"How will the US respond?" Topic

How will the US respond? The drone was sent at our ship.

Our bases in Syria and Iraq have been hit over 50 plus times. We have not sent much of a response and our limited responses are followed by multiple attacks from Iranian backed militias.

Should we respond more forcefully?

Subject: US Navy destroyer shoots down drone from Yemen in the Red Sea


link

You remember that game where two guys take turns punching each other in the arm. It usually stopped when one guy decided the he'd had enough hurt.

I always thought it was a stupid game. One guy punches you, keep beating him until he's unconscious, the next guy probably won't want to play.

That's probably why I never get elected to run stuff. That, and I don't run for office.

Stryderg,

I agree, but it puts the US in a tricky position. Our options:

1) ignore it and pretend it did not happen, wait for the enemy to correct their aim and try again.

2) A token response which basically defaults to 1)

3) A heavy response which makes some people angry…err… angrier. The haters already hate. Still, some in government will note that a heavy reaction to a single drone indirectly justifies Israel's massive reaction to a massive attack.

Take out the four major oil refineries in Iran and the oil transfer terminals on Kharg Island. The Iranian economy collapses and the funding for terrorist organizations across the Middle East dries up. This has been going on for decades now, playing nice isn't working.

The default response for anyone shooting at US troops should be FAFO. Response should be immediate and disproportionate.

We have an administration that just agreed and gave a major strategic to our main enemy, after signing an agreement that history has proven that communist nations don't honor what they sign. China never has, but they continue to do so anyway because we're foolish.

Why should we expect anything from our upper CoC to resolve this issue?

We are looking at Carter 2.0…

Our naval units don't have much problem with a single drone like this. Or any Iranian naval unit.

We really need to take out the mullahs, not the whole country. Cut off the head.

If we just go to war with them, they will kill the hostages in Gaza. Get those people home.

Then we need to settle with Iran once and for all. Taking out the refineries creates more global chaos, but it is an option. I would rather take out the leaders in a less obvious way, so the rest of the region doesn't go up in flames against us. Don't unite Arab nations against us. Get the bad guys off the board.

The Mossad/ CIA team working the hostage crisis must have some ideas.

Remember that sometimes the bad guys *want* you to respond, to distract, justify, whatever.

I'm also never sure what's been ordered by Tehran and what is some mid-level or even low-level guy thinking they're going to contribute to the great cause when in actuality all they do is gum up the messaging.

So it's nearly impossible to know at our remove what the right response is. Plus no one's going to ask my opinion so I'mo not going to do to the necessary research to acquire one.

How will the US respond? The drone was sent at our ship.

We'll probably send Iran another $10,000,000,000 USD, that would be my guess.

Based on past history the current US leadership will do little to nothing that would be effective. E.g. 55 times Iran proxies' attacks on US troops … the US has made 3 … to little effect …

I have heard many GENs RET in the media say we should not only go after these Shia Militias in Syria and Iraq. But surgical strikes on military, oil infrastructure, etc. in Iran. Not target civilians/population centers. Like we see Hamas and Russia do. And we don't target non-combatants … Of course, I agree with those GENs …

Don't unite Arab nations against us. Get the bad guys off the board.

Iran is mostly Shia … Shia are 20% of the total moslems worldwide. The rest are generally Sunni. As are most of the moslem Arab nations. Many don't want Iran to get nukes. For obvious reasons.

Sunni & Shia don't get along at times. If the US takes out some military, etc. targets in Iran. Some may complain but behind the curtain they will be glad. Iran with nukes is a very bad idea. For not just the region but many places in the world

The Mossad/ CIA team working the hostage crisis must have some ideas.

I believe that is true … if anyone can free hostage those two units can.

If the US takes out some military, etc. targets in Iran. Some may complain but behind the curtain they will be glad.

If we had smart leaders living in tune with reality, instead of sending $10,000,000,000 USD to a nation at defacto war with the US, they would order a series of strikes targeted at regime decapitation.

1. The Revolutionary Guard is the SS of the Iranian regime that enforces general order for the regime and polices the military. Hit every Revolutionary Guard barracks, depot and training ground. Hit every Revolutionary Guard leader you can spot.

