P8riot

While it would have been quite dramatic to see what a .50 would do to one of those little boats, they (the small boats) are very, very lucky - IMO. They were clearly way too close, whether they were IRG or not.

__________________
Dungeons and Dragons Online; Thorgaard, Thaumiel and Mahblung
EVE Online Captain Thorgaard OHern; skipper of the Battlecruiser "Jane Says.."
Pirates of the Burning Sea; Pirate Thorgaard O'Hern
Age of Conan Cimmeria; Tharashk, guild Revenant

AMosely

You have a very odd way of reading things. I never said anything about pleasing me, nor anything about this being anyone's 'fault' and I am most certainly not falling over myself. I am trying to look at this situation equally and from both sides, pointing out what seems to me as obvious double standards in US policy. The presence of U.S. warships three clicks off of Iranian waters is a provocative and agressive act - as it is intended to be - this is not a peacekeeping mission, nor is this a mission that was sanctioned by any international treaty. U.S. ships may be going under the guise of transit passage in international waters, but we all know that's an excuse. The situation is indeed quite tense, which is why I would expect US figureheads to be more cautious with their response instead of speaking with forked tongues. Given the current political climate in America, I don't believe that the majority of the population would support Bush pushing the country into yet another unecessary war. I am not advocating passiveness, I am arguing restraint - starting with our official responses to incidents like these. I'd like to see US officials simply make the statement that they are glad this did not result in armed conflict.

A question - if the U.S. ships are, as you say "fully prepared to blow anyone who threatens them out of the water, as is their right," do the Iranians have that right as well? After all, we are talking about international waters.

Kerostasis

If we had started shooting at them, then I'd quickly agree they have every right to shoot back. I have my suspicions about who would win that fight, though, and if you don't want to see the end of a fight, you shouldn't be causing the start of it.

__________________

leejo

Sure, the Iranians have that right. And exercising it by attacking warships with speedboats full of suicide bombers and tnt would be dangerous and provocative. Maybe Iran would be better served by a policy that seeks to lower tensions with the US. Just a suggestion. Try to see things from the US perspective.

AMosely

I completely agree that Iran would be better served by a policy that seeks to lower tensions - and I think there's evidence that the Ayotollah supports this - even Ahmedinijad has made reference to lowering tensions, but speaks out of both sides of his mouth too often. Seeing things from the US perspective really doesn't require much thought because most of our major news outlets do that for us. I know the US perspective - that Iran is a threat to our national security and must be scrutinized. But there needs to be more to it if we in fact hope to diffuse the situation and not ignite it. Again my point here is that I would hope that US officials, if they were indeed hoping to reduce tension would choose their words more carefully, such as mentioning that they are glad this ended peacefully.

In this case I am very glad that the navy personnel who handled this did well, and were obviously operating under orders to not fire first. They diffused what could have been a major incident.

AMosely

This keeps getting stranger - an 'anonymous' Iranian offical is now claiming that the video and audio tapes were faked. Completely bizarre. At the end of the video released by the Pentagon you can see one of the lighter boats almost losing it in the wake. If this really was the Iranian army or guard, they really are fools. We'll probably never know what their intentions were - it was either a test of fire discipline or it was a failed attack.

Gambit7

Finally someone sees the light.
Also, they're realizing today that the voices on the radio probably WERE NOT coming from the boats. They were coming from ashore or even from somewhere in the US Fleet itself. Many times go-fast boats like that done even have built-in radios, let alone the ability to even speak while they're running 30+ kts in an open cockpit.

Odds are it was a bunch of rich Arab weekend warriors (this did take place over the weekend btw) in some nice speedboats (note: those speedboats werent painted very militaristic) that just got too close to the fleet and were just screwing around; probably just wake-jumping. Highly doubtful they even had radios aboard or were even aware of any wrong-doing. The offensive radio chatter was most likely from somewhere on land, or a sailor screwing around.

I'm a boat captain and I've been face to face with Aegis cruisers, destroyers, Attack subs, and carriers. They ALWAYS think they own the sea even when in international waters or even narrow inlets/straits like Hormuz. The Sea is an unforgiving place that no one owns. If you choose to venture into it and make War, you do-so at your own peril and not at the inconvenience of others.

Ultimately, the only thing that keeps things under control at Sea... is the Captain. No one else has the right (including the President or myself) to jump to any off-the-cuff conclusions or cite some made-up arbitrary "laws of the sea." It really just boils down to if you feel threatened or not and if you feel like opening fire or not... you worry about the implications later.

Those Captains know they're in a hairy situation when they transit their vessels through Hormuz. The mere fact that they steered their ships there doesnt mean they're justified in "opening up" on anything that violates their space. The Captains realized this and exercised restraint. Now, if they'd been in a much wider body of water it probably wouldve been a different story and those boats wouldnt have gotten that close to begin with.

In open sea you're lucky if you can get within 5 miles without getting a radio call. If they DONT call you it's usually because your route isnt threatening and/or they've already identified you.

