective, though, I think it would be helpful to place the tag and then add a section to the talk page about the article's issues and how to improve them. If you do not have time to do that, please try to give more information in your edit summary. If you want to contact me for some reason, please leave a message on my user talk page rather than only posting a reply here because it is very unlikely that I will see such a post. However, you are more than welcome to continue the discussion without me. -- Kjkolb (talk) 06:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

1991, but died in 1989?

I am referencing this line in the article:

"In his 1991 statement Shōwa Tennō dokuhakuroku (昭和天皇独白録), Emperor Shōwa (Hirohito) made a connection between the Army-Navy rivalry and the defeat of Japan."

However:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito

Thus, I am removing this line altogether. Jersey John (talk) 07:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)