The Power of Hindsight: An Interactive Game!

A type of question I like to pose involves knowing the future, the benefit of hindsight and freedom of choice based on that in the present. The old example is if you knew Hitler would start WWII, what would you do in the 1930’s to stop him?

Today my question is what would you do NOW to stop a nuclear WW3 three, five or 10 years in the future? Assume that WW3 is nuclear, inevitable once certain conditions are reached and preventable by taking the right actions now.

Well, you’d first have to define the causes, the participants, the belligerents and propose the solutions. My fear, of course that we do know the first three and are now quibbling over the fourth. ‘Do Nothing’ seems to be a common suggestion, otherwise known as ‘Harass by Inspection’, or ‘Strengthen the Black Market Through Sanctions’.

The most commonly proposed solutions for WWII are not really in vogue now: 1) Assassinate Hitler and take your chances with Ernst Rohlm, Von Ribbentrop, Goebbels, and Goering; 2) End appeasement by not ceding the Sudetenland, and military resistance of the invasion of the Rhineland (because it came so late in the process, there wasn’t really a whole lot that could be done to prevent the Blitzkrieg of Poland).

In this case, assuming we still have enough time to stop WW3, who do we assassinate? Bin Laden? Pernicious beast he is. Not that we aren’t trying already, but we’d have to go into Waziristan in force for that option, and as far as WW3 goes, he’s “always relied on the kindness of others.” Ahmadinajad? Maybe, but he’s not the world dominating, charismatic dictator-type. Besides, there is probably someone with the same intent waiting in the wings who will step up and use the Iranian war machine the same way as Mad Tom. And more importantly, in the end, assassination doesn’t do anything to dismantle the nuclear production line and destroy Iran’s bomb-making capabilities. Power corrupts, and if there is a vacuum for the leadership of the next emerging nuclear power, any/some Joe will step up and make it happen so long as a path to nuclear hegemony is available.

You can’t have a nuclear war if the belligerents don’t have a nuclear bomb. So the game is either dismantle their ability to develop nuclear weapons, or remove their initiative for making the Bomb. Let’s pretend the former option is the last choice and address their initiative. Regime change is about it. The Iranian Theocracy has to go down, and it’s most likely that will take military action.

We can take it a step farther. Let’s assume we know who the players will be (were going to be?) and that there are three key players. Wouldn’t a prudent course of action be to take them out one at time so they don’t strengthen to the point where catastrophic war is required against all three at once? Attack one at a time by diplomacy to reform their initiative for war, or by force to destroy their ability to wage war as necessary.

Think about how much easier WWII would have been if Europe could have been solved in the 30’s and Japan in the 40’s. Both halves would still most likely have required war, but turning the Western World’s resources on one half of the Axis at time would also most likely have shortened the conflicts and resulted in less carnage.

So here we have the Axis of Evil consisting of Iraq, Iran and North Korea. As soon as we crushed Iraq, Iran and the NorKs saw the game clearly and realized how deep and abiding their friendships and alliances really were. Their best, and most likely only choice was to work together and use alliances with their sponsors to fight a delaying action until their nuclear capabilities were developed enough for hegemony.

I think Iran is next. The big question is whether or not we are in time to prevent a nuclear suicide attack by a state sponsor.