Shall we play a game? Let's play Global Thermonuclear War.

Man, this guy sums up my thoughts in writing better than I ever could. I found this play on the Wargames movie that that’s a dead on analogy for the situation in Iran

Credit: The following was written by Jay Tea and I blatantly plagiarized it from wizbangblog.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Wizbang.com . Please go to Wizbang to read the original. Always something good there and a good source for stories too. (look up his post about immigration!)

Here it is:

Shall we play a game?
Welcome, David. Let's play Global Thermonuclear War.

Iran declares they are developing nuclear technology. They say that it is strictly for peaceful purposes, but insist that if they wanted, they have the right to have nuclear weapons. Do you:

A) Protest, but not too strenuously?
B) Stop them?
A

Iran says that the United States has to withdraw all forces from the Middle East, including all Navy ships from the Persian Gulf, or face "dire consequences." Do you:
A) Comply under protest?
B) Refuse and confront them?
A

Iran announces that they now possess nuclear weapons. They have previously shown that they have missiles that can deliver those weapons to anywhere in the Middle East, as well as parts of Europe. Do you:
A) Protest to the UN?
B) Stop them?
A

Iran says that the Zionists have to evacuate Palestine and return to their countries of origin, or face "grave consequences." Do you:
A) Protest to the UN?
B) Confront them?
A

Tel Aviv has just been nuked. Estimated casualties: 100,000+. Do you wish to:
A) Urge Israel to show restraint and protest to the UN?
B) Strike back against Iran directly?
A

Israel has launched its own nuclear weapons against Iran. Iran has launched its remaining nuclear weapons against Israel. Several weapons have missed their intended targets, landing in Iraq, Jordan, Syria. The Arab world en masse has declared war on what remains of Israel. Large clouds of fallout are drifing across the Middle East, endangering countless civilians and US forces stationed there.

Estimated casualties:

Iran: 5 million+
Israel: 4.5 million+
Jordan: 900,000+
Iraq: 500,000+
Syria: 200,000+
US: 6,000+

Price of oil breaks $200/barrel. Flow of tankers through the Persian Gulf comes to standstill. Gasoline and energy shortages throughout much of the world. China declares ownership of Spratly Islands and their untapped oil reserves. Philippines, Taiwan, Viet Nam all protest and threaten to take military action. Japan allies itself with Philippines and backs their claim. War breaks out.

Mexico offers the United States oil at $150/barrel -- as long as the US eases back on its enforcement of border security and illegal aliens.

Much of the Arab world blames the US for the nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran, as we supported Israel for far too long and permitted them to have the nuclear weapons they used to hit back. Terrorism against US targets at home and abroad skyrockets.


GAME OVER

Do you wish to play again?



I would say that about sums it up.


[edit on 26-4-2006 by skippytjc]

very convincing...

I think we should just knock all those International Relations, Strategy and Geopolitics departments of the leading world univeristies on the head and just run macros on MS Access with these kind of scenarios written in... governmental decision making process will be cheaper and more efficient...

NOT

About doesn't sum it up at all...

Wargames is a brilliant film though,

Q

Well, it is one scenario that doesn't include China or Russia nuking the States.

Hooray for that.

Way to go Skip...keep up the great work.

Now, for the sequel! Let's call this 'The Day After, North American Version!'

Canada cannot keep up with internal and external demands for oil, leaving the US to look for a source such as Mexico. Without supplies either the economy or the military will fail. What do you do?

A) Negioate the settlement mentioned above with Mexico
b) Begin using the Strategic Petroleum Reserves and leave troops stranded across the globe

A

Illegal immigrants flood across the the mexican border, forcing the disbandment of public health services and welfare. Rich states become poor ones overnight as prices continue to rise, imflation is rampant and the job market glutted. What do you do?

A) Begin deporting illegals north, across the Canadian border to the benefit of all countries involved
B) Do nothing

B

Resent builds between local populations and illegals as unemployment and crime rates soar. Local vigilante groups become more powerful than an over-stretched and underpaid police force. War breaks out between both group, throwing California, Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and a number of other states into anarchy. What do you do?

A) Appeal for UN help
B) Send in unsupported infantry to quell dissent.

A

No help arrives as other countries hoard their own petroleum supplies. The northwest states begin agitating for seccession, and Vermont wants to become a Canadian province. The situation worsens, and the united states is forced to choose between enforcing sovereignty in the Southwest or elsewhere. What do you do?

