Talk:Weapon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Military technology and equipment is a redirect to weapon. I wanted to link dog tag (identifier) from that page, but a dog tag is clearly not a weapon. Thoughts? Help? Are there other non-weapon pieces of equipment that we would want on that page? DanKeshet
There's plenty of stuff on weapon which should clearly be somewhere else... the fortification and armour trees, and communications is just a few. If someone has the time to straighten this out, please do. I might find the time sometime in the future, if it bothers me enough. =) Europrobe
Guys, guys, you're not thinking straight about this. Look at the definition again. Anything used by the military is a weapon, because it contributes to killing people. Also, "military technology and equipment" is just a longer euphemism for... "weapon". That's why I'm restoring the list; please don't be offended. User:Ray Van De Walker
-
- You're right, at least, since military technology is never quite the same specification as civilian.
Really, what people in general associate with "weapon" does not include radios or means of protection (such as armour). A weapon, for most people, is a tool with the main purpose of injuring people or damaging objects. When people search for "weapon" on Wikipedia, that is what they should find. europrobe
-
- Yes, armour is a weapon. Like the sword, it lets you scare people, and get close to them and kill them. By your definition, such stuff as Anti-Ballistic Missiles are not weapons - but they are, for exactly the reason armour is.
-
-
- Armour is not a weapon. By your definition, "telling lies" or "Parliament passing a bill increasing the wages of military recruiters" are both weapons. A weapon is an object that you use against a person to incapacitate, injure, or kill him.
-
-
-
- I would not say that armour is a weapon, because it can not (effectively) be used to injure people or damage objects. Its main purpose is to passively protect its bearer. An ABM is a tool with the expressed purpose of damaging objects (ballistic missiles), which would make them a weapon according to my definition. By your definition, almost anything conceivable would be a weapon. A carrot, for example, could be used to attract a very hungry enemy into the range of friendly weapons, allowing us to kill him - thus it is a weapon and should be listed on this page. Remember, a definition is useless if it doesn't exclude anything. europrobe
-
- Yes, 'anything used by the military' is a little broad, donuts for instance? Surely a weapon has to have a primary use involving potential direct damage to an enemy? Mark Richards 23:29, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The opening line of the article (definition of weapon) is not accurate. Needless to say, there are many weapons used for purposes other than those listed... someone want to come up with a better definition? I would, but I'm going to bed now, goodnight. --Dante Alighieri 08:53 28 May 2003 (UTC)
- Nevermind, fixed it myself. Now, to bed! --Dante Alighieri 08:57 28 May 2003 (UTC)
I added the start of era-specific categorization. Emperorbma 02:39 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- Naming the pages "ancient/medieval/modern weapons" is not a good idea IMHO, since they contain more than weapons. See the discussion above.
europrobe 08:33 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
-
- military equipment and tactics then? It's hard to just talk about a weapon without talking about how it is used.
A three-level abstraction is required here. We have the history and strategy which are inseparable, and should be discussed in articles on each war or conflict. That's the most abstract. Then we need the least abstract military equipment and tactics level, with articles like military technology during the Napoleonic wars and so forth, to make it clear how conflicts were conducted using this stuff - this should focus on the actual tactical combat engagements, how they affected outcomes, etc..
And, for those wars that resulted in a great deal of change to military technology, either because they were very long (like the Hundred Years' War) or very intense (like WWI or WWII), we should discuss technological escalation as a separate topic, more abstract than the equipment and tactics, less abstract than history and strategy. See Technology during World War I for an example - this can be done for WWII, US Civil War, Napeolonic wars, at least, as well, and maybe also for the Cold War. This gets into the mechanics of how things changed, how they thought, etc., and really isn't the same topic as either history/strategy or equipment/tactics for the guys on the ground using the equipment to perform the tactics.
This article gives short shrift to the impact of the airplane. From reading the article, it sounds like the howitzer was the last incredible weapon developed, and it caused the last revolution in military strategy that everyone is still coping with.
