Online Game Shows Consequences of War With Iran

[Sarah LeBoeuf]

Online Game Shows Consequences of War With Iran

Tell Me How This Ends puts players in the role of the US President making impossible decisions.

Plenty of games ask players to make decisions and deal with the consequences, but few of those are based on the real-life possible cost and outcome of American military action with Iran. Tell Me How This Ends, a free online simulation from the Truman National Security Project, "challenges players to deal with the aftermath of a decision to attack Iran" and aims to open up discussions about the consequences of a war with no clear endgame.

The simulation is pretty basic, requiring players to read briefings and choose which of the two or three options available is preferable. Tell Me How This Ends "was developed in close consultation with former senior Department of Defense officials and national security experts," and the group behind it claims that "it represents a realistic, if simplified, scenario" based on the Iran Project Report detailing potential outcomes of military engagement with Iran.

Under my reign, America basically made all of the wrong choices, and long story short, gas is now $6.25 a gallon (sorry, guys) and "military action intended to stop one Middle Eastern country from acquiring nuclear weapons has led to the entire region going nuclear." The outcome was similarly grim on a second playthrough with different decisions, which seems to be the point the Truman National Security Project was trying to make.

Tell Me How This Ends is playable online right now [http://tellmehowthisends.com/], and will be advertised on TV during the national security presidential debate on Monday, October 22.

Source: Truman National Security Project [http://trumanproject.org/press-releases/now-online-tell-me-how-this-ends-iran-war-simulation/]

Permalink

 

[Albino Boo]

The Truman National Security Project is a Democrat run think tank and the former officials listed that help to develop Tell Me How This Ends were all political appointees. This is going to be shown in the ad break of a presidential debate, so its fair to say the game is going to represent the democrat point of view. While this point of may not be invalid but this is an exercise in spin by a superpac rather than a real exploration of events.

 

[ViciousTide]

USA Cities > than All Middle Eastern Cities in all Middle Eastern Countries. We could just deploy a giant magnifying mirror lens satelite and burn buildings from space like ants with pin point GPS precision. That saves money on nukes, sun as input power, and can run continuously as desired.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

USA Cities > than All Middle Eastern Cities in all Middle Eastern Countries. We could just deploy a giant magnifying mirror lens satelite and burn buildings from space like ants with pin point GPS precision. That saves money on nukes, sun as input power, and can run continuously as desired.

Green WMD's? Sign me up!

OT: Superpac silliness is silly. I can't take it seriously as a simulation.

 

[Jorec]

The Truman National Security Project is a Democrat run think tank and the former officials listed that help to develop Tell Me How This Ends were all political appointees. This is going to be shown in the ad break of a presidential debate, so its fair to say the game is going to represent the democrat point of view. While this point of may not be invalid but this is an exercise in spin by a superpac rather than a real exploration of events.

Even if it is spin it still brings to light potential outcomes of military action which a lot of people may not be aware of.

Would you honestly support going to war with Iran if it means there is potential to completely destabilize the entire region? That is something to consider, even if it is spun through the democratic POV.

 

[hentropy]

I haven't played the little game and it could be really biased and unrealistic, but just because it's a SuperPAC doing it doesn't mean it's completely unrealistic. "Spin" only applies if it's lying or omitting information, which is completely possible in this case but not mandatory because it's a political organization. Everyone who is serious about the issue knows that a tactical preemptive strike on Iran would not only multiply our problems in the middle east, but it would also spike gas prices, probably even higher than 6.25, and start a war that would explode our deficit and possibly spark off something larger with other countries.

Republicans basically know this but like the idea of sitting by and boo-birding the President for these realistic decisions he has to make that actually affects the world. But my biggest fear is that they really don't know this, and all of a sudden the chant becomes "4 More Wars".

