NationStates Jolt Archive

This is from a 1991 scenario by Sam Gardiner, one of the Pentagon's think tank experts.

Backdrop:
Both North Korea and Iran are rattling their sabers a little more than usual. Statements by both of their leaders are more pointed and more aggressive. Both nations at this point are either known or suspected of actually having a few nuclear weapons.

US intelligence receives information that several merchant ships are intended to arrive in US ports over the next week or so. The information is not reliable enough to convince European intelligence services that the threat is real. US intelligence believes that Iran is behind the merchant ship scheme, because the vessels did stop in an Iranian port, but were never in the Pacific at all.

The President orders ships to be searched as soon as they cross inside the 12-mile international limit.

One ship is caught and an actual nuclear device defused outside of the Port of Miami. In the process, however, the entire crew is killed, and although they appear not to be North Korean, they come from a variety of nations across the Middle East.

When a ship outside of Jacksonville is stopped, the special forces team aboard reports the presence of a nuclear weapon shortly before their signal goes off the air. A nuclear detonation has occurred with a yield of 100 kilotons, and a cloud of radioactive seawater is now headed towards Jacksonville.

You are the National Security Advisor for the President.

Make your recommendations for the response to this incident - who, if anyone, should be held to account - what response, if any, should be made - and what justification will you give the international community?

First, you hand the Shrub his copy of My Pet Goat .... and tell him he's got time to finish it this time before you get it all figured out.

Then, you shit your pants.

Next, you close down the sea lanes and send all other shipping to Canadian ports, but thank Australia for all their help afterwards.


And, to stay true to current procedures, you invade .... ummmm ..... Venuzuela. Why? Because Chavez is a dick.



How'd I do?

First, you hand the Shrub his copy of My Pet Goat .... and tell him he's got time to finish it this time before you get it all figured out.

Then, you shit your pants.

Next, you close down the sea lanes and send all other shipping to Canadian ports, but thank Australia for all their help afterwards.


And, to stay true to current procedures, you invade .... ummmm ..... Venuzuela. Why? Because Chavez is a dick.



How'd I do?


I was expecting a serious answer.

i would not go on the air and declare that islam is a religion of peace.

How about we eliminate all of the N. Korean, Pakistani and Iranian nuclear and military installations using conventional weapons in high-population areas and nuclear weapons in areas of low civilian populations and against sites hardened against conventional bombing. Then we go ahead and investigate to see who else was involved in hitting us. If we hit the wrong country by mistake, we pay some reparations and tell them that such are the consequences of being a nuclear power that threatens a larger nuclear power.

1) Dispatch emergency crews trained in recovery from a nuclear blast, insuring that as many as possible civilians get idione pills. (There's going to be a shit load ot radioactive Iodine out there.)

2) Radio contact all ships within the 12 mile line and turn them back. Those not complying will be met by coast guard and/or available naval gun ships.

3) Strictly enforce a no-float zone around the US untill further information can be gathered.

Closw down shipping lanes

Evacuate Jacksonville and surrounding areas, or at least alert authorities.

Prepare for casualties

Trace shipping back to their original ports, and try and confirm identities of the dead crewmembers from first vessel

Trace plutonium/uranium from first bomb to suspected seller - find who it was sold to

Take combined evidence to the United Nations, banking on horror of deaths on allowing a UN-US invasion or offensive against nation that created bombs

If this is refused, go ahead on our own due to number of deaths.

How about we eliminate all of the N. Korean, Pakistani and Iranian nuclear and military installations using conventional weapons in high-population areas and nuclear weapons in areas of low civilian populations and against sites hardened against conventional bombing. Then we go ahead and investigate to see who else was involved in hitting us. If we hit the wrong country by mistake, we pay some reparations and tell them that such are the consequences of being a nuclear power that threatens a larger nuclear power.

You have to give a justification to the other nations of the world... let us know what that is.

I was expecting a serious answer.

YEah, well, my answer pretty well mirrored how these things seem to be responded to.


Oh yes, and how about starting with a serious scenario then? Most expert estimates (http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=ma03norris) put possible North Korean technology (which is WAY further along the development cycle than Iran) at having nothing remotely close to a 100KT weapon. At best something in the range of 10-20 KT.

Now, are you asking if we should immediately nuke Iran based on the intel? If so, how much of it? Just the reactor programs? Do you NEED to make it a nuclear response? Or do you take the moral high ground and pound it to shit with conventional weapons?

Do you do NK at the same time? Start a war on two fronts and hope that China stays the hell out of it this time?


Sorry, but there needs to be WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more info than your little blurb before I could even begin to give a serious response.

YEah, well, my answer pretty well mirrored how these things seem to be responded to.


Oh yes, and how about starting with a serious scenario then? Most expert estimates (http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=ma03norris) put possible North Korean technology (which is WAY further along the development cycle than Iran) at having nothing remotely close to a 100KT weapon. At best something in the range of 10-20 KT.

Now, are you asking if we should immediately nuke Iran based on the intel? If so, how much of it? Just the reactor programs? Do you NEED to make it a nuclear response? Or do you take the moral high ground and pound it to shit with conventional weapons?

Do you do NK at the same time? Start a war on two fronts and hope that China stays the hell out of it this time?


Sorry, but there needs to be WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more info than your little blurb before I could even begin to give a serious response.

Your response was little more the the liberal rhetoric that's espoused several times a day on this forum.

There have been three serious responses so far. Two of them seem resonable as well.

YEah, well, my answer pretty well mirrored how these things seem to be responded to.


Oh yes, and how about starting with a serious scenario then? Most expert estimates (http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=ma03norris) put possible North Korean technology (which is WAY further along the development cycle than Iran) at having nothing remotely close to a 100KT weapon. At best something in the range of 10-20 KT.

Now, are you asking if we should immediately nuke Iran based on the intel? If so, how much of it? Just the reactor programs? Do you NEED to make it a nuclear response? Or do you take the moral high ground and pound it to shit with conventional weapons?

Do you do NK at the same time? Start a war on two fronts and hope that China stays the hell out of it this time?


Sorry, but there needs to be WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more info than your little blurb before I could even begin to give a serious response.


I'm not asking you whether to nuke or not - those are your choices. This is all the information you have at the moment - you aren't sure (to a certainty that would satisfy the EU, for instance) who did it. You are sure of the yield, which is well within the design limit of HEU devices tested by Pakistan, whose designs were shipped around the world to Iran and North Korea, for example.

Advise the President on what you think should be done. Gather more information? What?

You have to give a justification to the other nations of the world... let us know what that is.
N. Korea and Pakistan have been involved in selling nuclear technology to other nations and potentially to terrorist organizations. The expertise and materials used in making the bombs probably came from them. Iran has close links with Hezbollah, and Hezbollah cells have been found in the US in the past. Iran's hatred of America, their links to terrorist cells that have operated on our territory, and their nuclear program make them a likely participant in this attack. Because of the nature of the attack we had to strike back quickly and forcefully.

