imported>Chunbum Park |
imported>John Stephenson |
| (38 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| == '''[[Battleship]]''' ==
| | {{:{{FeaturedArticleTitle}}}} |
| ----
| | <small> |
| [[Image:USS Massachusetts BB-59 Fall RIver.jpg|thumb|right|180px|{{USS Massachusetts BB-59 Fall RIver.jpg/credit}}<br />The [[USS Massachusetts (BB-59)|USS ''Massachusetts'' (BB-59)]] or "Big Mamie," on display as a museum ship in Battleship Cove, [[Fall River, Massachusetts]].]]
| | ==Footnotes== |
| The '''battleship''', though now essentially obsolete as a naval weapon, is a naval vessel intended to engage the most powerful warships of an opposing navy. Evolved from the [[ship of the line]], their main armament consisted of multiple heavy [[cannon]] mounted in movable [[turret]]s. The ships boasted extensive armor and as such were designed to survive severe punishment inflicted upon them by other capital ships.
| |
| | |
| The word "battleship" was coined around 1794 and is a contraction of the phrase "line-of-battle ship," the dominant wooden warship during the [[Age of Sail]].<ref name="OED">"battleship" The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989. OED Online. Oxford University Press. 4 April 2000.</ref> The term came into formal use in the late 1880s to describe a specific type of [[ironclad warship]] (now referred to by historians as pre-''Dreadnought'' battleships).<ref name="Stoll">Stoll, J. ''Steaming in the Dark?'', Journal of Conflict Resolution Vol. 36 No. 2, June 1992.</ref> In 1906, the commissioning of [[HMS Dreadnought (1905)|HMS ''Dreadnought'']] heralded a revolution in capital ship design. Subsequent battleship designs were therefore referred to as "dreadnoughts." A general criterion from thereon in was that the armor of a true battleship must be sufficiently thick to withstand a hit by its own most powerful gun, within certain constraints. [[#The Diversion of the Battlecruiser|Battlecruiser]]s, while having near-battleship-sized guns, did not meet this standard of protection, and instead were intended to be fast enough to outrun the more heavily armed and armored battleship.<ref name=Massie>{{citation
| |
| | author = Robert K. Massie
| |
| | title = Dreadnought: Britain, Germany and the Coming of the Great War
| |
| | publisher = Ballantine
| |
| | year = 1992
| |
| | isbn = 9780345375568}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| From 1905 to the early 1940s, battleships defined the strength of a first-class navy. The idea of a strong "fleet in being", backed by a major industrial infrastructure, was key to the thinking of the naval strategist per [[Alfred Thayer Mahan]], writing in his 1890 book, ''The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660-1763'' (1890). The essence of Mahan from a naval viewpoint is that a great navy is a mark and prerequisite of national greatness. In a 1912 letter to the ''New York Times'', he counseled against relying on international relations for peace, and pointed out that other major nations were all building battleships.<ref>{{citation
| |
| | title =HOPELESSLY OUTFORCED."; Admiral Mahan Prophesies Plight of Nation Without More Battleships.
| |
| | author = [[Alfred Thayer Mahan]]
| |
| | date = 14 April 1912
| |
| | journal = New York Times
| |
| | url = http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9503E5DF103AE633A25757C1A9629C946396D6CF}}</ref>
| |
| Asymmetrical threats to battleships began, in the early 20th century, with [[torpedo]]es from [[fast attack craft]] and [[mine (naval)|mines]]. These [[#The underwater threat|underwater threats]] could strike in more vulnerable spots than could heavy guns. [[#Aircraft versus battleship|Aircraft]], however, became an even more decisive threat by World War II.
| |
| | |
| ''[[Battleship|.... (read more)]]''
| |
| | |
| {| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" style="width: 90%; float: center; margin: 0.5em 1em 0.8em 0px;"
| |
| |-
| |
| ! style="text-align: center;" | [[Battleship#References|notes]]
| |
| |-
| |
| |
| |
| {{reflist|2}} | | {{reflist|2}} |
| |}
| | </small> |
The Mathare Valley slum near Nairobi, Kenya, in 2009.
Poverty is deprivation based on lack of material resources. The concept is value-based and political. Hence its definition, causes and remedies (and the possibility of remedies) are highly contentious.[1] The word poverty may also be used figuratively to indicate a lack, instead of material goods or money, of any kind of quality, as in a poverty of imagination.
Definitions
Primary and secondary poverty
The use of the terms primary and secondary poverty dates back to Seebohm Rowntree, who conducted the second British survey to calculate the extent of poverty. This was carried out in York and was published in 1899. He defined primary poverty as having insufficient income to “obtain the minimum necessaries for the maintenance of merely physical efficiency”. In secondary poverty, the income “would be sufficient for the maintenance of merely physical efficiency were it not that some portion of it is absorbed by some other expenditure.” Even with these rigorous criteria he found that 9.9% of the population was in primary poverty and a further 17.9% in secondary.[2]
Absolute and comparative poverty
More recent definitions tend to use the terms absolute and comparative poverty. Absolute is in line with Rowntree's primary poverty, but comparative poverty is usually expressed in terms of ability to play a part in the society in which a person lives. Comparative poverty will thus vary from one country to another.[3] The difficulty of definition is illustrated by the fact that a recession can actually reduce "poverty".
Causes of poverty
The causes of poverty most often considered are:
- Character defects
- An established “culture of poverty”, with low expectations handed down from one generation to another
- Unemployment
- Irregular employment, and/or low pay
- Position in the life cycle (see below) and household size
- Disability
- Structural inequality, both within countries and between countries. (R H Tawney: “What thoughtful rich people call the problem of poverty, thoughtful poor people call with equal justice a problem of riches”)[4]
As noted above, most of these, or the extent to which they can be, or should be changed, are matters of heated controversy.
- ↑ Alcock, P. Understanding poverty. Macmillan. 1997. ch 1.
- ↑ Harris, B. The origins of the British welfare state. Palgrave Macmillan. 2004. Also, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.
- ↑ Alcock, Pt II
- ↑ Alcock, Preface to 1st edition and pt III.
