User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 10:08:59 AM EDT
Iran declares they have developed a nuclear weapon, Israel tells us they will attack within the week unless the US does. US is stretched too far for our present responsibilities, much less a new one. Invading a country three times the size of Iraq witha real million man army is simply not an option. You are a National Security analyst, and the NSAdvisor needs options to give the President. What can you offer him?
Note: this is not high school so keep it a bit high-level, ok? And the lenguage of the scenario is VERY important, so read it carefully. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 10:11:37 AM EDT
[#1]
No one can force us to attack anyone.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 10:11:43 AM EDT
[#2]
Easy, use a stealth bomber or two to drop smallish nukes on Iran's sites where they are developing nuclear bombs, and then express tons of concern and sympathy for the "accident" they had with their nuclear program.
Indignantly deny any suggestion that we had anything to do with their accident. Offer to send aid to help the poor primitive bastards who got bruned playing with fire. (and make sure that North Korea understand how easy it is for such accidents to happen). |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 10:14:16 AM EDT
[#3]
Funny, my US Foreign Policy prof. was just talking about this same scenario, and he used much the same language. I'll say the same thing I told him, the US can start airstrikes tonight on Iran's nuke plants if we want to. Stopping the Iranians from developing nukes does not equate a full scale invasion. Just b/c we have alot of ground troops in Iraq and Afgh. does not mean we don't have a ton of available air capability.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 10:15:58 AM EDT
[#4]
DK - problem is, the material in a nuke has a specific atomic signatre that could be traced back to the U.S.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 10:18:07 AM EDT
[#5]
DK, as a college prof, i'm sure you know that any mention of us using nuclear weapons offensively we'll result in a F grade and probable suspension 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 10:18:40 AM EDT
[#6]
Easy, make Iran one big crater. The we could just go over there and laddle the oil out of the hole.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 10:18:44 AM EDT
[#7]
Seriously? And so other people like the IAEA would be able to trace that? Dammit!! It was such a great idea otherwise!! Maybe we could cut a deal with North Korea, and send them lots of McDonalds and left-oevr Halloween candy in exchange for one of their nukes - I'm sure nobody has their "fingerprint" on file, since they're so secret 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 10:20:02 AM EDT
[#8]
Not in my class - but then again, I teach MBA students, and they'd probably be willing to nuke a business competitor ! 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 10:20:21 AM EDT
[#9]
So the choice is for the U.S. to attack Iran, or wait for a nuclear war between Iran and Israel? Seems like attacking Iran would be the logical choice. However, being the most powerful county in the world, we couldn't let Israel tell us to attack another country. Nor would we be in good shape if the Middle East got what seemed to be confirmation that America is a puppet of Israel. Use the week to pull our troops out of the Middle East and let them destroy each other.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 10:21:27 AM EDT
[#10]
Actually I think the most logical answer would be to give Iran an ultimatum, give up the nukes or be destroyed. And if they nuke Isreal proced with destruction. We have over 3000 nukes, I am sure we wouldnt miss the 500 or so we lob at Iran.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 10:21:50 AM EDT
[#11]
Whatever... Israel threatening to attack them unless we do? Where is the threat there? Drop a few MOAB's on their nuclear facilities, let the IDF kick some ass.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 10:21:55 AM EDT
[#12]
do you teach any internet courses? 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 10:22:55 AM EDT
[#13]
iranian retaliation, another Arab-Israeli war with alot of American troops caught right in the middle. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 10:23:53 AM EDT
[#14]
I WISH - then I wouldn't have to wait until I get tenure to start teachinig in a bathrobe and slippers
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 10:24:21 AM EDT
[#15]
|
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 10:25:31 AM EDT
[#16]
We just steal the fissile material from North Korea and fabricate an anouncement that NK is going to take over Iran to solve their energy deficit. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 10:28:00 AM EDT
[#17]
Sortie all the Ohios and surface them all at the same time for a few hours. Make sure the media captures the event. Send pics to your favorite Iranian embassy.
