U.S. Military Taught Officers ‘Hiroshima’ Tactics for ‘Total War’ on Islam

[King Solomon]

Depends what you mean by 'similar'. I accept that all militaries plan reasonable contingencies, so what do I mean by reasonable?

Declaring war on a country is reasonable.
Declaring war on an organized group of criminals (drug dealers, terrorists, etc.) is reasonable.
Declaring war on a race is NOT reasonable.
Declaring war on a religion is NOT reasonable.



Lt. Dooley is making the jump in his premise, and you are defending his intellectual dishonesty by invoking freedom of speech. It is certainly freedom of speech in the same way as Hitler/Stalin/OBL's speeches were freedom of speech. Anyone can 'justify' their ideology by making ridiculous extrapolations and generalizations.



Uh huh.



What on earth is a 'dedicated' Muslim? Just because some criminal uses that label to describe themselves makes it valid to reverse-extrapolate that blame to all Muslims?

If a self-proclaimed 'black panther' or a 'dedicated' Jew commits a crime, shall we then conclude that all blacks and Jews are automatically criminals?



Duh! No one here is questioning the intellectual content of the course. The whole objection is about the social presumptions underlying the premise for the course.

Once again, reasonable people do not declare war on races or religions; people who do so are called fanatical extremists.

Reasonable people do not willingly suspend Geneva Convention rules and deliberately target civilian centers with weapons of mass destruction; people who do so are called fanatical extremists.

The JFSC course fails the test of reasonableness on both counts.

Note: The keyword here is that this is a "Model" or a simulation of an imaginary scenario. Based on several conditions and hypothetical arguments.

 

[vsdoc]

I do understand the concept of deterrence.


The purpose of nuclear weapons is to prevent 'devastating war' or 'crossing the red line' in the first place.


Agreed! Therefore, the deterrence.


Disagreed. Hint: tactical nukes

Here; Pakistan builds low yield nuclear capability | DAWN.COM


Agreed!


Oh! Pakistani nukes DO WORK.


Yes! Pakistan does have reasonable delivery systems.


Yes


Point is that attack on holy cities will open the Pandora box. You being an Indian will not understand this.

Attacking holy cities will be 'crossing the red line' of tolerance of all Muslims worldwide. Their is no justification for this kind of action.

My friend, civilizational (for you as a people and a nation; and not in the broader context of humanity yet in the scenario being discussed) survival is not based on EMOTION or RELIGIOUS SENTIMENT.

Nor may I propose is it based on a poorly concealed patently transparent BLUFF.

May I also propose that BOTH your red-lines - vis-a-vis you TAC NUKES as well as wildly flailing out against perceived civilizational/traditional religious adversary nations (Israel, India), are too miltarily, strategically, and politically SHALLOW to be taken seriously by anyone.

It has been debated threadbare that were the Rubicon to be crossed, and Indian column/s be advancing and ingressing into Pakistani soil, a tactical nuke short of (or on) the advancing column is not going to be in any way advantageous to you.

You in effect have played your hand.

And it is then not only Indian nukes that would be raining down on you.

Please remember that the only sides that truly deployed tactical nukes (and that was like 30-40 years ago - nuclear doctrine and weapon tehnology, especialy conventional, has come a long way since then) were those that were fully willing and able to fight a nuclear war.

Nuclear war fighting is not equal to nuclear national suicide.

Nuclear war fighting has the doctrine to back it up.

Nuclear war fighting has the capability to back it up.

You have none of the above.

What you do have is a very short religious fuse and a pathologically overpowering need to bluff.

Even when you know that the world can see through it.

 

[Developereo]

Note: The keyword here is that this is a "Model" or a simulation of an imaginary scenario. Based on several conditions and hypothetical arguments.

How about you show me an imaginary scenario at JFSC to nuke Bogota or Sao Paolo to fight the drug war.

Or an imaginary scenario at JFSC to nuke Kinshasa or Capetown to fight Somali pirates.

