DEFCON

Doug, that's news to me. I didn't know we were at DEFCON 2 during Desert Storm.

I also need to print a retraction. The DEFCON system was created in 1959, not 1993.

DEFCON 2
Cuban Missile Crisis
During the Cuban Missile Crisis on October 16–28, 1962, the U.S. Armed Forces (with the exception of United States Army Europe (USAREUR)) were ordered to DEFCON 3. On October 24, Strategic Air Command (SAC) was ordered to DEFCON 2, while the rest of the U.S. Armed Forces remained at DEFCON 3. SAC remained at DEFCON 2 until November 15.

Persian Gulf War
On January 15, 1991, the Joint Chiefs of Staff declared DEFCON 2 in the opening phase of Operation Desert Storm during the Persian Gulf War.

DEFCON 3
Yom Kippur War
On October 6, 1973, Egypt and Syria launched a joint attack on Israel resulting in the Yom Kippur War. The United States became concerned that the Soviet Union might intervene, and on October 25, US forces, including Strategic Air Command, Continental Air Defense Command, European Command and the Sixth Fleet, were placed at DEFCON 3.

According to documents declassified in 2016, the move to DEFCON 3 was motivated by CIA reports indicating that the Soviet Union had sent a ship to Egypt carrying nuclear weapons along with two other amphibious vessels. Soviet troops never landed, although the ship supposedly transporting nuclear weapons did arrive in Egypt. Further details are unavailable and remain classified.

Over the following days, the various forces reverted to normal status with the Sixth Fleet standing down on November

Operation Paul Bunyan
Following the axe murder incident at Panmunjom on August 18, 1976, readiness levels for US forces in South Korea were increased to DEFCON 3, where they remained throughout Operation Paul Bunyan.

September 11 attacks
During the September 11 attacks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ordered the DEFCON level be increased to 3, and also a stand-by for a possible increase to DEFCON 2. It was lowered to DEFCON 4 on September 14.

I can't understand why we didn't go to DEFCON 2 during the Yom Kippur War.

cthia wrote:I grew up around a military base. We lived inland, off base. But I visited on base quite a bit. I found out that school kids on base went thru the same crazy and frightening drill as we kids off post. During drills we would shelter under our desks, from what is an ICBM touching down. What the hell is hiding under a desk going to do for ground zero? I asked one of the base kid's father. Who was a Marine. He said, paraphrasing "We're counting on the Russian's aim and technology to be lacking. What if their missile hits just far enough away that SOME protection would save you?"

The mettle of the kind of people on Manticore may object to being treated like mindless cattle without a say-so.

Yep - duck and cover was largely useless at ground zero (though against the early nukes strong buildings partially survived surprisingly close to the epicenters of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and far enough away it was pointless because you weren't at any risk. Duck and cover was actually created based on rigourous study of the results of the nukes dropped on Japan, and why various people did or did not survive.


But in that medium distance the biggest risk was exposure to flash and then the shock wave knocking things down or throwing them through the air. With even a short warning before detonation being busy crawling under the desk mean you aren't staring out the window and risking blindness or burns from the flash. And even doing so after the detonation you might beat the shockwave and getting under the desk will shelter you somewhat from blown in window glass or falling debris when the shockwave rocks the building you're in.

So no real downside to teaching it to everyone. The bomb might miss, and even if it doesn't there isn't anything more useful those right at ground zero can do. So about the worst case is a bunch of people so far away to not be at risk anyway waste a bit of time taking cover - while those in a large area ringing the explosion are made safer by following it.


So the later derision aimed at how stupid people thought it was kind of annoys me. It was based on real scientific data and duck and cover would have saved more lives (though obviously nothing was going to save all lives) and reduce more injury than doing nothing.

Jonathan_S wrote:

cthia wrote:I grew up around a military base. We lived inland, off base. But I visited on base quite a bit. I found out that school kids on base went thru the same crazy and frightening drill as we kids off post. During drills we would shelter under our desks, from what is an ICBM touching down. What the hell is hiding under a desk going to do for ground zero? I asked one of the base kid's father. Who was a Marine. He said, paraphrasing "We're counting on the Russian's aim and technology to be lacking. What if their missile hits just far enough away that SOME protection would save you?"

The mettle of the kind of people on Manticore may object to being treated like mindless cattle without a say-so.

Yep - duck and cover was largely useless at ground zero (though against the early nukes strong buildings partially survived surprisingly close to the epicenters of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and far enough away it was pointless because you weren't at any risk. Duck and cover was actually created based on rigourous study of the results of the nukes dropped on Japan, and why various people did or did not survive.


But in that medium distance the biggest risk was exposure to flash and then the shock wave knocking things down or throwing them through the air. With even a short warning before detonation being busy crawling under the desk mean you aren't staring out the window and risking blindness or burns from the flash. And even doing so after the detonation you might beat the shockwave and getting under the desk will shelter you somewhat from blown in window glass or falling debris when the shockwave rocks the building you're in.