CW |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 10:28:57 AM EDT
[#18]
well, i have a page or two on each of my options, but here's what i got in order of kerry to bush (ahahahahaha):
1. Ask them what they want and give it to them 2. Ask them what they want and negotiate with them 3. Do Nothing 4. Ask them what they want and withhold it 5. Allow punitive actions via proxy 6. Take punitive actions alone |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 10:29:19 AM EDT
[#19]
Like we don't have several of the "missing" nukes from the old Soviet Union? Credible deniability. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 10:31:38 AM EDT
[#20]
The whole premise is bogus as hell.
1) Iran isn't going to <b>announce</b> the completion of the nukes they are working so hard to complete - they are simply going to launch them on Israel at the earliest possible moment - they have already stated they will do so. They have already stated they are willing to accept ANY retaliatory losses to do so. 2) Israel isn't going to wait on us, and certainly isn't going to wait until the Iranian program bears its poison fruit. They will strike early, just as they did against Iraq / Osirak, 20+yrs ago. They already posses the military capability to do so. 3) The US is FAR from 'stretched too far' in Iraq. Liberal bullshit rhetoric at its worst. We have less than 5% of our current total military in Iraq. And only some 15% of our ground forces. 4) There isn't going to be any ground invasion of Iran. It is unneeded. The 'options' are simple. Crippling bomb strikes on the distributed nuclear weapons labs within Iran. repeat as necessary to keep the program from making any progress. A parallel series of decapitation strikes on the Iranian Mullahs. Another parallel effort to arm and support the burgeoning youth rebellion, already bubbling in Iran. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 10:33:45 AM EDT
[#21]
In law school instead of winning an argument you can attack the scenario instead. I am not in law school. We deal with what we have...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 11:32:54 AM EDT
[#23]
Well, Iran must know Israel has nukes, so a mini Cold War would ensue. Iranian nukes are not a threat to us because we can trace it. If some terrorists use Iranian material for an attack on the US they know we would hold them responsible with tragic consequences to them.
I don't like the idea of being threatened by either country. I'd tell Israel to cool it. Public denounciation of Israel might actually help in the negotiations with the Muslim world. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 11:35:04 AM EDT
[#24]
Israel is estimated to have around 50 nukes. So whats the problem if Israel nukes Iran?
After Israel nuked Iran, who among the remaining arab nations would be stupid enough to attack Israel? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 11:40:11 AM EDT
[#25]
Israel can handle the threat, and they know that we will likely stay out altogether unless the entire region erupts from the north end of Africa to Maylasia. Turkey, Russia, China, and India will contain it along their borders. France, Italy, Spain, and Greece will control the Med. The UN wil fuck around in the Balkans barely keeping a lid on there. Britain and the US will rattle sabers; the rest of the players know that the US really isn't stretched all that{/u] thin and will try to placate those two countries.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 11:44:20 AM EDT
[#26]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 11:46:20 AM EDT
[#27]
1) We COULD deal with Iraq AND Iran at the same time. 2) IF Israel attacked Iran, we'd have to deal with it anyhow.
Brutal, bunker busting, relentless, on EVERY suspected site. No need for boots on the ground, UNLESS, there is intell that would support a Raid on a SPECIFIC site. Otherwise, Bunker bust. EVEN Nuclear bunker busters. Whatever our next move, be it Syria, Iran, or Korea... It has to be hardcore, swift, and without a hint of vaccilation. A post election Bush will have that "well, now I can act accordingly" vibe.... |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 12:55:40 PM EDT
[#28]
for all of the 'go in and strike' guys. Where would you go in and strike? Everyone knows they learned from Osirak and spread out their program with all - ALL - all ALL - ALL (unanimous in stratfor, JANES and UN opinion) ALL of their key sites spread out over the ENTIRE country in underground sites. So where would you strike?
And what if you missed. Iran doesn't have the TaepoDongs yet, much less the newer ones. They can't reach us. So what would the parking lot known as Iran do then? So how ya think they are gonna get back at us? It's called a suitcase... and it only takes one. Bad answer. and as regards....
