MAD?

spikenigma · Post by **spikenigma** » 2007-02-01 08:37am

MAD?

posted on another forum, thought you all might like it:

so, here's the scenario:

You are a the Jewish commander of an Israeli nuclear sub doing your daily patrol underneath [insert sea] within striking distance of Iran.

One day, You wake up and go about your daily sub-related duties when your sub recieves a garbled message, the radio then goes dead with static. You switch on all radio communication channels to try to communicate with a few military bases in your homeland and get no response.

After an hour you are contacted directly by the British (MI5) and the FBI on a secure and authorised channel.

They tell you that Iran has launched a successful and deadly multiple nuclear strike on all Israel's major cities and population areas. The country is completely and utterly wiped in the worst single unprovoked attack in human history, everybody in the country is presumed dead or fatally injured

MI5/FBI say that the worldwide response has been total and utter condemnation and disgust (including 92% of the majority population of Iran itself) and that Iran will shortly be invaded by a worldwide coalition made up of nearly every country on Earth.

They also say that everybody responsible for the attack will be brought to swift justice. However the response will be strictly non-nuclear

You have it on up to the minute Israeli intelligence (located in Iran) that the 36 Iranian leaders responsibile for the attack are all located currently in the Iranian city of Ahwaz (pop. 800k)

the facts:

* You have enough nuclear weapons to hit every Iranian city on your sub
* You trust the intel implicitly as to the location of the leaders
* the men/women on your sub will follow whatever order you give

what do you do and why?

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2007-02-01 09:03am

The scenario is ridiculous in the first place.

Other than that, nuclear retaliation. That's the only thing that keeps nuclear attacks from occuring around the world, and if there's a single un-retaliated nuclear attack, it would make the world a pretty bad place _very_ soon.

The Grim Squeaker · Post by **The Grim Squeaker** » 2007-02-01 09:57am

Stas Bush wrote:The scenario is ridiculous in the first place.

Other than that, nuclear retaliation. That's the only thing that keeps nuclear attacks from occuring around the world, and if there's a single un-retaliated nuclear attack, it would make the world a pretty bad place _very_ soon.

True, you raise an interesting point, that theres a moral responsibility to maintain MAD.
Apart from that I would Nuke Ahwaz into a smoking crater, as well as the Capital of Iran (Tehran) and their largest industrial center, any army bases and the Nuke silos.
After doing that I quietly go to my cabin and stick a gun in my mouth (After writing a suicide note in Arabic or blowing up the sub to reduce the case of other nations calling for the destruction of any Jewish or Israeli survivors for their "Crimes against Humanity").

Stupid scenario though (militarily speaking).

The Grim Squeaker · Post by **The Grim Squeaker** » 2007-02-01 10:00am

Stas Bush wrote:The scenario is ridiculous in the first place.

Other than that, nuclear retaliation. That's the only thing that keeps nuclear attacks from occuring around the world, and if there's a single un-retaliated nuclear attack, it would make the world a pretty bad place _very_ soon.

True, you raise an interesting point, that theres a moral responsibility to maintain MAD.
Apart from that I would Nuke Ahwaz into a smoking crater, as well as the Capital of Iran (Tehran), any army bases and the Nuke silos.
After doing that I quietly go to my cabin and stick a gun in my mouth (After writing a suicide note in Arabic or blowing up the sub to reduce the case of other nations calling for the destruction of any Jewish or Israeli survivors for their "Crimes against Humanity").

MI5/FBI say that the worldwide response has been total and utter condemnation and disgust (including 92% of the majority population of Iran itself) and that Iran will shortly be invaded by a worldwide coalition made up of nearly every country on Earth.

Hahaha. So the world will give a shit about the Jews & Palestinians just as it did about the Tutsis, Darfur, Islam/Christian massacres in Lebanon, etc'.
About as likely as the US stopping the Darfur massacres this very minute this possibility is.

Stupid scenario though (militarily speaking).

KrauserKrauser · Post by **KrauserKrauser** » 2007-02-01 10:07am

I see no reason to eat a bullet for launching in these circumstances.