This is from a 1991 scenario by Sam Gardiner, one of the Pentagon's think tank experts.

Backdrop:
Both North Korea and Iran are rattling their sabers a little more than usual. Statements by both of their leaders are more pointed and more aggressive. Both nations at this point are either known or suspected of actually having a few nuclear weapons.

US intelligence receives information that several merchant ships are intended to arrive in US ports over the next week or so. The information is not reliable enough to convince European intelligence services that the threat is real. US intelligence believes that Iran is behind the merchant ship scheme, because the vessels did stop in an Iranian port, but were never in the Pacific at all.

The President orders ships to be searched as soon as they cross inside the 12-mile international limit.

One ship is caught and an actual nuclear device defused outside of the Port of Miami. In the process, however, the entire crew is killed, and although they appear not to be North Korean, they come from a variety of nations across the Middle East.

When a ship outside of Jacksonville is stopped, the special forces team aboard reports the presence of a nuclear weapon shortly before their signal goes off the air. A nuclear detonation has occurred with a yield of 100 kilotons, and a cloud of radioactive seawater is now headed towards Jacksonville.

You are the National Security Advisor for the President.

Make your recommendations for the response to this incident - who, if anyone, should be held to account - what response, if any, should be made - and what justification will you give the international community?

1. The President should be evacuated to NEACP immediately, and the rest of the government should implement their nuclear emergency plans.

2. All American Armed Forces, at home and aboard, should be stood up and the alert level set to DEFCON 2.

3. FBI and NEST teams should be dispatched to Jacksonville immediately, while whatever military units in the area that have the appropriate CBR gear are deployed to aid in evacuation and clean up efforts.

4. All shipping traffic in ports with vessels calling from points in the Middle East or North Korea should be halted, and Coast Guard teams should inspect the vessels and temporarily detain all of the crew members.

5. The President should address the nation as soon as possible, and present as much information as is practicable.

The goal is to ensure that another device is not detonated, while at the same time reassuring the American people that all steps necessary will be taken to determine who was responsible for the attack.

In the event that it is determined that Iran or North Korea was possible, a retaliatory nuclear response would be appropriate, based on the current nuclear weapons rules of engagement as I understand them. But I don't believe that I would recommend that. I would instead advocate a conventional military action to remove the government of the responsible party.

:headbang: Just nuke the darn place if y'alls gonna be so stinkin' worried. One bomb an' No. Korea's gone. Iran...just bomb their facilities. Then they can't retaliate.:mp5:

Raise the national threat level.

With the aid of the National Guard and the hurricane response teams, evacuate Jacksonville and every other affected community as advised.

Once that's underway, issue a public declaration against such terrorism. Wait for the Intl. community to concur, and then present all known non-classified evidence against the purpetrators to the public at large, and to the UN.

Watch and wait.

Sorry, but there needs to be WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more info than your little blurb before I could even begin to give a serious response.

You don't always have more information.

I think I'd first start by extending the security zone around my country by 50 miles, and start searching ships when they cross there, rather than wait till they're just 12 miles away. Any ships 25 miles out and unsearched and non-compliant will be shot on sight.

The Sea water is a non-issue.

Not nearly as lethal had the weapon detonated on the ground, the humid climate may add slighty to concern but over all we are good.

1st. Intercept all imcoming foreign vessel, and turn them away. All of them.

2nd. Begin evacuating the Coastal area near Jackson(yes second--you want to stop any MORE bombs before you do anything else).

3rd. Mobilize FEMA and begin preparing to treat several hundred thousand cases of radiation sickness(you not have that many, but just in case)

4th. Begin Military Mobilization to forward operational facilities outside the USA. Thisis the first preparation for a counter-strike.

5th. Notify the Nation. Yes, they already know--but now you must formally notify them.

6th. A reveiw of all known ports of call the vessels had before reaching America should be made.

7th. American forces should be deployed(in the capacity to investigate a crime, not invade) in said nations to determine culpability. Refusal of such an act should constitute collusion on the part of the host nation with the offending parties.

8th. Upon a clear understanding of the origine of the vessels, and the devices(not hard to track the residual radiation given a rapid respone) Decisive, surgical military should be undertaken against the infrastructure of siad nations military and industrial complex.

9th. If it is found conclusively that a government is responsible, War should be declared.

10th. A Tactical Nuclear strike should be to demonstrate the will to respond in Kind.


Or something like that.....


EDITED:
One should instead be turn back all vessels period coming from outside the US including planes---given the severity of the situation one can not risk allowing another nuclear device into american Territory.

When I say Vessels I mean planes too. Nothing.

You don't always have more information.

Silliopolous believes that the President knows all, and has access to everything and has real-time knowledge just like God in the Bible.

It's not apparent to Silli that the President is sitting at the apex of a massive bureaucracy, and he gets summaries fed to him long after events are over.

Silli, we'll get you a copy of My Pet Goat, since you seem content to wait for further information.

You don't always have more information.

And yet, Silliopolis bad-mouths Bush for his "inaction" on 9/11.

You don't always have more information.


You at least have the specifics of the originating intel that led to the ship boardings which is totally excluded from the scenarion.

It starts with general statements about two countries, mentions "intel" without any statement as to which (or both) that it applies to, and then goes to a tactical scenario.

In other words, this game is so open ended as to allow for virtually ANY response to be presented depending on what assumptions a player cares to make.

Silliopolous believes that the President knows all, and has access to everything and has real-time knowledge just like God in the Bible.

It's not apparent to Silli that the President is sitting at the apex of a massive bureaucracy, and he gets summaries fed to him long after events are over.

Silli, we'll get you a copy of My Pet Goat, since you seem content to wait for further information.


No, I have no illusions that the Shrub is omniscient at all.

Very far from it in fact.

Dear Mister President.

Our Nation is now under attack, and the lives of our Citizens are endangered.
Under normal circumstances, we would IMMEDIATELY respond in kind. What comes around goes around.

Unfortunately, we are not sure as to who the attackers were.
But we will find out.
Even as we speak, debris is being collected, and will be analysed at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
Of course, other means of intel-gathering are not being neglected.

What you should do, Mr President, is order defcon-2.

What you should do further, Mr President, is to declare in front of the press that we will retaliate against the nation behind these rogue acts.
What you should not do, Mr President, is prematurely identify our attackers.

We will shortly have evidence to identify the nation that prepared these nuclear devices. We will even be able to tell in which year and in which lab the fissile materials were prepared.

Once we know which one it is.... you should order DEFCON-1 and a comprehensive nuclear strike upon that country.

1st. Intercept all imcoming foreign vessel, and turn them away. All of them.

I just don't think that's either realistic or appropriate. You will destroy the American economy if you shut down trade for any long amount of time.

The Coast Guard gets vessel reports including where they're going and where they've been 72 hours before the vessel is supposed to make a port call in the US. Granted, those reports aren't always accurate, but you should have a general idea where the ships are coming from. Block the ones that have made a call on a middle eastern port or a port near North Korea (the numbers shouldn't be that high). Otherwise, you're going to have to deal with an economic crisis on top of the national security one.

