I very much doubt this scenario will ever come to pass, but what if...

 

Terrorists, working with Iran, and able to develop a small nuclear weapon, which they sneak into a major city and then detonate. In Boston, near Logan airport, killing tens of thousands of people and doing billions of dollars of property damage. Among the dead are thousands of children.

 

Twelve hours later, the President is on TV and he says, "Throughout this long struggle, we have always tried to remember that we represent civilization, rather than savagery. That ended with these murders. Now we are at war, and we will do whatever is necessary to win. To our allies and friends around the world, we do not ask you to shoulder this burden, but do not try to stop us. There will never be another Boston Holocaust. On my life and my soul, I swear it. Our enemies have made this a fight to the death. Very well. Now you will see how America fights."

 

About five minutes after the speech ended, American nuclear warheads destroyed the six largest cities in Iran. Nuclear weapons were also used on the areas in Afghanistan and Yemen under Taliban control. The death toll is well over four million people. The President's next message, about twenty-four hours after the attack on Boston, was to demand the unconditional surrender of Iran, and also five other Islamic countries with ties to the Taliban, with the simple and clear message being "Surrender or die. We really will bomb you into the stone age unless you quietly and meekly let us police your people until we think it is safe to give your countries back."

 

So...what happens in the next seventy-two hours? How would NATO react? Or the UN? Or the Chinese or the Russians or the Indians or Australia or Japan or...? Worldwide condemnation? A Russian nuclear attack? A lot of countries shocked but ultimately saying, "You know, the terrorists started this and frankly we like the US a lot better than we like the Taliban so...well, I guess we've crossed the freakin' Rubicon here."

 

What do you all think?

My 2 cents...

 

You capture the sentiment well, a response that is unlikely to happen to an event that is likely to happen. The president's words, however, I think you got exactly correct, making a statement he cannot hope to live up to, "There will never be another Boston Holocaust."

 

I believe NATO would detach any units from joint exercises on US soil or in public waters and would send any other US forces back to their bases (not back to CONUS in 72 hours but just back to their British, German, Italian, ... bases).

 

The UN would work at unheard of speed to condemn the US. There would also be great rhetoric about kicking the US out of the UN and shifting headquarters out of the US.

 

Russia, nah, no nuclear attack but I wouldn't be surprised if they took advantage of the situation to forcibly take back some wayward republics and give a thorough cleansing to any internal descent. That is hardly in the realm of 72 hours but you may well see some AEGIS ashore modules suddenly burst into flame in Eastern Europe. Russia as always will win the international PR game, demanding huge reparations for irradiated crops, citizens, and so on.

 

imho China is in the toughest spot of all. My take is that they would quite accidentally bite off more than they can chew. The US is a huge trading partner and I would expect China to apply serious economic pressure, threatening their own livelihood in the process. In the somewhat longer-term (30 days?), look for moves to assert territorial control that result in military clashes, naval in particular, with China and its neighbors. This is where some recent analysis pieces kick in saying the Chinese people will demand this action in the South China Sea and the politicians will have the choice to step down or honor the short-sighted wishes of the public. I would assume the politicians will cave and missiles will fly. Expect Japan and South Korea and Australia and ??? to grow/demonstrate a backbone and push back in a way not thought possible when the US was riding shotgun.

 

Other countries will generally condemn and emplace a trade embargo on the US throwing the US and many/most other countries into deep recession.

 

Overall I wouldn't expect many or any kinetic attacks on the US itself but the US nuking Iran and Afghanistan would mark an immediate end to US omnipresence and overseas bases. Cyber attacks and every other non-kinetic weapon would be tried against us. We would be isolated but still have the ability to feed ourselves. The whole encounter would probably even speed the revival of manufacturing even if our standard of living would decrease at a faster pace than it is now. The US military would still be strong, just refocused more quickly to homeland defense and expeditionary operations.

I think the Russkies would understand us relandscaping one Iranian city and turning it into a parking lot, but turning Tehran and several other cities into uninhabitable plains of glass would cause them to enact the mutual defense treaties they signed with Iran in the 1990s and retaliate in kind. Additionally, the rest of the Islamic world would be thrown into turmoil. Although most other Muslim countries hate Iran because they are Shia, like the Russians the Sunnis would accept one city being turned into a parking lot, maybe even two (they are Shias of course). Nuking Afghanistan into the mix would be perceived as a general attack on Islam. If you want a freaking Jihad, I think nuking Iran and Afghanistan would cause one. Muslims have a keen sense of justice, but if they smell a general assualt on Islam (regardless of branch), their blood will boil.