So no real downside to teaching it to everyone. The bomb might miss, and even if it doesn't there isn't anything more useful those right at ground zero can do. So about the worst case is a bunch of people so far away to not be at risk anyway waste a bit of time taking cover - while those in a large area ringing the explosion are made safer by following it.


So the later derision aimed at how stupid people thought it was kind of annoys me. It was based on real scientific data and duck and cover would have saved more lives (though obviously nothing was going to save all lives) and reduce more injury than doing nothing.

I wouldn't think Beth would bulge for anything less than DEFCON 1. She's surely not going to remain cooped up in some bunker for hours or days on end. Lavishly appointed or no.

I was certainly one of those who thought sheltering under a desk is stupid. Especially for students living on a high priority military base. But I was young and naive then. I'm only half that combo now.

Duck and Cover. I remember the drills and buying stamps in school to fill up card folders and buy Defence Bonds. I grew up just outside New Haven, CT. We had a Nike site less than a mile behind the house (well the radar was short of a mile, the launch site was about 2 miles) and on some Saturdays you could go- with an adult- and get a tour.
That site and the several scattered around New Haven were there as part of the coverage for New York City about 80 miles SW.
This was in the 50's and the defence was against Soviet Bombers. Sure, the cities were targets and the next largest was Boston which was a fair bit further, 140 miles NW. But bombers had secondary or alternate targets and thats what makes the New Haven a difficulty if anything had happed
50 miles East is New London and the submarine base. In New Haven (still there at that time) were the main factory for Winchester Repeating Arms (M1-Garand, other rifles and shotguns), Marlin Firearms(primarily rifles but in WW II made things like Vicker's machine-guns and other firearms under license for England) and HighStandard (which made a lot of firearms including pistols. Some of those pistols were the small caliber semi-automatic stuff. Lets just say they went to some interesting places, and the silencers that went with them). New Haven, at the time was still a center for hardware and machining so there were large and small companies building parts for all sorts of stuff
17 miles SW in Stratford was one of the major plants for Remmington Arms. Also home to Sikorski Aircraft.(Helocopters).
40 miles N was Hartford. Home to Colt Firearms and Pratt&Whitney (building aircraft engines) - and, what the heck- the State Capitol.
Not good living close to targets in a target rich enviornment. Civil Defence was being taken seriously even if many of the adults were convinced it was going to help if bombs started falling.

Brigade XO wrote:Duck and Cover. I remember the drills and buying stamps in school to fill up card folders and buy Defence Bonds. I grew up just outside New Haven, CT. We had a Nike site less than a mile behind the house (well the radar was short of a mile, the launch site was about 2 miles) and on some Saturdays you could go- with an adult- and get a tour.
That site and the several scattered around New Haven were there as part of the coverage for New York City about 80 miles SW.
This was in the 50's and the defence was against Soviet Bombers. Sure, the cities were targets and the next largest was Boston which was a fair bit further, 140 miles NW. But bombers had secondary or alternate targets and thats what makes the New Haven a difficulty if anything had happed
50 miles East is New London and the submarine base. In New Haven (still there at that time) were the main factory for Winchester Repeating Arms (M1-Garand, other rifles and shotguns), Marlin Firearms(primarily rifles but in WW II made things like Vicker's machine-guns and other firearms under license for England) and HighStandard (which made a lot of firearms including pistols. Some of those pistols were the small caliber semi-automatic stuff. Lets just say they went to some interesting places, and the silencers that went with them). New Haven, at the time was still a center for hardware and machining so there were large and small companies building parts for all sorts of stuff
17 miles SW in Stratford was one of the major plants for Remmington Arms. Also home to Sikorski Aircraft.(Helocopters).
40 miles N was Hartford. Home to Colt Firearms and Pratt&Whitney (building aircraft engines) - and, what the heck- the State Capitol.
Not good living close to targets in a target rich enviornment. Civil Defence was being taken seriously even if many of the adults were convinced it was going to help if bombs started falling.

OMG, you really were living on Ground Zero as well. I thought living in the midst of Camp Lejeuene, MCAS, Cherry Point was going to do me in too.

I appreciate this post chocked full of so much information, and so nostalgic to boot. I've been to New Haven several times in my life. Twice less than a couple years ago. Very nice atmosphere. But I can't imagine it in your day.

Duck and Cover became parodied as Hoot and Scoot, Duck and Slide, Run and Hide and Lord knows what else in my neck of the woods. Many kids were scared shitless at the reality of it all, and the possiblity of dying. But I suppose the entire world felt their own mortality then. Nice post.

When I recall the passage of young Abigail staring up at Honor duke it out in space as a kid, I can't help but think that on Manticore everyone would be scurrying for shelter. I don't know how possible that would have been on Grayson, which is domed.

