The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Military logistics. Merge seems like the appropriate thing to do here. If this needs to be spun out in the future, that is fine. NW (Talk) 20:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Distance in military affairs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article doesn't seem to belong in an encyclopedia. It's has both elements of original research and a debate. The topic is fairly esoteric. It's doubtful anyone would do a search for "distance in military affairs". It seems to belong to some textbook or book on military theory or something more dedicated to warfare than Wikipedia. -Comatose51 (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It surely could use some expert attention, and perhaps an expert might suggest somewhere this text might be selectively merged to. But it appears to be a valid subject in military logistics or tactics. Because Wikipedia is not paper, we can have articles on relatively recondite aspects of a subject. (And whaddya mean, Wikipedia is not "dedicated to warfare"? We do it all the time here at AfD.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Admittedly esoteic, but definately encyclopaedic. wrt 'can't imagine someone searching for it', it could be linked to from other articles? on battles, say? or maybe on less esoteric units/tactics that only make sense because they gain/exploit/nullify-the-significance-of/whatever distance? --Arkelweis (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Good suggestions. You two are definitely right. How can we bring more attention to this topic for better editing and then merging into a larger article? -Comatose51 (talk) 03:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• search for something like 'gun', go to talk page, find bit that says "this has been deemed a 'good article' by wikiproject military stuff", click that link, find relevent wikiproject, mention it on their project talk page, wait for people who presumably know alot about wikipedia's military coverage to come along ;-) At least, i think that's how it's done --Arkelweis (talk) 08:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This was a hard one. The need to keep a military unit supplied over long distances, especially in difficult terrain, such as a desert or jungle, is one of the major problems faced by any military and one that will probably never be non-notable. Given this, and the fact that the article has sources, it should be kept. However, that said, it really needs renaming to something that isn't so...odd. But for the life of me I can't think of anything. Skinny87 (talk) 09:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, ALR's point about putting anything like this under military logistics is an excellent point, and one I hadn't thought of. Therefore, changing my vote to Delete. Skinny87 (talk) 09:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete reads like essay, a discussion of a subject rather than information on a subject. Although linked from several articles, links are in "see also" sections.
• delete fails to sustain notability; concept is referenced through a single recent source; not contextualised in the discipline of military science's work on exertion of force: neologism. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• On balance I would delete. The concept of sustainment at range is a very clear field of naval and military study, although I don't see this as a valid search term. The issue is more likely to be discussed meaningfully under military logistics or expeditionary warfare where the point is the military effect, not one of a number of challenges that the J4/ J5 teams have to deal with. There is a very clear style issue as well; this is a personal essay from someone in basic logs training. ALR (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete fails to justify a separate article from the subject of logistics Cyclopaedic (talk) 10:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• comment to all those suggesting deletion for reasons similar to the above, why not merge into logistics instead of deleting? --Arkelweis (talk) 10:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the point is not keep the words at all costs... there is no real context and a collection of bland statements.

ALR (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is, in fact, our policy to preserve good faith contributions of this sort. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worth highlighting that the guidance is the preservation of information not words.

ALR (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are two reasons to maintain a page on this subject area. First, it is of considerable notability. It is clear that there is an academic, as well as military debate in this area, affecting executive level decision making. The second reason is that even if the attempt were made to merge this into another page, it would be difficult to so. It is evidently not solely about logistics but also about how distance is related to the actual use of military force. As such it is difficult to look at it as anything other than a separate subject in its own right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greekfire10 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Merge any remaining material to military logistics. Buckshot06(prof) 20:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Cyclopaedic and ALR, with a nod to Greekfire10. While at heart I like the concept of this article, when I actually read through it a few times, I find myself mentally trimming it down to... nothing. The concept might have notability, but none of this is - and without salient material, the notability foundation disappears. The bulk of the article discusses a minor point of a probably minor topic. Bits and pieces can be put into logistics, as already recommended. Tan | 39 03:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. I did consider WP:SMERGE to Military logistics, but as Tan notes there's little actual content. I think the problem might be that the concept is intuitive so, when there's need for dissection, it's normally discussed in context in individual articles. EyeSerene^talk 07:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We should be trying to broaden knowledge available on Wikipedia. I would worry that something is deleted for the reason that it is 'not understood'. It is probably best to look back at the original sources.--BundoranSands (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly understood, it's just written like an essay, and whatever is useable in it would be better under logistics or somesuch. Skinny87 (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken about style. Had a look through the page again. Says that the importance of distance was questioned at presidential level and public policy was based upon it. To be sure, I am not American, but that does seem rather notable. Makes me less inclined to think that this can be merged into another page on military logistics.--BundoranSands (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It surely needs further work but I agree with BundoranSands that there is notability from the Bush administration's use of declining importance for distance as an argument for withdrawal from forward bases. It does not get much more notable than that. There is room for expansion of this page.--Greekfire10 (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, whilst I'm not a Loggie I am a staff trained and experienced officer with J3, J4 and J5 experience. Whilst the subject of sustainment at range is a valid topic, this is not really an adequate contribution to the debate. There are very clear doctrinal points; the purpose of expeditionary operations is support to foreign policy by military means. That can be exercised through the ability to extend effect from the base. The base is either the homeland or by the establishment of basing facilities in strategically significant locations.