/soapbox and taking things too seriously

 

[ExtraDebit]

USA Cities > than All Middle Eastern Cities in all Middle Eastern Countries. We could just deploy a giant magnifying mirror lens satelite and burn buildings from space like ants with pin point GPS precision. That saves money on nukes, sun as input power, and can run continuously as desired.

I don't think it's economic feasible, the magnifying glass needed would be much too big unless we figure out a way to holographically bend the lights. But then we'll have to worry about it making global warming worst.

 

[Albino Boo]

The Truman National Security Project is a Democrat run think tank and the former officials listed that help to develop Tell Me How This Ends were all political appointees. This is going to be shown in the ad break of a presidential debate, so its fair to say the game is going to represent the democrat point of view. While this point of may not be invalid but this is an exercise in spin by a superpac rather than a real exploration of events.

Even if it is spin it still brings to light potential outcomes of military action which a lot of people may not be aware of.

Would you honestly support going to war with Iran if it means there is potential to completely destabilize the entire region? That is something to consider, even if it is spun through the democratic POV.

The problem is, given the circumstances of its releases, its not going to have any outcomes that could possibly support a republican point of view. If you release a game purporting to be realistic look at the situation with Iran then you have to realistically look at all points of view rather than just Democratic ones. I strongly suspect the game does not have an ending that has Iran building nuclear weapons and wiping Israel off the map in a nuclear 1st strike. Its only going to tell part of the story. I don't think its reliable anymore that something coming out of a Republican think thank and going out in a presidential debate.

 

[thiosk]

Heh, you said nuclear. It's nukular, dummy. The s is silent.

 

[Jorec]

Yeah I suppose it's true that it would be unfair to not support every point of view. I haven't played the game though so I don't know if there even is such an ending. Realistically there should be, maybe if you take too long in making a decision.

 

[Zen Toombs]

The game told me my decisions would matter, but no matter what I chose the same basic things still happened.
I'm very disappointed how this series ended. There's plenty of flaws that one could overlook, such as the horrible graphics and the general awful animations. Doesn't change the fact that the story is one of the biggest letdowns in video games.What's more, every ending was basically the same, with an identical epilogue video.

0/10

 

[Doom972]

Heh, you said nuclear. It's nukular, dummy. The s is silent.

I see what you did there

OT: It seems to suggest that a war with Iran can only end badly for all involved. It's biased towards a very narrow point of view. I trust a game of Civilization could give a more accurate outcome than this thing. 0/5 stars.

 

[Tiamanti]

snip

snip

The problem is, given the circumstances of its releases, its not going to have any outcomes that could possibly support a republican point of view. If you release a game purporting to be realistic look at the situation with Iran then you have to realistically look at all points of view rather than just Democratic ones. I strongly suspect the game does not have an ending that has Iran building nuclear weapons and wiping Israel off the map in a nuclear 1st strike. Its only going to tell part of the story. I don't think its reliable anymore that something coming out of a Republican think thank and going out in a presidential debate.

I played the thing several times.
It's basically 5 questions and additional pick A,B or C in the end.
The 'game' seems to be centred around idea that either way this conflict ends like Vietnam.
Even option to completely withdraw doesn't end in Iranins Nuclear strike as game spans over just few months and places probable strike in 4-5 years later as each game starts with US bombing Iran.
From my point of view game is pretty realistic regards the consequences of engaging massive military force like Iran.

BTW: Should I place spoiler tag here? I don't think so.

 

[ecoho]

this is how the war would go:

We go in, the UN complains,we win, the UN complains, we rebuild country while being shot at, the UN complains some more, and finnally everyone blames the current president (or in the case of some people the president before them) for getting the job done.

seriously if we said fuck it and went in like we did in WW2 in Germany, IE. make it so they cant put a fight for generations, the war would last about 6 months then wed have about 8 years of clean up.

 

[tangoprime]

Republicans basically know this but like the idea of sitting by and boo-birding the President for these realistic decisions he has to make that actually affects the world. But my biggest fear is that they really don't know this, and all of a sudden the chant becomes "4 More Wars".

