Talk:DEFCON

Military history: North America / United States C‑class

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

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

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

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Gulf war DEFCON 1

I don't doubt that we did not go to DEFCON 1 in the Gulf War, but why? Does anyone know? S II 087 23:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History

Can someone add when this terminology was first in use? Clearly the Founding Fathers weren't at DefCon 1 during the Revolutionary War. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:25, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

This is complete speculation, but I'd guess shortly after WWII -- 12.116.162.162 (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pop-Culture References

I notice that these were removed with a note that notable examples could be re-added. Are Wargames and Crimson Tide not considered 'notable examples'? Both are heavily based around the concept of Defcon.

24.72.67.210 20:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THe "In Popular Culture" section was started to allow information like this to be put in if it's accurate. There's already a snippet about how it has become a term used by people.

current level

What about the current DefCon level? what are we at these days? is it public info? is there a US government website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.24.2 (talk • contribs)

Crap

This article is crap. We were at heightened Defcon levels during the Gulf War, between 1990 and 1991. People need to research this stuff before simply sitting down and writing nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.77.153 (talk • contribs)

Note to 68.148.183.107

Stop being stupid. Please. You're going to get in some real hot water if you keep screwing around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKeithD (talk • contribs)

Yeah.

Yeah. I'll stay here all night reverting if I have to.

--71.112.236.252 06:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
^ Was me. Now registered. --N3X15 06:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When this sort of thing happens you should post {{subst:test}}, {{subst:test2}} etc. as warnings in the that person's talk page. I already did at User talk:68.148.183.107 and he said he'll stop. I'm still not sure what was going on though, between this page and the MySpace one. –T_if_eg_o^(t) _{00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Will do. Thanks.
--N3X15 07:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Def Jam Records

bearingbreaker92
"The New Sub Division of Def Jam Records headed by Rick 'The Stick' Sackheim"
For some reason I dont think that has anything to do with the military, so therefore i am removing tat from this article.

May 3, 2006.

Liberal group

someone add that DEFCON is the name of a liberal group that slandered Dr. Dobson —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.80.8.2 (talk • contribs).

original research tag

the claims about defcon 1 having been activated during the 1991 gulf war and also during 9/11 need to be properly substantiated from reliable sources or otherwise they count as original research and should be removed Bwithh 15:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homeland Security Advisory System

If the DEFCON level and the H.S.A.S. are "matching" does that mean they're identical? Because if so, High was activated because of the liquid + gel explosive debacle. --68.56.15.41 16:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DEFCON - UK MoD Defence Contract Conditions

DEFCON is also an acronym of Defence Conditions in respect of contracts with the UK MoD (see [1]).

How do I add an 'alternative definition' to this entry?

212.248.236.248 08:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Clive[reply]

"DefCon" is the abbreviated name for the Campaign to Defend the Constitution, an organization dedicated to defending the U.S. Constitution from assaults on science, freedom and the separation of church and state. 05:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Clarafier 05:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguous page has been created. Basar 00:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are we at right now?

Whats our DEFCON right now?--67.161.7.220 08:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When did it start?

When was the DEFCON system invented and by whom? We need this info in the article. NerdyNSK 19:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to Yom Kipur Hi I've removed the reference to Pershing I silo's being "blown and open". Pershing I missles were deployed from mobile launchers rather than hardened silos - hence I feel someone was being a little dramatic when they added that comment.

In the intro: "actual imminent attack"

Can that be clarified? Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 17:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm sure this isn't what DEFCON 1 is

DEFCON 1 que lo hagan mierda dijeee carajooooooo

juma trabasil

Now, as much as I hate spam, I have no idea what to put for it, so... Somebody out there in cyberspace that knows what to put there do so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.210.114.243 (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

DEFCON in popular culture

I commented out the section on DEFCON in popular culture, as it seemed fairly irrelevant. The last entry in particular, I didn't have a clue what it was trying to say. Heliomance 21:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored most of it. It's relevant if pop culture is how many (or most) people first become aware of the term. I agree that the last entry was nonsensical, though. BryanEkers 21:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DEFCON in reverse

In the director's commentry for the film, 'Wargames', it was acknowledged that their depiction of the sequence was later discovered to be the exact opposite to reality: 5 being war and 1 actually meaning world peace.

Could such information be confirmed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xenomorphine (talk • contribs) 19:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I dunno about the commentary, but in the film 5 is peace and 1 is war, which is accurate. Less accurate is that Barry Corbin's character, an Air Force General, can casually order the alert level up and down with no direct input from the President. BryanEkers 23:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that commentary confused me too. Were Wikipedia and all those websites wrong? I now looked further and finally found this as something that's not a suspicious mirror of this article: (source)

Among the first things that were done were there was a conference call that was in session. The Chairman joined it at roughly 20 minutes after the hour. The Secretary joined shortly thereafter. In that period of time, the two of them were consulted on the defense condition that we were going to establish. It was determined that the Secretary of Defense had the authority to declare defense readiness condition Defense Command (DEFCON) 3 on his authority. There was a discussion with the Vice President and the President about it. That decision was left in place. And with that change from the DEFCON 5 condition to the DEFCON 3 condition, the rules of engagement for North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) changed. And they went from a situation in which, as I recall, their primary mission was to trail and report, as in the case, for example, of the Payne Stewart incident about a year or so earlier, when the crew and passengers had somehow become incapacitated. They go from trail and report to being in a situation where, depending upon the hostility displayed, they are in a position to engage.