A) Attempt to keep all parties as part of the united states
B) Begin assigning importance to certain regions, and use Vermont to pay off Canada.

Fun game, no? And this is just the first chapter. I should copyright this chain of events, I could write a book or something.

DE

Originally posted by skippytjc


GAME OVER

Do you wish to play again?

there's just one problem with those answers.

they are from a pacifist view.

appeasement only makes the agressor more agressive.

every time in history when countries have taken the pacifist road the agressor has always taken more and demanded more each time

Oddly reminds me of Saw.

"I want to play a game."

"Game over."

That's strange how more countries don't use fictitious scenarios from third-rate blogs to form their foreign policy. I guess we can all stop reading verifiable information and analysis on current situations in place of the writings of some nut who thinks the end of the world will be ushered in by the utilization of diplomacy.

Originally posted by DeusEx
Now, for the sequel! Let's call this 'The Day After, North American Version!'
...
Fun game, no? And this is just the first chapter.

I'm already waiting for the next installment!

[edit on 28-4-2006 by Jamuhn]

Thats stupid, Iran is not going to say, "America has to get out of Iraq and cannot sail it's ships in the Persian Gulk and the Zionists must leave Palestine or we launch nukes at everyone."

No country would ever take such an extreme position and even if the president said that, he would quickly lose the support of his military infrastructure and his people..it's a stupid article.

Originally posted by DeusEx
Now, for the sequel! Let's call this 'The Day After, North American Version!'

[...]

Resent builds between local populations and illegals as unemployment and crime rates soar. Local vigilante groups become more powerful than an over-stretched and underpaid police force. War breaks out between both group, throwing California, Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and a number of other states into anarchy. What do you do?

A) Appeal for UN help
B) Send in unsupported infantry to quell dissent.

The timeline breaks down at this point. I do not believe Americans will be divided. Yes, we may form alliances with our continental neighbors, but Americans as a whole people will benefit from our relationships north and south. In fact, I think most Central Americans know that true North Americans do not support our governments' atrocities down there. There will be merging and there will be healing, but the people of the American continents will eventually unite. Americans hold no deep hostiility toward people south of the border.

I think that if skippy's presented scenario were to happen, the US would okay, and not break into anarchy. That's what is hoped for, by the planners of this mid-east armageddonic confrontation, but I think Americans would remove the problem after this mid-east exchange.

Picture a million brown people clogging up the streets of your city. On May 1st, you might see that. Pretty soon, America-the-white will become America the less-white-but-still-white-at-the-top. The Mexicans (and native indians) were here first. It's ridiculous to try and prevent an intermingling with white and brown. Do Mexicans know/care about Abraham or either of his kids? I guess maybe some of the Catholic ones might.

Anyway, this leads me to why I disagree with the part-two quoted above, DeusEx, although it's well written. Rather, I think American Democrats and non-voters will align with the peace movement and will see the US MIComplex as having promoted this mid-east pressure. These powerful men which Eisenhower warned us about (he worked with and knew these MIC men all his life) had the power to control or eliminate nukes. These could have been immortalized and revered by their great-great-grandchildren's children had they eliminated nuclear weapons. But no, we humans are faced with true death, and those generations are threatened.

Anyway, if total econmic collapse happens and oil is scarce, America would have no problem reverting back to late 1800's and cozying up to our latin neighbors (and northern friends). Once America's satellite network goes down (remember a few years back when nobody in the US could send a page for an entire day?), it'll just happen naturally. People will breed horses, and even if there is disease, it will be dealt with by all the peoples of the American continents, brown or white. Babies of both colors will be born and life will continue.

So that's why I feel there's hope even if Israel/Iran goes critical mass. Americans will quickly and violently correct their government and their banks. Also, in the scenario above, Islamists might introduce a gold currency which would will be rabidly promoted/used inside the inflated/shaky US described here.

Israel's retaliation (and follow-through) on the principle of Deterrence Theory (and it's imaginary friend, "Mutually Assured Destruction"), would be a grave sin against humanity.


[smallpeeps nuclear weapon threads:]

Nuclear War or Change Your Religion: Pick. Posted 02/2005

Deterrence Theory is a Fraud Posted 04/2005

Abstract Model of Nuclear Components Posted 05/2005



[edit on 28-4-2006 by smallpeeps]

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Israel's retaliation (and follow-through) on the principle of Deterrence Theory (and it's imaginary friend, "Mutually Assured Destruction"), would be a grave sin against humanity.