Actually we're all paying his salary at DHS - maritime intelligence. He's very smart and very center of road politically in a Council of Foriegn Relations kind of way. E.g. he's from the crowd that didn't buy wmd in iraq but agreed with the war for all the right reasons, and stands up for the war against the REAL lefties on campus. But the scenario holds true nonetheless, we're not invading a country with a standing army of a million, be it Korea, Iran or anyone else with an army that size. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 12:57:26 PM EDT
[#29]
and of course i'd LOVE to see that parking lot constructed, but that's the wrong answer. wrong for our iran policy, would DESTROY our credibiltiy in Iraq and would really set us back in terms of the region.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 1:01:03 PM EDT
[#30]
Launch Air Strikes to take out Nuclear and Chemical Weapons Facilities.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 1:02:52 PM EDT
[#31]
Or are we to assume the US is in the worst and a most incompetent situation possible?
|
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 1:16:08 PM EDT
[#32]
ssbn!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 1:16:39 PM EDT
[#33]
Haven`t we bought a lot of nuclear material from the Russians and their Commonwealth of Independent STates? Just put some of that into the mix, it makes the accident scenario more plausible.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 1:21:25 PM EDT
[#34]
 how sothat iran has the bomb, that israel wouldn't let that stand for long, that they'd consult the US first, that it is not in the US interest to 'bomb' Iran in any way, or that we don't have one percent of the resources we'd need to invade a country with a modern army and a million men. Hey, I love the army, wee - GO TROOPS!!! yay. I got a ribbon on my car and I adopt-many-a-soldiers. I feel for them when they get hurt, I'm proud and thankful when they succeed. That doesn't change the fact that we do not have enough men to do anything other than a half assed job in Afghanistan and a good job in Iraq. You think we got enough free resources to deter N Korea or Iran from threatening our firends, or to prevent genocide in Africa or narco-terrorism in S America. What are you on? I will put money on the line that you think China is a threat to us. (hint: they're not. you don't own 75% of a nations outstanding bonds, as they do, if you're enemies.) 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 2:05:30 PM EDT
[#35]
A hint at the distance from the Persian Gulf (which the israelis are well aware of) to the nuclear facilities in Iran, the furthest being about 1550+- miles from one location. As many whatever it is they are launching from their subs, the same for their planes if used to hit the northern most bases. All of our inventory of patriot and newer experimental ground to air and air to air intercept missles, as well as offer Most Army and Marine S/F (S/S stay in Iraq) to work jointly with theirs for a couple months to help prevent small groups of whomever slipping into israel with any thing Radiological. The availability of SAR if needed in Iraq, our support and luck and a god speed. And the comment: The next 30 years are going to be very interesting, stopping this WAR is not as easy as most make it sound, it's already a World War..... most don't want to or won't understand that until something that dwarfs 9/11 happends. No matter how much people want peace, organized Warfare has been practiced solely by Humans and Ants of all the species on the Planet. It's a natural characteristic of our species, sometimes there is peace, now there is going to be war for a while. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 2:19:00 PM EDT
[#36]
We invaded Iraq, the 4th largest military country in the world. Don't think Iran or Korea would be much of a problem if China and Russia butt out. CW |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 2:24:35 PM EDT
[#37]
Coup d'etat of the ruling mullahs. Smart bomb their houses, assassinate them, cause chaos in the capital, combined with comprehensive bombing raids on all known nuke sites.
Incite revolution with the student liberal movement, broadcast propaganda over satellite tv that the mullahs are dead and the Islamic Republic is gone. Smart bomb all government, police, and intelligence facilities and Revolutionary Guard HQ. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 2:26:54 PM EDT
[#38]
raven gets points. but we don't have the best reputation when it comes to supporting shiite revolutions. (1991).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 2:27:52 PM EDT
[#39]
Nothing. It is not in our interest. They do not have an ICBM. Let the Israelis make the strike if they need to. It does not change our position as the "Great Satan". From a Strategic standpoint, if it leads to a greater regional war we let the regional powers depleted their resources and then call in NATO or the UN to "Mop up". |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 2:31:58 PM EDT
[#40]
What would people think then? The Soviets have returned? 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 2:40:10 PM EDT
[#41]
Easy, use a stealth bomber or two to drop smallish nukes on Iran's sites where they are developing nuclear bombs, and then express tons of concern and sympathy for the "accident" they had with their nuclear program.