You at least have the specifics of the originating intel that led to the ship boardings which is totally excluded from the scenarion.

It starts with general statements about two countries, mentions "intel" without any statement as to which (or both) that it applies to, and then goes to a tactical scenario.

In other words, this game is so open ended as to allow for virtually ANY response to be presented depending on what assumptions a player cares to make.

I've already said:

The intel that links the ship plot to Iran is convincing to US intelligence, but entirely unconvincing to European intelligence.

If you're the kind of person who has faith in US intelligence, you'll probably accept it. If you're the kind who has no faith in US intelligence, you'll reject it.

In either case, you'll have to argue why you accepted or rejected it - and the argument will be based on "The Europeans said it was no good" or "The CIA said so".

In one case, if you accept it, and act, you'll have to explain to the Europeans - give them a justification. If you don't react, and the story WILL leak out that the CIA knew and you ignored it, you'll have to explain to the American people that you're waiting for more information.

Which one?

You at least have the specifics of the originating intel that led to the ship boardings which is totally excluded from the scenarion.

It starts with general statements about two countries, mentions "intel" without any statement as to which (or both) that it applies to, and then goes to a tactical scenario.

In other words, this game is so open ended as to allow for virtually ANY response to be presented depending on what assumptions a player cares to make.

Again, you don't always have access to that information when you're trying to make that decision. The specifics of the originating intel will be watered down into a national intelligence estimate, or something similar. You don't get sources and methods to the President. He doesn't want or need to know that kind of thing.

The world is so open ended to allow for virtually any response - that's why it's a game. It's interesting to discuss the different provisions.

These are exactly the kinds of scenarios that folks play out IRL. There may be a bit more detail, but not much.

And yet, Silliopolis bad-mouths Bush for his "inaction" on 9/11.


Not to mention some of his actions since.

It is my right to do so, and I can be equally critical of various decisions by almost every President, King, Premier, or Prime Minister back through history.

It just happens that Bush is the guy in the White House right now, so his decisions are a bit more relevant right now.

Again, you don't always have access to that information when you're trying to make that decision. The specifics of the originating intel will be watered down into a national intelligence estimate, or something similar. You don't get sources and methods to the President. He doesn't want or need to know that kind of thing.

The world is so open ended to allow for virtually any response - that's why it's a game. It's interesting to discuss the different provisions.

These are exactly the kinds of scenarios that folks play out IRL. There may be a bit more detail, but not much.


Even if they did tell you the sources and methods, how would you know which one to trust? Or should you trust the experienced case officer giving the presentation? Or should you trust your friend who heads up British Intelligence (who gets summaries as well)? Or your old CIA buddy who is the Director now?

Better yet, after you make a choice, I want to hear you defend that choice. In our little scenario, CNN has already put pictures of the cloud on TV. There is mass panic in Jacksonville and its environs. There are already riots in New York and other cities, and reports are coming in that mosques are being burned to the ground.

Silli, put down My Pet Goat and make a decision.

I've already said:

The intel that links the ship plot to Iran is convincing to US intelligence, but entirely unconvincing to European intelligence.

If you're the kind of person who has faith in US intelligence, you'll probably accept it. If you're the kind who has no faith in US intelligence, you'll reject it.

In either case, you'll have to argue why you accepted or rejected it - and the argument will be based on "The Europeans said it was no good" or "The CIA said so".

In one case, if you accept it, and act, you'll have to explain to the Europeans - give them a justification. If you don't react, and the story WILL leak out that the CIA knew and you ignored it, you'll have to explain to the American people that you're waiting for more information.

Which one?

Yes, you have said it was convincing - but you haven't said what the Intel WAS.

The specifics would be rather important would they not? Given that event have proved them accurate?

The boats were not in the Pacific. There were seemingly no NK onboard. Now, did the Intel mention NK involvement or not? Or was that a red herring bit in the first paragraph.

I mean, the obvious answers have been given.

Raise Defcon.
Mobilize relief.
Evaluate the intel (both that prior and any taken from the ships/weapon).
Respond as neccessary to the originating country.


These steps are so obvious as to go without saying.


Beyond that, the game, as I mentioned, can become whatever flight of fancy someone cares to put on the limited information you have given.

This is from a 1991 scenario by Sam Gardiner, one of the Pentagon's think tank experts.

Backdrop:
Both North Korea and Iran are rattling their sabers a little more than usual. Statements by both of their leaders are more pointed and more aggressive. Both nations at this point are either known or suspected of actually having a few nuclear weapons.

US intelligence receives information that several merchant ships are intended to arrive in US ports over the next week or so. The information is not reliable enough to convince European intelligence services that the threat is real. US intelligence believes that Iran is behind the merchant ship scheme, because the vessels did stop in an Iranian port, but were never in the Pacific at all.

The President orders ships to be searched as soon as they cross inside the 12-mile international limit.

One ship is caught and an actual nuclear device defused outside of the Port of Miami. In the process, however, the entire crew is killed, and although they appear not to be North Korean, they come from a variety of nations across the Middle East.

When a ship outside of Jacksonville is stopped, the special forces team aboard reports the presence of a nuclear weapon shortly before their signal goes off the air. A nuclear detonation has occurred with a yield of 100 kilotons, and a cloud of radioactive seawater is now headed towards Jacksonville.

You are the National Security Advisor for the President.

Make your recommendations for the response to this incident - who, if anyone, should be held to account - what response, if any, should be made - and what justification will you give the international community?
1. Since the bomb exploded to the East of the US, the prevailing Westerlys will take care of any residual radioactivity. No need to evacuate anyone. It might be prudent to warn N. African nations and perhaps S. European nations, just as a friendly gesture.

2. Carefully examine the un-detonated nuclear device in an effort to determine where it was made. ( Surprisingly, this is not difficult. )

3. Insist on an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council. Inform the Security Council that this attack cannot go without a response on the part of the US. Explain that, as soon as it can be determined which nations and/or groups were involved, said nations/groups will be subject to ( unspecified ) military response.

4. When it is determined which nations/groups were involved, inform both the Security Council and those involved that they have 48 hours to destroy all nuclear devices in their possession. Request that the Security Council provide inspectors to accompany US military personnel to the nations involved and state that inspections will be thorough, and that failure to fully cooperate with the inspectors will result in the use of ( unspecified ) military force.

5. Let the chips fall where they may.

I just don't think that's either realistic or appropriate. You will destroy the American economy if you shut down trade for any long amount of time.

The Coast Guard gets vessel reports including where they're going and where they've been 72 hours before the vessel is supposed to make a port call in the US. Granted, those reports aren't always accurate, but you should have a general idea where the ships are coming from. Block the ones that have made a call on a middle eastern port or a port near North Korea (the numbers shouldn't be that high). Otherwise, you're going to have to deal with an economic crisis on top of the national security one.

Really, then why did the Coast Gaurd Reports not stop the incident in question?