There will not be a worldwide nuclear exchange, you just are just showing the Iranians the consequences of engaging in Nuclear war. You are more than likely saving other military personnel from incineration from nukes during their invasion or from the use Chem/Bio weapons as the Iranians have appearantly gone batshit insane and would throw everything they had at an invasion, presumably.

Tehran - Glass, Ahwayz - Double Glass, Port Cities - Glass, Military bases - Glass. I would do as much damage as I possibly could to ensure that tehy understood the consequences of engaging in nuclear exchange, to do otherwise would simply invite others to belive there were none.

If the world doesn't have the balls to show Iran what happens to bullies, then I guess I would have to.

I feel bad for Syria, Lebanon and Jordan who will be utterly fucked by the fallout, but no feelings of regret or remorse for the Iranians, fuckers gotta pay.

Melchior · Post by **Melchior** » 2007-02-01 01:22pm

KrauserKrauser wrote: I feel bad for Syria, Lebanon and Jordan who will be utterly fucked by the fallout, but no feelings of regret or remorse for the Iranians, fuckers gotta pay.

Yes, that enormous majority of the Iranians that was against the attack deserves death, obviously. You are morally bankrupt.

KrauserKrauser · Post by **KrauserKrauser** » 2007-02-01 02:28pm

Ummmm, let's see, my country is destroyed, my family is dead. Presumably the family every person on this ship is dead. All at the hands of the Iranians.

Why again does that mean I have to give a shit about the people responsible for the attack?

Simple invasion won't last, they have to see the lasting consequences of nuclear exchange. Unless the people involved are walked onto my ship and I can personally mutilate them, which won't happen, they will get a slap and tickle show at the Hague followed by a quick and easy execution.

I could give a shit if the populace of the cuntry decides that after the fact they made a mistake in handing the people in power the keys to the missles, they made the mistake and unless they are shown the same treatment, they will be getting off easy.

They destroyed the nation of Isreal, killed everyone inside as per the OP and I'm somehow supposed to be molified that the leaders will be "found and brought to justice." The nation as a whole should be broken down to the fundamental atoms where appropriate, "We're so sorry" doesn't really make up for what they alowed to happen.

Ok, I won't go nuclear if they FAB the surface of the country. Anything short of complete and utter annihilation of the country as an operating unit will not send the message completely that you do not nuke countries without retaliation in kind.

This is forgetting that as a commanding officer of an SSBN I more than likely have a set of orders in case of such a scenario and if nothing else, there should be orders and communication available from the existing senior diplomatic corps of Israel, from the UN representative, the senior ambassadorship, etc. There would be a command structure in place to make sure that I would not be acting as a rogue agent in case of reomval of the military command structure.

Left to my own devices, I would launch, and launch as quickly as possible to lessen the chances of intercept or determination of my position by the foreign military powers in the area. Any sane military would have plans set up in case of such circumstances, especially the Isrealis, with their history of relatively competent military planning.

What would you propose the "swift justice" be done to Iran? Kill the leaders and let the precedent stand that if you launch a nuclear strike, your country will simply get to carry on with a new set of leaders?

If the fucking world invades, they are just going to leave, especially when the populace will simply say "mea coulpa" and public opinion will shift to forgiveness, as it always does due to the population's short attention span. Are you going to strip them of nuclear capability? Why? The are just going to use it for power generation purposes. Are you going to enact sanctions? Why? It will just harm them economically and inevitably lead to a resurgence in the nationalist forces that caused the strike in the first place.

Unless you fundamentally alter their perceptions concerning actions and consequences, they will just ignore their previous actions and continue on living their lives.

Ok, here is an alternative. Force the country as a whole to convert to Judiasm. Then I won't launch. Close all their mosques, denounce Islam as inherintly violent and insane, won't have to shoot any body in addition to the pig fucking Imams that will have been behind the launch anyway, and pass out Yamichas, dredels, matza and Torahs and force them at gunpoint to inact the freedoms that their fucking idiotic past has shown to be detrimental time after time.

Or maybe, I don't know, forcibly move the entire population of Iran at gunpoint to walk across Iraq and set them up some tents in what is remaining of Isreal, then wall tehm up inside their self created nuclear wasteland. Let the remainder out after a year, sure, just to be nice.

I mean honestly, besides nuking them what is the just punishment for the murder of 7 MILLION people, Jews, Arabs and Gentiles alike. What amount of money would need to be given in resititution to the relatives of the murdered population? More than Iran could make in a handful of lifetimes. Empty platitudes of sorrow and claims of not being responsible sound a bit hollow when echoing off the corpses of 7 million.

Modern invasion being what it is, the country would actually benefit in the long run, especially as the shit stain governemtn would be taken out and a western compatible government thrown in. Money would then flow into the region to stabilize the now invaded country, and their economy would flourish due to the amount of control the invaders would be able to impose on their operations. This gets even better for the Iranians if they simply welcome the invaders in, which would be likely due to the 92% result from teh opion polls on the attack. So, after a few years of resistance, Iran actually improves from their actions.

Isreal, in the mean time, is a smoking crater. Sorry, Iran gets nuked, and hard.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2007-02-01 02:40pm

The moral importance of nuclear retaliation lies in it's ability to maintain nuclear peace and the strong fear against using nuclear weapons. If this doesn't happen, fear evaporates and nuclear peace does likewise.

KrauserKrauser · Post by **KrauserKrauser** » 2007-02-01 02:55pm

Let's not forget that to kill 100% of the citizenry of Israel, the amount of nukes required would be quite a significant number, probably more than 10-20, maybe more or less depending on the yield.

This would have been a calculated effort to wipe out the nation of Israel with an added side effect of ruining the area surrounding Israel with radioactive fallout that will devastate Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, the entire Arab peninsula will be impacted by the actions of the Persians in power.

Should nukes be involved? No. Nukes shouldn't be flying at any time. The reasons behind that are that the only appropriate response to the use of a nuclear device is the use of a nuclear device, as nothing else will match that raw destructive power and the psychological impact of a nuke. FAB? Nope, unless you have a shit load of them. Invasion? You won't simply murder the populace in an invasion, it just won't happen, especially with teh cameras that will accompany the invading army.

Also, woohoo they are going to get invaded! By a coalition! They'll definitely be out for blood! Oh wait, they won't. They'll be pragmatic and try to maintain as much of the infrasturcture as possible, they'll limit thier incursions and focus on the replacement of the sitting government. At no point will they visit the same destruction on teh citizenry of Iran as what was done to Israel.

I mean come the fuck on! Isreal is GONE. WIPED THE FUCK OFF THE MAP! 7,000,000 people are dead. How the fuck is an international invasion going to bring about retribution for that, especially since international cooperation will lessen the speed, impact and the overall ferocity that these fuckers should have brought down on them. It's not like they are going to rape and pillage the countryside, they aer simply going to occupy the territory and bring about stabilization which will more than likely already be there given their 92% regret of their actions. No international non nuclear retaliation is going to vicious, and vicious retaliation is what Iran will deserve for what they did.

Melchior · Post by **Melchior** » 2007-02-01 03:06pm

KrauserKrauser wrote: Why again does that mean I have to give a shit about the people responsible for the attack?

Let's see, because they are not actually responsible?

KrauserKrauser · Post by **KrauserKrauser** » 2007-02-01 03:32pm

Sweet, if I claim that disagree with the government that I supported up until that point's actions, I get a free ride to commiting genocide!

Oh, if I say "bad government!" and wag my finger at them when they kill 7,000,000 innocent people, then I get off scott free?

Oh there will be an invasion! Oh no! They'll replace the government and bring about massive positive changes to my country that have been repressed by the same ignorant fuck sticks that commited the atrocity against Israel. They'll bring billions in aid to the now "repressed" population of Iran, you know since we vaporized everyone that can complain in Israel so they can't complain.

Oh we'll have to watch sensitivity videos and say we did something bad, while the 8% of the population taht thinks it was a good thing will eat away at the 92% and eventually overcome them since nothing measurably horrible will be done in retaliation for my people's atrocity.

Damn we are glad the world will depend on a FUCKING GALLOP OPINION POLL to determine the right course of action. Thank god for dipshits like Melchior that think the reigns of government are fucking easy to control, especially in Iran and everyone has the power to willy nilly shoot out nukes if they say "we're so sorry" afterwards.

Since when did a FUCKING OPINION POLL of people that are expecting like retaliation start mattering. I'm sure tehy disagreed with the actions, they knew that the established and understood response was a nuke to the face. Who in their right minds would want to be nuked? That's why you don't let fucking idiots into power that will brazenly shoot off their country's nuclear arsenal at another nation. We're 92% of the people against putting the fuckers in power? No? Did an uprising begin when they started contemplating the use of nukes? No? They elected fucking psychos that for no discernable reason will invite nuclear retaliation on their country.

When you join the nuclear playboys club, you up the ante. You use your weapons, they use theirs right back. That's why you don't put the psychos that that OP would require into power, they will get you nuked, so keep them out of power.

Grow the fuck up and come into reality you ignorant pie in the sky douchebag. You don't get a slap on the wrist when using nuclear weapons to kill 7 million people, you get nuked.

Kane Starkiller · Post by **Kane Starkiller** » 2007-02-01 03:53pm

Of course you get nuked since no country can afford to leave a nuclear attack unanswered because it sends a message to the possible future attackers.
But you DON'T nuke a country because you are enraged and go around screaming "RAH RAH reduce it to atoms, CONVERT them to Judaism SMASH KILL" and shit like that.

KrauserKrauser · Post by **KrauserKrauser** » 2007-02-01 04:08pm

The convert to Judiasm was my reaction to what can you do other tahn nuke them, since appearantly I am morally bankrupt if I feel no remorse for simply responding in kind to a nuclear attack.

It would be pretty funny if they did convert to Judiasm instead.

Ritterin Sophia · Post by **Ritterin Sophia** » 2007-02-01 04:19pm

I've got a question, why would the US government actually give the FBI time to contact the Israeli Sub before glassing Iran, that would certainly be par for the course.

Melchior · Post by **Melchior** » 2007-02-01 04:23pm

KrauserKrauser wrote:Sweet, if I claim that disagree with the government that I supported up until that point's actions, I get a free ride to commiting genocide!

Nice strawman, but it won't work. Even without ridiculing your embarrasing fantasies of forced conversion and/or deportation, vengeance isn't a ethical argument. Avoiding to increase the risk of future nuclear attacks is an argument. Iranians being all guilty by association and righteously punishable by death is just idiocy.

KrauserKrauser · Post by **KrauserKrauser** » 2007-02-01 04:41pm

Those "fantasies" were simply alternatives to exchange of nuclear weapons, which would be the appropriate response, as per my OP. If you absolutely had to get the message out that nuclear weapon use will not be tolerated, but want to disallow the normal nuclear response, any amount of degradation would be preferable to a nuclear response.

Iran would have to be nuked, random people in Iran will have to die, just like ALL of the random people in Israel died. Iran, and the rest of the world, will have to be taught a lesson on why we don't lob nukes around.

Funny that all the foreign powers with citizenry in Israel would somehow forget that Iran had killed all of them, and that the US had decided to completely forget their arrangements with Israel. I guess it's fairly easy, since they are all dead now. No one to cry about it, and all that.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2007-02-01 06:06pm

In other words, to teach the world a lesson about the consequences of using nukes, you kill random Iranians that were against the attack in the first place. Just what kind of message does that send?

KrauserKrauser · Post by **KrauserKrauser** » 2007-02-01 06:21pm

It sends the only appropriate message that should be used for the exchange of nuclear weapons. Don't do it, don't let leaders into power that are willing to do it, or advocate the desire to do it.

The OP does not go into the state of teh world prestrike. It describes a typical day in the life of an SSBN commander, when suddenly and without provocation or warning the Iranians wipe out your country. The correct response is to wipe out their's in response. That is the understood response to teh use of nuclear weapons. That is why you don't fucking use them.

It's not like they let a suitcase nuke slip out. They had to have launched the majority of their arsenal to wipe out all of Israel. The appropriate and understood response is to respond in kind.

For all of you saying that responding in kind is incorrect, what do you propose would be the correct response, sitting there with a thumb up your ass?

Darth Mordius · Post by **Darth Mordius** » 2007-02-01 06:43pm

KrauserKrauser wrote:Iran would have to be nuked, random people in Iran will have to die, just like ALL of the random people in Israel died. Iran, and the rest of the world, will have to be taught a lesson on why we don't lob nukes around.

You psychopathic little fucker.

KrauserKrauser wrote:They destroyed the nation of Isreal, killed everyone inside as per the OP and I'm somehow supposed to be molified that the leaders will be "found and brought to justice."

Yes you are. Do you believe the Nuremburg trials were insufficient? Would you have had Germany reduced to ash?

KrauserKrauser wrote:Why again does that mean I have to give a shit about the people responsible for the attack?

You don't. They can dangle at the end of a noose. However, membership of the responsibility club is restricted to the members of the government and military who carried out the attack. Turning innocent civilians into radioactive ash is not justified.

KrauserKrauser wrote:For all of you saying that responding in kind is incorrect, what do you propose would be the correct response, sitting there with a thumb up your ass?

How about the rest of the world invading Iran? The correct response is to invade and capture their leaders, and then execute them after giving them a fair trial. We do this because we're the fucking first world western democracies, not some warlord with a hard-on for genocide.

KrauserKrauser · Post by **KrauserKrauser** » 2007-02-01 07:05pm

No, Sir, the correct response is to respond in kind. Those are the standing orders that I will more than likely receive from the Israeli government that still remains.

The world isn't fun times and lollipops and in reality the world won't instantly unite and decide to invade. An attack on a sovereign nation will invite a response in kind.

Anything less will invite it happening again somewhere else.

Darth Mordius · Post by **Darth Mordius** » 2007-02-01 07:23pm

KrauserKrauser wrote:The world isn't fun times and lollipops and in reality the world won't instantly unite and decide to invade. An attack on a sovereign nation will invite a response in kind.

It doesn't really matter if Asscrackistan decides not to join in the fun. The US alone has the capability kick Iran back to the dark ages. Of course, they wouldn't do it alone - every western power would join in.

If we reverse the roles - if Israel wipes out all 68 million people in Iran - is a rogue Iranian officer justified in glassing Tel Aviv?

Jadeite · Post by **Jadeite** » 2007-02-01 09:14pm

posted on another forum

SomethingAwful, and my response there is the exact same as here.

Tehran, Ahwaz, every major Iranian city, gets taken out. Just to ensure maximum casualties, I'd wait until rush hour in the evening. Most of the people who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were out on the streets and had no protection, thus waiting for evening rush hour will ensure the maximum amount of people with little or no protection, plus the coming night will further hamper rescue and damage control operations. Iran will perish just as utterly and quickly as Israel did, and with just as little mercy as they showed. Israel will vanish into history, and it will take Iran with it.

KrauserKrauser · Post by **KrauserKrauser** » 2007-02-01 10:27pm

Darth Mordius wrote:
KrauserKrauser wrote:The world isn't fun times and lollipops and in reality the world won't instantly unite and decide to invade. An attack on a sovereign nation will invite a response in kind.
It doesn't really matter if Asscrackistan decides not to join in the fun. The US alone has the capability kick Iran back to the dark ages. Of course, they wouldn't do it alone - every western power would join in.

If we reverse the roles - if Israel wipes out all 68 million people in Iran - is a rogue Iranian officer justified in glassing Tel Aviv?

Yep, those are the breaks in nuclear exchange.

You have to have sane people on both sides to make sure no one is stupid enough to push teh little red button.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2007-02-01 10:31pm

Use of chemical, biological, or radiological weapons invites, nay, demands a response in kind. Moral considerations do not apply at the nation state level. Any other response is insufficient. The biggest deterrent to a nuclear attack is the fear of nuclear retailation. Lack of said retailation invites more such attacks.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2007-02-01 10:40pm

Since we are not given one of the most essential bits of this entire scenario, it's very hard to weigh in what should happen other then personal reactions.

What are the man's orders in case this situation. There is protocol and orders that relate in said situations and the OP provided none of this.

So really this is nothing more then a glossed up bullshit scenario to see who would push the button and who wouldn't on a basis of which way do you lean in retaliation.. The OP is no different if we gave a father a gun if he heard his family was butchered and the man who did it is sitting across from him.