Talk:Continuity of government

message: 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)
thread_title: Accuracy disputed?

message: 141.116.10.13 15:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for SMEs on COG, COOP and BCP 

message: ...[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)
thread_title:  Weasel words 

message: 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)
thread_title: Moving Most of U.S.

message: 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)
thread_title:  On Sweden 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified