Global War: Trend, Accident, or Conspiracy?

Id love to chime in here on the recomendations, but unfortunately not being that well educated in who is actually in the democratic party in the background will make it difficult for an aussie like me. I will be watching closely thou and will jump in when I can and when I feel it appropriate.

thanks Justin

This is just a starter scenario, to get people used to the idea. Anyone and everyone can participate. After we've done this for a while, we can talk about moving it to a seperate thread.

reply to post by Justin Oldham


OK here goes I admit that I struggled to come up with names for a few of the positions . I was very tempted to twist things and appoint Petraeus as Secretary of Defence because out of all the US military leaders he as demonstrated the best understanding of counter insurgency warfare . I would recommended Petraeus become the deputy Secretary of Defence.

Lieberman is my pick for Secretary of State because if needed he could add a hard edge to diplomacy. The logic behind selecting members of Obama campaign team is that they must be the best in the business because you need the best advisor's in order to get elected in the first place . I am sure that a case could be made for other people but time and factors meant that I had to reach a decision .


Secretary of Defence : Robert Gates
Secretary of State : Joe Lieberman
Chief of Staff : David Axelrod
Director of Communications : Robert Gibbs
Press Secretary : David Plouffe



[edit on 22-5-2008 by xpert11]

Robert Gates is the perfect choice for SECDEF. Unfortunately, as a sidenote, I think that whoever wins the nomination will pick someone a lot less reform-minded.

Right now, the military is simply hanging tough for the next nine months because they know that when the new president comes in, Gates will probably be gone.

Not much time left. Make your suggestions now, or take what comes. The next installment is coming soon.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
Not much time left. Make your suggestions now, or take what comes. The next installment is coming soon.

Quick Question.

Do I need to submit any more names to fill positions for this excise(SP?) ?

Cheers xpert11 .

Several people have asked me to delay the continuation of this scenario until Monday. We're having a long Memorial Day weekend here in the States, and most of us will be out of town for that time.

I have agreed to wait until Sunday night or Monday moring, so....

Post any name you like for any government post you like, and the fctional characters in this story will consider them.

See you later.

reply to post by Justin Oldham


I have to say, personally, I believe it's a mixture of all three, in that trending is always examined in advance of releasing the statistics, so those in the know, know what to watch for, accidents do happen from time to time, including the occasional foul up by Government Agencies, and there is also the intermingling of Democrats and Republicans and their hatred of one another.

One person, pulling strings, which induces another to fall, or one cover-up going one way, sheds light on another, as well the occasional screw up that brings to the light of day all things naughty in the Government. Great post here, by the way, JO, and thanks for posting on one of the threads I began.

Part 3B is on its way. Hang tight.

I need to also say something, however. I am on CNNMoney.com and reading personal anecdotes of average, everyday people who are telling their tales of how they're coping with the imminent economic downturn. First off, let me say anybody (especially if its President Bush) who says the "economy is strong" deserves to be destitute for the rest of his life. I am reading all of these stories and let it be known, these are VERY tough times. These stories are absolutely gut-wrenching to read and I fear what I am heading into as a 22-year-old. Quoting Ronald Reagan does not make the situation any better.

In a way, I almost regret writing my chronicles of World War III with such vigor and enthusiasm, because I am essentially writing about the hard times Americans will face that are far worse than what is happening now. Justin and I have both established the U.S. plunges into a deep recession in 2009, shortly after the new president takes office, but we have not even described how tough life is before the terrorist attack, before the nuclear stand-off, before war.

Like I said, enjoy 2008. Its the proverbial "last dance."

You should wrap this up before I continue. Let's wee what you come up with before I go on. No point in confusing the people trying to read this thread. Hope everyone had a good weekend.

Hopefully, this doesn't get in the way of the political simulation going on. Here is the highly-anticipated Part 3 of my World War III epic. I apologize for the long delay, I've been dealing with countless critical family and personal issues and I have not been able to stay on top of things here at ATS. Anyway, this is where things really start to rear its ugly head. Enjoy:

Late November - early December 2009: U.S. troops cautiously guard Saudi Arabia's many oil fields and refineries. There is an air of unease in the kingdom, and the Coalition forces to the north in Iraq and the powerful naval armada in the Gulf does not alleviate any of this unease. Intelligence agencies of the West continue to receive troubling information and rumors coming out of Riyadh that the insurgency is about to pull of something huge, but there isn't much data to confirm these suspicions.

