Iranian 'boats'...harrassing U.S. Navy Warships...am I the only one that hears how ludicrous

[bridgit]

that sounds :freak:

[mmonk]

1. Yep.

But plenty will take it at face value.

[King Coal]

17. I think you meant "nope" mmonk. I mean nope.

You are not alone.

[Angela Shelley]

2. Where?

tell me more, tell me more

[bridgit]

3. ...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/01/07/iran.us.navy/index.html

[donsu]

4. me too lol - its like nats worrying a bear

nt

[OllieLotte]

6. Family of the sailors that were lost on the Cole may disagree. n/t

[EFerrari]

34. One would hope the Navy no longer allows small craft to approach

in that manner. Which is part of the reason that it's ridiculous.

[Marrah_G]

36. The problem is the "international waters"

The Navy has very specific protocol as to how and why they can fire upon another craft in international waters. They cannot just take out anyone coming too close.

[Naturyl]

16. Hey, I've never worried a bear!

I categorically deny these allegations!

[sinkingfeeling]

5. But Iranian 'boats' are the type of 'evil enemy' we can handle. Just look how easy it was to

eliminate Saddam's army in Iraq (after years of war against Iran and sanctions). I told someone at work, right after our 'Mission Accomplished' show, that it was like the NY Giants playing football against a rural junior high school.

[TomInTib]

7. I don't doubt it. Cat-and-mouse is SOP.

The Straits are international water, we have no claim.

The Iranians could pull up directly alongside and not be in violation of IRR.

The part I do not give any credence to is the "You will explode" part. That just does not make any sense to me at all. One doesn't make direct threats to that much superior firepower.

[GrahmMan]

53. Wrong...in a way

"The Iranians could pull up directly alongside and not be in violation of IRR."
We do have a right to self-defense and have very pecific poilicies with regard to this kind of BS

[Rex]

8. Not just boats! ATTACK boats! Coming to ATTACK our tiny,

defenseless navy. Not even a navy, just some ships hanging out int he golf. Really, just another fishing expedition. :sarcasm:

[AlertLurker]

9. I wonder if we're missing the real point, here:

These are NOT merely Iranian boats.

These are Iranian REVOLUTIONARY GUARD BOATS.

Kyl-Lieberman classifies the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.

* DOES NOT NEED ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION TO GO TO WAR WITH TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS.



Perhaps I'll take my AFB off next week...

[Rex]

10. I built the entire suit, I call it my Tinfoil-field plate armor.

Keeps me protected even from the microwave.

[bridgit]

12. Very true enough, and as Tom has mentioned above these events are occuring...

in international waters, bush would seem to require even less an excuse than some would think on the face of it what with his, "WATCH OUT!! I'm one kah'razzy cowboy Texan guy!" If it were so serious as to warrant Breaking News status, they'd have flipped on the Phalanx some time ago I would have thought http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-15.htm

[Rex]

14. Range - classified.

[Tyler Durden]

19. "I do not want to eat potatoes to bacon"???

I love Eugene Ionesco's work, but that quote escapes me.

[AlertLurker]

51. It's from "Jacques et le Soumission"

A better translation would be "I will not eat the French Fries." Poor Jacques: He caves on the French Fries and ends up getting talked into marrying to his detriment.

The moral is that once you start "eating the French Fries" (drinking the Kool-Aid, so to speak), you can be made to swallow ANYTHING...

When you look deep enough, even Theatre of the Absurd makes sense in comparison to what happens in our houses of Government!!!

[MercutioATC]

11. Ludicrous? Remember the USS Cole?

17 dead, 39 injured...and that was just from explosives.

Iran has the "Hoot" torpedo, a supercavitation torpedo capable of speeds in excess of 225 mph. There are no known countermeasures against a supercavitation torpedo.

The U.S. may have reasons to exaggerate the seriousness of the encounter, but any showboating between Iran and U.S. Navy ships is far from "ludicrous".

[bridgit]

13. Very well, back when practically no one thought any threat to be a real one...

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-15.htm

[MercutioATC]

22. Phalanx works against air and surface targets, not underwater targets

Again, there are NO known countermeasures for a supercavitation torpedo.

