Talk:Power projection

Ranking of countries

Why doesn't it say that the USA is the nation with the most power projection?207.6.113.119 06:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

--While most people are aware the U.S is highly militarily capable, this is not a ranking list, just a explanation of power projection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.139.21 (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge

Shouldn't this be merged to expeditionary warfare? --Vuo 11:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

- No, expeditionary warfare is a military strategy; power projection is an element of grand strategy, a political science concept, and a policy issue.

"Intimidation

"i.e. to intimidate other nations" is either NPOV or simply not correct terminology. Power projection is a means of deterrence, coercion, or compellance - if used - not a means of "intimidating" countries. While that may indeed describe the effect or the intent, it is not the proper language for the purpose of power projection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.124.162.98 (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You could argue that coercion is a form of intimidation, when a country notices a large military presence nearby they are far less likely to disagree with that nation out of fear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.139.21 (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Simpler title?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per request. No article exists for any other type of "power projection" on Wikipedia currently. If one arises, then we can talk about what to do. - GTBacchus^(talk) 08:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Military power projection → power projection —

Is there any reason why this article is at military power projection, rather than power projection? Is there any other kind of power projection that would require disambiguation? If so, wouldn't a more appropriate title be power projection (military)? I request it be moved. 70.250.198.35 (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment there is electric power projection. 76.66.197.151 (talk) 05:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

If the UK has global power projection, then certainly Russia does as well.

Russia has an aircraft carrier that 220% of the tonnage of the UK's one remaining carrier, they have the su-33 to fly off that carrier when the British can only use their aircraft carrier as a helicopter tender with the retirement of the harrier (and the su is a much better plan regardless), they have an amphibious assault ship that was built by the french that has been launched but not yet commissioned, the heaviest missile cruisers in the world, bombers that can fly from Vladivostok to Seattle and back unrefueled, the two largest military transport aircraft in the world (which btw, are being leased by NATO at this very moment) and the most substantial nuclear submarine fleet next to the U.S. Just sayin'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.55.17.185 (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Lots of talk of carriers and bombers. But not much talk of logistics and capabilities. A major aspect of Power projection is the ability to deploy and sustain military forces overseas. Logistics is a primary factor in power projection. Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Use of annotation

Named refs, especially those in CamelCase can be annotation for future development of the article. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 05:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Propaganda and Jargon

This article has the bad habit of a lot of US military influenced pages where it takes the ridiculous jargon of the military, "power projection" and "strength gradient" etc., as given and doesn't explain how this language was developed, in response to what used to be called good old fashioned imperialism, imperial outposts, hegemony and the like. A history of the language, it's cultivation, and a better eye on resisting using the propagandistic implications of using it uncritically, would be useful here. Perhaps fewer editors paid by the US military too! Infocidal (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Japan

Japan's information is not up to date in terms of number of vessels and capability. While they are formally a self-defense force, they have the ability to operate as a blue water navy and do so frequently both alone and in cooperation with the US and other states. 198.7.238.130 (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Merge into Page:Imperialism or Page:US imperialism

Power projection is, by the definition on each page, one of the basic actions of Imperialism.

Power projection: "in international relations is the capacity of a state to deploy and sustain forces outside its territory."

Imperialism: "the maintaining and extending of power over foreign nations, particularly through expansionism, employing both hard power (military and economic power) and soft power (diplomatic power and cultural imperialism)."

A nation that is "maintaining [or] extending ... power over foreign nations" by definition must be able to "deploy and sustain forces outside its territory", especially if using hard power. Therefore, the "Power projection" page should be merged into either the "Imperialism" page or the "US imperialism" page, perhaps under a "capacity" or "neo-imperialism" section.

Justification:

Power projection, by its definition, is not a military strategy, but an element of "hard power". The term is used primarily by US Department of Defense and associated publications (source 1, source 2, source 3). Most modern scholarship on imperialism has focused on the United States and its global network of overseas military bases (source 1, source 2, source 3). These bases are key to the US "power projection" strategy (source; "Army Prepositioned Stocks" are stockpiles located around the world and maintained by the US military), so merging the pages would provide a much more thorough examination of US imperialism in context. This would also help mitigate the highly propagandist tone of the "Power projection" article, while adding more context as to how imperialism is actually undertaken in the modern era, and the words used to describe it. Therailhead1974 (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

What about Israel and North Korea, among others(like UAE)?

I feel like they should be in the list. I mean Belgium and Bangladesh are there ~2026-25093-99 (talk) 07:55, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Change or scrap "Gray zone competition"

The Gray Zone in international relations refers to types of actions and pressures used by a state that is between the traditional black and white of peace and war. The part of this article named "Gray zone competition" is not about that, and is frankly a confusing mess. That section of the article as of now is simply a list of the top four power projectors after the US, with bullet points listing entirely unconnected ideas about the states' power projection capabilities. Ordinarily I would suggest adding in an exerpt from the beginning of the article Grey-zone (international relations) but that article is also a bit of a mess right now.

The Gray zone competition section is also interposed between soft power and hard power sections, which seem that they should be read after one another. The section "Applications of power projection" should similarly not be in between soft and hard power.

My suggestion is to remove the "gray zone competition" section entirely, as no part of it actually explains what the concepts presented have to do with power projection. Mannen med stor M (talk) 11:28, 6 May 2026 (UTC)