2. SAVAK is the Gestapo of the Iranian regime. Hit every SAVAK secret police station you can find, their barracks, training grounds, depots and leaders.

3. Deny Iran the use of its small navy by smacking it and any shore-based ASMs we can find.

4. Generally leave the standard military alone, and don't hit civilian infrastructure or oil fields.

Hopefully, by minimizing damage to civilians and by destroying the regime's capacity to keep the people down we could see another Green Revolution that we should encourage and support.

Not that I agree with is, but the argument is the fear that if we respond this will, somehow, lead to an enlarged war in the Middle East.

It's ok. They don't have nuclear weapons.

I believe that $10,000,000,000 USD is tied to allowing Iraq to buy electricity from Iran and is tied to concerns about the stability of the Iraqi government. On the face of it I do not care for the logic but I'm unaware of the current stability risks of the Iraqi government.

I would think tossing TLAM's at the Houthis would be a fairly poor return on investment as blowing up their half of Yemen might do $4 USD-$5USD damage as hitting that mess is like trying to nail jello to a wall.

As discussed extensively, multiple US Administrations have accepted fighting a proxy war with Iran rather than a direct confrontation primarily due to the risks of unforeseen complications but additionally, Iran is not Iraq and the US casualties involved in a conflict would be substantial.

The IRGC is estimated to have 190,000 personnel and controls another 40,000 Basji. The IRGC controls an estimated 2,100 intermediate and long range missiles. No strike is decapitating that organization without triggering a massive response on US bases in the region and Israel.

It's ok. They don't have nuclear weapons.

Yep -- that's why Iran is driving to get its own nukes. I mean, why do you think we've let Little Rocketman rattle his saber for so long? Because Little Rocketman can turn Seoul into slag.

No strike is decapitating that organization without triggering a massive response on US bases in the region and Israel.

Yep, the SS and Gestapo were tough btards too. But yeah, let's let them do whatever 'cause, they might be mean…not like they've already killed and injured thousands of Americans worldwide….conducted terror attacks worldwide as far away as Argentina and attempted assassination attempts even in Washington DC…sparked and inflamed multiple civil wars, started and manages the Hamas-Israeli war and has ordered its puppets to attack American bases, warships and aircraft. We wouldn't want to offend!!!

Silurian That is a very interesting comment you made

"It's ok. They don't have nuclear weapons".

When only yesterday on another thread you said.

"So, it seems your argument is: nuclear powers can get away with whatever they like, so long as they don't pick a fight with another nuclear power of course".

Unusual approach to morals you have there. You would do well in politics.

It was (probably a poor attempt at) sarcasm.
Note both responses were to SB. Based upon 'his' unusual approach to morals. Smack the out of Iran but hold off on the Russkies cos they might get a little free and easy with the nukes.

However, I am thinking of running….

I'll give you a vote… at least you're honest.

Haha. Cheers Ned!

McKinstry, I made that same argument about the $10,000,000,000 USD yesterday, but it doesn't fly here. Going to war with Iran seems to be okay with many. I am not sure if it's the only way, but it's time to do something about them before they get nukes.

Legion, you are right about the Arab factions, but I go on the assumption that nobody there likes us unless we bribe them with military hardware.

Note both responses were to SB. Based upon 'his' unusual approach to morals. Smack the out of Iran but hold off on the Russkies cos they might get a little free and easy with the nukes.

No. It's consistent, and it's based on reality. Why do you think Britain has nukes, and France has nukes, and China has nukes, and India has nukes, and why Pakistan has nukes, and why North Korea has nukes?? And why Israel probably has nukes, and the Saudis *may* have nukes and the Iranians want nukes?

After the UN-led Coalition smacked Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, he launched a concerted effort to get nukes so he could never be smacked that hard again. Even though Saddam got sidelined by sanctions -- he still wanted nukes.

You know who also learned from that? North Korea and Iran, and they accelerated their nuclear weapons programs. When North Korea and Iran saw Saddam get pulled from his hidey hole, tried and shot, both North Korea and Iran put more resources into their nuke programs.

Explicitly to prevent the US or a US ally from smacking them.