"More commonly called information warfare"? I have never heard of it and have been a computer programmer for years. Where's your reference on this? Or is it coming straight out of Newsweek?
Also, "weapon of mass destruction" is a term from the American political media. I do not think Wikipedia is the place to preserve presidential duckspeak.
this is a great source of informnation and quite conveniet for people such as myself and other students who are in need of a quick resource of information
"Though the phrase was coined in 1937 to describe aerial bombardment by conventional explosive bombs in large quantities, the types of weapons today considered to be in this class are often referred to as NBC weapons or ABC weapons:"
From weapons of mass destruction. The term goes way back, even if it has recently seen wide media usage.
Nothing is in this section outlines landmines and other trap style weaponry.--Primalchaos 14:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] history
the history section of this article is vague. it needs many more specific examples, especially in the early history. Kingturtle 01:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
If anyone is interested I have recently expanded the related stub on "Sword Making". Not my greatest article ever, but it's more than a stub now. Feedback would be appreciated. Erraunt 19:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Should there be the thing stating that the main article is nuclear weapons or combutstion weapons?Tom 04:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
The picture description is obviously wrong, as it's clear the picture is of the weapon bay of an airplane. Anyone want to give it another go?
[edit] Developmental Weapons?
I am just wondering whether in addition to looking at the history of warfare and weapons, this article should also highlight technology currently being developed which has a high probability of entering service in the future. It would seem that several types of beam-based weapons (abl, MTHEL THEL) Ship-mounted Railgun, (which are all currently not covered as weapons categories in the article) being actively currently funded with a view to deployment. It seems to me that if the article is highlighting "weaponry" as a concept it should also at least provide a cursory view of weapons which are currently being allocated billions of dollars globally ESPECIALLY those that are sucessful in tests at fulfilling their destructive functions: whether or not a weapon is actually deployed in a war zone currently does not to me give a good enough reason for it not to be discussed as a potentially new 'Type'- especially if 'information warfare' is classed as viable material for the article.
Max- 21:25 GMT 30/03/06
[edit] Definition
"The weapon is any tool or object that is used to increase the range and power of a human hand." I dispute this. Considering that you can be charged with "Assault with a deadly weapon" while unarmed, the human hand/body itself can be a weapon. --PK9 23:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Amen! Any true student of combat must realize that sophisticated weapons are only extensions of our natural weapons! Thanks for the change, the comment about anything that inflicts damage is a good qualifier.
[edit] Cleanup Tag
Added a cleanup tag because I think the Ancient weapons section is virtually unreadable. I tried fixing one factual error, and I see many others, but I don't know enough to correct them. I also think much of the tone is colloquial, or at least has many ambiguities. Please don't immediately remove the tag. If nobody else thinks that this section requires a cleanup, voice your dissent and remove after a week or so. :-) --Storkk 04:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Slap Jack
I haven't been able to find an article on the slap jack (no, not the card game). I thought maybe it goes under a more technical name that I'm not aware of, but if it really doesn't have an article, I'd be happy to start a stub. Could anyone give some insight on this? If you're not sure what I'm referring to, it's a small, handheld leather sack with a heavy piece of lead inside. It's usually swung at the head to knock someone unconscious and was often seen used in the 1930s and '40s.
Thanks. - Caleson
[edit] Featured Article
This article seems like it has the makings to be eventually made into a featured article. Maybe we should aim for it?
[edit] Complaint
I dont think Military Antiques should link here automatically. Military Antiquitists also collect weapons, uniforms, equipment, even vehicles, and this article does not even have a section on collectin weapons. I saw someone removes the redirect.
-TS Allne
Categories: Start-Class core topic articles | Wikipedia CD Selection | Weaponry task force articles | B-Class military history articles | Wikipedia Version 0.5 | Wikipedia CD Selection-0.5 | Wikipedia Release Version | Start-Class Version 0.5 articles | Engineering, applied sciences, and technology Version 0.5 articles | Start-Class Version 0.7 articles | Engineering, applied sciences, and technology Version 0.7 articles