I am still waiting.

Hint: You will not find one. Ever. And once you understand why you will never find such a scenario being taught at JFSC, you will understand why we are objecting to this course.

 

[gambit]

Depends what you mean by 'similar'. I accept that all militaries plan reasonable contingencies, so what do I mean by reasonable?

Declaring war on a country is reasonable.
Declaring war on an organized group of criminals (drug dealers, terrorists, etc.) is reasonable.
Declaring war on a race is NOT reasonable.
Declaring war on a religion is NOT reasonable.

Only religions can declare war on religions. Only races can declare war on races. You obviously have not read Dooley's entire presentation to know what he was talking about. But then again, the muslim victimhood mentality clearly enabled you to make high jumps to conclusions.

Lt. Dooley is making the jump in his premise, and you are defending his intellectual dishonesty by invoking freedom of speech. It is certainly freedom of speech in the same way as Hitler/Stalin/OBL's speeches were freedom of speech. Anyone can 'justify' their ideology by making ridiculous extrapolations and generalizations.

To 'justify' mean to make right. You obviously do not know the proper context of the word. In twisting it to suit, you have an avenue to attack Dooley without the need to read what he present.

Uh huh.

Absolutely.

What on earth is a 'dedicated' Muslim? Just because some criminal uses that label to describe themselves makes it valid to reverse-extrapolate that blame to all Muslims?

They were not criminals. They were warriors for Islam.

If a self-proclaimed 'black panther' or a 'dedicated' Jew commits a crime, shall we then conclude that all blacks and Jews are automatically criminals?

I see plenty of that here already.

Duh! No one here is questioning the intellectual content of the course. The whole objection is about the social presumptions underlying the premise for the course.

You can object to Dooley by creating your rebuttal. But first, you must study the enemy and that mean take your time and read what Dooley presented. But we have seen enough of your cowardice on that.

Once again, reasonable people do not declare war on races or religions; people who do so are called fanatical extremists.

Reasonable people do not willingly suspend Geneva Convention rules and deliberately target civilian centers with weapons of mass destruction; people who do so are called fanatical extremists.

The JFSC course fails the test of reasonableness on both counts.

Looks like someone is afraid his culture is getting a taste of its own medicine.

How about you show me an imaginary scenario at JFSC to nuke Bogota or Sao Paolo to fight the drug war.

Or an imaginary scenario at JFSC to nuke Kinshasa or Capetown to fight Somali pirates.

I am still waiting.

Hint: You will not find one. Ever. And once you understand why you will never find such a scenario being taught at JFSC, you will understand why we are objecting to this course.

All of those already debunked. Try something else.

 

[King Solomon]

How about you show me an imaginary scenario at JFSC to nuke Bogota or Sao Paolo to fight the drug war.

Or an imaginary scenario at JFSC to nuke Kinshasa or Capetown to fight Somali pirates.

I am still waiting.

Hint: You will not find one. Ever. And once you understand why you will never find such a scenario being taught at JFSC, you will understand why we are objecting to this course.

What makes you think those scenarios/models have not been tried between the major powers (US, Russia)?

Don't forget in any massive nuclear confrontation, the safest bet is probably to launch a full scale invasion of Australia or south africa since these places are likely to be safer. What makes you think nuking these places' scenario has not been tried? Not every scenario is bought to public attention like this one. These exercises are normally highly classified but this case seems to be an exception.

 

[Developereo]

Only religions can declare war on religions. Only races can declare war on races. You obviously have not read Dooley's entire presentation to know what he was talking about. But then again, the muslim victimhood mentality clearly enabled you to make high jumps to conclusions.


To 'justify' mean to make right. You obviously do not know the proper context of the word. In twisting it to suit, you have an avenue to attack Dooley without the need to read what he present.


Absolutely.


They were not criminals. They were warriors for Islam.


I see plenty of that here already.