So now North Korea has nukes and ICBMs, and they've used them to extort "humanitarian aid" from the US and others, and to stir up things. And Iran has been questing for nukes for 20 years now, and by some accounts may have a handful but are seeking full production capabilities before going "live."

So yeah, nukes are a big deal and must be accounted for in your thinking.

I'm a GenX kid, the last generation who had to do nuclear defense drills -- thank God. We all got overly informed about what nuclear war means, and as someone who studied international relations and history, developed a healthy respect for nukes -- MAD and how MAD breaks down, deterrence – what works and what doesn't work (hint -- bullsh1t redlines you never enforce are more likely to lead to conflict, that kinda thing), Prisoner's Dilemma and Loose Nukes. I still have my college text from an Arms Control class called "The Physics of Nuclear Weapons." Sidebar -- helpful in setting up my Morrow Project campaign back in the 1980s.

So yeah, nukes are serious serious serious sh1t. Don't make light of it. ANY war can spin out control in directions you didn't anticpate and don't want. If the current leadership think they can "manage" the Ukraine War like they are playing a board game, they are mad. The War has already cost up to a HALF MILLION casualties. Untold suffering. Hundreds of Billions in damage. Global disruptions to trade, energy and agriculture contributing to serious famine in Africa and other countries dependent on wheat and fertilizers from Ukraine and Russia..

What's a few hundred million starving people, eh?

Drought and soaring food prices from Ukraine war leave millions in Africa starving

link

Russia's war in Ukraine sparked a historic food crisis. It's not over

link

So why do you want to keep this going? There's no clean end to a dirty war, and not everyone will be happy with whatever the deal is.

Oh, a blast from the past for your viewing pleasure -- Threads:

YouTube link

Threads: AKA Nightmare Fuel

There is no reason to attack Iran because they don't have nuclear weapons yet and negotiations might just work.

You cannot attack Iran because they have nuclear weapons and the negotiations did not work.

That's the game we planed in North Korea. We don't learn from history.

I think Russia is trading missile technology and nuclear technology with North Korea and Iran in exchange for ammo and drones and drone technology. They are also encouraging Hamas because it takes focus off of Russia in Ukraine.

Ukraine and Israel is just two fronts of the same war.

Bunkermeister

SBminis- interesting 4 point plan for dealing with Iran. You do know that SAVAK hasn't been in business since 1979 though? That was the Shah's crew.

It's evident that this administration is trying to keep the mideast countries from completing losing their over Israel's invasion of Gaza and going to war with Israel. Syria and Iran are two of them.

As for Ukraine--sending US weapons now and helping Uraine hold Russian Nationalism in check is far better than sending US soldiers. Embracing isolationism and ignoring Putin would be a mistake. What's next, peace in our time? As it's been said--World War III already started, and these are all different fronts in a larger conflict.

Legion, you are right about the Arab factions, but I go on the assumption that nobody there likes us unless we bribe them with military hardware.

Yes to many of them we are just infidels.

to keep the mideast countries from completing losing their sh*t over Israel's invasion of Gaza and going to war with Israel. Syria and Iran are two of them.

Many islamic nations wouldn't even think about attacking Israel.

Syria has been fighting a civil war for 20-30 years now.

Iran, would probably only attack Israel with missiles. How is Iran going to get to Israel otherwise?

Both Egypt and Jordan are not BFFs with Israel but they see that there is no reason to go to war again. Tried that many times before.

Lebanon their country is a mess. Hezbollah is the biggest threat along Israel's Northern border.

Hamas is going to end up like ISIS. And we are still killing some of them.

The KSA won't attack Israel either … they are talking a level of peace. That is why Iran started this war with their proxies, i.e. Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis … To stop the Israeli-KSA talks …

sending US weapons now and helping Uraine hold Russian Nationalism in check is far better than sending US soldiers. Embracing isolationism and ignoring Putin would be a mistake.

Yes that is very true …

Ukraine and Israel is just two fronts of the same war.

Bunkermeister

Yes, this seems to escape many.

@Sbminis
I'm not sure when your international relations and history course ran, snd it's a small point perhaps, but it may surprise you to learn Saddam Hussein wasn't dragged from a hole and shot. He was hauled off, tried and hanged.

