Talk:Civil defense in the United States

Capitalization

I originally created this article with United States Civil Defense because the internal link I followed from the Civil defense article happened to have each word capitalized. But upon consideration, I'm not sure if that is appropriate given Wikipedia's naming conventions. Any thoughts on whether this article should be moved to United States civil defense instead?--Wikiwriter706 00:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Article Outline

I now have the article organized by time period:

• Pre-WW
• WWI
• WWII
• Cold War (eventually this could be subdivided by Presidential administrations)
• Post-Cold War (perhaps this should be subdived into pre-9/11 and post-9/11)

It is possible that the two World Wars could be combined into one section with subsections, and it is also possible that pre-9/11 post cold war and post-9/11 could be separate sections. Thoughts appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwriter706 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Please

do note this article:

< http://wonkette.com/politics/civil-defense/proud-symbol-of-fear-replaced-by-wuss-emblem-218733.php >;

< http://wonkette.com/images/thumbs/592a2c67eb34cd8061a5ea4d52286e29.jpg >.

Thank You.

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 22:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Cold War Civil Defense

Citation requested for the assertion that "duck and cover" would be effective. This is certainly not empirically proven, and the "weasel words" that it works if you are far enough way is probably true, but irrelevant. How far? Anything would work 500 miles away! There is no evidence that there is any actual nuclear threat from a terrorist. Duck and cover is an ineffective response to a theoretical, and possibly non-existent, threat from non-specified "terrorists". You are re-hashing the mistakes of the 1950's, and using the civil defense program as a propaganda machine to sell a political agenda, not as a realistic government response to actual dangers. Pustelnik (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There were Hiroshima survivors who had ducked and covered under desks in concrete basements, who were very close to the ground zero site for the blast (as in 500 feet or so). Too lazy to find the reference but I did research on it a few years ago. In addition, my dad worked for the army and had lots of old information from nuclear testing - which showed how a nuclear blast could be survived (testing at the time had volunteers who were within the blast area in trenches). Most would die in such sheltering, but there would be some survivors, and that was the point. It was a slight chance of survival, rather than trying to flee and guaranteeing death. Most of the Civil Defense preparations dealt with fallout, which actually isn't all that hard to defeat. If you can survive the initial blast, you are probably going to survive as long as you have shelter. Plus many would be affected by fallout who were not in the blast area.

As far as the terrorist part, I have no clue what you are talking about, unless another post was deleted. 173.53.70.114 (talk) 05:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Current Usage

Despite what "The National Emergency Management Association" might say it is just not true that the name and logo have been "officially retired". The name and logo, continue to be used by Hawaii State Civil Defense [1] and Guam Homeland Security/Office of Civil Defense [2]. I have added this into the article but I think this needs to be addresses further. LCpl (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that the logo was still used on some emergency management supplies and equipment.173.53.70.114 (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Where are the volunteers?

The article mentions and lists all kinds of offices for this and departments for thats.

But aside from the NYPD auxiliaries, where are the volunteers? Where is the large, standing, constantly trained nationwide comprehensive structure of local emergency volunteer teams that have the training and the material to be instantly activated in emergency situations? Are they with FEMA? Army Corps of Engineers? Do they even exist?? 79.206.240.43 (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 20 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) NW1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 18:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

---

United States civil defense → Civil defense in the United States – The purpose of this article is clearly to provide a broad overview of the concept of civil defense in the United States, and is not specifically about any specific time period or a specific organization. The current name is confusingly similar to the actual former government agency, the Office of Civil Defense, commonly shortened to just 'civil defense'. Further, similar articles follow this naming convention: Civil defense in Israel,Civil defense in Finland, as well as the general approach to naming articles like this (broad overviews of a topic as it relates to a specific location. Example: Rail transport in the United States. The Navigators (talk) 09:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support as it is better for searching and indexing purposes to have "Civil defense" come first. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support as per nom Kpddg ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.