US Army moves to DEFCON 2?

D

desraid

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2003
Messages
1,097
Reaction score
14
Location
Mpumalanga
Sources close to MiNa claim the US Army has moved their alert level to Defcon 2. This was initiated by the alarming situation in North Korea. The US Army has over 35,000 troops stationed in South Korea, well within reach of North Korean convential weapons.

North Korea has the largest artillery force (can be equipped with nuclear warheads) in the world, which adds more to the already tense situation.

Earlier today, N. Korea's leader Kim Jong issued threaths to the South Korean and US Navy ships for coming too close to North Korea's territorial waters. The South Koreans and the Americans, may be positioning themselves for a preemptive strike.

What is DEFCON?

The defense readiness condition (DEFCON) is a measure of the activation and readiness level of the United States Armed Forces. It describes progressive postures for use between the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the commanders of unified commands. DEFCONs are matched to the situations of military severity.

Standard peacetime protocol is DEFCON 5, descending in increasingly severe situations. DEFCON 1 represents expectation of actual imminent attack, and is not known to have ever been declared. During the Cold War, DEFCON 1 was feared because it would most likely precede an all-out nuclear war.

In a national state of emergency, seven different alert conditions known as LERTCONs can be issued. They consist of five Defense Conditions and two Emergency Conditions (EMERGCONs).

DEFCON 5
This is the condition used to designate normal peacetime military readiness. An upgrade in military preparedness is typically made by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and announced by the United States Secretary of Defense.

DEFCON 4
This refers to normal, increased intelligence and the heightening of national security measures.

DEFCON 3
This refers to an increase to force readiness above normal. Radio call signs used by American forces change to currently classified call signs. This was reached after 9/11.

DEFCON 2
This refers to a further increase in force readiness just below maximum readiness. The most notable time it was declared was during the Cuban Missile Crisis, although the declaration was limited to Strategic Air Command. It is not certain how many times this level of readiness has been reached.

DEFCON 1
This refers to maximum readiness. It is not certain whether this has ever been used, but it is reserved for imminent or ongoing attack on US military forces or US territory by a foreign military power.

http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/6893/53/
Click to expand...

Does anyone know if this is confirmed by US?
I saw WATCHCON 2 was issued yesterday, but could not find any other source regarding DEFCON 2.
 
The last time the US hit DEFCON 2 was at the height of the Cuban missile crisis, however not all the armed froces work on quite the same DEFCON level.
Personally i cant see them hitting less than 3 over Korea, unless there was signs of emminent launch activity.


Cold War

The highest alert condition the US military has been confirmed to have been at was DEFCON 2. During the Cuban Missile Crisis on 22 October 1962, the US Armed Forces were ordered to DEFCON 3. On October 23, Strategic Air Command (SAC) was ordered to DEFCON 2, while the rest of the US military remained at DEFCON 3. SAC remained at DEFCON 2 until 15 November.

For much of the Cold War, US ICBM sites were at DEFCON 4 rather than 5.

Yom Kippur War

Higher alert conditions were also ordered during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. While the US military was technically at DEFCON 3 status during the Yom Kippur War, in certain theaters it operated under DEFCON 2 conditions as a show-of-force to repel Soviet naval vessels from entering the Bosporus Strait.

September 11th Attacks

The third time the United States reached DEFCON 3 was during the September 11, 2001 attacks.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEF_CON
 
Relax Hilary will sort out the problem. Then again Obama himself said she didn't have the CV for the job, eish :o
 
killadoob said:
Yikes can they just chill until the 2010 is over!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

actualy i predicted 2009-2012 only after 2012 after lots of **** hitting the fan in the negative reality it then comes right or ,.. I rather not say..but expect to see more flying sourcers. :p
 
negative reality?...

we have a negative reality?.. sweet... wheres the entrance.
 
Zana said:
actualy i predicted 2009-2012 only after 2012 after lots of **** hitting the fan in the negative reality it then comes right or ,.. I rather not say..but expect to see more flying sourcers. :p
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:
 
EtienneK said:
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Actualy a lot of pre-cognition points exist on the internet itself...in forms of blogs, art, quoted scriptures, the Mayan calander, Bhuddist Monks predicting extra terrestrials saving the planet in 2012 etc etc etc.. there is a lot of stuffies.;)
 
Zana said:
Actualy a lot of pre-cognition points exist on the internet itself...in forms of blogs, art, quoted scriptures, the Mayan calander, Bhuddist Monks predicting extra terrestrials saving the planet in 2012 etc etc etc.. there is a lot of stuffies.;)
Click to expand...

That kind of "pre-cognition" has been around for, well, forever effectively. From dirty hippies holding up signs saying "The end is nigh!", to your tele-evangelists forcing the latest news story into some kind of prophetic sign of the end. Even our local StrongTurd has a good grasp of this kind of doom-mongering (no offence, ST ;)).

Don't lose sight of the fact that we've had far worse looking situations in history. Right now NK with it's few little nukes is nothing. Yes, it could get far worse, but events mentioned earlier like the Cuban missile crisis looked to have far more potential than this.
 
km2 said:
That kind of "pre-cognition" has been around for, well, forever effectively. From dirty hippies holding up signs saying "The end is nigh!", to your tele-evangelists forcing the latest news story into some kind of prophetic sign of the end. Even our local StrongTurd has a good grasp of this kind of doom-mongering (no offence, ST ;)).

Don't lose sight of the fact that we've had far worse looking situations in history. Right now NK with it's few little nukes is nothing. Yes, it could get far worse, but events mentioned earlier like the Cuban missile crisis looked to have far more potential than this.
Click to expand...


Quite true there, the concept of the end of the world has been going on for years, but nukes are nothng compared to the explosives used in the past. Problem with nukes, is the direct massive impact, and the long term impact on the environment, and the spread of radioactivity over large distances which could cause long term deaths, and shorter life spans of people who were not involved in the impact, and the recovery of this is poor, since humanity has no solution to fix it up.
Love and huggles
♥♥♥♥
 
Empiricism Philosopher said:
We alo do not fully understand nukes hey... there is a chance one tiny nuke could blow up earth!
Click to expand...
Zana said:
Very much so, and very true and sad.
Click to expand...

Riiiight. Maybe if the nuke was attached to Bruce Willis and an extremely large asteroid, and the asteroid then plowed into the Earth.

Zana said:
Problem with nukes, is the direct massive impact, and the long term impact on the environment, and the spread of radioactivity over large distances which could cause long term deaths, and shorter life spans of people who were not involved in the impact, and the recovery of this is poor, since humanity has no solution to fix it up.
Click to expand...

You know that the size of NK's test nuke was roughly the same size as the one that was dropped on Hiroshima? That "only" took 10 years to recover the city back to pre-war levels of population. It's not end of planet stuff. NK in theory has around 8 nuclear missiles, so while they'd really stuff up South Korea (and maybe a bit of Japan just for being imperialist aggressors), it wouldn't be that big a deal outside of it. The only way real drama would start is when the countries involved are heavily treatied with outside parties, and if China/Russia lept to NK's aid and started trading nukes with US/Japan/SK.

But there's not too much love between China/Russia and NK. Most likely they'd rather move in to "restore order" and boot Kim Jong-Il out.

My real worry is that if there was a limited nuclear war, it would start to undo the view of nuclear war as "unthinkable", and lead to a potentially dangerous real nuclear war in future.
 
Nk has in theory 8 nukes :eek:

If they have 8, what state and size(both in terms of yield and actual size) are each of them. They're not toys that can sit around all day and when needed thrown on a missile and sent on their way. Detonating one or two underground is still miles away from a deliverable high yield reliable weapon.
 
I don't like what NK is doing not one second! I'm no eco freak or anything but Japan should be a lesson for human kind, not to build or use another A- or H-Bomb. The US or someone should just get a hitman and kill the leader of NK.
 
km2 said:
R

You know that the size of NK's test nuke was roughly the same size as the one that was dropped on Hiroshima? That "only" took 10 years to recover the city back to pre-war levels of population. It's not end of planet stuff. NK in theory has around 8 nuclear missiles, so while they'd really stuff up South Korea (and maybe a bit of Japan just for being imperialist aggressors), it wouldn't be that big a deal outside of it. The only way real drama would start is when the countries involved are heavily treatied with outside parties, and if China/Russia lept to NK's aid and started trading nukes with US/Japan/SK.

But there's not too much love between China/Russia and NK. Most likely they'd rather move in to "restore order" and boot Kim Jong-Il out.

My real worry is that if there was a limited nuclear war, it would start to undo the view of nuclear war as "unthinkable", and lead to a potentially dangerous real nuclear war in future.
Click to expand...

Not end the planet stuff.. sure, but more likely end the living humans stuff..
What is it with everyone wanting to blow everyone else up..
I would hope that there be no first bomb at all.
Why cant people Love and respect each other ?
Why?
Is it such an effort, but its so easy to kill or blow someone up?
I dont know going off for a while...
This is serious stuff , what if you were living in NK or SK ?
Imagine,.. then you will understand the seriousness of it all.
And war is no way of solving the problem that exists.
Love and huggles

♥
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X