What is your personal "DEFCON Level"?

Thoughts, suggestions, and advice on what to do if the unthinkable happens.

What is your personal DEFCON level?

You may select 1 option

View results
Posts: 227
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2017 9:07 am
Location: San Jose, California, USA

Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:06 pm

DEFCONWarningSystem wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:48 am
Elderstatesman wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 1:16 am
Right now,considering the goings on with Iran ,I am posting Defcon 4. Not alarmed about much,but keeping a careful eye on things.
I'm personally sitting at a 5. Iran is nothing at the moment.

Officially, we're still at 4 because we want to give it more time to see where it might go.
I agree. While there is a moderate chance for this to develop into open hostilities, I sincerely doubt that nuclear weapons will be used. Especially since Russia seems very wary of getting involved. However, the major wild card in this crisis is Israel. If it weren't for that, we'd probably be sitting at DEFCON 5 right now.

Regular contributor
Posts: 1199
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2016 1:51 am

Sat Jun 29, 2019 12:45 am

I think that one big thing has changed and it’s changed across the globe.

Because we no longer live in a bilateral world where no intermediate sized nation will do anything significant without the approval of Russia or the Americans MAD is virtually dead.

Yes we all fear Armageddon or nuclear winter. Most of us look at this from a Cold War perspective. That in the end nuclear conflict is a zero sum game.
A significant nuclear exchange between two or more large powers will not necessarily be viewed in Tehran or North Korea as a bad thing. This view might not be accurate assessment of the risk but could still be held none the less. Iran might actually have as a policy to forment conflict with best case scenario of a significant nuke exchange between one or more dominate powers. In their mind this swings the door wide open to allow them to do as they will in the Mideast.

So personally I don’t believe the criteria of defcon threat levels are relavent today.

War could spring upon the world not like Pearl Harbor but more like a bullet from a revolver in Bosnia. The incident will take everyone virtually by suprise and it will not seem significant enough to warrant escalation to all hands on deck at least initially.

This also raises a really unpleasant and unpopular question. Because of the increase of nuclear nations and resulting instability of a non-bipolar world are nations forced to re-evaluate the strategic relevance of limited tactical strike.
Even if 8 out of 10 nations continue to swear off first strike the 2 that don’t force the rest to ask the question.
Even if it’s not the topic of main stream news and elder statesmen national leaders would be negligent in their duties to not be having this discussion.

So I go to sleep at a 3 most nights right now but always expect to wake up to go to work in the morning.

Regular contributor
Posts: 556
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 1:12 am
Location: Perth Western Australia

Mon Sep 16, 2019 2:27 pm

Higher now considering POTUS has released American emergency fuel supply access. 🤔 something is in motion.

Posts: 6020
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 10:26 pm

Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:54 am

Yingyang wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 2:27 pm
Higher now considering POTUS has released American emergency fuel supply access. 🤔 something is in motion.
That's just an attempt to keep prices stable in light of the attack on SA oil processing.

Post Reply