Since you dont KNOW, you must act accordingly. Nothing is stoping honest trade between Mexico Canada and the US--NAFTA, send your goods there to be ground shipped.

Two Nuclear devices, and would just HOPE that was all, because it might cost a few hundred million over the course of a few days---you are the unrealistic one.

Er, relocate the Jaguars to Nashville?

I've already said:

The intel that links the ship plot to Iran is convincing to US intelligence, but entirely unconvincing to European intelligence.

If you're the kind of person who has faith in US intelligence, you'll probably accept it. If you're the kind who has no faith in US intelligence, you'll reject it.

In either case, you'll have to argue why you accepted or rejected it - and the argument will be based on "The Europeans said it was no good" or "The CIA said so".

In one case, if you accept it, and act, you'll have to explain to the Europeans - give them a justification. If you don't react, and the story WILL leak out that the CIA knew and you ignored it, you'll have to explain to the American people that you're waiting for more information.

Which one?
You'll tell your Allies that you acted upon the best information you had available.

They will understand that you did your best to defend, uphold and maintain the Constitution of the United States. And they will not think less of you for having done your duty. Since other presidents have a similar duty as well...

What you will NOT do is try to make them rubberstamp YOUR decisions ( as Dubya tried with France ).
Since other Presidents have a similar duty as well...

Yes, you have said it was convincing - but you haven't said what the Intel WAS.

The specifics would be rather important would they not? Given that event have proved them accurate?

As I said, the intel is accurate from the US perspective - completely invalid from everyone else's perspective.

It's a matter of who you trust - you would never be able to accurately gauge it yourself.

As for "accurate", you now know a ship plot was real, but there's nothing on the captured ship tying this to Iran other than various dead Middle Easterners.

Now CNN is saying that you knew of an Iranian plot.... (today, they're buying that it was accurate - who knows what they'll say in the New York Times a month from now)...

Er, relocate the Jaguars to Nashville?

I lived in Nashville for awhile, they would still be better off in Jacksonville.

I lived in Nashville for awhile, they would still be better off in Jacksonville.

The Preds are doing real good in Nashville, though.

Really, then why did the Coast Gaurd Reports not stop the incident in question?

Since you dont KNOW, you must act accordingly. Nothing is stoping honest trade between Mexico Canada and the US--NAFTA, send your goods there to be ground shipped.

Two Nuclear devices, and would just HOPE that was all, because it might cost a few hundred million over the course of a few days---you are the unrealistic one.

Because no one checks the Coast Guard reports unless something happens. Plus, the National Maritime Center is not funded at nearly the level it should be. It would be a gargantuan task just to go through all the 72-hour reports alone. But it's better than shutting down trade to the country for X number of days, and start having industry shut down for lack of parts/fuel/goods.

The lockout of the longshoremen on the West Coast shut down all the west coast ports for 7 days. That was a major kick in the face to the economy - you had factories shutting down all over the midwest because they didn't have parts. Our road and internal rail networks wouldn't be able to shift over to a Mexico/Canada intake on a moments notice, and you still wouldn't be able to be sure that the device would be stopped before it got into the country.

Because no one checks the Coast Guard reports unless something happens. Plus, the National Maritime Center is not funded at nearly the level it should be. It would be a gargantuan task just to go through all the 72-hour reports alone. But it's better than shutting down trade to the country for X number of days, and start having industry shut down for lack of parts/fuel/goods.


Not to mention having the factories shut down for having ceased to exist...

Hey! Howcome no comments on my response to this? WTF, over??

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10340816&postcount=30

1. Since the bomb exploded to the East of the US, the prevailing Westerlys will take care of any residual radioactivity. No need to evacuate anyone. It might be prudent to warn N. African nations and perhaps S. European nations, just as a friendly gesture.

.

Fallout might not be an issue but with a 100kt bomb you are still looking at needing to mobilize FEMA as you will be getting second degree burns for as far as 70kilometers from the explosion's center--which as stated was 12miles off Jacksonville, not to mention the overpressure which with a hundred kt extends approximately 15kilometers(I assume the worst and it surpassed full potential)

The Fallout cloud can be expected to be around 150 square kilometers initially---so I believe Jacksonville would still be hit---Maybe not he rest of Florida, but Jacksonville--and would you really want to take the chance?

Fallout might not be an issue but with a 100kt bomb you are still looking at needing to mobilize FEMA as you will be getting second degree burns for as far as 70kilometers from the explosion's center--which as stated was 12miles off Jacksonville, not to mention the overpressure which with a hundred kt extends approximately 15kilometers(I assume the worst and it surpassed full potential)

The Fallout cloud can be expected to be around 150 square kilometers initially---so I believe Jacksonville would still be hit---Maybe not he rest of Florida, but Jacksonville--and would you really want to take the chance?
Uh ... I misunderestimated the size of the device. Heh! My bad. :)

I think that these nations would be unlikely to blow up one of these nukes they're so desperately clinging to to gain clout in the international community. And I really doubt they'd use it on Jacksonville. It would be trajic, yes, but North Korea is even easier to obliterate, and anything of value in Iran is likely centered around its capitol, so unless they were expecting something less than equal force in response from this president, they'll be renaming them North Crateria and Iranintothedirt.

Because no one checks the Coast Guard reports unless something happens. Plus, the National Maritime Center is not funded at nearly the level it should be. It would be a gargantuan task just to go through all the 72-hour reports alone. But it's better than shutting down trade to the country for X number of days, and start having industry shut down for lack of parts/fuel/goods.

The lockout of the longshoremen on the West Coast shut down all the west coast ports for 7 days. That was a major kick in the face to the economy - you had factories shutting down all over the midwest because they didn't have parts. Our road and internal rail networks wouldn't be able to shift over to a Mexico/Canada intake on a moments notice, and you still wouldn't be able to be sure that the device would be stopped before it got into the country.
First, I work in Logistics, hauling JIT fireght so please stop embellishing, there is enough fuel, and materials in this country that a week or two of closed borders wont hurt anyone, not in the absurd way you claim. Industry will not shut down, in reality it would pick up as manufacturers sought localized products and the same goods from canadian and mexican souces.

Next if the task is so large at checking these reports--how many vessels do you allow through while you are doing your reading?

Either it is efficient or it isnt---so which is it?

Where in the American supply chain will industry breakdown?



Closing our borders to transcontinental trade for a week or two will not kill the nation---but forgive me I did say "foreign trade" I was not excluding canada and mexico who would still be safely receiving goods world wide--and importing them here.

What an extremely unlikely scenario. Instead of hitching along on the xeno-fear bandwagon, you should stop and think why the hell North Korea or Iran would do this. Both countries have no desire to attack the US. The mere idea that everyone is after the US is a severe self centred delusion on Washington's part.
The US is one of the very few countries in the world that regularly invades other coutnries. Iran and North Korea have never been part of that small hostile group.
So, for a far more likely scenario then??

