Talk:DEFCON/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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.

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

"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)

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

In the intro: "actual imminent attack"

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

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).

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

This is fairly ridiculous. What you're suggesting is at the very least original research, which is not allowed. Even if true, it's hard to see how it's remotely notable to be worthy of mention in the article. (Not to mention the overarching problem that many consider "popular culture" sections to be trivial.) Xihr 08:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

DEFCON

I Looked it up and it said US is Still at the Usual DEFCON 4 level. Only The South Korean WATCHCON has been raised to level 2 that that is where the Confusion is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.1.156.77 (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC) I want it to stay on confusion or not its not only for the military but all citizens. We are not a communist country.Foxtrot500 (talk) 01:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

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) Whoa, so are you. A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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)}

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

DEFCON

I was in the military stationed in Korea when the DMZ Tree Trimming Incident happened in August, 1976. I was in an Intelligence unit and we immediately went to the second highest intelligence level, just short of what would be used during actual war. Three days after the incident the DEFCON level of armed forces in Korea was raised to DEFCON-2. We all donned our combat gear and were issued our weapons and ammo. The, usually unmanned, machine gun towers were manned and armed, the base was closed and our field intelligence units along with their security escorts went to their ready positions off base. Forces in Japan were raised to DEFCON-3 and all intelligence units worldwide went to higher levels. If a firefight were to break out at the DMZ we thoroughly expected to go to DEFCON-1 as the decades old Korean War cease fire would break and the war would ignite anew. (The Korean War never ended, the USA, many UN nations and S. Korea are still technically in a state of war with N. Korea and China - - no peace treaty was signed, only a cease fire) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.230.34 (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place to chat, please leave now. Thanks, A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparent discrepancies between two Wikipedia pages on the same topic

If I open Wikipedia.org and enter "defcon" in the search field, then click the search button, a Wikipedia page appears that offers a DEFCON 1 Exercise Term of "Simo Karpin."

If I open google.com and enter "defcon" in the search field, then click the "google search" button, the list of search results includes a link to a Wikipedia page that offers a DEFCON 1 Exercise Term of "Cocked Pistol."

I believe "Cocked Pistol" is correct; however, I am not an expert in such matters.

Why two different results, and why does the native Wikipedia search produce the page with (IMHO) incorrect information? BBQDad (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

This is definitely not the place to ask such questions, thanks, A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The DEFCON 3 during Cuban Crisis needs to be amended

USAREUR remained at DEFCON 4 by order of the SECDEF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.242.44 (talk) 09:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You all do realize that each Major Command, along with each separate installation and or unit holds an independent DEFCON status, as well as the nation DEFCON. Just because the DMZ or forces in Vietnam held DEFCON-2 does not mean the national DEFCON for CONUS was DEFCON-2. It means units in Korea or Vietnam were to adhere to DEFCON-2 readiness and posture.

If a naval ship goes to DEFCON-2 (or any other level of DEFCON) that may mean that that ships DEFCON is at level 2, not necessarily the whole fleet or the military, same with installations holding DEFCON levels.

In the 1983 Operation Able Archer, only SAC was raised to DEFCON-2, no other facility...not even NORAD. -Random Guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.133.151.108 (talk) 08:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Confusing introduction

In the introduction it reads: "It prescribes five graduated levels of readiness (or states of alert) for the U.S. military, and increase in severity from DEFCON 1 (least severe) to DEFCON 5 (most severe) to match varying military situations" That means to me, that DEFCON 1 is peace and 5 is war, but the table in the article says the opposite. Am I reading this wrong (in which case, could that be expressed more clearly?) or is there an error in the introduction? --88.217.81.187 (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

message to 66.239.236.122

You seem to like reverting edits by other people, it's fine and all as long as you have a valid point for it, but since you are rather active, why don't you register a user account so that people could actually discuss your edits? Ape89 (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

What are we at right now?

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

DEFCON 0, baby! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.144.136 (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The Defcon Warning System

Some people have erroneously been using the Defcon Warning System (www.defconwarningsystem) as a citation as to the DEFCON level of the United States.

This is not an appropriate citation.

There is no singular DEFCON status for the United States. Each military branch has its own DEFCON level. One branch can be at two while another is at three, four, or even one! (God forbid!)

Also, the Defcon Warning System site says themselves that it "does not represent the alert status of any military branch" and that it is a "private enterprise".

