| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the DEFCON article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days  |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about DEFCON. Any such comments may be removedorrefactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about DEFCON at the Reference desk. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org
|
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Minor error:
Original:
According to Air & Space/Smithsonian, as of 2022[update], the U.S. DEFCON level has never been more severe than DEFCON 3. The DEFCON 2 levels in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis and 1991 Gulf War applied only to the U.S.[clarification needed]
Corrected:
According to Air & Space/Smithsonian, as of 2022[update], the U.S. DEFCON level has never been more severe than DEFCON 3. The DEFCON 2 levels in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis and 1991 Gulf War applied only to the U.S. Strategic Air Command (SAC).[clarification needed] Marcus.karozis (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done Aaron Liu (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]The article contained the following listing in its instances of DEFCON being raised to 2 or 3, listed just under the Cuban Missile Crisis:
I've looked into this a bit:
I am very dubious of the idea that this document is saying what is implied by keeping this in the article. That is, I doubt that this document is referring to an order of either the overall military defense condition to 2 in 1991, or the nuclear defense condition to 2. Both of which is, I think, what including the above item in the list seems to me to imply.
Rather, it is clear that DEFCON can be ordered on a per-unit basis. See for example this document which describes how the 3rd brigade was broad to DEFCON 2 readiness in 1965 as part of operations in the Dominican Republic, and that bringing it to DEFCON 2 was preparatory to using its units it combat.
The document supporting the above claim is a unit history of the 37th Tactical Fighter Wing and its role in Operation Desert Storm. It indicates, I believe, that the wing was brought to DEFCON 2 just before being engaged in operations a few days later. I do not think it indicates, or intends to indicate, that the US military as a whole, nor its nuclear forces, were brought to DEFCON 2 in 1991.
I acknowledge that this is an interpretation by me, based on a primary source, and could be argued to be WP:OR. However I think its inclusion suffers the same problem, though it is more subtle, for the reasons indicated. As such, I do not think it should be included in this article unless a source that substantiates the above to be an order on the same order of importance as the Cuban Missile Crisis can be found. I have looked for such a thing and found nothing. I think its inclusion is a misunderstanding. NuclearSecrets (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
References
Good research and reasonable to have the Desert Storm example removed. As DEFCON is a national status, we should not use it to refer to military units. Zefr (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DEFCON 2 was secretly enacted as the Soviets began moving nuclear missiles through Alexandria harbour. This was never publicised in order to avoid the mass panic of the Cuban Missile Crisis. (Aardi18 (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Please add this.
https://www.defconlevel.com/current-level.php 77.210.51.15 (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not done - this is a non-US government website and is not official. See the article definition. Zefr (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
