Is it possible to prevent this terror scenario?

Factual Questions
1

Let’s say that a terrorist group manages to get a mortar or some similar weapon, maybe Isis manages to smuggle it across the borders, maybe a rogue western officer has a illegal garage sale, either way the weapon ends up in the wrong hands.

Mortars are small, but can have a range of 5 kilometers, some even double (although rarely), so we’ll use them in the scenario, howitzers are obviously huge and unrealistic for the scenario.

So, the terrorists decide to do a false flag and start a war between 2 countries, they shell country B (N. Korea, Pakistan,…) from the territory of country A (S. Korea, India,…), they reach the border inside country A via forests or whatever and then simply shell country B’s outposts, bases, civilian objects or whatever is in reach.

They already managed to get to the border unseen by border guards of both countries and to do the damage and they escape, so how would a war be prevented at this stage?

N. Korea or Pakistan in this scenario will want to get revenge and they will probably be even more enraged by a “we didn’t do it” excuse, they might even start shelling back in a matter of minutes, so…what’s the solution?

If this is possible, then that means that anyone (who can get a hold of a mortar or even some smaller weapon) can potentially start ww3 by doing this in the Baltics NATO-Russia, Korea, China-India, Israel-Syria,etc. borders

2

The problem with false flags is that they assume nobody’s going to talk to anyone, and that nobody’s going to find the lack of talking suspicious.

Every war has a run-up, where tensions rise noticeably, diplomats get kicked out of soon-to-be-aggro countries, and each side justifies what it’s about to do publicly. This was true in WWII and it was true in the prodrome to the 9/11 attacks, except nobody really took Bin Laden and his crew seriously enough. That’s the political problem here: War is politics by other means, so if there’s no political context for the attack, people will begin to question what the fuck really happened.

More strategically: A bolt from the blue only makes sense if it’s overwhelming and results in a sudden victory. That was the context for first-strike doctrines in the Cold War, but a Cold War first strike would be massive numbers of nuclear missiles (or, earlier, bombers with nuclear warheads) against both counter-value and counter-force targets, such as big cities and airbases and missile silos, known and suspected. A few mortar rounds is whatever the exact opposite of that is, and it makes precisely zero sense. And, again, the political context for any Cold War first strike would have been manifestly obvious to everyone involved.

Finally, a country which is innocent of launching a pitiful first strike wouldn’t act like a country which was guilty of same. It would cooperate in trying to find out what really happened, and the country which was attacked would be interested in that investigation as well, instead of using it as a Mukden Incident to justify an overwhelming first strike in the guise of a retaliation.

So false flags happened in the past. They looked nothing like what Alex Jones and his idiots ramble on about, because they have a real-world context.

3

Terrorists have gotten their hands on mortars, and have used them in countries where tensions are high. It happens all the time. And it doesn’t usually lead to all-out war.

4

What about Israel and Syria?

Every time a mortar shell lands on Israeli controlled territory, Israel retaliates against Bashar Al Assad’s army, that happened at least 4 or 5 times, maybe even more and it was always the regular army that got the revenge attack (at least I don’t remember them attacking anyone else and I think that the Israeli government said that the Syrian government is responsible for whatever happens on their territory, so that’s the justification) , so there are situations where this could happen.

If you attacked Belgium from the Netherlands, then 99,9% nothing would happen between the two of them, but if you did this between countries that hate each other…

5

This is actually a good example, because it shows just how war is prevented when this takes place.

There reason is simple:
Unlike the OP’s fanatasy that one terrorist with one mortar could somehow start a war-- in real life, cooler heads prevail.

When a single mortar shell lands on Israeli territory, the Israelis respond with a single (though larger!) shell in retaliation. But that shell is carefully aimed-- to do minimal actual damage. It’s mostly for show, and always proportional to the original damage.
AS Derleth noted, in real life, wars have a run-up, with lots of activity both diplomatic and military.

6

A war would be prevented at this stage by the two countries not actually wanting to go to war with each other.

India and Pakistan mess with each other constantly:

That’s just the last month. So if some terrorists fired a few mortars - no one would probably notice.

7

In 2010 North Korea shelled South Korea with 170 rounds and rockets in the Bombardment of Yeonpyeong. South Korea responded and returned fire but war was averted.

8

Note, however, that if the Israeli government actually believed that the Bashar regime was intentionally behind the mortar attacks, its response would be much more severe. As of now, the retaliations are basically a way telling them to get their act together.

9

North Korea also torpedoed a South Korean ship, the ROKS Cheonan, in 2010 and that didn’t lead to war. That said, it wasn’t determined 100% that the sinking was due to torpedo until some time after the event when heads were, presumably, cooler.

Firing a couple mortar shells is nothing compared to sinking a Corvette with a torpedo.

10

A few years ago some Islamic group constructed a rocket launcher in a small London garden * ( they are tiny, generally about 80 foot long, but they do have high walls ) aimed at Parliament; I imagine more like a British Rocket Troop in the Napoleonic Wars ** than NASA. Easier than a high-tech mortar.
They were caught and many of us are still ambivalent, considering it was a bunch of politicos.

  • These sort of houses, where in 2014 an 82-yr-old lady was beheaded by an Islamist.

*The man, who did not want to be named, said: “There was a scream so I went to the windows and saw a guy with a machete with blood dripping from it.
*“He was standing in the garden and walking up and down shouting about cats.”

The cops overpowered the miscreant.

*The man was last night being treated for minor injuries suffered when he was arrested.
*

** We copied rockets from the Indians where Wellington made his reputation. Then we stopped using them.

11

Are you perhaps thinking of the IRA mortar attack on 10 Downing Street in 1991?

12

Why India ? The presumption that Indian territory is easier to infiltrate than say US or European territories speaks to a bias.

The terrorists can do the same on US jurisdiction. Say the terrorist gets into a US army base in Germany. Or a US embassy grounds in China.

Granted the tension between India and Pakistan, but the US - Germany or US-China relations aren’t that great other.

13

It might be just as easy to infiltrate India or the US, but it’s going to be a lot easier to infiltrate some random spot in India than a US army base or embassy. And from anywhere in the US outside of an army base or embassy, it’s going to be really tough to launch a mortar to Pakistan.

14

I think the problem in the OP’s scenario is that terrorists will want to attack a military position along the border … which inevitably means there’s a military position on the other side of the border … in the case of high tension between the two countries, the terrorists are going to have an extremely difficult time “sneaking” through … since the whole point of having military positions along a border is to prevent anyone from sneaking though …

It could happen, but there’s plenty of softer targets for terrorists to attack with far better results … hospitals, elementary schools, day cares … attacking a military base won’t make the general population afraid to go about their normal business …

15

These folks raided an Egyptian base along the border with Israel, killed a bunch of soldiers, stole a couple of APCs, and used them to crash through the border crossing.

Not only could it happen, it’s been done.

16

Since this is GQ, I am going to need a cite for that. Going by statistics, US army bases and embassies have seen more attacks/infiltrations/betrayals in hostile countries and even domestically, than Indian terrorist infiltration in Ranges close enough for mortar attack on Pakistan.