To put not too fine a point on it, Israel being attacked with nuclear weapons in itself would be a grave sin against humanity. I am quite firmly set in the belief that MAD is an integral part of the world now, and it's never going away. Someone, somewhere will always have nuclear weapons, and so will someone else. Sad to say, but paranoia keeps us alive. In the 50s, had Eisenhower given up the bomb, the Soviets probably would have flattened America and settled for ruling the REST of the world.

DE

The US and for that matter noone else is going to attack Iran anytime soon. The US administration doesn't have the will to launch anymore wars especially with bush's current poll figures

read this from todays times

The opinion pages of Europe and the dinner tables of America’s metropolises are jumping to the beat. “They’re going to do it again!” they shriek. If they listen really hard they can hear it as clearly as “Paul is dead” when they spun Abbey Road the wrong way on their turntables.

I have some advice for them. Take a deep breath. Lie down. Smoke something if you think it will help. Turn on your iPod and tune out all that noise your ears think they are picking up. The US isn’t going to be attacking Iran any time soon; not this year, not this administration.
www.timesonline.co.uk...

If you really want to attack Iran you guys may be interested in this game then and you can play out these scenarios to your hearts content.

I would agree that MAD is becoming an integral part of the world now (unfortunately). However, sanity is an integral part of MAD!

To quote the new Israeli leader "The Iranian President is Psychotic".

But before we write Ahiminejad off as a blithering idiot instead, we must consider who was behind his "election", that's right The Ayatollah!

Originally posted by smallpeeps

Israel's retaliation (and follow-through) on the principle of Deterrence Theory (and it's imaginary friend, "Mutually Assured Destruction"), would be a grave sin against humanity.

Am I hearing right? You dont have a problem with Iran ATTACKING Israel....but Israel counter attacking would be a grave sin against humanity?

Originally posted by Amuk

Originally posted by smallpeeps

Israel's retaliation (and follow-through) on the principle of Deterrence Theory (and it's imaginary friend, "Mutually Assured Destruction"), would be a grave sin against humanity.

Am I hearing right? You dont have a problem with Iran ATTACKING Israel....but Israel counter attacking would be a grave sin against humanity?

I'm not saying what he's saying is right, but it is true that Israel has gotten away with too much.

And, sweatmonicaIdo?

I am unclear as to the point you are making to that which Amuk asked of smallpeeps?




seekerof

Let's get back on topic, I'm sure any such off topic details can be handled via "u2u". So as to not derail any further, this delightful conversation peice.


I say stock pile the moon with MREs and potable water, invite a select group to do the same. Advise the ISS that company can be expected, along with a cache plan for Mars. Leave Earth, after preparedness plans have met satisfaction, and *device* is emplaced.

Device consists of remote and other classified fail safes including more classified hardware, which allows operator to activate *device*. WARNING device causes uncontrolled perpetual chain reaction splitting of Hydrogen.

p.s.
Earth is made of mostly wha...hint it's H2O.


Ha ha I win, you lose, ha ha.




What... I won.

[edit on 30-4-2006 by ADVISOR]

Originally posted by Amuk
Am I hearing right? You dont have a problem with Iran ATTACKING Israel....but Israel counter attacking would be a grave sin against humanity?

Yes, I did say exactly that.

Why? Because of course the initial attack by Iran on Tel Aviv (as described) would also be "a grave sin against humanity" but the decision to follow through on the policy of mutually assured destruction (a fallacy, as described in my thread linked above) is INEXCUSABLE. That is to say, when a nuke hits Israel (and they have to know this will eventually happen because there is no quit in the natives), and Israel (which has questionable right to be there) retaliates, they have committed a greater sin.

Now before anyone gets their knickers tangled, I would ask you to read my thread about Deterrence Theory being fraudulent in order to understand my thinking. I would hold the retaliation as the greater sin because after the initial nuke, there is no need for further death. Would the retailation "teach Iran a lesson"? No, because in the scenario above, the whole middle east gets wiped out after that retaliation. Why would Israel need to have millions more die? What would be gained by their striking back? In the scenario above, I'd say Tel Aviv could potentially be the first and only casualty of nuke-war, because the global audience would not be surprised to see it go.

Incidentally, I use the word sin as a jab at the Israelite claim to supposed spiritual superiority. I don't have an opinion on the actual existence of "sins" or what have you. Also I am not saying there shouldn't be massive reprisal and war tribunals for Iranian leaders for the initial nuke, but the punative reaction should be moderated in light of Israel's questionable tenancy in the region.


[edit on 1-5-2006 by smallpeeps]