Indignantly deny any suggestion that we had anything to do with their accident. Offer to send aid to help the poor primitive bastards who got bruned playing with fire. (and make sure that North Korea understand how easy it is for such accidents to happen). Use Soviet materials. Let N.Korea know they are due for an "accident" too. Suggest that Syria just stay cool while we excavate the pits our sats saw around their bases with all those Iraqi trucks. We will gladly remove that stuff before something bad happens. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 2:43:53 PM EDT
[#42]
this is my option number 3's explanaiton. It's like a teenage daughter/. nothing you can do wil be cool to her. so to, nothing the satan can do will be right, so fuck 'em. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 4:24:44 PM EDT
[#43]
Your entire premise is that we, for some reason "have to invade", in order to deal with Iran. That just isn't true. It's a novice assumption. Also, that we are "spread too thin" is an assumption that is not necessarily true, because it is based on your OTHER assumption (must have enough troops to invade).
In fact NONE of your questions OR answers deall stategically with the enemy or the mission, just look:
Think more like a General. Ignore the politics. Think in terms of mission, commander's intent, Enemy's Most Probable Course of Action, and your desired "End State". Then if you must, throw in politics. But not first.
What am I on? I'm on my nineteenth year of service as a Marine Officer, who's spent a life involved in politics, expeditionary warfare, strategy and employment of troops and weapons systems. My roomate (junior to me) when I was in Third Marines is now you Professor's BOSS at DHS (acting head of your professor's division). What are you on? Condescending asshole pills?
Your assumptions are as pedestrian as your insistance to over-control the question. It reflects poorly on your critical thinking abilities, and your creativity. Next time you ask a question, maybe you should listen, and not just spout. I DO hope this isn't your major... You do this when you ask questions about weapons, too. You ask a question, even though you've already made up your mind. Then you get mad when our answers don't match yours. That might work for you, when you're deciding on a new rifle, it will NOT work in acedemia. |
|||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 5:17:53 PM EDT
[#44]
How you can be supermarine and get so much so wrong...
 a) fabulous... a marine, of all types of soldiers claiming we don't need troops to invade a country with a million man army. b) afghanistan is a success... well, shwew thank god. Fortunately, one day it will be, but it isn't yet. that's not a reflection on the marines, the armed forces, you or the president for that matter. We can't put a soldier on every inch of every porous border. Improvements have been made, e.g. sexual plurality, a democratization of most of the country, but can we call it stable, i think not. c) as regards my paper, your insistence that Iran is the enemy, why? Cause the have a nuke? Countries don't develop nukes for one reason and one reason alone. It's quite logical to say that they developed nukes to, for example, show the religious revolutionary guard that the political leadership is in control of key institutions, e,g, the military. They could have devloped nuclear weapons to be bribed by the US to give them a 'seat at the table' re: Iraq and other regional affairs. There's no rule that says they developed nukes to use them or to threaten to use them. The key here (at least I think) in my professor scenario is that they 'declared' their status. Why declare if you're going to use them? The US and Israel certainly have enough TMD resources in the area to defend against a sole weapon, so why declare a sole weapon? A sole weapon can be defended against. d) besides for flaming every thread I've ever had, you are living proof that opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one. e)
This is why there's civilian leadership of the military. And don't question my patriotism or support of soldiers who do their jobs and then SHUT THE FUCK UP. I think we have enough former officers blowing their intellectual loads on TV... I suspect you sir are a future pundit. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 5:29:56 PM EDT
[#45]
and this is my major, well was. I'm getting a masters now. Two ears one mouth thing. Learn then talk. It's much better than spouting whatever comes up in your head and then trying to fit it into reality.....