Backdrop:
Both the US and the UK are rattling their sabers a little more than usual. Statements by both of their leaders are more pointed and more aggressive. Both nations at this point are known of actually having an excess amount of nuclear weapons.

Iranian intelligence receives information that several merchant ships are intended to arrive in Iranian ports over the next week or so. The information is not reliable enough to convince European intelligence services that the threat is real. Tehran intelligence believes that Washington is behind the merchant ship scheme, because the vessels did stop in one of the dozens of US nuclear weapons storage points around the globe.

The Ayatollah orders ships to be searched as soon as they cross inside the 12-mile international limit.

One ship is caught and an actual nuclear device defused outside of the Port of Abadan. In the process, however, the entire crew is killed, and although they appear not to be North North American, they come from a variety of NATO nations.

When a ship outside of Bandar Abbas is stopped, the special forces team aboard reports the presence of a nuclear weapon shortly before their signal goes off the air. A nuclear detonation has occurred with a yield of 500 kilotons, and a cloud of radioactive seawater is now headed towards Bandar Abbas.

You are the National Security Advisor for the Ayatollah.

Make your recommendations for the response to this incident - who, if anyone, should be held to account - what response, if any, should be made - and what justification will you give the international community?

Hey! Howcome no comments on my response to this? WTF, over??

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10340816&postcount=30


Ummm, because some of these things have already been mentioned?

OR because your assertion as to the general prevailing winds is nice, but ad odds with the reality asserted in the scenario?



Or maybe just because it's not all about you?

Uh ... I misunderestimated the size of the device. Heh! My bad. :)

I looked up the effects of a surface blast over water because I figured the water would have less potential as fallout--note my first, the first I said was "Seawater a non-issue".
My numbers are for a surface blast from the NTI.

What an extremely unlikely scenario. Instead of hitching along on the xeno-fear bandwagon, you should stop and think why the hell North Korea or Iran would do this. Both countries have no desire to attack the US. The mere idea that everyone is after the US is a severe self centred delusion on Washington's part.
The US is one of the very few countries in the world that regularly invades other coutnries. Iran and North Korea have never been part of that small hostile group.
So, for a far more likely scenario then??

Backdrop:
Both the US and the UK are rattling their sabers a little more than usual.

<snippage>


Two words: Oh, brother! :rolleyes:

EDIT: I suppose 9/11 and over 3,000 dead non-combatants was all an illusion. :rolleyes:

What an extremely unlikely scenario. Instead of hitching along on the xeno-fear bandwagon, you should stop and think why the hell North Korea or Iran would do this. Both countries have no desire to attack the US. The mere idea that everyone is after the US is a severe self centred delusion on Washington's part.
The US is one of the very few countries in the world that regularly invades other coutnries. Iran and North Korea have never been part of that small hostile group.
So, for a far more likely scenario then??

Backdrop:
Both the US and the UK are rattling their sabers a little more than usual. Statements by both of their leaders are more pointed and more aggressive. Both nations at this point are known of actually having an excess amount of nuclear weapons.

Iranian intelligence receives information that several merchant ships are intended to arrive in Iranian ports over the next week or so. The information is not reliable enough to convince European intelligence services that the threat is real. Tehran intelligence believes that Washington is behind the merchant ship scheme, because the vessels did stop in one of the dozens of US nuclear weapons storage points around the globe.

The Ayatollah orders ships to be searched as soon as they cross inside the 12-mile international limit.

One ship is caught and an actual nuclear device defused outside of the Port of Abadan. In the process, however, the entire crew is killed, and although they appear not to be North North American, they come from a variety of NATO nations.

When a ship outside of Bandar Abbas is stopped, the special forces team aboard reports the presence of a nuclear weapon shortly before their signal goes off the air. A nuclear detonation has occurred with a yield of 500 kilotons, and a cloud of radioactive seawater is now headed towards Bandar Abbas.

You are the National Security Advisor for the Ayatollah.

Make your recommendations for the response to this incident - who, if anyone, should be held to account - what response, if any, should be made - and what justification will you give the international community?

Oh, most Holy One.

The satanic infidels have caught us pants down.
Better to surrender while we can - rather than have someone else doing it, with our cut-off heads sent along as a gift of peace.

I looked up the effects of a surface blast over water because I figured the water would have less potential as fallout--note my first, the first I said was "Seawater a non-issue".
My numbers are for a surface blast from the NTI.
Kewl! You get an "A" for research! :)

Oh, most Holy One.

The satanic infidels have caught us pants down.
Better to surrender while we can - rather than have someone else doing it, with our cut-off heads sent along as a gift of peace.
Hehehe!

But ... but, what about our 73 virgins??? :D

snip
You should read the first post again.

It is a Hypothetical Scenario from 1991, it is thought game, nothing more.
Kimchi is just posting an exercise. I wish people would stop talking about how absurd the scenario is and just say what they would do, I mean that is the real question of this thread, not how likely you think it is to happen.

It is possible to trace the origin of the bomb from the radiation signature.

Nuclear proliferation route starts from China to Pakistan and from Pakistan to N.Korea and Iran. We need to find from where the bomb actually got out (meaning from which inventory, Chinese? Paki? Iranian? Korean?) and take actions accordingly.

Kewl! You get an "A" for research! :)

And here's your "prevailing wind" research:

Tomorrow's Jacksonville weather forecast (http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=32099&hourly=1&yday=32&weekday=Thursday)

Winds shifting from South-East, to South, to South-West.


Your blanket assumption that the radiation will allways just "take care of itself" in such a scenario is invalid. Indeed, engaging the National Weather Service to predict the path of the cloud would be a primary step as far as trying to mitigate as much of the human damage as possible.

You are the National Security Advisor for the Ayatollah.

Make your recommendations for the response to this incident - who, if anyone, should be held to account - what response, if any, should be made - and what justification will you give the international community?

My recommendation would be "let's wait for Imam Mehdi to come and deliver us...like we have been waiting for 1000 years" :p

First, I work in Logistics, hauling JIT fireght so please stop embellishing, there is enough fuel, and materials in this country that a week or two of closed borders wont hurt anyone, not in the absurd way you claim. Industry will not shut down, in reality it would pick up as manufacturers sought localized products and the same goods from canadian and mexican souces.

Next if the task is so large at checking these reports--how many vessels do you allow through while you are doing your reading?

Either it is efficient or it isnt---so which is it?

Where in the American supply chain will industry breakdown?

Closing our borders to transcontinental trade for a week or two will not kill the nation---but forgive me I did say "foreign trade" I was not excluding canada and mexico who would still be safely receiving goods world wide--and importing them here.

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2002/12/02/daily2.html

And I work in maritime. Look at what happened when PMA locked out the Longshoremen on the west coast.

"...In Missouri, the lockout affected $100.1 million in imports and exports. The Kansas total was $31.5 million, according to the study. The dollar amounts are based on economic data from 2000.

California ranked No. 1 in the study, at nearly $3 billion, followed by New York at $510.7 million, Texas at $378.4 million, Illinois at $375.9 million and New Jersey at $343.9 million.