December 6, 2009: In their monthly meeting with their British counterparts, the U.S. Intelligence Community catches a huge break. The MI6 reveals to the Americans that a mainstay HUMINT source in Moscow, codenamed BIRDSONG, has reported that a large amount of weapons-grade nuclear material, possibly a warhead, has gone missing and that the Russian authorities are secretly going berserk about it. What’s more, a large number of Russian scientists employed by the government and associated with the nuclear weapons program have gone missing. Russian authorities voice concerns, off the record, that these scientists may have been paid off to help construct a nuclear weapon for a subnational or transnational group of unknown association and origin. The revelation is not enough to spark any significant action, however. Probing the Russians is also unsuccessful, as they close their doors, leaving the U.S. and U.K. to wonder exactly how much the Russians know about the disappearance of the nuclear material and their scientists.

December 8, 2009: However, the U.S. catches yet another big break. Four teenage boys terrorize and hold hostage several other teenagers at their suburban Reston home that night. The situation is eventually neutralized by the Fairfax County Police Department (FCPD). During their investigations, FCPD discovers that the home in which the hostages were held is owned by the Arlington-based private military contractor DynCorp International. Seeking to find a connection between the hostage-takers and the company, the FCPD also discovers that the year before, DynCorp was awarded a contract by Russian government to dismantle five low-yield nuclear devices that had been recovered from now-abandoned and isolated locations across Russia. As of December 2009, the contract had expired and all warheads had been dismantled - all except one, with absolutely no explanation as to what had happened to the last warhead. Documented evidence showed the Russian government was not pleased with the "bungling" of the operation and threatened to take action in response.

In order to salvage both the contract and the company, DynCorp literally bribed the Russian government with a large, but undisclosed amount of money. In effect, DynCorp was "buying" the lost warhead. Apparently, the Russian government (or at least certain elements of it) approved. There was a big kick, however. DynCorp transferred the money but it was not their own. The money itself was provided (for reasons unknown) by none other than the Saudi Binladin Group, the private holding company of the bin Laden family.

The FCPD's findings are immediately turned over to the F.B.I., who then turn the information over to the intelligence community. Numerous analysts are considering the possibility the Binladen Group could've "bought" the warhead for bin Laden's use, or possibly for use by Khalid al-Aziz, who is found to have loose links to the holding company. Further investigations reveal even more links, this time between the Binladen Group numerous residents of the United States.

Alarmed by this new evidence, the president, through executive order, approves the creation of a covert joint task force aimed at uncovering the mystery behind this troubling development. The operation is anchored by the CIA and has been codenamed Operation ZERO GAMBIT. The operation is given a carte blanche and authorized any and all means necessary to uncover the mystery behind the missing warhead. The general sense within the U.S. leadership is that their troubles have just begun. Obama also approves an official investigation led by the FBI aimed at locating and pinning down any other links other U.S. residents may have with the Binladen group, the Saudi Arabian insurgency, and terrorist groups around the world. Some express slight concern over a possible abuse of civil liberties in the process, but all agree this is a "particularly extraordinary moment."

December 13, 2009: During a meeting meant to discuss fiscal matters, particularly in regards to the federal budget, the president is informed that the U.S. has lost an exorbitant amount of money over the past six months and is now in a severe financial crisis. The debt is sky-high and many express concerns about the ability to fund the federal reconstructive efforts in the wake of the nuclear crisis. Furthermore, the straining of relations with China means that the U.S. may lose the financial buttressing it has had for so long. Several national security advisers also point out specific programs, such as the anti-drug operations down in Colombia, can no longer be provided necessary funding. It appears that significant cutbacks are necessary at this point to stave off a total loss.

Sunday, December 20, 2009: After a long week, the FBI's investigation hits pay dirt. A private investigator who was conducting work for his client informs the FBI that a background check on a 26-year-old Iranian-American Chief Financial Officer named Reza Ansari reveals that he and his boss at their company of employment, had business dealings with Khalid al-Aziz, as well as one of the terrorists who had been involved in the nuclear bomb plot earlier that year.

