Talk:Policy of deliberate ambiguity

	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.

Rewrote sections regarding Taiwan. The PRC does not have a policy of deliberate ambiguity. Taiwan is a bit more ambiguious, but not very.

Roadrunner 04:44, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

According to the One China policy article, it is ambiguous --Taak 04:58, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Israel's threats against Arafat

I removed the statement claiming that Israel's threat of assassination of Arafat was proven to be a scare tactic due to his later natural death as such claims are as yet unproven. First, it's currently unknown as to why he died and no autopsy was performed so to call his death natural, while possibly true, is unproven as of yet. Poisoning would not be natural, if as some argue, that was the cause. Secondly, if he did indeed die of natural causes, that does not mean Israel was merely bluffing. They may have simply been planning to do it at a later time when he suddenly became ill and died. Thus is he had lived longer they might have followed through. --Cab88 20:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since this article is about deliberate ambiguity policy, I think that whether Israel actually planned to or assasinated Arafet is irrelevant - Israel always denied any relation to Arafat's death, or any plans to assasinate him - so I don't see this as a good example of deliberate ambiguity. I think this paragraph should be removed. --ShaharEvron 08:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expand tag

I put the expand tag on this just to get a few more eyeballs on it; I'm sure there are tons of examples not mentioned here, and specificlally there's got to be examples involving states other than the U.S. and Israel. --- Deville (Talk) 15:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"to abet a deterrence strategy" ?

The article reads:

"It may be useful if the country has contrary foreign and domestic policy goals or if it wants to take advantage of risk aversion to abet a deterrence strategy."

"contrary foreign and domestic policy goals"? Rather contradictory, or different.
You can abet somebody, not something. You can NOT abet a strategy.
But even if the intended meaning was: "to abet the country to use the strategy of deterrence" I can't see any sense in it.

Vikom ^talk 02:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Industry Theory and Practice

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 September 2022 and 19 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rainbowsquid33 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Hw73171n, Fluffpups.

— Assignment last updated by MammothSunflower (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

India

With regard to ambiguity and geopolitical policy opacity, India's Draft Nuclear Doctrine has been under scrutiny ever since it was updated in January 2003.

This sentence is appropriately cryptic. It seems to say the scrutiny is directed to whether or how the doctrine is ambiguous or opaque, rather than to its substance. —Tamfang (talk) 07:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]