Talk:Conflict escalation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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 a list of open tasks.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general topics): Military science task force

This article, or a portion of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors in January 2007. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This article is short on cites and long on point of view. Most of the content is not about escalation at all, and is about topics such as peacemaking and nonviolence which have their own articles. -- The Anome 07:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand most of the article. How is most of the article actually connected to conflict escalation, whatever that is? Rintrah 12:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems what is present on the page could be divided into the following areas: 1)within a military, by definition violent context; 2) not necessarily militarized setting; historically by people (citizens, whatever) politically (not that military is not by definition political, because it's very existance is political in that it helps to maintain a specific political order, i.e. particular countries/governments) Since "conflict escalation" has more than one context, I would recommend that "conflict escalation" not become a military category within wikipedia, for ex Category: Military terminology. Unless it were also labeled as non-military categories as well, such as peacemaking or nonviolence like an above person accurately describes some of the content currently there. "Conflict escalation" is not only, nor primarily a military term. Further conflict could arise labeling "conflict escalation" as merely a tactic, giving it a neutral sound. This would leave out historic examples of conflicts of the overall morality of "conflict escalation" be they in a military or non-military setting, which would be further down in a "Conflict escalation" article. 67.53.78.15 13:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taking up arms ?

Conflict escalation through stages is perfectly normal and taught in security and police courses. there is nothing inherantly wrong in this peace

By engaging in conflict escalation only of this kind, and in particular avoiding all technological escalation, it was possible to demonstrate to those who held power that: [...]

• the group was effectively an unarmed militia that waited only for proof that violence was inevitable before taking up arms

This is totally wrong. Concepts like "taking up arms" or "violence was inevitable" have no place in practice of non-violent revolutions.

Non-violent revolutions are highly violence-proof because the government has really no power without some level of consent of the people. Its control over violent means like policy and army is constrainted in similar way, and if it tries to push them way too far, like ordering attacks on nonviolent protesters, it can lose control in the same way.

The basic theory can be found in From Dictatorship to Democracy. Documentation of this effect in practice can be found in individual Wikipedia articles.

I don't think there was a single case where "non-violent" revolution actually threatened to use violence. Taw 11:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marine corps Manual

Escalation is a tactic, but the sxcerpt from the marine corps manual doesn't seem to be an example of this. A better example might be the U.S. strategy against japan in WWII. U.S. escelated the conflict before the war broke out and after.