- Reaction score
- 7,243
- Points
- 1,110
Good2Golf said:
The IRG have flying gun boats now...especially if they're operating in a swell.
MM
Trump Orders USN To Destroy Iranian Gunboats
- Thread starter tomahawk6
- Start date
The IRG have flying gun boats now...especially if they're operating in a swell.
MM
S
stellarpanther
Guest
Jarnhamar said:This is what can happen when you let hostile small-craft too close to big navy ships.
Yes, but that didn't happen recently, why were these new ROE's not implemented then? I think Trump is just trying to do something to deflect some of the media coverage away from COVID-19 because he doesn't have a clue what he's doing. If this doesn't work, he'll attack Venezuela or someone else soon. I'm serious.
I also wanted to add that he's also probably doing this to see if it can cause the price of oil to go up.
- Reaction score
- 5,337
- Points
- 1,120
When I was on CHA in the goo back in 2001, we had a 'OMG' moment with a bunch of small boats (I recall it being between 5-10) that were lying doggo waiting for us to approach. They were VERY low to the water and were practically invisible to radar, and visual until they starting moving...they got to within a mile of us when they were maneuvering.
It was an...interesting watch.
It was an...interesting watch.
stellarpanther said:
Stellar, you know as do others that I am no fan of the POTUS. Maybe he is deflecting I don’t know. But Iranian patrol boats have aggressively harrased US warships on purpose. Countries like Iran will test the limits during chaotic times. While COVID 19 is the main crisis, he can’t just ignore other problems that predate COVID and still continue During COVID.
I find myself defending this action. Not everything he does is deflection but I can see why people might think it is.
S
stellarpanther
Guest
Remius said:
You could be right and if he gave this order a few months ago I wouldn't have thought anything about it. I'm just suspicious of everything Trump does. Someone told they think Trump is behind this virus to help his re-election, I don't believe that but if it was ever revealed to be true, I wouldn't be surprised. Hope I'm clear as to what I mean.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 19,879
- Points
- 1,260
stellarpanther said:
MAYBE it didn't happen recently. BUT 17 SAILORS DIED NEEDLESSLY, OR DO YOU CARE?
JESUS F&*K.
- Reaction score
- 3,105
- Points
- 1,160
Zackly, sometimes the hyenas need a reminder.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KB2xignE6c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KB2xignE6c
I try to view this from the 2 main perspectives, and agree with both sides of the posters above.
1. Iranian boats have been harassing USN & allied ships in the region for years and years. The small boat swarm tactics are nothing new, and Iran's tactics of seizing tankers isn't new. This really is just business as usual in the Persian Gulf, along the Iranian coastline.
Yes, it's unprofessional. Yes, it absolutely has the possibility to turn deadly at any moment, as USN & allied ships in the region never know the intent of the Iranian boats. Is this the day one of them opens fire to send a message? Is this the day one of them rams a ship, re: USS Cole?
With the constant, sensationalized American MSM hyper-focused on COVID related issues. This might not be a bad way to deflect some attention away from those issues, onto something else.
Instead of the American MSM talking about COVID 24hrs a day, they may now talk about it for only 20hrs a day, or 22hrs a day. And take some time to focus on Trump getting tough with Iran - and yes, for good reason, re: USS Cole. (By reminding Americans of the events of the USS Cole, the President can & should communicate that this is about protecting American service members from needless and cowardly acts of violence.)
2. On the other hand, with the obvious example being the USS Cole, more forceful force protection measures should be in place and enforced if need be. I don't think anybody on the board is disagreeing with that, and I didn't see anything in stellarpanther's post where he disagreed with the direction from President Trump. He just questioned the timing.
I can see how the timing could be interpreted as suspect to some. If memories of the USS Cole, and not wanting a repeat of that incident to happen, these force protection measures could have been in place YEARS ago. Why now, all of a sudden, are USN ships being directed to engage Iranian small boats that may potentially pose a threat, and not 3 years ago when he took office? (If, again, memories the USS Cole incident are sparking this new direction.)
Are the new force protection measures warranted? I'd say yes, absolutely. Small boats, armed with heavy machine guns, can still kill a lot of sailors before they are engaged in return. (Not to mention, firing on helicopters, or critical systems on ships such as radars, communication masts, etc.) We all know the outcome if it's laden with explosives.
Can the timing be interpreted as suspect, given what happened recently isn't anything new or noteworthy? I could say yes to that too.
:2c:
1. Iranian boats have been harassing USN & allied ships in the region for years and years. The small boat swarm tactics are nothing new, and Iran's tactics of seizing tankers isn't new. This really is just business as usual in the Persian Gulf, along the Iranian coastline.
Yes, it's unprofessional. Yes, it absolutely has the possibility to turn deadly at any moment, as USN & allied ships in the region never know the intent of the Iranian boats. Is this the day one of them opens fire to send a message? Is this the day one of them rams a ship, re: USS Cole?
With the constant, sensationalized American MSM hyper-focused on COVID related issues. This might not be a bad way to deflect some attention away from those issues, onto something else.
Instead of the American MSM talking about COVID 24hrs a day, they may now talk about it for only 20hrs a day, or 22hrs a day. And take some time to focus on Trump getting tough with Iran - and yes, for good reason, re: USS Cole. (By reminding Americans of the events of the USS Cole, the President can & should communicate that this is about protecting American service members from needless and cowardly acts of violence.)
2. On the other hand, with the obvious example being the USS Cole, more forceful force protection measures should be in place and enforced if need be. I don't think anybody on the board is disagreeing with that, and I didn't see anything in stellarpanther's post where he disagreed with the direction from President Trump. He just questioned the timing.