Geesh, buncha gaming munchkins and grognards – he was executed with a rope and not a bullet. I was right on how he was caught and tried, but wrong on the method of execution, so thank you for that critical correction. So -- what did Iran and North Korea learn from that? That if you don't want the US to kick your a33, pull you out of your hidey hole or Fhueher bunker and then try and execute you, you better get nukes.

Nukes are game changers, and end-game makers.

I think the nukes are not to save them from the US. I think they are to exert whatever pressure you want on neighbors, opponents, etc. No nukes, no Ukraine war, IMO.

Ukraine and Israel is just two fronts of the same war, you guys are going to have explain this?

As for Iran the Isreals will deal with them.

And I think it a pretty good bet that Xi will take out North Korea for very smillar reasons.

@Tortorella – all of the above. Deter the US and others, bully others.

Say, after generously giving $10 USD Billion to Iran this week, the Mullahs responded by rounding up and executing over 100 dissidents….and ordered their proxy puppets step attacks on US forces and Israel. Thanks, team Biden!

I am so tired of this region hogging our attention.

We should have colonized Mars, the Galilean moons, Mercury, yes, eve
Venus.

Tired of time-wasting luddiditity.

As for Iran the Isreals will deal with them.

Yes and Israel will be Iran's #1 target with WMDs or any other ordinance. That is a given. The IRGC, etc. may think they are Badd s but my $ is on the IDF Spec Ops, Shin Bet and the Mossad.

And I think it a pretty good bet that Xi will take out North Korea for very smillar reasons.

Xi/CCP does not want the US or a US Ally, i.e. the ROKs, on the Chinese border. So, like in Europe, Stalin wanted a buffer zone between Mother Russia and the West/NATO. That buffer zone were the WP nations. Under Stalin's boot …

The CCP said would not get involved if the North attack across the ROK border. But if the ROK and USA[UN?] attacked first the Chinese will cross the Yalu into North Korea as they did in '50 …

Of course, we can't trust Xi/ the CCP …

SB – it's not that I don't agree with much of what you say. It's the hostages. I am not that particular about how we get them back, that includes giving Iran their money. Pay back comes later. The only way to keep the hostage threat at bay is to get rid of Irans leaders and their gangs of proxy criminals once and for all. In the meantime it's a terrible game….don't get the hostages killed, get them home.

After that, it's time to pull the pin on the fanatics who got this rolling all those years ago. Payback for Beirut is long overdue, along with all the other dirty deeds that sprung from that act.

I see your point, but I don't think its every worked out that way.

That reminds, Tort, I never quite figured out why Reagan never went after anybody after the Beirut bombing. It's not like he was a weakling. I'll have to research ..I just don't recall what excuse, if any, was ever given.

I never quite figured out why Reagan never went after anybody after the Beirut bombing. It's not like he was a weakling. I'll have to research ..I just don't recall what excuse, if any, was ever given.

Reagan did accept responsibility for the failure. Not totally sure about the response -- I think he decided the US general presence on the ground wasn't worth it – an ill-defined peace keeping mission in a dynamic civil war, not necessarily critical to US security. So the US shifted instead to providing special forces support, and naval gunnery & naval air support from the Med.

StillSenneffe 16 Nov 2023 4:22 p.m. PST
SBminis- interesting 4 point plan for dealing with Iran. You do know that SAVAK hasn't been in business since 1979 though? That was the Shah's crew.

Cool, didn't remember the name of the new Gestapo, just the old one I guess. And SAVAK were choir boys compared to the Ayatollah's crowd, who imprisoned, tortured and killed more Iranians in the first year of existence than the Shah's forces had across a period of decades of rule.

Saber6 Supporting Member of TMP Fezian 16 Nov 2023 3:12 p.m. PST
Threads: AKA Nightmare Fuel

I was curious about the gaming impact of growing up under The Bomb. Here's some RPGs based on the world getting nuked, that I probably tried or even played.