[bridgit]

26. Phalanx throws up a wall of lead, it is a blunt force line of defense...

and it is target-able; it does not operate in a vacuum, it has a task but needs to be tasked to perform. I'd rather have some defense, than no defense whatsoever, but that's just me.

These 'boats' about which we speak, are not 'underwater targets', they bounce the surface and are, as such, subject to a host defensive measures I would think.

[MercutioATC]

28. Right...but unless we fire first, we lose...and if we do, we lose.

There's no doubt that we could choose to fire first in international waters and eliminate almost any threat before it became an issue...but we're simply not going to do that (for good reason).

If the Iranians fired first, we could certainly destroy their ships, but there would be no way to stop or avoid the torpedo.

My point is that these Iranian ships were not harmless. Had they chosen to fire (assuming they were equipped with the Hoot) they could have seriously damaged or destroyed our ships.

The Phalanx has a range of approximately 5500m. The Hoot (assuming similar range to the VA-111 Shkval on which it is thought to be based) has a range 7500m. Although our ships certainly have other defense systems available, the Hoot could be fired from outside the Phalanx's range.

[Marrah_G]

38. You have it right...it is lose lose.

People mistakenly think Iran is just another Iraq. They also tend to think we could just roll over Iran like we did in Iraq. This is NOT the case.

Besides Iran's own sizable fighting force we would also have to deal with their powerful allies.

We may be the biggest guy on the block, but even the biggest can fall if he is out numbered.

[Naturyl]

15. BREAKING: Attack chihuahuas harassing rottweiler! (n/t)

[RebelOne]

40. It has happened.

I have a Rottweiler and my son has 2 chihauhuas that harass her when I visit him. She runs from them.

[AzDar]

18. Cue the Doobie Brothers..."Oh, BLACKWATER, keep on rollin..."

[Bright Eyes]

20. How do you "harass" someone in international waters?

[BuyingThyme]

21. I hear one of them was wearing a wig and shouting Beatles lyrics.

I don't know how long we can ignore this.

[DemGa]

23. Self delete

Not enamored by own humor.

[spanone]

24. after the USS Cole, i bet those boats don't get within miles of our warships

[Romulox]

30. CNN is reporting 200 yards. That's considerably closer than miles. nt

[GrahmMan]

54. Do you want to be the CO that starts a war with Iran

I dont

[Turbineguy]

25. Maybe they got the idea here:

http://geocities.com/moonamtrak/

[redqueen]

27. Not here... but the average U.S-ian...

eh, maybe not so much.

[MzNov]

29. Israel "briefing Bush on Iran Strike", Bush headed to the ME, Israel first

now the ship incidents. Anyone see the set-up here?

I found this on Raw Story the other day.

http://digg.com/politics/Israel_to_brief_Bush_on_options_for_Iran_strike?OTC-widget

Here we go....


:grr:

[bridgit]

33. yep, here we go...

[Marrah_G]

35. Scary shit !

I hope for the sake of the Iranian people that our country does not unleash it's arsenal.

It's always the innocents who pay the price for the dick-waving of "leaders".

[bridgit]

37. you got it, Marrah_G, this is one spring-loaded, hair trigger world...

and one wrong (and you have this right too) "dick-waving" zig, one wrong zag and :nuke: :cry:

[INDIA]

52. Hear we goez!!11!!!! n/t

[Marrah_G]

31. Iran does have ships that can hurt our ships.......

To poo-poo them as little gnats incapable of causing harm is really a bit naive.

They also have a sizable military and we had better hope this doesn't get ugly because ALOT of our military personnel will die. Including, probably, family members of DU.

[bridgit]

32. oh yes, this is a very dangerous world and i'll go a step further; to poo-poo...

gathering threats in a bit naive as well

[hfojvt]

39. perhaps you are unaware

of how a tiny PT boat sank the Japanes warship that Yakamora?

http://www.clown-ministry.com/index_1.php/site/articles/mchales_navy_season_one_tim_conway_ernest_borgnine/

[bridgit]

41. SHUUULtz!

[dkofos]

42. When you consider that one of the tactics the Iranians will use, is to

send 40 or 50 of these small, fast, boats (a few equipped with anti-ship missiles)
in among our ships, it doesn't seem so ludicrous.