Jonathan_S wrote:

cthia wrote:I grew up around a military base. We lived inland, off base. But I visited on base quite a bit. I found out that school kids on base went thru the same crazy and frightening drill as we kids off post. During drills we would shelter under our desks, from what is an ICBM touching down. What the hell is hiding under a desk going to do for ground zero? I asked one of the base kid's father. Who was a Marine. He said, paraphrasing "We're counting on the Russian's aim and technology to be lacking. What if their missile hits just far enough away that SOME protection would save you?"

The mettle of the kind of people on Manticore may object to being treated like mindless cattle without a say-so.

Yep - duck and cover was largely useless at ground zero (though against the early nukes strong buildings partially survived surprisingly close to the epicenters of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and far enough away it was pointless because you weren't at any risk. Duck and cover was actually created based on rigourous study of the results of the nukes dropped on Japan, and why various people did or did not survive.


But in that medium distance the biggest risk was exposure to flash and then the shock wave knocking things down or throwing them through the air. With even a short warning before detonation being busy crawling under the desk mean you aren't staring out the window and risking blindness or burns from the flash. And even doing so after the detonation you might beat the shockwave and getting under the desk will shelter you somewhat from blown in window glass or falling debris when the shockwave rocks the building you're in.

So no real downside to teaching it to everyone. The bomb might miss, and even if it doesn't there isn't anything more useful those right at ground zero can do. So about the worst case is a bunch of people so far away to not be at risk anyway waste a bit of time taking cover - while those in a large area ringing the explosion are made safer by following it.


So the later derision aimed at how stupid people thought it was kind of annoys me. It was based on real scientific data and duck and cover would have saved more lives (though obviously nothing was going to save all lives) and reduce more injury than doing nothing.

You earn a resounding "AMEN!"

DUCK AND COVER was and remains a tremendously effective defensive tactic. Most deaths and injuries will be the result of thermal burns rather than direct nuclear radiation or shockwave. It is easy to protect from thermal radiation. One foot of concrete or masonry will reduce nuclear radiation by about 90%. Given a reasonable amount of steel reinforcing rod consistent with modern earthquake standards, concrete and masonry buildings can survive a near miss from even modern nuclear weapon.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:DUCK AND COVER was and remains a tremendously effective defensive tactic. Most deaths and injuries will be the result of thermal burns rather than direct nuclear radiation or shockwave. It is easy to protect from thermal radiation. One foot of concrete or masonry will reduce nuclear radiation by about 90%. Given a reasonable amount of steel reinforcing rod consistent with modern earthquake standards, concrete and masonry buildings can survive a near miss from even modern nuclear weapon.

You're describing a bunker.

Regular buildings aren't made of masonry or concrete throughout. They're drywalls with thermal insulation. And they have windows.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:DUCK AND COVER was and remains a tremendously effective defensive tactic. Most deaths and injuries will be the result of thermal burns rather than direct nuclear radiation or shockwave. It is easy to protect from thermal radiation. One foot of concrete or masonry will reduce nuclear radiation by about 90%. Given a reasonable amount of steel reinforcing rod consistent with modern earthquake standards, concrete and masonry buildings can survive a near miss from even modern nuclear weapon.

You're describing a bunker.

Regular buildings aren't made of masonry or concrete throughout. They're drywalls with thermal insulation. And they have windows.

Concrete and masonry buildings are very common. Given extra reinforcing rod and stout shutters, they become moderately hardened bunkers. Basements can be EXTREMELY hardened for minimal marginal cost.

Duck and cover, and a stroll down memory lane.

A different and longer version.

There were Civil Defence locations scattered around New Haven. I knew what they were but not much about them (remember I was in perhaps 3rd grade) and we had been given the talks and movie. You would see the CD symbol- and did for many many years after, well past the time when any of the materials put in them in the locations would have been of much if any use. I recall cardboard barrels with the CD labels. Empty barrels. Also remember in my teens trying to find the locations in buildings so marked but no luck.
My grandfather had a storage business and a rigging company (moving equipment) and other businesses he operated out of a former brewery which was a city block in size and primarly brick construction. Massive building with lots and lots of rooms including the sub basements which were used for storage. He had a CD locaton in there but I can't recall just where that was at this point. I do mean brick. Thick walls valted supports in the basements you could later drive a forklift through and that area was- in the mid 60's- used for a holding are for primarily two things. One was rolls of newprint paper shipped in bulk orders by the railcar load and retrived as nessiary by truck from the local paper. The other was giant boxes or bales of plastic "beads" (they weren't round, more like chopped bits of plastic rods) that were being also delvered by rail and taken as needed to a cosmetic company to be processed by injection molding into cosmetic containers. The place had also functioned as a bonded wharehouse for spirits- massive insulated metal doors with heavy lock arrangements. Could take 40' rail cars into two yard transfer spots including one at an exterior transfer platform at railcar floor hight plus one interior bay. The yard area with the gate for the rail access was enlosed by the same type of brick walls. So seriously big if brick walls and steel beam construction.