I agree with Tony, the UN would move at warp speed to condemn us - we are always the bad guy. NATO countries would cancel liberty privileges for US troops on their soil and restrict them to their bases. Meanwhile the Eurozone economy truly meltsdown, as the oil stops flowing from the Middle East. I think China would sieze the opportunity to expand its reach and throw its weight around WESTPAC - power abhors a vacuum. With the US focusing on battling the Islamic wolves at the door, China would naturally begin feeling its oats. North Korea would also see this an an opportunity to reunify the Korean Penninsula. I could go on and on - the possibilities are endless.

Man, you see how much havoc one terrorist nuke causes!

I think we could expect a loud, grating action movie from Michael Bay and a grandiloquent documentary from Oliver Stone.

Yeah, that too! The Stone mockumentary, would make it all our fault.

I know this is very unlikely to happen, but I do sometimes wonder what would happen if terrorists did something so horrible to cause, in effect, a paradigm change in our thinking. We are, in effect, used to being in a room full of thieves and murderers, but people who are still reasonable, people who can be talked to, bought off, recruited for our team, intimidated in normal ways, etc. Heck, we're thieves and murderers, too, when we have to be, although the nice part about being strong and rich is that we usually don't have to steal from other people to get by. But the new guy in the room isn't like the other guys; he's just bat**** crazy. He likes convincing children to kill other children. WTF!?

 

Even against this guy, we have tried to fight according to the rules we've imposed on ourselves. In general, for example, we try not to blow up a building full of civilians because a terrorist might be there, too; we try to kill the terrorist without hurting the innocent people he's using as human shields. It's just part of our culture.

 

What happens if America (and maybe its allies, too) gets really scared, scared that we're not just going to see people hurt, but that we're losing, that these people might really be able to hurt us badly enough to cause our society to collapse, and kill not thousands but millions? What happens if we start thinking that the only way to beat the monsters is to become what we fear and out-monster them? How bad could things get?

By the way, here's the scenario, version B--instead of destroying large population centers, nuclear weapons are used, but only against a couple of cities with strategic importance. Deaths are now well under one million people. And simple slaughter was NOT the main motive. However, the attack should be done in a way to make it absolutely clear that, as far as the US is concerned, a line has been crossed by the terrorists and that we are prepared to do ANYTHING to win. The nations that have harbored terrorists for 50 years, perhaps by just not working hard to hunt them down, are being held accountable. They will be under American rule, and now America is not here as liberators but as a global police force ready and able to use lethal force to keep the peace, and anyone who is not cooperating is going to be treated as part of the problem, and right now that is not a very healthy option, and we will remain so until their cultures are sufficiently stable and democratic that we can leave them to their own devices (which is the ultimate plan, as it was with Germany, Japan, etc.)

I had asked a similar question when I designed a scenerio with the US attacking Iran and the reaction of Arab countires. With such a swift and massive retaliation, I think any US military installation, US Embassy or government facilty or US company with locations in Middle East countries would feel quick political and possibly violent pressure from the host country regardless if Tehran had been involved with financing or planning the attack in Boston. If Tehran did have involvement, I think the UN/NATO pressure would be slightly less intense. But with 4 million people dead in Iran, Yemen and Afghanistan, the UN and NATO for sure will receive pressure from countires with populations in the affected areas. This would be economically a near death blow to the US.

 

Tony E brings up the best point. We play our favorite military strategy game on a machine that is most likely built in China. We buy a lot of our favorite and expensive items from the Chinese and they could possibly accept the attack on Iran as an indirect threat to them. Production of Chinese products bound for the US as well as US products meant for China could be stretched thin but to what level is tough to say. I also see the value of the US dollar in a rapid freefall and the US credit rating being downgraded, possibly to junk status, as China, our biggest debt purchaser, probably not wanting to have a a whole lot do to do with US dollars or debt. China probably would make out like a bandit as the dollar would fall and the Yuan would probably intially dip due to world insecurity then modestly rise. Gold, which China holds large amounts, could skyrocket. Curious on how American military defense contractors would handle a near worthless dollar and subsequent purchases from the DoD.

