This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Disaster management High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

I am nominating this page to be checked for Point of View. As mentioned in the posts below, this is more a conspiracy theory than an encyclopedic article.

I assure you, Continuity of Government plans are and have been operational. The article cites the book Rise of the Vulcans by James Mann. You should read the relevant section. At the height of the Cold War, our government constantly revised extra-constitutional plans for continuity of government in case of nuclear attack and governmental decapitation. ~ Rollo44 01:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No one is doubting that these plans have been operational somewhere in the world. What is in doubt is whether this article is a fair and balanced view of these sorts of plans.

You may want to ask yourself why it looks like a 'conspiracy theory'. It's because these plans are done in secret and very few people know about it. It's a topic of grave concern and too easy to wave aside as a 'conspiracy theory'. You may see the current article as biased, but it's because the shadow government does not comment on this topic. I request a removal of all those ridiculous tags.

Speaking as a representative of the shadow government and a major planner for the Continuity of Government plan, it is fully real. All the way up to the point where we make you wear women's panties and give spider monkeys reacharounds. EvilLook (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Has anyone managed to find out when the Continuity of Government status was revoked/repealed, or is the US still in a Continuity of Government status?

The Accuracy tag was added to this page with no comment. It seems to me that if you're going to dispute the accuracy of an article, you really need to provide some actual dispute, otherwise things degrade rapidly into a Monty Python sketch. Borogove 00:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The author of this article seems to be totally confused. Continuity of Government is a civil defence process. It relates to physical measures and processes to ensure that Government continues. Bunkers, communications systems, order of succession, and SOP's are parts of it. It can also involve relocation of government personnel to remote areas. It can include arrangements for military operations. It does not involve the declaration of martial law- which is another term for a military coup. It does not include "suspending" parts of the constitution, or laws. Illegal and unconstitutional acts are treason, to use the military to implement them is a coup. To "suspend" laws without authority is illegal. Continuity of government is designed to preserve the legal system, not undermine it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnC (talk • contribs)

I wrote the bulk of this article and have noted my sources (Congressional records, or reports and footage of them). Some additional comments have been made since mine. I'd like to have more official sources to draw from but the issue is shrouded in secrecy. If there is an issue of accuracy here, I await properly sourced correction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaseFace (talk • contribs)

Someone appears to have deleted almost the entire article (IP 59.92.33.101) on Sept 15 2006. They have Removed all the sourced detail and leaving nothing in its place. Reverted to Sept 12th 2006 version last edited by JohnC. JaseFace 18:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article's assertion that there is no legal basis for martial law is dubious at best. The power to devolve civil administration to a military authority, or to undertake other reasonable actions necessary to maintain the viability of the state, is inherent in the executive during periods where a state of exception renders the civil courts unable to convene or transact business. In application to the United States, the various court precedents supporting this (through the start of WWII) are well documented in Robert Rankin's book "When Civil Law Fails: Martial Law and its Legal Basis in the United States" (Duke University Press : 1939) and - to a lesser extent - the wikipedia article "martial law".

Presumably the most extreme COG plans cited by the conspiratorial article are intended for invocation during periods in which such a state of exception exists. For instance, following a devastating nuclear attack on a major population center, the civil courts in said population center might be unable to convene or transact business. A court whose judges were all dead (unable to convene) and which lacked a place to meet and whose records/archives had been destroyed (unable to transact business) would be such a court. The imposition, by the executive, of punitive martial law in such a scenario would be legal and not require a specific constitutional mandate. Zebulon997 06:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to add the above subject and write about it for Australia, where I live. In Australia, the fact that a COG plan exists is not secret and is handled by ASIS (Australian Secret Intelligence Service, the foreign intelligence arm, oddly enough. Why not the internal intelligence arm?) The government gives the budget and a sketchy outline on the ASIS responsibility of COG.

The last line in particular..."Historically many governments and leaders have used a disaster or attack as an excuse to assume illegal and draconian powers." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.150.208.34 (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

It's not just conspiratorial, it's also incredibly one-sided. Europe was bombed to pieces during WWII, but Europe post-WWII was generally freer and more democratic than before the War. Britain even held elections and changed government before the war ended, completely the opposite of what these conspiracy theorists claim happens in an emergency.

141.116.10.13 15:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)B. Brown-PaulReply[reply]
I would strongly suggest that this information be pulled. I will pass on the need for a comprehensive page in Wikipedia for US Continuity of Government to the members of the Association of Contingency Planners, DC/Mid-Atlantic Chapter (www.acpdc.org or www.acp-international.org) and to the Disaster Recovery Institute International (DRII) and see if someone, or a group of someones would address COG in a comprehensive, unbiased matter. Wikipedia has always been a fascinating place to find information, and this current entry on COG is far below the standards that I would expect.

Agreed with previous writers this page borders on conspiracy theory, and consequently some of the important publications that have discussed CoG since 9/11 ought to be consulted. For example, "This is Not a Test" By Stephen I. Schwartz in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has useful information. A serious discussion of the history of the National Airborne Operations Center and the E-6B Airborne Command Post and a few other key military installations ought to be included. There are numerous retired USG personnel who can contribute thoughtful and earnest guidance on this page. Where are they?

...[they] claim they can find no federal documents that state that the knowledge (and thus approval) of Congress is required in order to invoke Continuity of Government status.

In case of a devastating attack on the US (like a nuclear decapitating strike) the US Congress would be in no position to react as they might as well be dead.

May I further point out that preserving the lives of US citizens (congressmen included) is the function of the President of the United States as CiCand the main reason the executive branch exists. Activating COG plans flows from the inherent powers of the presidency and it would be idiotic to take a vote in the House floor in the 10 mins or so that an ICBM would take to reach Washington DC.

I think the entire article has to be thrown out as I find it incompatible with serious investigative work, from its structure, down to its very wording. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SvenGodo (talk • contribs) 21:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Most of the stuff in the United States section should be moved to Continuity of Operations Plan, leaving a summary here, along with a summary of the plans of other nations in the world. Since the Continuity of Operations Plan is the U.S.'s plan, it should have the U.S. details, not this page. Therefore, I'm moving most of it there, except for the wild conspiracy stuff.

Naturally, it should be noted if the U.S. plan calls for martial law but any speculation about someone using it to create a dictatorship is beyond our scope. Claims the U.S. plan is unconstitutional are valid but, again, they belong in the other article. Also, unless someone actually challenges the plan in court and the Supreme Court agrees, it is pretty irrelevant because the plan will go through regardless of a few complaints from Congressmen. Their complaints should be noted, along with the fact that they are without any power to stop the plan unless they actually do something more than complain. Fanra 03:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The shelter in Klara is not a part of the continuity of government. Rather it is to shelter the parliamentarians and government personnel that don't evacuate with the rest of political, civil and military leadership. There is multiple bunkers, some interlinked to massive complexes, in "the zone" located the forests of mid-Sweden. However, these are said to have been mostly deactivated. One part of this complex (the bunkers of the psychological defense) is located in the municipality of Örebro and is now on sale. It is also said that there is another similar complex somewhere further north and nearer Norway that provides room for the war delegation, the monarch, the government, essential civil agencies and the like. But the latter may or may not be true. Steinberger (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Continuity of government. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.windowonheartland.net/2012/02/russias-top-secret-bases.html

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} 22:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]