Talk:Military alliance

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Military alliance article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Military history: Technology

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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

International relations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

US-led occupation of Iraq[edit]

I question the meaningfulness of listing the anti-Iraq coalition as a military alliance on this page. It's no way comparable with the alliances listed for the 20th century, and the allied have very little at stake, with the exception of the US, of course, and very limited commitments, again with the exception of the US.

/Tuomas 00:15, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

League of Nations and the UN[edit]

I don't think they can be called Military alliances, not all of the members are allied in a military way, if allied at all.

They're just organizations.

  Don't know about the League of Nations, but the U.N. should definetly be classed as military, because you have all the resoulutions, and almost all the nations in the U.N. contribute troops to peacekeeping missions.--Peidu 15:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The League of Nations is debatable - its articles considered an attack on one to be an attack on all member states, but there was no enforcement mechanism nor any obligation to come to the defense of or even to aid the attacked party. The United Nations has no trappings of alliance, any alliance stemming from UN resolutions are ad hoc and while soldiers may be wearing UN uniforms, they are generally led by member nations, and member nations may choose whether to participate or not. Therefore it is more a coalition given UN sanction rather than a UN alliance.

So what do we do? should we change it?

League of Nations should probably be removed. It doesn't really fit the definition of military alliance well. Without a doubt, United Nations should be removed. I find a few of the other "military alliances" to be questionable as well. For example, the SCO may involve military cooperation, but it is neither defensive nor offensive and there are no common military units either, like under ECOMOG or NATO. - YGagarin 19:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember seeing another military alliance of the Cold War era posted here (Eastern Pact) and it has since been deleted ...why?

MiguelNS

Shanghai Cooperation Organization[edit]

isn't a military alliance,no agreement involving war were signed.--Ksyrie 16:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan is in a cold war situation with China, they are certainly not a part of SCO or any military alliance with China.

Both maps (and much info) in this article needs to be removed. The first one, obviously, is because the SCO is not a military alliance. Even the members themselves have said so. One could be cynical and not believe that, but wikipedia is about facts, and the fact is that the SCO is not a military alliance. The second map is misleading as it includes the Partnership for Peace program and the non-NATO allies as military alliances with the US. While the non-NATO allies have a close military relationship with the US, there is no formal military alliance which involves all these nations, which is what the map implies. And the Partnership for Peace program is by no means a military alliance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.169.53 (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SCO is a military alliance "making joint efforts to maintain and ensure peace, security and stability in the region". Emilfaro (talk) 12:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:SCO logo.svg[edit]

The image Image:SCO logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]