You can object to Dooley by creating your rebuttal. But first, you must study the enemy and that mean take your time and read what Dooley presented. But we have seen enough of your cowardice on that.


Looks like someone is afraid his culture is getting a taste of its own medicine.


All of those already debunked. Try something else.

So, you sidestepped and avoided every single point without rebuttal, preferring instead to randomly pepper your post with meaningless stock phrases about victims and cowardice.

Dooley is essentially asking his students to view (for an hour) this conflict as an all out religious crusade -- something the US administration has been at pains to deny over and over and over again. And again.

The US administration keeps saying that it does NOT view this conflict as a war on Islam, it does not expect its soldiers to hold that view, and it does not promote that view. And here we find out Dooley is doing exactly that in a US military course.

What makes you think those scenarios/models have not been tried between the major powers (US, Russia)?

Don't forget in any massive nuclear confrontation, the safest bet is probably to launch a full scale invasion of Australia or south africa since these places are likely to be safer. What makes you think nuking these places' scenario has not been tried? Not every scenario is bought to public attention like this one. These exercises are normally highly classified but this case seems to be an exception.

Once again, we are not talking about declaring war on a country or a military alliance. The whole issue here is to take the actions of some criminals and declare war on an entire religion.

That is why I gave the analogous examples of declaring war on a race (black pirates) or an ethnicity/continent (drug lords).

 

[gambit]

So, you sidestepped and avoided every single point without rebuttal, preferring instead to randomly pepper your post with meaningless stock phrases about victims and cowardice.

Dooley is essentially asking his students to view this conflict as an all out religious crusade -- something the US administration has been at pains to deny over and over and over again. And again.

And once again, you avoid the necessity of reading his presentation. Funny on how often we are admonished on how the Quran or Islam does not say this or that and to look it up, but here you are ready to jump to conclusion when the material is far less voluminous.

Once again, we are not talking about declaring war on a country or a military alliance. The whole issue here is to take the actions of some criminals and declare war on an entire religion.

That is why I gave the analogous examples of declaring war on a race (black pirates) or an ethnicity/continent (drug lords).

All already debunked. Try something else.

 

[Developereo]

And once again, you avoid the necessity of reading his presentation. Funny on how often we are admonished on how the Quran or Islam does not say this or that and to look it up, but here you are ready to jump to conclusion when the material is far less voluminous.

I read it just fine. He specifically takes the actions of 'Islamic terrorists' as a license to declare war on Islam. He "lays out a possible four-phase war plan to carry out a forced transformation of the Islam religion. "

I suggest YOU read the original post before taking off on the apologist bandwagon.

All already debunked. Try something else.

Debunked how? Is there a similar course at JFSC that takes the actions of drug lords as justification to start nuking random cities in South America? Is there a course about nuking African cities in response to Somali piracy?

Please present actual course material instead of a knee-jerk, vacuous posting of 'debunked'.

 

[VCheng]

A typical scene during academic discussion in USA (do listen till the end):

Please note how all views are said, and with emotion too, but openly and fairly.

 

[LeGenD]

My friend, civilizational (for you as a people and a nation; and not in the broader context of humanity yet in the scenario being discussed) survival is not based on EMOTION or RELIGIOUS SENTIMENT.

Nor may I propose is it based on a poorly concealed patently transparent BLUFF.

May I also propose that BOTH your red-lines - vis-a-vis you TAC NUKES as well as wildly flailing out against perceived civilizational/traditional religious adversary nations (Israel, India), are too miltarily, strategically, and politically SHALLOW to be taken seriously by anyone.

It has been debated threadbare that were the Rubicon to be crossed, and Indian column/s be advancing and ingressing into Pakistani soil, a tactical nuke short of (or on) the advancing column is not going to be in any way advantageous to you.

You in effect have played your hand.

And it is then not only Indian nukes that would be raining down on you.

Please remember that the only sides that truly deployed tactical nukes (and that was like 30-40 years ago - nuclear doctrine and weapon tehnology, especialy conventional, has come a long way since then) were those that were fully willing and able to fight a nuclear war.