You mean like Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, and Uganda? Had to soapbox it up a little too, sorry
It's a pretty decent little simulation, I liked the news clips. Shows that no matter which choices are made, the outcome is pretty much more of the same, just showing the differences in who does or doesn't like the United States at the end, and how many casualties of different types there would be.

Spoiler

Though we all know the best way to win is to not play, it seemed like UN Coalition / Full Assault on Naval Assets (sadly civilians are harmed, but prevents loss of a destroyer, cripples the Iranian naval assets and secures the Strait) / Focus on keeping the Strait Open (as predicted, hitting the training camps does nothing to slow terrorism, and those assets would be better used for global security in keeping the straight clear) / Pull Assets to cover Israel (to prevent Israeli invasions which would further destabilize region) / Isolate and Manage (with UN coalition support via the first choice) seemed to be the "best" outcome? That meaning it had the fewest downsides, region was still fairly stable, international relations were still fairly intact (US/NATO not viewed too harshly, Israel/Egypt/Turkey still at status quo), and Iran suffers a severe setback in their nuclear program, was shown the resolve of the world to prevent them from pursuing it further, and will likely have internal stability issues. Thoughts from other people that played through it?

 

[tangoprime]

this is how the war would go:

We go in, the UN complains,we win, the UN complains, we rebuild country while being shot at, the UN complains some more, and finnally everyone blames the current president (or in the case of some people the president before them) for getting the job done.

seriously if we said fuck it and went in like we did in WW2 in Germany, IE. make it so they cant put a fight for generations, the war would last about 6 months then wed have about 8 years of clean up.

The problem is, wars in this Region never could go like that. Sure, we could smash the hell out of their patchwork military in weeks and completely remove their ability to fight a conventional war, but after the allies did that to the Axis in WWII, we didn't have to worry about a bunch of German radicals suicide bombing civilian targets across Europe for the next decade, and we didn't have to worry about Japanese Americans doing the same.

Just like the simulation represents fairly accurately, anything that happens in the region will escalate terror worldwide against western targets, and going after the head of the problem has absolutely ass-all effect. You'll break the glass sword that is their shitty cold-war piecemeal military and infrastructure, and all you'll get is a metric shit-ton of shards scattered all over the region.

This is not to say I'm completely against the idea of a total *****-smack against their military if they're about to reasonably be able to aquire what they're after, as a matter of fact, and don't take this the wrong way that I'm glamorizing or anything, but overall, I think it would be a great morale victory for both a guerrilla war weary US military, and public to see that a NATO force still lays down the hurt when it comes to a conventional brawl, but the mentioned after effects would have to be considered beforehand, and the cost of getting into that situation are kind of unfathomable right now.

 

[ecoho]

this is how the war would go:

We go in, the UN complains,we win, the UN complains, we rebuild country while being shot at, the UN complains some more, and finnally everyone blames the current president (or in the case of some people the president before them) for getting the job done.

seriously if we said fuck it and went in like we did in WW2 in Germany, IE. make it so they cant put a fight for generations, the war would last about 6 months then wed have about 8 years of clean up.

The problem is, wars in this Region never could go like that. Sure, we could smash the hell out of their patchwork military in weeks and completely remove their ability to fight a conventional war, but after the allies did that to the Axis in WWII, we didn't have to worry about a bunch of German radicals suicide bombing civilian targets across Europe for the next decade, and we didn't have to worry about Japanese Americans doing the same.

Just like the simulation represents fairly accurately, anything that happens in the region will escalate terror worldwide against western targets, and going after the head of the problem has absolutely ass-all effect. You'll break the glass sword that is their shitty cold-war piecemeal military and infrastructure, and all you'll get is a metric shit-ton of shards scattered all over the region.

