How to (actually) win the War with Iran

The War with Iran is a problematic endeavor, as there is truly nothing to be gained by engaging in this conflict. By traditional means, the USA is effectively shooting fish in a barrel in order to assert dominance in the region that has never been challenged by anything more than cries of pain. Traditional means of warfare do nothing but produce a long and costly war that benefits few save for those with substantial assets relating to America’s military-industrial complex.

That being said, while traditional war is clearly all for naught, there are easy ways to make the most of this situation. Rather than use this as a petty means to assert dominance, we can use the rules of war to our advantage in order to gain a measurable benefit, actually turning this war into a viable investment rather than an act of childish aggression.

The means here are simple. The Geneva Convention placed very strict and particular rules about warfare, and these can be exploited to our advantage. This is especially true regarding the treatment of prisoners of war.

To begin, conscription must be enacted. All non-viable adults must be conscripted into the army. These are adults who are functionally illegitimate investments of money. Any adult who produces a negative net yield, that cost more money to keep alive than they produce by being alive, will be subject to conscription.

As these people are measurably losing the country money just by being alive, this is a very convenient means to address the issue. These people are those who are old, terminally ill, perpetually sick, unemployable, mentally ill, criminals, those with chronic health conditions, or otherwise existing as a non-salvageable human, meaning that any money invested in these people will never be recovered. While these people may produce some revenue, this revenue does not outweigh the money spent in upkeep just to keep them alive.

This army would amount to millions of people, as very few people produce a positive net yield for the country over the span of their life, largely due to feebleness of old age. While one can elect respect past earnings, one can also look at the annual economic input and output of these people, electing to cut our losses even if these people have yet to be losing investments on the whole. The difference would be conscripting all who have passed peak-yield, or all those who have a net yield below zero.

[Typical Human Yield Curve]

These people would not be expected to fight to any considerable degree. Those who could be trusted to do so with a functional degree of capability would be entertained in their patriotism, but as many of these people have very low degrees of function due to illness or general feebleness, they have little capacity to fight.

Despite this, they must functionally be soldiers by legal definitions. Economically this would mean providing them with the cheapest weapons possible to meet the legal definition. In my mind this would be spears and shields, because to arm them with any valuable or viable weapons would be giving free arms to the enemy.

As these legions of non-viable people march upon Iran, they would possibly be subjected to death, but technically were these people to die fighting, this is a personal choice. These people would instead be expected to march into Iran and surrender outright.

The Geneva convention dictates strict protocol in dealing with those who surrender, and these people are expected to be taken prisoner rather than killed outright. These people technically have rights, and they need to be given certain accommodations in order to avoid the captive country being held accountable for war crimes.

This massive influx of people would place enormous financial and economic burden upon Iran. The influx of this many people would induce extensive shortages of food and other resources. This shortage of resources would then cause unrest within the country, sparking a rebellion against the regime.

These legions can be expected to serve this duty until the end of the war, likely meaning the collapse of the regime, because as a nation America has the rights to place deterrents against any disservice done by these people. The penalty for draft dodging and desertion would be elevated to death, with legal authority given to shoot said people on sight.

With Army bases surrounding Iran, this makes it possible to place numerous guards upon the borders of Iran to ensure that no conscripted Americans would attempt to flee the country or escape their duty to their country.

As these people are all non-viable adults, it would be difficult if not impossible for Iran to gain any value from these people when captured. If Iran decides to shoot them when they surrender, this is a war crime and justifies significant escalation of military forces against Iran. Granted, escalation would not be undertaken until the totality of the conscripts have been deployed, but when the time comes, it will then be entirely justified.

This is a very efficient and effective way to not only win the war readily, but also do this in a manner that costs a very small amount of money. By deploying these people into Iran, we are essentially saving ourselves money. We are preventing the economy from losing money on the upkeep cost of these people with negative net yield, and instead placing this economic burden entirely upon the back of Iran.

This is a way to actually wage war in a manner that benefits the country as a whole, rather than one that solely produces needless expense and the deaths of countless viable adults.

One should not pay money for something one can get for free. Clearly, this method of warfare is beyond free, as it functionally eliminates debt by removing the sources of these economic losses. When we can effectively be paid heartily to easily win a war, there is no justification to spend exorbitant amounts of money to produce the same end.

This is by no means an argument that is discriminatory towards these people. Many of these people no longer have opportunities in their life to function as viable adults, but beyond this many of them have never had an opportunity to function as a viable adult, let alone war heroes. To forsake this opportunity to turn what is effectively debt into profit would be unjustifiable with respect to economics, but this argument goes beyond simple economics.

To deny these people the sole functional opportunity they have to serve their country and provide value for society would be a disservice to these people, and a disrespect of their inherent capacity to benefit their country.

To deny them this opportunity is to deprive firefighters the right to fight fires. Firefighters serve one purpose, which is to fight fires, so to prohibit them is to strip them of the meaning, significance, and purpose of their very existence. If we prohibit firefighters from fighting fires, what purpose do the firefighters have upon this earth?

--

--

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store