The FBI immedietely responds by sending agents to question. Unfortunately, they come at a bad time: Ansari is in the middle of an engagement party, as he is due to marry the daughter of his boss. The FBI, however, is determined to get its information as quickly as they can and within an hour, Ansari, realizing the possibility he could be arrested on the day of his engagement party, reveals that his company did indeed deal with Khalid al-Aziz and the Binladen Group, but asserted that he had no idea al-Aziz was a militant. He also denies any knowledge of his company being used to support terrorist activity.

The FBI pursues this lead for the next few days. Ansari and his boss reveal, under intense questioning, that the various transactions with al-Aziz and the Binladen Group involved the provision of consultation services, equipment, as well as other capital for what the head of the company, a Robert Williams, referred to as "legitimate business." The FBI finally reveals to both Ansari and Williams of the possible link between the missing Russian warhead and the "legitimate business" of al-Aziz and the Binladen Group. Both Ansair and Williams begin to panic, and to this end, the FBI concludes that the two can no longer be relied upon to provide any additional intelligence.

Wednesday, December 23, 2009: Various elements of the U.S. and U.K. intelligence communities question their Russia, and even their Chinese and Israeli counterparts for any further information on the disturbing situation. The Chinese and Israelis more or less confirm much American and British intelligence. However, the Russians continue to close ranks, refusing to provide any more additional information on the matter. To make matters worse, the vital HUMINT source BIRDSONG, has suddenly gone missing. Nobody wants to admit it, but in Washington, there is a sense that the Russians may indeed have some involvement in the matter.

Thursday, December 24, 2009: Christmas Eve arrives and its has been the quietest, most solemn holiday season yet. The steadily-rising cost of fuel, as well as the damage done to America's transportation infrastructure, has made travel an impossibility, forcing nearly all to stay at home for the holidays. Those who are fortunate enough are able to gather with their friends and neighbors in churches and each other's houses, while others maintain their isolationism in their oversized suburban homes, homes they can no longer afford to maintain and pay for. Nevertheless, the holiday season, for the first time in many years, truly takes on the theme of togetherness, community, and hospitality. The local and federal governments continue to operate at peak capacity, however, with fire/rescue and law enforcement out in full force to combat what has become an undeniably heavy wave of crime in the wake of chaotic civil disorder.

Meanwhile, a record number of American troops are deployed around the world, all of them celebrating Christmas onboard ships, submarines, and land bases. The troops in the Middle East, particularly those in Saudi Arabia, are on high alert, expecting and ready for the expected...

And Part 3B is in order. Stay tuned, I won't take so long this time.

Any thoughts on this? I want to see some of your reactions before I post Part 3B.

Let me also ask one question to all. Let's say that this was truly the way things would fold out in the coming year. Knowing what you know now, how do you feel? Do you feel as if this is something you can get through?

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Let me also ask one question to all. Let's say that this was truly the way things would fold out in the coming year. Knowing what you know now, how do you feel? Do you feel as if this is something you can get through?

Well since the Nuclear stance resolved itself my concern would be any insurgency in Saudi Arabia helping to destabilize the region further and drive up Oil prices . Other wise there is no threat to shipping lanes in the South Pacific which are the artery(SP?) of the region . Nor have any Anzac military personal killed or military hardware destroyed .

Note to the reader NZ imports all of its oil .

[edit on 3-6-2008 by xpert11]

That's a good question. A lot hinges on whether or not U.S. policy results in covert assistance to those insurgents. How would I feel? I've got a high stress threshold. I'd be concerned, but not totally freaked out.

When you come to understand the magnitude of the events that I have laid out and how it is so unlike anything we have faced in history, it certainly makes one ponder whether or not we are indeed capable of getting through something like this. I have shown that the country goes through a bit of a collapse, so clearly, I believe we are not necessarily up for the challenge. At the same time, the fact that it doesn't fall apart at the seams shows the resiliency of SOME of the American people.

Before I post 3B, I'd like to ask one more question: where do you believe you will be in life when FOX News reports that a nuclear strike by China is imminent? I believe I will be on a U.S. warship in the Persian Gulf, far away from all this turmoil.

Hm. That's a good question. If your time line hold true, then I'll be right here, in Alaska.

So, what's the fallout from all this? having gone thisfar, I'm sure you've thought about it. What says the U.N.? What's the spin coming out Beijing and Washington? Does the nuclear disarmamanet movement gain new life? What are the repercussions to world wide media?