...

Nationwide, the lockout disrupted $6.28 billion in imports and exports. The trade sustains almost 65,000 jobs and $525 million in state and local taxes.

The two Los Angeles ports handle about 65 percent of the shipping that goes through West Coast ports. All other West Coast ports combined are estimated to account for an additional $100 billion in annual trade."

This occured because of an eleven day lockout of TWO ports. Imagine a two + week lockout of EVERY port. It's not a rational response to the crisis.

And again, you're not going to solve the problem by directing the ships to Mexico or Canada. The intermodal connections aren't there, for one thing, and the port security down there is no better than it is up here. You've got a better chance of whatever devices are left getting into the country through Mexico and Canada than you do by only restricting vessels from the suspected areas.

The response here has to be rational and proportional. Shutting down trade for however long it takes to search the 500+ vessels that'll be piling up at the edge of our territorial waters is just ridiculous.

As I said, the intel is accurate from the US perspective - completely invalid from everyone else's perspective.

It's a matter of who you trust - you would never be able to accurately gauge it yourself.

I don't understand this part... Could you give an example, to illustrate what you mean by that? When intel would be accurate from a US perspective but invalid from a European perspective?

Hehehe!

But ... but, what about our 73 virgins??? :D

*grin* twas both a joke... and realism.

Despite much BULL on the contrary, the inhabitants of Islamic Middle East countries are prone to.... pragmatism... in the face of overwhelming odds, rather than fighting to the death. Power-arrangements are hardly ever particularly stable in such countries, and leaders tend to be quite pragmatic about their prospects. Just like the other inhabitants.

If you are in doubt of this, remember what happened to the Iraqi Armies in 2003, or the Egyptians in 1973.
And if you doubt that, go to a sook, and haggle over a hookah that the shopowner wishes to sell for 200 USD.
Taking my sweet time, the last time I had to deal with that, I stuck to my original price of 5USD, stuck on that for 4 days, and on day 5 declared I was about to go home. I settled on 5USD ( alledgedly the last dollars I had ) + a few dirhams ( alledgedly my cab-fare to the airport ).
We both knew we were bluffing, and enjoyed the interaction.

Hmmm...

I guess I would
1) Evacuate Jacksonville, and provide medical and logisical support as necessary.
2) Require all incoming shipping to be searched at a 25km distance from shore, this can be reduced to only shipping from certain ports. I'd redirect most international flights to the nearest capable airport from any urban located airports for the next couple of hours (to the person how said to send the flights back: you can't - they don't have enough fuel).
3) Announce that we don't know who performed the attacks. But that we are going to hunt them down. *insert emotion-rousing speech here*
4) Look further into where these ships came from.
5) If Iran is behind the attacks then announce that we have leads on a terrorist group or North Korea being behind the attacks. And make a few half-hearted attempts in the UN.
6) Attempt to infiltrate an Iran that thinks they're in the clear and that we're thick (making the job slightly easier).
7) Continue diplomatic manouvering, keeping tensions as high as possible.
8) Kill every scientist and technician working at any nuclear facility in Iran and blow up any sites that house nuclear weapons material. Also attempt to distroy any nuclear knowledge that Iran has.
9) Present actual evidence to the UN, call for all uranium deposits in Iran to come under UN control, and if you do not get your way then proceed with an invasion of Iran, as is the US's legal right.

Conventional engagement (in any way) with a country that has a proven nuclear capability just doesn't seem to be worth the risks. Playing the fool and using stealth and trickery and espionage seems much less risky.

Hmmm...

I guess I would
1) Evacuate Jacksonville, and provide medical and logisical support as necessary.
2) Require all incoming shipping to be searched at a 25km distance from shore, this can be reduced to only shipping from certain ports. I'd redirect most international flights to the nearest capable airport from any urban located airports for the next couple of hours (to the person how said to send the flights back: you can't - they don't have enough fuel).
3) Announce that we don't know who performed the attacks. But that we are going to hunt them down. *insert emotion-rousing speech here*
4) Look further into where these ships came from.
5) If Iran is behind the attacks then announce that we have leads on a terrorist group or North Korea being behind the attacks. And make a few half-hearted attempts in the UN.
6) Attempt to infiltrate an Iran that thinks they're in the clear and that we're thick (making the job slightly easier).
7) Continue diplomatic manouvering, keeping tensions as high as possible.
8) Kill every scientist and technician working at any nuclear facility in Iran and blow up any sites that house nuclear weapons material. Also attempt to distroy any nuclear knowledge that Iran has.
9) Present actual evidence to the UN, call for all uranium deposits in Iran to come under UN control, and if you do not get your way then proceed with an invasion of Iran, as is the US's legal right.

Conventional engagement (in any way) with a country that has a proven nuclear capability just doesn't seem to be worth the risks. Playing the fool and using stealth and trickery and espionage seems much less risky.




EXCELLENT!!!!

Have you read The Secret Art of War?
http://www.chinastrategies.com/intro.htm

I don't understand this part... Could you give an example, to illustrate what you mean by that? When intel would be accurate from a US perspective but invalid from a European perspective?

Remember Colin Powell's little demonstration at the UN, showing Iraqi mobile WMD weapons labs? Decried as not true by the French, etc., and claimed as true by the CIA.

An excellent example. Turned out that the CIA was wrong, too.

So, you're the National Security advisor, and you have, within this 30-minute meeting, to make a recommendation for action to the President. All you have is intel summaries and 10 page briefings from the CIA, NSA, etc. - you either trust them or you don't. Or you try to hedge your bet and bide for time - but there's political pressure to act - and political pressure NOT to act - so, what's your decision?

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2002/12/02/daily2.html

And I work in maritime. Look at what happened when PMA locked out the Longshoremen on the west coast.

"...In Missouri, the lockout affected $100.1 million in imports and exports. The Kansas total was $31.5 million, according to the study. The dollar amounts are based on economic data from 2000.

California ranked No. 1 in the study, at nearly $3 billion, followed by New York at $510.7 million, Texas at $378.4 million, Illinois at $375.9 million and New Jersey at $343.9 million.

...

Nationwide, the lockout disrupted $6.28 billion in imports and exports. The trade sustains almost 65,000 jobs and $525 million in state and local taxes.

The two Los Angeles ports handle about 65 percent of the shipping that goes through West Coast ports. All other West Coast ports combined are estimated to account for an additional $100 billion in annual trade."

This occured because of an eleven day lockout of TWO ports. Imagine a two + week lockout of EVERY port. It's not a rational response to the crisis.

And again, you're not going to solve the problem by directing the ships to Mexico or Canada. The intermodal connections aren't there, for one thing, and the port security down there is no better than it is up here. You've got a better chance of whatever devices are left getting into the country through Mexico and Canada than you do by only restricting vessels from the suspected areas.

The response here has to be rational and proportional. Shutting down trade for however long it takes to search the 500+ vessels that'll be piling up at the edge of our territorial waters is just ridiculous.