I can see how the timing could be interpreted as suspect to some. If memories of the USS Cole, and not wanting a repeat of that incident to happen, these force protection measures could have been in place YEARS ago. Why now, all of a sudden, are USN ships being directed to engage Iranian small boats that may potentially pose a threat, and not 3 years ago when he took office? (If, again, memories the USS Cole incident are sparking this new direction.)
Are the new force protection measures warranted? I'd say yes, absolutely. Small boats, armed with heavy machine guns, can still kill a lot of sailors before they are engaged in return. (Not to mention, firing on helicopters, or critical systems on ships such as radars, communication masts, etc.) We all know the outcome if it's laden with explosives.
Can the timing be interpreted as suspect, given what happened recently isn't anything new or noteworthy? I could say yes to that too.
:2c:
S
stellarpanther
Guest
Hamish Seggie said:
What a stupid question. I can't even believe I'm responding to it but yes I care whenever I hear of someone dying and regardless of what country they are from.
When in doubt, the simplest is often the right answer. The latest swarming just happened and it was more boats closer than in the recent past. The ROA since Trump has been in office has been shoot if you have to but every captain out there was always second guessing 'cause if he got it wrong his career was down the toilet. All Trump has done is remove the threat of court marshal and put meaning into the expression 'stop or I'll shoot'. Good on him. As for timing, between blowing up a general, slamming the Chinese, calling Kim names, insulting Nancy etc. he has pretty well filled his time since election, I don't find the timing of this missive particularly suspect. I would be more worried if a week had gone by without some kind of slam.
- Reaction score
- 26,286
- Points
- 1,360
YZT580 said:
This. Not a particular fan of 45, however...given the recency (just last week) of the notable escalation of proximity, and fully in International Waters (outside the 12nm Territorial Waters), this was the CinC addressing an escalation of ROE. Good. Commanders in the field will have greater clarity/confidence in how to address the developing situation without being thrown under the bus if something happens and Tehran tries to troll America.
- Reaction score
- 15
- Points
- 530
Let's not forget that Iran is also having their own internal COVID-19 related issues that they aren't fully disclosing to the world. This is also an opportune moment for them to be willing to have things escalate in a way that they can spin as them being the victims of the Great Satan in order to take some of the heat and light off of their mismanagement of the response to the virus in their own country
- Reaction score
- 921
- Points
- 1,010
An attempt to more nuanced by the CJCS: https://news.usni.org/2020/04/22/pentagon-leaders-say-trump-tweet-on-iranian-attack-boats-was-important-warning#more-75687
The presence of the US Navy (and other's, including ours) ensuring access up to TTW (and other maritime law, like transit passage) is long standing, and I support that, and have even done it. And as long as protective action is reasonable, and escalated in a controlled way, I support that as well. Iran must be contained.
However, this is their back yard. ESB Lewis Puller is a different beast. It is meant to support litoral maneuver, and was exercising same, just off their coast. That action taken against most other nations would be harassment. I would expect them react; but I would also expect them to operate in a professional manner. Which they seem incapable of doing.
Sinking one of these gunboats in any way other than part of a coherent strategy of containment is dangerous, and there is a chance it won't come with a price. Iran has a very significant arsenal of shore based anti ship missiles, and Lewis Puller is a big fat target. It's a converted civilian oil tanker that is not meant to operate in a contested environment crewed by civilians, not an LHA.
My feeling is that the president tweeting a warning, that was obviously not well thought through (see "shoot down") is *not* part of a coherent strategy of containment.
The presence of the US Navy (and other's, including ours) ensuring access up to TTW (and other maritime law, like transit passage) is long standing, and I support that, and have even done it. And as long as protective action is reasonable, and escalated in a controlled way, I support that as well. Iran must be contained.
However, this is their back yard. ESB Lewis Puller is a different beast. It is meant to support litoral maneuver, and was exercising same, just off their coast. That action taken against most other nations would be harassment. I would expect them react; but I would also expect them to operate in a professional manner. Which they seem incapable of doing.
Sinking one of these gunboats in any way other than part of a coherent strategy of containment is dangerous, and there is a chance it won't come with a price. Iran has a very significant arsenal of shore based anti ship missiles, and Lewis Puller is a big fat target. It's a converted civilian oil tanker that is not meant to operate in a contested environment crewed by civilians, not an LHA.
My feeling is that the president tweeting a warning, that was obviously not well thought through (see "shoot down") is *not* part of a coherent strategy of containment.
- Reaction score
- 26,286
- Points
- 1,360
We’re they in TTW? I thought they were in IW, West of the Straits of Hormuz? A Transit Passage Ex in TTW north of the centerline
Split between Iran and the UAE would be bear-poking, especially if the Ex part has them hanging around or manoeuvring on the Iranian side of the Strait’s mid-point dividing line. Was this the case (in the Iranian portion of the Strait of Hormuz)?
Split between Iran and the UAE would be bear-poking, especially if the Ex part has them hanging around or manoeuvring on the Iranian side of the Strait’s mid-point dividing line. Was this the case (in the Iranian portion of the Strait of Hormuz)?
- Reaction score
- 921
- Points
- 1,010
Good2Golf said:
Not to my knowledge. I meant we should have access to international waters up to their TTW, and transit passage in the Straights Of Hormuz within their TTW.
One issue is they claim straight baselines which Canada recognizes and the US doesn't. *If* they were outside of what the US recognizes, and inside what Iran claims, that becomes sticky. But there is no indication of that either.
- Reaction score
- 921
- Points
- 1,010
Possible nuance, or at least a discussion of strategy?
https://news.usni.org/2020/04/23/u-s-could-do-more-to-deter-iran-gray-zone-strategy-experts-say
https://news.usni.org/2020/04/23/u-s-could-do-more-to-deter-iran-gray-zone-strategy-experts-say
Similar threads