This is not to say I'm completely against the idea of a total *****-smack against their military if they're about to reasonably be able to aquire what they're after, as a matter of fact, and don't take this the wrong way that I'm glamorizing or anything, but overall, I think it would be a great morale victory for both a guerrilla war weary US military, and public to see that a NATO force still lays down the hurt when it comes to a conventional brawl, but the mentioned after effects would have to be considered beforehand, and the cost of getting into that situation are kind of unfathomable right now.

like i said 8 years of clean up. look i know this sounds wrong but at times "total war" is the best option. go in and make it impossible for them to do more then survive and you dont have to worry about problems comming up.
Just to add if i thought there was a peacefull way to resolve the conflict id use it but sanctions dont work and they just hold the "we wont give you oil card" if we try to make them work. Personally the next time they pull that one out i say we target their water treament plants and crops then trade embargo them.

i guess the point im trying to make is if we make them aware of how horrible it can be if we go to war with them we wont have to do it more then once.

 

[tangoprime]

this is how the war would go:

We go in, the UN complains,we win, the UN complains, we rebuild country while being shot at, the UN complains some more, and finnally everyone blames the current president (or in the case of some people the president before them) for getting the job done.

seriously if we said fuck it and went in like we did in WW2 in Germany, IE. make it so they cant put a fight for generations, the war would last about 6 months then wed have about 8 years of clean up.

The problem is, wars in this Region never could go like that. Sure, we could smash the hell out of their patchwork military in weeks and completely remove their ability to fight a conventional war, but after the allies did that to the Axis in WWII, we didn't have to worry about a bunch of German radicals suicide bombing civilian targets across Europe for the next decade, and we didn't have to worry about Japanese Americans doing the same.

Just like the simulation represents fairly accurately, anything that happens in the region will escalate terror worldwide against western targets, and going after the head of the problem has absolutely ass-all effect. You'll break the glass sword that is their shitty cold-war piecemeal military and infrastructure, and all you'll get is a metric shit-ton of shards scattered all over the region.

This is not to say I'm completely against the idea of a total *****-smack against their military if they're about to reasonably be able to aquire what they're after, as a matter of fact, and don't take this the wrong way that I'm glamorizing or anything, but overall, I think it would be a great morale victory for both a guerrilla war weary US military, and public to see that a NATO force still lays down the hurt when it comes to a conventional brawl, but the mentioned after effects would have to be considered beforehand, and the cost of getting into that situation are kind of unfathomable right now.

like i said 8 years of clean up. look i know this sounds wrong but at times "total war" is the best option. go in and make it impossible for them to do more then survive and you dont have to worry about problems comming up.
Just to add if i thought there was a peacefull way to resolve the conflict id use it but sanctions dont work and they just hold the "we wont give you oil card" if we try to make them work. Personally the next time they pull that one out i say we target their water treament plants and crops then trade embargo them.

i guess the point im trying to make is if we make them aware of how horrible it can be if we go to war with them we wont have to do it more then once.

I totally agree and I know where you're coming from, do it once, do it right, completely remove their ability and will to go for round 2. The problem is, you're not just fighting a nation in this region, they'll always turn it into an ideology/religious fight, and short of (dear lord nobody misquote me or get this out of context, I'm NOT ADVOCATING THIS IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM) completely eradicating their people, there isn't a way to make them unable to fight, as they'll just reshape the war into what we've seen it become elsewhere in the region. It'll never be just a fight against another nation, it'll be warped by them into a war against their way, and we're talking about a people who hold grudges for a very. long. time.

So in short, I do agree that things will likely need to be done, I don't see this ever ending diplomatically in any good way, but even with a total war blitzkrieg smackdown, it'll still be far messier than any previous war we've ever seen. Looking at Afghanistan as an example, the coalition completely pulverized what conventional military there was in the blink of an eye, but it's still turned into the longest war in which the US has ever been involved. And it's not that the world is different, fights have always been like this in that region of the world with that culture.