Posted on 04/03/2010 4:45:51 PM PDT by honestabe010
Over the past three months, several prominent American think tanks and academic institutions have conducted simulation games about the Iranian crisis. Although these war games have nicely covered almost all facets of the problem, they have left one aspect mostly understudied: the nature of Iran's response to a U.S. or Israeli airstrike. I recently took part in two U.S. government-sponsored games in which the participants attempted to provide a modest assessment of that crucial issue.
War simulation games are certainly not a new invention in government practice. Indeed, the history of strategy and that of simulation are inseparable. Ever since men formed armies and thought of ways to outfox their enemies, simulation has been an integral part of military planning. The art of simulation was perfected during the Cold War, but once the Soviet Union fell, it experienced a lull. Today, as the United States faces the Iranian nuclear challenge, simulation is back in business. Over the past three months, several prominent American think tanks and academic institutions have conducted simulation games about the Iranian crisis. Although these war games have nicely covered almost all facets of the problem, they have left one aspect mostly understudied: the nature of Iran's response to a U.S. or Israeli airstrike. I recently took part in two U.S. government-sponsored games in which the participants attempted to provide a modest assessment of that crucial issue.
The simulations in which I participated began with the premise that the U.S. president, having exhausted all diplomatic strategies, had just made the tough decision to employ military force against Iran, with the chief objective of destroying or at least seriously damaging the country's key nuclear-power centers.
(Excerpt) Read more at thewoodwardreport.com ...
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
>Obama has failed in becoming the leader of the Free World.<
.
You must have leadership qualities to become one.
How do airstrikes solve anything??
You just piss off the Iranian people, turn them against your country (they’re actually pro-US right now) while rallying them around theirs, give the Iranian government a legitimate excuse for arming - “Hey, there’s countries out there trying to destroy us” - while it gets international sympathy.
And for what? Temporarily delaying the inevitable? Besides, Pakistan would probably give them some of their nukes, either outright or clandestinely.
Airstrikes solve nothing, and create a whole new mess of problems in an astonishingly short time. So why is this constantly brought up as a serious option?? No one in the Pentagon with half a brain is even considering it! No way the US bombs Iran, you can put Vegas money on it.
“You must have leadership qualities to become one.”
- Yes, I’m the new Obama.
Obama’s recent treatment of Israel leads me to believe that If Israel were to launch an attack on Iran, Obama would immediately know about it from US intelligence assets, and WOULD warn Iran. The result would be the devastation of Israeli air assets, which would leave them open to attack and total destruction.
And Obama would believe that to be a positive development!
ooh sparkly and shiny
That is why you do the following:
Decapitate the leadership.
Launch massive EMP strike.
Destroy all missile sites.
Destroy nukes sites with commando's and missile strikes.
Japan responded very quickly after Hiroshima.
Iranians need to understand that unless they rid themselves of their evil leadership, the US will do it for them, but with (heaven forbid) collateral devastation.
If the Iranian public wants nuclear energy, they’ll get it - once they play by the rules of the rest of the world.
If the mullahs want nuclear domination, then crush them back to before the stone age.
“Several hundred square miles of green glass can’t have much of a response... “
God, I hope it doesn’t come to that. But as a young child who curiously examined some of that stuff at the Trinity test site, I tend to agree with you.
Why would Sunni Pakistan give nuclear weapons to Shia Iran?
Several ways it could happen. To start, recognize that Pakistan’s “friendliness” to the West is questionable, at best.
So even if the government doesn’t do it itself, there are many anti-American-sympathetic individuals in the nuclear establishment and military (remember the ISI?) who could hand over helpful info or technology, or even defect.
An military attack on a country has a surprising power to suddenly unite former rivals and completely change the picture. That’s why I say an American attack on Iran is stupid, based on the strategic fundamentals.
I agree with you. Fourth scenario; the US roles over and dies.
Whether we hit them or Israel does, we will get blamed. They WILL seek revenge.
I am concerned that Iran, which has done very well in assymetrical warfare against us (mainly via a wide network of hard-to-identify proxies) will respond with the ultimate in assymetrical strikes against us - an EMP strike against at least the East coast, perhaps the entire country. They can’t take us on directly and hope to win, and such would violate Sun Tzu’s axiom to never attack an enemy’s strength - and their own methods of several decades. Given their limited capabilities, that’s the logical choice. Further, it matches their trash-talk about dealing us a blow from which we won’t recover - if we get EMP’d, 75%of us will be dead within a year (read “One Second After” if you have doubts). Even if we somehow identify who did it and turn their entire country into a green glass-covered radioactive parking lot, such wouldn’t save us.
By the way, someday I believe that they’ll attempt this against us, Israel, Europe, the Russkies, China and Japan. What better way to clear the chessboard and make yourself the one-eyed in the land of the blind? Best, in my view, to stop them from doing so at a time of their choosing, and for us to choose both the time and place of the battle.
Either way, we need to implement your solution, and the sooner the better. Literally every day we move closer to these goat phockers doing something completely nuts, as their capabilities grow daily.
That's a fitting analogy, and a scary one to watch. Looks to me like Netanyahu is the only leader on the planet who really gets it, and he's essentially a global pariah because anti-Semitism has so rapidly regrown itself around the world.
Ahmadinejad fervently believes that it's his holy mission to pave the way for the Islamic messiah, the 12th imam. And he believes the way to do it is to annihilate Christians and Jews. This little nutjob isn't pursuing nukes to increase political clout; when he gets them, he'll USE them.
For Israel, it's an existential threat. As for us, it might not completely wipe out the country, but a nuke detonated a hundred miles or so above the middle of the country will cause an EMP that instantly takes most of the country back to 19th-century technology. I think we could easily lose a third of our population from a single EMP attack. We MIGHT survive as a viable nation, but only as a shadow of its former self. The really scary thing? Iran has practiced launching missiles from container ships. I would imagine, what, dozens of them approach our country every day? Park one a hundred miles off the east coat and let loose the missile.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.