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
Hm. That's a good question. If your time line hold true, then I'll be right here, in Alaska.

So, what's the fallout from all this? having gone thisfar, I'm sure you've thought about it. What says the U.N.? What's the spin coming out Beijing and Washington? Does the nuclear disarmamanet movement gain new life? What are the repercussions to world wide media?

That's a good "recap" question before further advancing the story.

To say the least, the whole situation has caught everyone off-guard. At the same time, remember that this nuclear stand-off pretty much started at the U.N.. As the Secretary of State was making the case for war against Iran, China is the loudest voice in opposing the action at U.N. HQ. Unfortunately, the abruptness of the incident as well as the intention of both the U.S. and China to handle this situation on their own sort of made the U.N. a bystander in this whole affair.

Also, remember that the actual nuclear stand-off lasted a little over a day, barely enough time for the U.N. bureaucracy to get anything in motion.

As for the spin, I thought I was pretty clear on Beijing's position. As far as they're concerned, this is a victory for them. They were able to force the U.S., in some small form, to capitulate. Out of fear of regurgitating the stand-off, however, they're keeping quite mum on the whole affair. Within their own quarters, the Chinese know that Iran is on their own at this point. Or so it seems.

The nuclear disarmament movement will gain more momentum in the following years, but not in the near term. This is a period of recovery, as many people are still trying to accept the fact they came close to nuclear war. The missile defense program will gain a strong following, in hopes that an effective missile defense would make nuclear missiles obsolete.

The media, its a bit tough to say. The U.S. media has been running at 115% since May, but maybe you, Justin, could shed some more light on the repercussions to the media.

How does Fox regain its credibility? How does the MSM at large regain street cred? It's not hard to imagine the lawsuits. Consumer boycotts, too. Would Rupert Murdoch retire the brand?

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
How does Fox regain its credibility? How does the MSM at large regain street cred? It's not hard to imagine the lawsuits. Consumer boycotts, too. Would Rupert Murdoch retire the brand?

As if Fox ever had any credibility.

Remember that the actual circumstances in which FOX News released this information is still a mystery. I know it was many weeks ago and many pages ago, but if you recall in Part 2A:

2035 EST, Friday, September 18, 2009: Satellite intelligence reveals increased activity among Chinese strategic forces. Analysts believe that China is seriously considering a nuclear strike against the U.S. should a major clash occur between U.S. and Chinese forces.

2100 EST, Friday, September 18, 2009: Obama is informed of China's nuclear capability. The conclusion reached among members of the National Security Council is that China would utilize its nuclear arsenal in the event its forces were defeated by the U.S.

So the whole nuclear alert was definitely not a fabrication. There was definitely factual basis in FOX's reporting, whether or not China actually did plan a nuclear strike against the U.S.. More importantly, to the public, the fact that a nuclear stand-off did indeed occur means that the MSM, be it FOX or MTV, still maintains whatever "credibility" they had prior to the crisis.

What is most vital, however, is how FOX got such information in the first place? The information about China's purported preparations for nuclear war was delivered in complete secrecy.

As for the boycotts and lawsuits, given what the story shows so far, I don't see how anybody can hold FOX or the MSM responsible for any of the events and its consequences. FOX may have indeed been dead-on about the nuclear alert. If there is a lawsuit, it would probably come from the U.S. government in regards to the acquisition and leaking of information damaging to the national securty of the U.S..

Your assumption about media culpability might have been true in a pre 9/11 world. the legal climate has changed considerably since 2001. You put your finger on the central question that will be asked in any law suit. How did a media organization get such sensetive information, and why did they fail to vette it when they obviously knew what they had..and...what the implications of revelation would be.

I'm going to see if Don gives me some backup on this. As some of you may recall, during the Cold War, newspapers were very careful about printing what hey knew...especially when it came to national security. Daniel Elsberg learned that lesson the hard way when he blabbed about Vietnam. In those days, the MSM knew a lot more than it printed.

In today's world, the lawyers outnumber the spies by a wide margin. The Justice Department would certainly make a case (thanks to the USA Patriot Act) for interference in national security matters. Department of Homeland Security would insist on an intelligence audit of the Fox News division, which wouldn't stop there...

I could go on, but you get the idea.