Aftermath
After the Bomb
Age of Ruin
Car Wars
Droids
Gamma World
Metamorphosis Alpha
Morrow Project
Mutant
Mutant Future
Paranoia
Realm of Yolni
Rifts
Rubble & Ruin
Simian Conquest
Twilight 2000

A number of boardgames as well, like Apocalypse, Nuclear War (a cheeky card game in which the player who kills the most of the world population wins), Ultimatum, ICBM, Ballistic Missile, GDW's WW3 series and so on.

dapeters 17 Nov 2023 8:59 a.m. PST

Ukraine and Israel is just two fronts of the same war, you guys are going to have explain this?

Russia gets ammo and weapons from North Korea and Iran.
North Korea and Iran are getting something from Russia in return. Ballistic missile technology? Nuclear weapons technology? Intelligence data?

Russia invades Ukraine just as they have attacked Chechnya, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine before. Only this time Ukraine fought back and the West have backed them with equipment, training and money.

If Russia gets Iran to unleash Hamas then attention of the West is now split between Ukraine and Israel. Do we supply both, or neither or one or the other? It makes things hard for the West.

Just as Germany and Japan had little in common in WWII except their enemies, Russia, North Korea, Iran and Hamas have little in common except their enemies.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Hope that helps.

Bunkermeister

China is at the core of this mess. Xi funds Putin. Xi funds Iran. Xi pulls the strings.

Xi = Hitler, he even runs concentration camps
Putin = Mussolini who can't even conquer his poorer neighbors (like Mussolini couldn't take Greece)
Iran, etc. = Minor allies

Reagan was new, maybe a bit in over his head, and his advisors were not entirely in agreement on Lebanon, expressed conflicting views. There were a number of critical mistakes, both strategic and tactical, some probably Reagan's fault. Reagan did allow a full investigation and took responsibility. We have talked about the ROE issues. It was not a great moment for Reagan, but he showed courage and character in taking the blame.

I think the battleship New Jersey lobbed some 16 in shells as a response after several weeks. But the Lebanese army was falling apart and Hezbollah was now out in the open and began to build on the stature it claimed after the attack. We withdrew without resolving the attack issue. Iran was almost certainly behind Hezbollah on this and have been ever since. Many consider this the start of the modern terrorist wars and our sometimes indecisive policies over time.

There is a statue in Tehran of the "martyrs" who died attacking the barracks.

Now up to 61 attacks. 3 in the last 24 hours.

Renaldo Magnus learned from his early mistakes. Later when the Iranians threatened shipping in the Gulf, he had the US military attack the IRGC Navel Bases(ships) and Oil platforms. National pride went up and Iran became less aggressive.

President Reagan declared:

"We've taken this action to make certain the Iranians have no illusions about the cost of irresponsible behavior. We aim to deter further Iranian aggression, not provoke it."

‘They'll Pay a Price'

He added: "They must know that we will protect our ships--and if they threaten us, they'll pay a price."

The answer to the titular question is "not violently enough to make a difference."

We've lost the bubble on fighting wars, because we let academia and politicians tell us how to do it. You don't stop this stuff by tit-for-tat nonsense: you do it with overwhelming force, targeted to permanently deprive the enemy of something he can't stand to lose. This is doubly true for essentially barbaric, low-information cultures that hold you in contempt. You're not going to do subtle messaging to nations where the average IQ is sub-85. They've got to see the ruins for themselves.

Nine pound round+1

I think the answer to the titular question is " never the right way" based on most threads and posts here. I am afraid to think about what nations have an average sub-85 IQ. We would have to leave out Iran, though.

I'm afraid Reagan did not appear to learn much. He and his senior advisors thought selling arms to Iran would get hostages released. I am surprised at no one mentioning this as we talk about Biden unfreezing Iranian funds. The profits were to go to the rebels in Nicaragua.

Reagan later told the public that he was not involved, then had to change his mind as more info came out from his advisors. In the meantime, terrorists saw taking hostages as a new way to get weapons. Reagan denied trading guns for hostages or negotiating with terrorists, but too many people were involved to keep the lid on.

Here you go: you can see for yourself:

link

I make no representations as to its accuracy, etc, but here's a quick précis:

Egypt: 76
Iran: 80
"Palestine": 77
Syria: 74
Somalia: 67

US rates as a 97, the UK a 99, Germany as a 100 and Japan a 106, so from a military standpoint, it's clearly not dispositive.