So it seems like this current order (DEFCON 5 in peacetime) is right and verified at that location at least. I have no idea why they explicitly gave that commentary; it must have been some kind of misunderstanding? — Northgrove 23:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or DoD gave misinformation, which they took to be fact, even later when they did the commentary. -- 12.116.162.162 (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Corps of Engineers Savannah District (CESAS) Plan 500-1-12 1 Aug 01 - DEFCON 5 FADE OUT Normal Readiness -> DEFCON 1 COCKED PISTOL Maximum readiness. --Dual Freq (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DEFCON 2

Besides during the Cuban Missle Crisis, U.S. Armed Forces went to DefCon 2 in September of 1982. I have changed the reference in the article to reflect that fact. Natty4bumpo 0244, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Really? Why was that? KindOfBlue (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 6th Fleet was in the Eastern Mediterranean at that time, a time when the rhetoric from the Reagan White House was especially bellicose. Tensions between Washington and Moscow during the early Reagan presidency were higher at any time since World War II other than the Cuban Missle Crisis. The presence of the fleet in that area, so close to the USSR and the Warsaw Pact with its numerous warheads made the Soviets extremely nervous. They raised their alert so the USA raised its. Natty4bumpo 1530, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You will need to cite reliable, third-party sources in order to retain this edit. Things like it have been added repeatedly over time and never backed up; just adding it without citation is not acceptable for Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Xihr (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third party sources? When I was in the Navy in the '80's, I worked with someone who was in the 6th Fleet in the Eastern Mediterranean at the time (Sep. 1982). We both had higher than top secret clearances then, as he did when he was in the East Med, working in a naval intelligence unit. Since it wasn't something right under the noses of the American public 90 miles off our coast, and since the administration was likely embarassed about how close it had come to getting us all nuked, the occurence wasn't publicized at all. For all I know, it may be classified, though it definitely should not be. If you're going to stike my reference again, remove the reference to the number of times and the Cuban Missle Crisis altogether. Natty4bumpo 0124, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:RS and WP:A. You need notable, reliable publications which back up your claim, not your word for it, or the word of anonymous other people. This is how Wikipedia works; not having citations to back up this claim means that the claim is original research and not suitable for inclusion. Xihr (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have reliable information that the Cuban Missle Crisis is the ONLY time we've ever declared DefCon 2? I doubt it, because it doesn't exist. As a matter of fact, only our SAC forces were at DefCon 2 during that time anyway; since everyone else was at DefCon 3, it doesn't really count either. Besides, we were also at DefCon 2 in the 24 hours following the attacks on 9/11. Natty4bumpo 2245, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Great way to be coherent. You still need third-party, reliable sources to back up any of those claims. Saying you know someone who knows something but it's a secret does not live up to Wikipedia's rules and guidelines -- and they've all been listed for you to peruse at your leisure. If you'd like to back up the claims with good sources, we'd be happy to include the information. So far you haven't even been clear about what alleged incidents you're referring to, which isn't promising given the level of rhetoric you're spitting out. Xihr (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that you have provided no source that the Cuban Missle Crisis is the only time that DefCon 2 has been declared. You have never verified that with any "credible third party source". Perhaps you should follow your own dictates. I've found an interview with Henry Kissinger in the George Washington University archives online in which he says US forces in Asia were on DefCon 2 status during the Viet Nam War at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/interviews/episode-15/kissinger2.html, which shoots down your claim that the Cuban Missle Crisis is the ONLY time it has ever been used. So, why don't we just split the difference and leave the reference as I've just corrected it, that the CMC was the first time it was used. Natty4bumpo 1940, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If your only beef with the article is that it's not absolutely clear it was the only time it was used, then that's one thing -- that sounds like a valid point. But earlier you were insisting on references other alleged instances of reaching DEFCON 2 but without any sort of citation or backup as to that claim. That is what is unacceptable according to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, and is why it was being reverted. The language about it being the only time can certainly be softened. But, while we're on the subject, we don't have a reference on whether or not the Cuban Missile Crisis was the first time DEFCON 2 was reached, either. Xihr (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call Kissinger a valid source, but I like the way you worded the entry. I have seen several articles online that say that the CMC was the first time it was used, which is why I never argued that point, but like I said, I liked the current wording. Natty4bumpo 0101, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no higher clearance that Top Secret. Someone who, if his claims of being in the Navy in a responsible position are true, would so claim should not be considered a reliable source. 24.16.164.253 (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, assuming Natty4bumpo is telling the truth (which I don't believe), giving out information that they know was classified at some point, without knowing it was declassified, could get them in hot water. -- 12.116.162.162 (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to add that I was on the USS Ohio on 9/11 and were told by the Captain over the 1MC (Main shipwide announcing circuit) of the attacks (and some more bogus info we had received) and that we were currently in DEFCON 1. Later that day when we had more reliable reports, we were downgraded to DEFCON 2. But for a while, we all thought we were about to launch and end the world. Of course I have nowhere I can cite, but thought it added to the intelligent discourse here. Billywhack (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]