Nuclear war fighting is not equal to nuclear national suicide.

Nuclear war fighting has the doctrine to back it up.

Nuclear war fighting has the capability to back it up.

You have none of the above.

What you do have is a very short religious fuse and a pathologically overpowering need to bluff.

Even when you know that the world can see through it.

Again, I do not expect you to understand the scenario involving Mecca and Medina.

Attacking Mecca and Medina would be clear-cut declaration of 'war against Islam'. Under this scenario, all Muslims will be bound by faith to wage Jihad against the aggressor. This will be Jihad in true sense and not for political and geographical gains. This scenario will open a Pandora box, which may UNITE all Islamic nations on ideological grounds at least. The aggressor will also loose the right to conduct business with any Islamic nation in this context.

Do you event understand that how important Middle East is in economical sense for the entire world or at least for a large number of countries? Who will want to loose this market?

Even if we assume that somebody wishes to loose this market, no nation possesses the capability to occupy so many countries with conventional capabilities simultaneously. It is just not feasible. Supposedly, if USA is the aggressor; you can expect USA to control the waters but not lands. The only option would be conduct genocide on a scale never witnessed in history before. And will the International Community willingly accept this?

The aggressor will calculate the pros and cons for this kind of conflict.

On the cons;

1. All Islamic nations become hostile
2. Loss of a major economic hub; the Middle East
3. Existential threat to Israel
4. Existential threat to India
5. Opposition can be expected from many non-Islamic states

Do you really believe that this kind of war is feasible? Of course, many Muslims may die in this kind of war. However, world will be in serious turmoil afterwards.

War-gaming is one thing. Feasibility is another.

Try to understand the big picture here. Attacking one nation with nuclear weapons is easy. Attacking many is not at all feasible.

USA prefers divide-and-rule strategy instead. This works much better as WOT is showing.

 

[lem34]

Imagine the Saudis are allies and they think like this

 

[vsdoc]

Again, I do not expect you to understand the scenario involving Mecca and Medina.

I understand. So do the Americans. It is part and parcel of war gaming.

Attacking Mecca and Medina would be clear-cut declaration of 'war against Islam'. Under this scenario, all Muslims will be bound by faith to wage Jihad against the aggressor. This will be Jihad in true sense and not for political and geographical gains. This scenario will open a Pandora box, which may UNITE all Islamic nations on ideological grounds at least. The aggressor will also loose the right to conduct business with any Islamic nation in this context.

I understand that there will be over a billion very pissed off people worldwide. That is not in question. Their collective response is.

Institutional, Military and Asymmetric. Social and Cultural and Economic. Civilian - unfriendly and friendly collateral. That is all part of war gaming.

If you do not understand your enemy and predict his moves, all you can do when the time comes is depend on training and react situationally. Most advanced military powers do not find that adequate anymore.

Do you event understand that how important Middle East is in economical sense for the entire world or at least for a large number of countries? Who will want to loose this market?

The midle east oil fields will not be damaged. Not by the Americans. Nor allowed to the locals by means of sabotage. Two Gulf Wars as well as the 10 year Iran-Iraq war before should have shown you how it can and will be done.

The military might of the enemy will be neutralized first. As will Pakistani nukes in the first wave. Followed by tactical bombing of utilities and infrastructure. Power grids, railroads, bridges, dams, water works, refineries, fuel depots.

If that does not bring the countries to their knees, this would in all probability then be followed by nukes on small to medium sized urban pockets. Casualties sub-hundred thousand, timed and executed to limit fallout (seasonal, wind patterns, etc.).

Even if we assume that somebody wishes to loose this market, no nation possesses the capability to occupy so many countries with conventional capabilities simultaneously. It is just not feasible. Supposedly, if USA is the aggressor; you can expect USA to control the waters but not lands. The only option would be conduct genocide on a scale never witnessed in history before. And will the International Community willingly accept this?