I do, however, think that the Defcon Warning System does merit its own Wiki page considering that a surprising number of people believe that it does reflect a real DEFCON status even when they tell you point blank that it doesn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.239.236.122 (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

In light of the trouble with North Korea recently somebody has been doing some minor vandalism to the article. I've edited out the joke entries. But hopefully other more experienced wiki users will keep an eye out for any more pranks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.15.253 (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Readiness chart confusion

Shouldn't the chart have the actions for DEFCON 3 and DEFCON 2 be flipped? It would seem that the Air Force shouldn't take longer to get ready on DEFCON 2 than on DEFCON 3, but I may be reading it wrong. Thanks. Astropiloto (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Gulf war DEFCON 1

At the beginning of the air war all US Force Commands, except US Strategic Command (STRATCOM) went to DEFCON 1. STRATCOM stayed at DEFCON 5. You forget that DEFCON stands for Defense Readiness Condition, it applies to all forces, including non-Strategic Forces. I know this because I was worked at the Joint Staff/National Military Command Center in the Pentagon and watched the DEFCON status board change for the different commands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.96.121.13 (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

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) To quote a movie: "DEFCON 1 would be equal to WW III", the reason DEFCON 1 wasn't declared for the gulf conflict is probably the fact that america marched in there (with at least some planning ahead), DEFCON 1 would be an event that requires an immedite reaction. Like China would land with troops on the east coast or Iran is launching nuclear missile.--87.178.216.34 (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Reference

The first ref is now a dead link (a redir to a blank page) http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf , and a quick search finds a new version without defcon mentioned http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf . An archived copy of the first seems appropriate. Widefox; talk 15:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Current DEFCON image

The image on the article depicts the current DEFCON to be 2, possibly because of North Korea. Is there a reliable source for this? [2] mentions that WATCHCON was set to 2 but DEFCON remains at 4 (probably only in the Korean Peninsula). This may not be reliable, but searches for the subject returned only a bunch of blogs.

Being a military issue and one that is not publicly announced, I believe it would be better to remove the image or edit it to show the entire DEFCON scale, though that would not even be necessary. After all, it is unlikely that the image will be accurate information at all times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.80.25.73 (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I am reading this article for the first time, and the image is the first thing I noticed. There is no caption to it, so I wondered if it merely was an illustrative image, or the reflection of a current, up to date status that would change in real time. What's the point of the image, anyways? Is the image some sort of "official" graphic that would be recognizable and the same in every TV channel? If not, it does not convey any meaning nor add anything to the article. Maybe the best would be to remove it, or to replace it with a more informative image. A caption would be needed, too. AugustinMa (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed definitely a caption. thanks, A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

This image seems misleading as well. Where is it from? Is it an official representative of the Defcon system or just a random stack of coloured boxes with numbers? If it's the latter then it should be removed, I think. Excise (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Both images appear to be unofficial and user-created. They seem more potentially misleading than helpful, so I am going to remove them. TwoTwoHello (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine Crisis

I saw with the news including the DEFCON Warning System, specialized that we're having breaking news reported that Ukraine has Crimea that we have Crisis.

Does this mean we remain at DEFCON 5 or upgrade to DEFCON 4. --AllenHAcNguyen (talk) 05:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Current DEFCON level.

Can we possibly add the current DEFCON level to the article? The current DEFCON level is 3.

Secondhand Work (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC) I think edits stating that have been reverted because they were uncited, but if you have a good source I don't see why not. Astropiloto (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The United States does not release information as to the current DEFCON level. Each branch of the military has its own DEFCON level, so there is no single "level" to report anyway. I suspect you're getting your information from defconwarningsystem.com, which is [i]not[/i] affiliated with the government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.239.236.122 (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The debkafile citation [10] is not corroborated anywhere else, and this site has a history of conjecture and sensationalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.125.228 (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

To add to the above, the debka source takes its information from http://defconwarningsystem.com/ which clearly states "The DEFCON Warning System is a private enterprise which monitors world events and assesses nuclear threats against the United States by national entities. It is not affiliated with any government agency and does not represent the alert status of any military branch." Therefore, I am removing the section about the North Korean Crisis under WP:SPS. Acidcj (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean the DEFCON Warning System has it's alert status. --Allen Nguyen ^Talk 19:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

DEFCON colors

So red is the highest alert level of maximum readiness condition: DEFCON 1. The DEFCON Warning System has it's own alert system colours, so DEFCON 5 must not be green we keep it at blue also. From blue to red of its own defense readiness condition colors is correct: DEFCON 5 is blue, 4 is green, 3 is yellow, 2 is orange and 1 is red. --Allen ^talk 15:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Right defense readiness condition colors

Actually, the DEFCON colors are:

DEFCON 5 - BLUE
DEFCON 4 - GREEN
DEFCON 3 - YELLOW
DEFCON 2 - ORANGE
DEFCON 1 - RED

Exactly the DEFCON Warning System has it's own colors, but different from this article with DEFCON 5 is actually blue and DEFCON 1 is red (not white on 1) and that's what the defense readiness condition colors are made. --Allen ^talk 05:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No way, the colors of the defense readiness condition should be this way as I did to it: DEFCON 1 should be red and DEFCON 2 is orange, exclude white color but orange exists! --Allen ^talk 02:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

       Isn't there a DEFCON 7? or am I just getting shit mixed up?

