Talk:Defence in depth

message: The article Deep defence seems to be describing the same thing as Defence in depth and if anything worthwhile can be rescued from Deep defence, it should be merged here and the original article converted to a redirect. Gaius Cornelius 12:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm taking care of it right now. JKBrooks85 14:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge in article [[Deep defence]]

message: I was under the impression defence is spelled with an 's' as in defense.
Yet this page seems to use the 'c' spelling.
--71.103.62.164 (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article uses British spelling, for which Defence is correct. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling?

message: Exlicitely specifying defence in depth as a strategy ignores that it can also describe tactical & operational approaches; indeed in the modern understanding it more readily fits the latter two levels of organisation being a means by which forces "in theatre" are deployed & applied to battle (in forward screens, lines of resistance & reserves) & rather than concerning choices regarding the grander scale of organisation & supply. Pre-modern organisation in-depth was however frequently strategic, medieval fortification on a local level (i.e. conurbations & manorial seats being protected) was well understood to generate a situation where far reaching strategic outcomes were unlikely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.48.5 (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tactical & strategic components 

message: This article needs more references concerning the military side of Defense in Depth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokeregehan (talk • contribs) 00:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  References and Sources? 

message: I am going to remove the references to the Fukushima accident, since it is only tangentially related to the discussed concept and serves as nothing more than linkspam and POV pushing, and replace it with an IAEA report discussing the concept. --Tweenk (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recentism w.r.t. Fukushima 

message: I do not agree that the Battle of Cannae was an example of Defence in Depth.  Firstly it was not a defensive battle, from Hannibal's perspective. Secondly it was an example of maneouvre and encirclement, not depth in defence.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Cannae 

message: in "nuclear engineering" section: "Defence in depth is implemented through design and operation to provide a graded protection against a wide variety of transients, incidents and accidents, including equipment failures and human errors within the plant and events initiated outside the plan." 
this is probably ought to mean "events initiated outside the (nuclear power-) plant" instead of "outside the plan". if that is the case, pls change "plan" to "plant".
though it might make sense to speak about "events that are (normally) not planned (ie.: not supposed) to occur" that need preparations to be made in order to deal with (in terms of cosequences) but, judged by the context it makes more sense to expect the discussion of events that are happening/initiated outside of the nuc. installation's perimeters (eg.: outside the plant), like a tsunami, or an airplane attack.80.98.114.70 (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  outside the plan/plant? 

message: Apparently a recently published book has entire article copied into it, however, copyvio detector shows page as copy right violation (book link). Any tags to notify bots/detectors of so? cc  Baking Soda (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: is what we need. Added, — Diannaa (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverse copyright violation