Occupation will not be the objective. Quarantine will.

Neighboring countries will be forced to close their borders and forcibly prevent survivors from streaming across to escape the fallout.

No nation will stand in the way of American nukes and the victim nation.

The aggressor will calculate the pros and cons for this kind of conflict.

On the cons;

1. All Islamic nations become hostile
2. Loss of a major economic hub; the Middle East
3. Existential threat to Israel
4. Existential threat to India
5. Opposition can be expected from many non-Islamic states

Do you really believe that this kind of war is feasible? Of course, many Muslims may die in this kind of war. However, world will be in serious turmoil afterwards.

War-gaming is one thing. Feasibility is another.

Try to understand the big picture here. Attacking one nation with nuclear weapons is easy. Attacking many is not at all feasible.

USA prefers divide-and-rule strategy instead. This works much better as WOT is showing.

This will all have been played out in the war gaming. Pakistan nukes will be neutralized before the first wave. Not just by American special forces, but by Russian and Chinese ones in tandem.

Worst case scenario, Pakistan does get a few off and India gets hit. Collateral friendly casualties in a few hundreds of thousands. Maybe millions. Not near to an existential threat. It will never come close to that were Pakistan to start assembling. NFU is a doctrine. It is not the word of God. That will also be part of the war gaming.

Please remember that neither will India stand in the way, nor will the US back off for India. Its the price we pay for where we are and who our neighbor is. It is also something that the Indian war machine will be war gaming for in its own way for when and if the time comes.

As will the Israelis and the Chinese.

There will be no uninterested parties here.

 

[King Solomon]

The midle east oil fields will not be damaged. Not by the Americans. Nor allowed to the locals by means of sabotage. Two Gulf Wars as well as the 10 year Iran-Iraq war before should have shown you how it can and will be done.

The military might of the enemy will be neutralized first. As will Pakistani nukes in the first wave. Followed by tactical bombing of utilities and infrastructure. Power grids, railroads, bridges, dams, water works, refineries, fuel depots.

The mere threat of an international coalition-led war will result in a total collapse of pakistan's government and the state. Same goes for all Middle east government including SA which governs Mecca/Medina. No need to go further than that.

I am inclined to think Russia and China would aid US because it would be a matter of international security.

Perhaps such an action would be possible after a major nuke-based terrorist attack which simultaneously targets many nations.

 

[vsdoc]

I am inclined to think Russia and China would aid US because it would be a matter of international security.

I agree. Russia merely sitting on the sidelines would suffice. China does not count one way or the other, as don't the other lesser nuclear powers.

Push come to shove time, when the time comes to nuke somebody, there are only two veto votes in the world.

Perhaps such an action would be possible after a major nuke-based terrorist attack which simultaneously targets many nations.

That will also be part of the war gaming. Both as uncontrolled precipitant as well as a controlled trigger.

 

[LeGenD]

I understand. So do the Americans. It is part and parcel of war gaming.

Yes! They do. And this is why they do not take such a bold step. They are not idiots.

Remember 9/11? Most terrorists involved are believed to be Saudi Nationals. And yet! Saudi Arabia was not attacked. Does this gives you any hint?

War-gaming can be done for many kinds of scenarios. However, it is not necessary that all of such plans will be feasible to carry out until or unless geopolitical scenario favors them.

I understand that there will be over a billion very pissed off people worldwide. That is not in question. Their collective response is.

Do not underestimate the power of religious motivation - even in modern times. Collective response (or at minimum: state of readiness) will be of surprising proportions.

Institutional, Military and Asymmetric. Social and Cultural and Economic. Civilian - unfriendly and friendly collateral. That is all part of war gaming.

When people will UNITE! All of these factors will not matter much. United Islamic front will be a force to be reckoned with.

If you do not understand your enemy and predict his moves, all you can do when the time comes is depend on training and react situationally. Most advanced military powers do not find that adequate anymore.