Ukraine crisis

Since breaking news has occured, the United States is at DEFCON 5 or upgraded to DEFCON 4 due to dangerous situation of Ukraine crisis. New EU sanctions against Russia will take effect on Friday (tomorrow), blocking loans for five big state banks and curbing EU business with oil and defence firms.

News reported right here for closer look. --Allen ^talk 02:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

... and? This talk page is to discuss how to improve this article, not a news site or a forum – WP:NOTFORUM. Kirin13 (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kirin13: I guess you're right, this article is about the DEFCON stuff. And actually it's not a breaking news site on Wikipedia. --Allen ^talk 03:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

it is used as an optional research system in universe at war earth assault

that should be added to the section that contains information on games. i do not know of any source for the information though so you will need to find that somewhere.(i have played the game myself and gotten the information from there.)84.213.45.196 (talk) 10:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

As detailed here an outside organization known as "DEFCON Warning System" is attempting to redefine what the term means and create their own article to advance their interests. Be on the lookout for any changes regarding this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.156.86.52 (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Dubious - History - DEFCON 3 - Brussels Attack

^{[dubious  – discuss]} "During the terrorist attacks of Brussels, the U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter ordered the increased DEFCON level to 3, and also a stand-by for a possible increase to DEFCON 2" and cited http://www.terror-alert.com/ as its source.

This is obviously a dubious source - The website lists nothing about such a story (not that it would be credible if it did), it features the Homeland Security Advisory System - which was phased out with in 2011; beyond which, has nothing to do with the Defense Readiness Condition Ghostmedic171 (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

... Disregard - it's already been removed/deleted by someone else. Thanks. Ghostmedic171 (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on DEFCON. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nautilus.org/foia/NegotiatingwithNK.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits & suggestion to remove image at top right of article

I noticed several recent edits have altered the image at the top right of the page, as well as editing the article text, specifying a current state of DEFCON 3 and have cited this website - http://www.defconwarningsystem.com - and their Twitter account, as their source. Information originating from this website has also recently been circulating on image boards, forums, and social media, with many people discussing the DEFCON 3 status despite the website administrators having stated on their Twitter account that their information does not come from any official sources in several tweets - [[3]], [[4]], [[5]], and reassuring people that any information on their website or Twitter account is speculation. I think a vigilant watch should be kept on the article for any further edits that may be made because of this situation.

Additionally, the image at the top right of the article, as mentioned in previous sections of this talk page, has no official status or relation to DEFCON, and is simply a series of boxes with numbers that has been created by somebody in an image editing program. I think it would be wise to remove this, particularly the highlight feature (where a number appears to be lit up, as '5' currently is), as it has no bearing on the actual current DEFCON status of the US Military - which in all likelihood wouldn't be advertised publicly, and could create confusion or act as a form of misinformation for people glancing at the article. In addition, this Wikipedia article shouldn't have the purpose of a real-time information source on the current DEFCON status or a news article, but should exist to inform the user about DEFCON, so even if it is decided to keep the image on the page, the highlighting feature should be removed. If removed, the image could possibly be replaced with an image or diagram that has come from a more official source such as NORAD, or one of the sources for citations on the page. AF1990 (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Support. I also think it would be a good idea to remove/change the image. 1) It gives the false impression that there is a single DEFCON level for the entire U.S. Military; 2) as stated by AF1990, Wikipedia shouldn't be used to report real-time info; and 3) there is almost no way to verify a real-time change in DEFCON level anyway. --Iamozy (talk) 12:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree with above, non-realtime and won't be published if it does change. I swapped it out with one that has all colors at opacity 100%, rather than just 5 at 100% and 1 to 4 at 25%. File:Dc_all_five.svg. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested temporary semi-protection

In the past week, there have been several instances of editors being duped into believing that a blog called the Defcon Warning System posts information reflective of the US government's actual views on national security. To avoid more reverts and the dissemination of incorrect information, I've requested semi-protection.

TritonsRising (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Table background colors

I've adjusted the background colors of the DEFCON table to make reading the text therein easier on the eyes, i.e., by improving contrast between the text and the background. It appears the person who chose the colors, based on the figured captioned "The five levels of DEFCON" attempted to do so by decreasing saturation. This produced dark tones and poor contrast. I started with the basic colors of "The five levels of DEFCON", but increased lightness instead. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)^{T @} 23:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

DEFCON level after Kennedy assassination

This story implies that we went to DEFCON 3 or possibly 2 as a result of the Kennedy assassination. Unfortunately, most of the pages Google returns trying to verify this are JFK assassination conspiracy sites or pages. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on DEFCON. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140113025006/http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/operation_and_plans/NuclearChemicalBiologicalMatters/322.pdf to http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/operation_and_plans/NuclearChemicalBiologicalMatters/322.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

current level

What about the current DefCon level? What about it?