Lastly, the only reason this whole fiasco was made public is because some midshipman caught it on video. I GUARANTEE you we wouldnt be hearing about it if he/she didnt.

Do you honestly think this is the only time this has happened?

__________________

leejo

Well, a warship that doesn't "own the sea around it" isn't much of a warship. And I bet we all know why US warships might be twitchy about small boats swarming around them. I don't know about the rest of your post but it seems to me that the Navy showed plenty of discipline here.

Acreo Aeneas

Gambit, couldn't one in a small boat just use a UHF frequency portable to hail a US warship?

Hmm, I need to watch the updated videos on this incident. This is getting more interesting by the day.

__________________
Acreo_Aeneas
Former 9th Member

Gambit7

Oh, I agree with you... they indeed showed plenty of discipline. But, warships do not own the sea around them... they simply apply force as they feel is needed. Technically, I dont have to do as a US Warship says when I encounter one in intl waters... they have no right to tell me what to do. It's the mere fact that they carry weapons that causes me to alter course, plain and simple.

It's the old risk vs. reward argument. It might cost me 15 minutes of travel time to go around, but its worth it to prevent the aggravation for both parties. Sometimes a Capt. of a naval ship might alter course themselves if they encounter another stubborn vessel. They dont just start threatening people and firing warning shots. Violating some ship's imaginary "ring of death" is not enough justification to open fire either... even if you dont make radio contact. If that was the case we'd be at war right now with just about everyone.

Usually, the smaller Aegis style boats will just change course... rather than impart inconvenience on general boat traffic. But, if they're locked into a particular float plan then they'll come on the radio to divert traffic. If you dont talk with them they'll go through their usual threat determinance procedures, flashing lights, blaring horns, blah blah. Sometimes they might send a boat or chopper out to you if you ignore them, or perhaps buzz you with air support. All you're really doing is pissing them off, not breaking any kind of laws.

I once had a run-in with a SuperCarrier about 200+ miles offshore. Obviously, he's got no real right to tell me what to do. The radio-operators know this and are generally very polite and understanding. They know that they're costing me time and aggravation having to give them a huge "halo" of respect. Usually we come to an aggreement on course and speed (both of us change course if needed) and go our merry ways, even if the Halo if violated.

I've seen huge warships have to deviate their entire plan due to one small 50+ ft fishing trawler. That trawler has a business to run. He's fishing a particular area and cant just up and move all his gear to accomodate the warship just because they feel like practicing maneuvers. In the end, the warship gives into the trawler (hilarious to hear on the radio) and changes their plan to compromise with the trawler (either on course, speed, or time)... as well they should.

Now, in US waters it's a whole 'nuther story. Especially when an exercise is scheduled. In that case, they'll have fast attack patrol boats maintain the area - chasing down people if they have to.

Honestly (and I've verified this) the US Navy (and Customs) knows exactly who and what is going on with every potential "threat" at Sea, usually. They do have "eyes in the sky" as well as a Database of just about every ship on the water, including private boaters. If they see me transiting an area, they know well in advance (before I even encounter a warship) what my likely intentions are. They can read my vessel name, registration, and peep at the topless girls on the deck if they wanted to (which coasties love to do btw), from many miles away. Gone are the days where the Coast Guard has to board every ship they ever come across.

Now, in someone else's country of course that's a different problem.

__________________

Gambit7

No, it'd be a small handheld VHF most likely. But again, talking into one in an open cockpit go-fast boat is difficult at best (there'd be too much wind, water, and engine noise). Even if they had one built in, it's still the same basic principle.

Did you hear any wind, water, or engine noise on those vids? nope. Only other idea is that maybe one of em was hunkered down below deck or something (near the bow), where it's somewhat quiet. But given the condition of the chop that's doubtful. They'd have to be stationary to do it.

__________________

Acreo Aeneas

I actually did hear wind gusts when the cameraman was outside on the boat deck. The beginning of the video looked like it was filmed inside the bridge (which is closed off to the outside).

As for from the transmission to the US warship...I couldn't tell. It was so staticy and garbled. I'm shocked those reporters got any words out of that transmission.

__________________
Acreo_Aeneas
Former 9th Member

Hambergler

I hate to break it to you, but no one is afraid of the US anymore. We can't even handle a few hillbillies in Afghanistan. The New York Yankees come to mind.

__________________

Acreo Aeneas

Is that due to the fact that our navy is about 1/3 the size of what it was like 50 years ago (taken from the many Tom Clancy novels I've read over the years)?

__________________
Acreo_Aeneas
Former 9th Member

sordavie

Mere size in terms of numbers of ships isn't a very good indication of how powerful the Navy is. A single modern carrier has more firepower than all of the US carriers in WWII put together. The current size of the navy contains about one half the number of ships it did during the late 1980s. With the end of the Cold War there is not much reason to have a huge navy these days. There's no navy that comes close to challenging the US navy even at its current size.

__________________