 

The reaction of Arab countries falls immediately behind that of China particularly because of oil. With a third of the worlds oil coming from an Arabian country, their reaction would determine the price of oil. But as I see it, if a pipeline is attacked in Africa and oil goes up a few bucks, I see oil markets spiking with attacks on Iran. Even as most Arabian countries hold relatively calm to good relations with the US, an attack on brother country makes it a tricky proposition.

 

But "terroists working with Iran" is a broad statement and the involvment of Tehran, I feel, would be key to this scenerio and the first 72 hours.

 

Fantastic thoughts Mgellis and Tony E.

FYI...

 

I'm assuming the Boston Holocaust of 2021 leaves fifty thousand people dead (I'm assuming the nuke is on a freighter and is detonated when the ship comes into the harbor before any inspectors could find the container it was in...this actually reduces the damage a lot, but we're still talking about a nuke here...it's basically a Nagasaki-level blast). I'm also assuming it is pretty clear that Iran was either directly involved, telling them to bomb Boston, or that they had sold them the bomb and had a pretty good idea how it was going to be used and neither tried to stop them or warn anyone else. Anyone looking at the facts will be able to see that they were involved in some way.

 

Questions...

 

If American can prove Iran was involved, what do you think are the most likely responses? This is not just terror by terrorists; it is arguably an act of war by Iran. And what are the responses that are least likely to backfire on America?

 

On the other hand, if the proof linking Iran is shaky at best ("hmmm...it's their uranium all right, we can tell from [insert technical reason that I don't know reason here], but there's no way to prove they actually made the bomb...the most we could say is they probably sold them the uranium and knew they were up to no good and didn't tell anyone else...but that's probably not an act of war...."), what can the US do? If the charge against Iran is simply, "You are dangerously irresponsible and you helped get 50,000 of our people killed"...well, what's an appropriate response? Does the US get to say things like "You will let the inspectors in now and as long as we want them to be there. Or you will be treated as being complicit in these acts." And THEN, if Iran balks, the shooting (but not the nuking) starts. Or does it?

The operation against Iran will be short , swift and surgical. Gas prices will go through the roof and Islam in general will be split over the event. Shia factions globally will call for Jihad and we could see an up-swing in terrorism, as revolution that makes the 2011 Arab Spring looks like a peace march sit-in takes place. The Sunni will begin quashing and squashing the Shia's. The UN will blame all of this on the US.

As the dust settles a new power structure will coalese around the Central Asian republic (known as the stans), led by Turkey, which backed the US in the recent dust-up. Turkey is neither predominantly Shia or Sunni and they are currently one of the most moderate muslim nation around and they have a pretty robust ecnomy going. Many analysts see them as an up and coming power player in the foreseeable future.

Mgellis, I'm hoping you're taking note, 'cause you've got fodder here for numerous scenarios just from this thread.

I'll throw another variable into the mix. If the US was attacked, even with nuclear weapons, we might not see our allies support us if we responded in kind.

 

What if it is not an American city that is hit, but a European one? What if it is the Bristol Holocaust of 2021 or the Naples Holocaust of 2021 or the Copenhagen Holocaust of 2021? (I understand some of the Arab states are pretty mad at the Danes for some reason...or is it the Dutch? Or both?) Or a city in Asia like Mumbai or Incheon, South Korea?

 

Sadly, if Israel was attacked, the world would probably wring its hands and do nothing.

Third possibility...two bombs, one in the U.S. and one somewhere else?

 

What happens?

What if it is not an American city that is hit, but a European one?

Europe won't get away with nuking Iran just like the US wouldn't. I think Europe would quickly burn through its limited stocks of TLAM and probably send Eurofighters and Rafale into harm's way to severely diminish much of Iran's military. But how much would the US contribute I really have no clue. In today's climate, I think very little whereas five or ten years ago we would certainly have been lobbing missiles right along side the Eurofolk.

Sadly, if Israel was attacked, the world would probably wring its hands and do nothing.

I disagree and believe the US would vehemently strike back directly as well as heartily supply Israel in retaliation. It may be my interest in how the Nazi machine worked that colors me towards that statement but I suspect enough of the US would support Israel if attacked by Iran, doubly so if nuclear weapons were used. I can't speak to the rest of the world's opinion.