Like this gem:
No, there were some great insights in the thread that really helped me formulate my paper. None of them were yours. You sir are a product of a military establishment in search of the ever elusive post cold war near-peer competitor in order to justify your inflated budgets and unnecesary weapons systems. First it was Iraq, then China, soon it will be North Korea and maybe just maybe one day Iran. Always searching for a fight to justify your F-22's and Crusader's, when the F15 and Paladin will do. I'm very sorry that your 20 year career still has you thinking the 1980 mindset, but the strategic reality has changed. The largest Shiite country cannot be 'bombed' while shiites represent 40% of an Iraq that YOUR comrades and my troops are patrolling - that would be signing their death warrant. There is no way in HELL under ANY circumstances that the arab and muslim world would accept anotehr western invasion of another muslim country. AND where are you gonna find the resources for your war. You gonna bomb underground bunkers? how deep are they, how redundant, where are they, how many fake ones? How many MOABS you think we have? You gonna nuke them? Not in one million years. Sure you can invade Iran, just empty all of South Korea and call up the boy scouts. And they're really gonna hold on to that nuke while we invade right? It's not going straight to Sadr city. Dolt. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 5:32:50 PM EDT
[#46]
Should Offer Israel use of all reasonable resources of US government to eliminate the nuclear threat they face using conventional precision weapons. (Of note, Israel has attacked nuclear facilities in the region in the past using F-16's flying fast and low.) Make note during our offer that we have troops currently in Iraq. Should any attack on Israel place our troops in "more" danger, this will be a direct threat to the interests of the United States. We would not be, of course, able to further clarify what action we would take, but it would be swift and proportional to the damage inflicted upon our troops. Explain that confidence can be placed in our ability to gather the necessary intelligence and resources to attack the pinpoint source of the threat. Should they not accept our offer, we do require sufficient official notice so we may prepare our interests in the region for the event. Should sufficient notice not be made, we would consider the insufficient notice as a direct threat to the interests of the United States. Hopefully, they would decide to accept our offer.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 5:38:01 PM EDT
[#47]
I have this feeling that shortly after our election, AWACS supported Israeli F16I's with our bunker busters will be over Iran--regardless of the results of the election. They may get help from some help from our B-2's.IIRC, they can carry 80 precision smart bombs. The US can decide to take credit for some, all or none of the action.
What would that do to your assignment? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 5:42:27 PM EDT
[#48]
I personally would love to see option 5. That's what i recommend actually. A suez like operation with a full scale israeli operation of commandos and bombers eliminating every site on the list and crippling the revolutionary guards coupled with assasination of all the major relgious autocrats. We then step in ala suez 1956 and say 'bad israel', and you know what, you guys probably need peacekeepers now to 'protect' you from Israel now that you have no govenrment.
Get Russia, Iraq and Pakistan to act as peacekeepers till the (ugh) UN can hold real elections there. Almost the same as Osirak - just add regime change to the laundry list. And Cincinnatus; nothing personal here, but you are ALWAYS on my ass. If I god forbid answer back please excuse me. I sincerely believe that you and reality are far far away, and it's kinda scary seeing as you're a long-time Marine. You think we can take care of Iran alone? Are you serious? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 5:45:13 PM EDT
[#49]
The danger in nuclear material is not knowing where it comes from. If you don't know who it comes from then you don't know who to retaliate against and you don't have a MAD situation.
That's the reason why missing material from Russia is such a concern. That's why Iraq's program was a threat. Iran's material is not a threat. They know if they "lose" any material that we will hold them responsible and Bam will look like a Sunday outing. The reason they want nukes is power, and not like you're thinking. Sure it makes them look good in the Muslim world, but more importantly we can't afford to have a country with nukes with a .gov that could be overthrown. It would force our hand to "support" their gov't. We are doing the same thing with Pakistan, and believe you me they know that and have learned from it. Libya on the other hand, was too far away from such a program to make a run. So his options were limited. About the only thing he could do to ensure he had power is play ball on WMD. I have to confess ignorance on the subject of NK's nukes. I'm not sure where they are getting their material. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2004 5:51:09 PM EDT
[#50]
You need to go back to the basics on this one, essay number two in:
 |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