Nice quote...
First, your method would easily allow another device in, since you presume to know, which you do not.

Imagine a Nuclear device detonating in a port, in a city whatthat would do to the economy--I would quote an anechdotal source, but it has never happend.

Next, I happen to deliver overland ON the Canandian border and across it, so just stop.

Next, assuming Cananda would allow the vessels in(they would not) but assuming they would, connectivity is a constant, by rail and Road most Chinese goods come through Canada that enter into the Central US not through American Coastal ports.

So using a preexisting supply chain--your wrong.

Mexico, rolls thousands of trucks over our border a day--now given that in these two nation a search would be ongoing for Nuclear devices--I am certain they wouldnt just load one on a truck.

You have consistently ignored the principle here--the potential for several more 100kt nuclear devices--city killers. An explosion so large the intial fireball is nearly 2km in diameter--- I would rather shake the dice with economy then letting one in.

You claim I am being unrealistic, no, I am picking what I perceive to be the lesser of two evils. Your way, is not more secure then mine.

And again, back your lovely quote.....what does it prove? I never said money wouldnt be lost--I said industry wouldnt shut down.

Next I never said searching a singal vessel--
I said turn them back.
Go home.
Come back later.
Parties Cancelled.

This must be the intial reaction--which was the question--my long term solutions would be different--but again to ensure that multi 100kiloton devices did not enter the country I would do this.

Now, given certain Known Shipper issues, maybe after the first 24-48 hours certain vessels would be allowed through--but yes initially all vessels would be turned back--

I would rather put you out of work then let you get vaporized...crazy I know.

EDITED:
Not to mention in your numbers you ignore two very important facts--
Those numbers include Exports--I am not locking out the workers Exportation will not stop.

Two, those numbers are disputed: "White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Bush acted "out of concern for the economy and jobs." By some accounts, the lockout costs the United States economy as much as $2 billion a day, although some economists say the cost is far less. "
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=4308

Now given these numbers:
$927.5 billion Exports - partners:Canada 23%, Mexico 13.6%, Japan 6.7%, UK 4.4%, China 4.3% (2004)

$1.727 trillion Imports - partners:
Canada 17%, China 13.8%, Mexico 10.3%, Japan 8.7%, Germany 5.2% (2004)

That our ability to export will not stop, workers will not be prevented from working, and that our number 1 and number 3 importers will not a have a break in exchange--

My radical idea is far more sensible for the safety of the nation, and as I have siad threetimes far less economically crushing then your diatribe presumes.

The PMA lockout was a total shutdown.

EXCELLENT!!!!

Have you read The Secret Art of War?
http://www.chinastrategies.com/intro.htmCan't say I have. But I can see why you think I might have.

1. Take a few seconds to quietly panic and worry about loved ones, then relax and get my head in the frame.

2. Recommend immediate heightening of national defence forces - air, ground, sea units. Get a few patrols up in the air.

3. Mobilise whatever civil defence forces are useful and send them to Jacksonville.

4, Close the sea and air for a short period - say 72 hours or so.

5. Check over the intelligence to see how solid it is. Assuming it's fairly solid - say there were some threatening words from Iran's president, and that the nukes thing is solid, then order conventional strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. ID the bomb's materials - where they came from.

6. Get the president to speak to the nation. Make sure that he says that conventional strikes will follow on the perpetrators, and if more nuclear weapons are used, devastating nuclear strikes WILL follow.

7. Get the UN to hold a Security Council meeting. Present the evidence for a strike against the enemy (including where the nuke was from, Middle Eastern crewmen, etc.

That's as far ahead as I would recommend. Further suggsstions, all very fuzzy, would include suggesting SpecFor infiltration and the like to try to gather intelligence and potentially remove key individuals, and to prepare for an unsupported UN attack, although that is highly unlikely to be necessary - even the UN isn't going to sit back on this one. It might seem a little lily-livered to some, but I'm a big softie liberal, so I don't want to go nuking anyone unless I know they did it and they nuked me first.

First, your method would easily allow another device in, since you presume to know, which you do not.

Imagine a Nuclear device detonating in a port, in a city whatthat would do to the economy--I would quote an anechdotal source, but it has never happend.

My method would require inspections of any ship that made a port call on a Middle Eastern or North Korean port. It may require a full stop of all cargo in and out of the ports, but it would be for only as long as it took to identify the ships that made those calls - after that, trade would resume with ships that can be crossed off the list.

The ships still on the list would be inspected by the Coast Guard and their crews detained until the search was completed. If nothing was found, they can go.

This kind of a plan ensures a balance between finding the rest of the devices, if any, and not restricting commerce to such an extent that it cripples the economy.

Next, I happen to deliver overland ON the Canandian border and across it, so just stop.

That's great. What that matters when we're talking about shifting the entire port capacity of the United States to Canada and Mexico, which aren't designed to deal with their usual volume plus all of ours I don't know.

Next, assuming Cananda would allow the vessels in(they would not) but assuming they would, connectivity is a constant, by rail and Road most Chinese goods come through Canada that enter into the Central US not through American Coastal ports.

So using a preexisting supply chain--your wrong.

No, I'm not. You're ignoring the fact that not only would you have the usual traffic that Canada gets, they'd also have all of the US traffic. That would quickly overload all of the intermodal connections in Canada, and it STILL wouldn't keep the weapon out of the country.

West Coast and East Coast connections supply the West and East coasts. Yes, Canada does bring in a lot of middle America's goods through the Great Lakes, but not all of them. And none of the connections there could handle a massive influx like that.

Mexico, rolls thousands of trucks over our border a day--now given that in these two nation a search would be ongoing for Nuclear devices--I am certain they wouldnt just load one on a truck.

And the borders are completely wide open if they don't use a road entry point. If the weapon makes it out of the port, there's a good chance it can make it over the border.

You have consistently ignored the principle here--the potential for several more 100kt nuclear devices--city killers. An explosion so large the intial fireball is nearly 2km in diameter--- I would rather shake the dice with economy then letting one in.

I agree that's what we're dealing with. But we don't know how many more devices are left - if any. We can't afford to shut down the entire country for weeks at a time when there's a better, equally effective, way of ensuring that another device doesn't get into the country.

You claim I am being unrealistic, no, I am picking what I perceive to be the lesser of two evils. Your way, is not more secure then mine.

And again, back your lovely quote.....what does it prove? I never said money wouldnt be lost--I said industry wouldnt shut down.

Those costs include the costs of industry shutting down because of lack of supplies. As a JIT logistical guy, you should know that no one warehouses enough stuff to keep their plants going for more than two weeks anymore. And not only that, you've got just as much perishable stuff trying to get OUT as you've got trying to IN. The agricultural folks will go crazy.

Next I never said searching a singal vessel--
I said turn them back.
Go home.
Come back later.
Parties Cancelled.

And screw up the shipping schedules of half the planet? That kind of a mess could take months to sort out. It's not reasonable.