If we consider the sources used in this article, we have something from the 1960s that is referred to, but no extracts are provided. That was written in the context of the cold war, two dominant political blocs facing off across a well defined start line and conducting proxy operations. It's then contrasted with a source that talks about 'trade policy and attempts to apply that to military sustainment. Trade is relevant in this context as much sustainment is done using locally purchased materiel or support, but the main impact there is from currency values and treasury effect, how much is the dollar worth in the local economy?

Current military operations are conducted at range, against a non-state OPFOR that is challenging to identify and pretty fluid in terms of C2 and sustainment. That puts a very different context on the nature of military operations, bearing in mind that the doctrinal effort is aimed at the establishment of a stable state apparatus, rather than military domination of the environment. The military effort is intended to support the estblishment of Rule of Law, Access to Justice and Security Sector Development activities.

The originator of this article has also created a couple of others, with similarly shaky foundations and a pretty dubious understanding of the topic.

ALR (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I can safely say that I am no less experienced than ALR on this matter. However, I will not use condescension to argue my case.

I get the feeling that there might be a split here between Americans and non-Americans. I am British myself and things can look different from the viewpoint of a smaller country.

I can assure anyone on this discussion that the page contains no original research.

I will address ALR's points. Firstly, extracts from Kenneth Boulding are already on the page. He is an early writer on the concept of distance in military affairs. If this is insufficient I can add more.

Secondly, Boulding did indeed write during the Cold War. And yes, US forces are engaged in counterinsurgency operations at the present time. That is actually highly relevant to the debate. Distance has become less important to American military forces under such circumstances. However, the argument put by Webb points out that this must be seen as temporary. Great powers cannot always assume they will have the luxury of being great powers. Opponents will rise - perhaps China, Russia. Given our history, we Brits are familiar with this.

War is of course competitive. The fact of facing opponents who are not equivalently resourced, like the Taliban, causes the competitive impetus to procure more supply than the enemy to be reduced. Economies of scale cannot be taken advantage of and unit costs rise. As a result, the cost of transport becomes less of an issue. That's the United States today. But bring back equivalently sized opponents and distance will resume its importance.

As for the comparison with the civilian world. That too is relevant. Defence does not exist in a bubble. Many items used in war can equally be used in civilian life. In addition to this, the fundamentals of manufacturing tanks or televisions are much the same - the more you produce the greater the economies of scale and the lower the price. You might be surprised to realise that military procurement costs can be much the same as civilian if produced in sufficient quantities. It's just that the US does not have any equivalently sized opponents to fight.

I must say that I did look at integrating this material into an existing page but it simply does not fit. Distance is a separate concept in its own right.

I do bear responsibility if the page seems essay like. I am prepared to work on it and am happy to act on any suggestions. I will not be able to do anything over the weekend but will take any appropriate action a.s.a.p.--ShiningTor (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the content but how esoteric the material is that made me suggest this for deletion. Would you consider editing it so it's more accessible for people and then merging into an article on logistics? The content is fine but I don't see how it can get the exposure the way it is right now. Comatose51 (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's becoming clear that much of this is original research inasmuch as it cherry picks academic work and attempts to analyse it to support a hypothesis that is not stated.. There may be an argument for an article consolidating several of the articles that you created into one coherent whole. At the moment they're all pretty much your own analysis, rather than reportage of the existing analysis. I would argue that distance per se has not become less important, but the impact of sustainment at range is the key point.

From the above it appears that the topic is more about the economics of military equipment and materiel procurement, with the posture of the force discussed being a factor. The posture is where the distance to deliver over is relevant. Once the state identifies what type of employment it wants for its military then the equipment profile, force structure, training, development and career development.

I hope that gives some fel for the potential shape of a future article that is less vulnerable to deletion, as many of these are.

ALR (talk) 08:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/merge The topic might best be merged into a place such as Military strategy#Principles but that is not a matter for AFD. Discussion at the article's talk page is required before bringing it here. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.