What are we at these days? Due to the current '(war if that is the correct word to call the situation) in Iraq i would Imagen DefCon 4 because, if we (we being as a UK citizen with an interest in both US, UK, history of warfare and present day warfare ) had no war in Iraq or any other war we would be at DefCon 5 because there would be no extra information about warfare so no need for alarm. However as there is war in Iraq and a possible Treat from North Korea we would be at DefCon 4.

Is it public info? After about 3 months of research i am sad o say there is no OFFICIAL information on the matter. :-(

Is there a US government website? As i said in my above entry there is no official information.

Please if i am wrong about any of this, please let me know MCRedstone3119 Dingusbat@hotmail.co.uk

With the wat in Ukraine, we are currently at Defcon 2. OffendedPerson (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

War* OffendedPerson (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

New change to level 2

In Europe, today - is level 2. https://www.defconlevel.com/european-command-news.php --Terraflorin (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

There is no official or reputable secondary source reporting this. What you linked, and many other contributors linked in their edits is an unofficial site that does not report the actual level but what they think it could be. The site even explains this in their about section: https://www.defconlevel.com/about.php. Fraret (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Is this a reputable source? https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2202/S00232/the-move-to-defcon-2-and-implications-for-new-zealand.htm

It says as of "28-2-2022 9:26am UTC the overall DEFCON is at presumed at raised alert 3, while the specific combat section EUCOM (European Command) DEFCON level remains at level 2." If accurate, this information should definitely be added to the article. Just the fact that there is a EUCOM DEFCON, separate from the overall DEFCON, is notable information that should be added to the article.2601:281:D480:47F0:E401:6971:68DF:C590 (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Update image of current DEFCON level?

Do you think it's necessary to update the image of a current DEFCON level on this article right now in response to the situation going on in Ukraine with Russian attacks escalating right now?

From [[File:Dc none.svg|alt=|thumb|352x352px|DEFCON levels]]
to [[File:Dc three 1.svg|alt=|thumb|352x352px|DEFCON levels. DEFCON 3 as of March 28, 2022.]]

Thinking that we're at DEFCON 3 right now with that ongoing escalation in Ukraine. Also, I would like to let you know that the websites DEFCON Level and the DEFCON Warning System are not reliable nor reputable sources to cite those kind of information on Wikipedia in regards to the current defense readiness condition level (especially for the United States and perhaps worldwide in response), which I doubt that we would change the image with level 3 (yellow light) glow on this article. --Allen ^{(talk / ctrb)} 04:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

New change to level 3

Need an update on the recent change to level 3. 174.208.132.234 (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

There has been no official change. Your probably getting that info from a war-porn site. 206.214.233.228 (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

03/06JUNE/2022, Today I accidentally updated the article as being at DEFCON 3, I have deleted this with respect to the above information. Apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:986C:1300:30FD:B74C:A848:F22D (talk) 06:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Using defconlevel.com as a source for current level

A recent edit asserted that the current DEFCON level is 3 due to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The source for this is the site https://www.defconlevel.com/ .

I have issues with this:

The site does not assert that the current level is connected to the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
The site claims to "estimate" the current DEFCON level, so it is not authoritative.
The site gives no details on how the "estimate" is performed.

In my opinion, this is an insufficient citation, and the page should avoid asserting the current level, or referencing the Ukraine conflict, unless some better source can be provided. InspectorMendel (talk) 09:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The article content and sources in the lede and Operations sections are clear enough - only the United States government military leadership (the President, Secretary of Defense, or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) can change the DEFCON level. Only a US government source would announce a change, and it would be the lead news story worldwide. Although there is abundant speculation at a time of war in Ukraine, US officials never publicly state which DEFCON level the United States is under, for obvious security reasons, and there is no US government website posting the DEFCON level.

In the most recent change - the 2001 September 11 attacks (DEFCON 4 to 3), the US Secretary of Defense announced the change (last section in article). No source other than from the US government is acceptable to indicate a change in DEFCON. The commonly cited (non-government and unofficial) websites used by some poorly-informed editors of this article - defconwarningsystem.com and defconlevel.com - are not from the US government and are spam. Zefr (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2022

This edit request to DEFCON has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The United States is currently under DEFCON 3 as of June 22nd, 2022 due to the ongoing Russo-Ukranian War that began February 20th, 2014. Stevelarned (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

This is only a suggested addition to the DEFCON Wikipedia page. Stevelarned (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Not done - there has been no change to the DEFCON level during the Ukraine War, remaining at DEFCON 4 since 14 September 2001 (after 9/11), as adequately explained in the article here. The only valid sources for a DEFCON change would be the President of the United States, the Secretary of the Department of Defense, or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - there have been no announcements, and no change, since 2001. Zefr (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)