This must be the intial reaction--which was the question--my long term solutions would be different--but again to ensure that multi 100kiloton devices did not enter the country I would do this.

Now, given certain Known Shipper issues, maybe after the first 24-48 hours certain vessels would be allowed through--but yes initially all vessels would be turned back--

I would rather put you out of work then let you get vaporized...crazy I know.

It has nothing to do with putting me out of work. You'd put the entire manufacturing and agricultural base of the country out of work. That's as big a disaster as another nuke going off.

Not to mention in your numbers you ignore two very important facts--
Those numbers include Exports--I am not locking out the workers Exportation will not stop.

How? You're acting like the ships going in go out empty. They don't. If there are no ships dropping off containers, grain, etc. there's a vastly reduced number of ships heading out. There are only 90 US-Flag ships trading interntionally with US crews that could be considered "trustworthy" to not be stopped and inspected. You're still going to shut down everything.

Two, those numbers are disputed: "White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Bush acted "out of concern for the economy and jobs." By some accounts, the lockout costs the United States economy as much as $2 billion a day, although some economists say the cost is far less. "
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=4308

Now given these numbers:
$927.5 billion Exports - partners:Canada 23%, Mexico 13.6%, Japan 6.7%, UK 4.4%, China 4.3% (2004)

$1.727 trillion Imports - partners:
Canada 17%, China 13.8%, Mexico 10.3%, Japan 8.7%, Germany 5.2% (2004)

That our ability to export will not stop, workers will not be prevented from working, and that our number 1 and number 3 importers will not a have a break in exchange--

Again, you're assuming that exports won't stop. They will. There's no way to shut down the ports to incoming traffic and not cripple the outgoing traffic too.

My radical idea is far more sensible for the safety of the nation, and as I have siad threetimes far less economically crushing then your diatribe presumes.

The PMA lockout was a total shutdown.

My "diatribe"? You're obviously taking this much more personally than you should.

All I'm saying, and have been saying, is turning every single ship around is not a feasible thing, even with the possibility of nukes on board. There are better ways of ensuring the nukes don't get in than by completely disrupting trade, which is what your proposal will do even if you don't realize it.

We can't afford to cut our nose off to spite our face.

Simply put,

I disagree the effect would be that great, great yes, but not as great as imply.

As we have nothing to base any real model off of, I suppose you and will have to disagree--at the Base.

But, how about a compromise.

Given the scenario parameters--trun back all ships heading for East Coast(as it was noted inteligence suggests none have entered the Pacific--and simply increasing Security on the West Coast.

More pallatable?

This is from a 1991 scenario by Sam Gardiner, one of the Pentagon's think tank experts.

Backdrop:
Both North Korea and Iran are rattling their sabers a little more than usual. Statements by both of their leaders are more pointed and more aggressive. Both nations at this point are either known or suspected of actually having a few nuclear weapons.

US intelligence receives information that several merchant ships are intended to arrive in US ports over the next week or so. The information is not reliable enough to convince European intelligence services that the threat is real. US intelligence believes that Iran is behind the merchant ship scheme, because the vessels did stop in an Iranian port, but were never in the Pacific at all.

The President orders ships to be searched as soon as they cross inside the 12-mile international limit.

One ship is caught and an actual nuclear device defused outside of the Port of Miami. In the process, however, the entire crew is killed, and although they appear not to be North Korean, they come from a variety of nations across the Middle East.

When a ship outside of Jacksonville is stopped, the special forces team aboard reports the presence of a nuclear weapon shortly before their signal goes off the air. A nuclear detonation has occurred with a yield of 100 kilotons, and a cloud of radioactive seawater is now headed towards Jacksonville.

You are the National Security Advisor for the President.

Make your recommendations for the response to this incident - who, if anyone, should be held to account - what response, if any, should be made - and what justification will you give the international community?
Immediate evacuation of Jacksonville is the first priority. Whether or not evacuation of a large proportion of Florida is called for is uncertain; I would similarly inquire instantly just how much of a threat this is to the citizens of the state.

Once that's sorted, attention should be turned to the incoming ships. A lockdown of the Panama Canal is a good idea if it is believed any exchange between the North Koreans and Iran is going on, though it is only speculation that is in fact their destination and thus not many ships are needed.

I'd suggest a full "no-float-zone" around the 'States temporarily. Block all naval traffic coming in or going out. Any important shipping can be done by plane. Stuff the economic damage a block of commercial boats would do; if they're going to put business interests ahead of public safety, I'll have their CEOs arrested under antiterrorism laws.

IF this was 1991, immediately following the cold war, I would suggest explaining events to the public something like this - a group of people, possibly religious radicals, attempted to bring a nuclear device into the US. We were prepared for it, and managed to stop it just at our naval borders, but that nonetheless a nuclear device has gone off in American territory, taking the lives of brave service-men and women who died as heroes, protecting millions of people with their sacrifice. Furthermore, the threat has not yet passed, but we have expanded our search over the oceans and will prevent such an event from ever hapenning again.

My next point would be to make a statement of solidarity with the Middle East, but condemn the radical group that launched the attack. I would suggest requesting that the nations mentioned, including Iran, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan et al. join the President in that condemnation. Further diplomatic actions will depend on their respective responses. Needless to say, some degree of covert investigation into the Iranian port will happen, possibly using a British agent if at all possible, plus there'll be an all-out info fest on the identities of the killed people on the first boat and any links with organisations they might have.

At least temporarily, North Korea is to be ignored. Locking up the Canal should be sufficient with regards to them; we can justify this globally by stating that material discovered on one of the captured ships identified Hawaii as a potential target. That may not be true, but with one ship in a billion atomic fragments, the only way people will be able to claim otherwise is if they saw the ship before it left. Intregue!

To the rest of the world, I would recommend playing off the Cold War point, suggesting that the greatest struggle the world has ever seen should stay over rather than reviving it through these stupid nuclear struggles.


In the modern day, though, I would seriously recommend adding on a message of apology to the families of the servicemen who died in the explosion. I would even consider a statement of sympathy for the families of those who tried to bring the weapons in in the first place.

The previous administration (any administration that includes me as an advisor is a considerably different one to the current one) made decisions that made this catastrophe all the more likely to happen. Consolidarity would be vital, in my opinion. The world needs to believe that America is different under my President, and I believe that a show of humility would do wonders in patching up broken relations with the Middle East.

At the same time, however, we want to show that we're not a pushover. Border controls get upped significantly and we take a very harsh line on the way the United Nations is conducted. Our forces in Iraq are gradually moved; not back home, but over to Afghanistan, where they serve some time as a peacekeeping force to be gradually brought back at a later date. This is done phenomonally gradually (say, a small number of soldiers a week), such that no-one really notices until there's only the most productive members left. Then, once relations have improved somewhat and once the Iraqi government has taken full authority, we can make a big show of pulling the remaining troops out and give them all a heroes' welcome back home.

As for what to do with Iran or NK should they declare war, well, we'll have the global community's support by then. No problem. ^^