This is interesting point. Question is that which particular Islamic nation USA will decide to hit after Saudi Arabia? Maybe Pakistan? You can then expect Iran to directly support Pakistan in this hypothetical scenario. And China may also supply weapons to Pakistan. This front will definitely become more challenging.

The midle east oil fields will not be damaged. Not by the Americans. Nor allowed to the locals by means of sabotage. Two Gulf Wars as well as the 10 year Iran-Iraq war before should have shown you how it can and will be done.

Access to Middle East OIL will be certainly denied to the aggressor. It will be also used to gather some level of International Support against the aggressor. Interesting! Isn't it?

Even if USA does not needs Middle East OIL, there are many other interested customers. These nations will be definitely concerned.

The military might of the enemy will be neutralized first. As will Pakistani nukes in the first wave. Followed by tactical bombing of utilities and infrastructure. Power grids, railroads, bridges, dams, water works, refineries, fuel depots.

Look at the world map:

Now tell me genius! Is it really possible to perform conventional strikes on such a gigantic scale as you pointed out? And accomplish total breakthrough in a short span of time? Even if all seven US fleets are put to use, it may take a year to cripple so many nations with conventional means. And such an operation will be very expensive.

And you assume that Pakistan will not get ready for confrontation after strikes in Saudi Arabia? Pakistan may even give some nukes to Iran to boost its security.

If that does not bring the countries to their knees, this would in all probability then be followed by nukes on small to medium sized urban pockets. Casualties sub-hundred thousand, timed and executed to limit fallout (seasonal, wind patterns, etc.).

By that time, Israel and India will be done with.

Occupation will not be the objective. Quarantine will.

Overseas muslims will come in to the picture. Countries such as UK and India are specially vulnerable due to sizable populace of muslims in these countries. And quarantine cannot be imposed by a single aggressor on such a grand scale unless the rest of the world cooperates.

Neighboring countries will be forced to close their borders and forcibly prevent survivors from streaming across to escape the fallout.

As hinted above, many non-Islamic states will not necessarily support the aggressor or cooperate with it in this kind of war.

No nation will stand in the way of American nukes and the victim nation.

China and Russia may intervene if nuclear fallout effects them and pressurize USA to give up. In case of Pakistan, nuclear fallout will definitely effect China.

This will all have been played out in the war gaming. Pakistan nukes will be neutralized before the first wave.

This may happen but nuclear fallout will effect both India and China and these states will be pissed.

Not just by American special forces, but by Russian and Chinese ones in tandem.

Is this joke of the century? You expect China and Russia to support USA in this kind of scenario?

On what basis? Or are you assuming a GLOBAL COALITION against the Islamic front?

Worst case scenario, Pakistan does get a few off and India gets hit. Collateral friendly casualties in a few hundreds of thousands. Maybe millions. Not near to an existential threat. It will never come close to that were Pakistan to start assembling. NFU is a doctrine. It is not the word of God. That will also be part of the war gaming.

Nuclear attack on India will scare off International Investors from this country and Indian economy will collapse. Result: more misery.

Please remember that neither will India stand in the way, nor will the US back off for India. Its the price we pay for where we are and who our neighbor is. It is also something that the Indian war machine will be war gaming for in its own way for when and if the time comes.

This does not surprises me. However, China will definitely not support USA unless geopolitical scenario is vastly different from what we have witnessed in our times.

As will the Israelis and the Chinese.

There will be no uninterested parties here.

Stop day dreaming! Genius.

The war against Islamic front only becomes feasible if the rest of the world is willing to assist USA and tolerate the resulting fallout. You are presenting a fictional scenario.

Unless USA is attacked by nukes from Islamic extremists! Which is also a pure fantasy - it will not find the motivation to attack and destroy the entire Islamic front and neither it will be able to gather international support for such an ambitious adventure.

Point is not about the capability of USA. Point is about existing 'ground realities' that will come in to play in these hypothetical scenarios.