[bridgit]

43. The Navy cried 'foul' when 5 showed up, I can only imagine their response...

to an tiny armada of fleet little highly lethal craft all swarming about the water-line...my guess is that it would not be eloquent, or pretty to watch

[dkofos]

46. I guess that would depend on which side you were on.

[NeedleCast]

44. Not Ludicrous at all

When you don't have much of a navy and the other side is equipped with guided missile cruisers, nuclear carriers and the like, your best course of action is "swarms" of small boats equiped with torpedo launchers. The Revolutionary Guard has hundreds of them. Basically just a motor boat with some missile or torpedo launchers jerry-rigged onto it. One of them is not much of a threat. But a few of them can be, and a swarm of them certainly is.

Those laughing about this non-threat would do well to educate themselves on a little military hardware. Additionally, US warships have almost zero "first strike" ability in international waters due to our rules of engagement.

Guess the Iranians were getting tired of being "out of the press" recently with all the election hub-bub. Figured they'd rattle the saber a little bit and see what shook loose. From the sounds of things, it almost cost several of them their lives. I'm sure their back at their bases now firing their AKs into the air and telling their buddies how courageous they are.

[bridgit]

45. Understood, recent reports are that one ship within the battle group...

had received permission to fire, and that is serious indeed. With all the bad blood & flaunting of international law having been brought through the Strait of Hormuz previous and up to the minute, 'almost zero "first strike" ability in international waters' may be easily more recognizable as, sadly: 'preemptive measures'. That seems to me where this admin, our admin, would like to see this round of saber rattling heading toward.

The blanket lethality of The U.S. Navy, however, should not be discounted either imo. Few people have any creative business in that part of the world while expressing innocent, pie-eyed wonder when matters are so able to go from 0 to deathly serious in the blink of an eye...and that would include: America!

This I would hope to be definitive, "I'm sure their back at their bases now firing their AKs into the air and telling their buddies how courageous they are."

As well our sailors playing cards in quarters, or smoking cigs off the fan-tails of placid warships.

[NeedleCast]

49. I don't like saber rattling by anyone

and that includes the US and we're certainly guilty of it. However the straight is one of the most active water-ways in the world and assuming our ships were acting in concert with international law they have just as much right to use it as anyone else. I'm not saying we don't make mistakes, but it's pretty hard to mistake a Ticonderoga class guided missile cruiser for say, a dhow or a cargo ship. This sounds like Iran gauging a response to me. As others have pointed out, this is sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If we open fire on a couple of craptastic wanna-be torpedo boats then we're the bully and if we lose a billion dollar missile cruiser we look pretty stupid, a lot of people die, and everyone goes "why didn't we sink them?"

Not much question in my mind that this was an Iranian attempt to see how we'd react, especially with their fairly flippant "ahhhh, it's no big deal" response. It's a dangerous game, because had something happened, especially if Iran had initiated it (or if G-Dubs administration were able to spin it into Iranian aggression), that we'd use it as an excuse to start blowing some shit up in Iran.

[bridgit]

50. most agrred, NeedleCast, and i do thank you for your thoughts here...

dangerous times indeed with so many plumbing the depths of an abyss

[Mendocino]

47. My first thought :"Gulf of Tonkin Incident"

and how that worked for the US.

[bridgit]

48. yep, that kitty is still itchy...

these guys never-ever get it right

[GrahmMan]

55. My first thought,

Shit that happens anytime I see the IRNG in the SOH.

They are a bunch of assholes.

The regular Iranian Navy is very professional and polite, nicer that the Quataris (our supposed friends) who also bug you going through the SOH.

[GrahmMan]

56. Clearly you have never dealt with the

IRG-N

[bridgit]

59. That is the task of people several pay grades above me, my sense is that many...

are only able to hope that they are performing their tasks correctly

[GrahmMan]

60. They are no fun and really only answer to

Kahmeni.

Good times. They are the Blackwater of Iran.

[bridgit]

61. Understood...to whom does Blackwater answer? And welcome to DU, GrahmMan...

[DaLittle Kitty]

57. Look For A MAJOR Incident In About One Month, This Was Just A "Chance" to Demonstrate

How RESTRAINED we have been ... Before we attack Big Time. :nuke:

[GrahmMan]

58. Or this was exactly what it was

Because that is exactly what it is :)

[Progressive Radical]

62. Elections coming up ... we need a war dadnammit!

How else is Chairman Bush going to keep his crown?