Iran Attacks American Destroyers?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Raw: Pentagon Releases Video of Iranian Boats Confronting US Warships (http://www.breitbart.tv/html/26424.html)

The incident, which President Bush denounced Tuesday as a "provocative act," was videotaped by a crew member on the bridge of the destroyer USS Hopper, one of the three ships that faced down five Iranian boats in a flare-up early Sunday, the AP reports.



This is a joke, ... right?


Where those boats bigger than a Boston Whaler?

http://www.thewaterfront.bm/MARINE2005/images/Boat-BW-320Outrage_Lg.jpg

[UnrepentantSinner]

A fishing boat with a DsHK on the bow is hardly something that would "confront" a Destroyer.

[Schneibster]

I googled this (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/24/africa/ME-GEN-Iran-Economic-Woes.php) up after coming across this (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/1-0&fp=47846b8c1f2899e1&ei=fHKER5uzOo-aqwPktMSCBA&url=http%3A//www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/07/africa/tehran.php&cid=1126038046).

Makes me wonder if someone was trolling for a war with the US to try to boost Ahmedinejad's support with Khamenei and the hard-liners and get everyone's minds off the economy.

[Ravenwood]

Uh...anyone remember the U.S.S. Cole?
http://www.cargolaw.com/images/Disaster2000.Cole.1.Gif

[autumn1971]

Difference is that Cole was at anchor in a "friendly" port. I am amazed that the might of the US Navy is said to have been threatened by wankers in speedboats.
Also N.B. the fetish that the US government has in using utterly fabulous boat stories as excuses for war (at least as far back as the Maine, but Tonkin is the one folks hopefully remember).

[Ravenwood]

Makes no difference. How much explosive can be carried in a kamikaze type speedboat? I think that the RG boats were trying to provoke a response or determine what our defensive posture is in regard to the open water (there are quite a few man portable ATGMs that have around a 3000m range that could be launched of a boston whaler type boat) I am also willing to believe that they really were no threat, but were attempting to appear as one in order to get the US to fire on them to either create an incident or provide instant martyrs...

Edit to add:
More links on suicide speedboat attacks from 2003 & going back to WWII
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/26/1048354634465.html
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1193862,00.html
http://www.ww2pacific.com/suicide.html

[UnrepentantSinner]

Difference is that Cole was at anchor in a "friendly" port. I am amazed that the might of the US Navy is said to have been threatened by wankers in speedboats.
Also N.B. the fetish that the US government has in using utterly fabulous boat stories as excuses for war (at least as far back as the Maine, but Tonkin is the one folks hopefully remember).

I'm with you on the difference. This wasn't analagous to the Cole in any way except the U.S. ship was a destroyer and the other boat(s) wasn't(weren't).

I'll disagree with your latter part. The Maine was promoted by yellow journalists whipping up public hysteria more than the government, while neither the Liberty nor the Mayagez resulted in a shooting war (nor the Cole for that matter).

[Ravenwood]

Wankers in speedboats that may be carrying a 1/2 tonne High explosive payload (or might not...you don't know for sure) threatening a suicide attack on your ship. You have to make the call-not so simple is it? As I've pointed out in my links, a HE packing speedboat can be a threat...

[Daylight]

The USS Vincennes in 1988 might be a better comparision which unfortunately shot down a civilian airliner because of the boats.



10:47 AM –While Vincennes engaged with Iranian gunboats, IA655 appears on radar as "Unknown –Assumed Enemy" approaching the ship
http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Aeronautics-and-Astronautics/16-422Spring2004/40763DF2-1797-48D5-9D5C-136DFE8D43C7/0/vincennes.pdf


.........the USS Vincennes, which was at the time engaged with five Iranian Boghammar boats that had attacked our forces. When the aircraft failed to heed repeated warnings, the Vincennes followed standing orders and widely publicized procedures, firing to protect itself against possible attack.
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/shootingdown_iranair_flight655.php


It sounds very similiar to the recent even.

[Darat]

See: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102986

[Nogbad]

Bush is heading to the ME for a summit on the "road map" and part of his message is that Iran is still a threat. The recent Pentagon report that said Iran had ditched nuclear weapon ambitions several years ago was a pain for Bush and one might reasonably think that a non-spat like this would suit Bush prior to a visit to the region.

The minor stand-off is not exactly bad news for Ahmedinejad either so one might look at it as something Bush and Ahmedinejad could have jointly allowed if one were to be of cynical disposition.

[egslim]

I think that the RG boats were trying to provoke a response or determine what our defensive posture is in regard to the open water (there are quite a few man portable ATGMs that have around a 3000m range that could be launched of a boston whaler type boat) I am also willing to believe that they really were no threat, but were attempting to appear as one in order to get the US to fire on them to either create an incident or provide instant martyrs...
I think your explanation is too complicated. Whenever two countries who are not on entirely friendly terms have military forces in proximity confrontations like these happen. Jet fighters play chicken, small boats do the same. Nothing new to see here.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I googled this (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/24/africa/ME-GEN-Iran-Economic-Woes.php) up after coming across this (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/1-0&fp=47846b8c1f2899e1&ei=fHKER5uzOo-aqwPktMSCBA&url=http%3A//www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/07/africa/tehran.php&cid=1126038046).

Makes me wonder if someone was trolling for a war with the US to try to boost Ahmedinejad's support with Khamenei and the hard-liners and get everyone's minds off the economy.

Thanks for the links.

Anyone trolling (I like the use of this word in conjunction with a topic about boats. :)) for war with the United States would have to be insane after seeing that we are now practicing a preemptive war policy. Your analysis could be correct a decade ago.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I also did not know that the Iranian Navy painted its boats bright blue.

:boggled:

[Beerina]

A fishing boat with a DsHK on the bow is hardly something that would "confront" a Destroyer.

Apparently they were practice dumping boxes out right in front of the ships.


Feel better now?

[Cat 1957]

It's not the small boats you have to worry about; it's the water skiers behind them.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It's not the small boats you have to worry about; it's the water skiers behind them.

:D


They could be pulling the FONZ!!!

http://bunda.ca/funnies/fonz.jpg

[Cat 1957]

Perfect disguise for a suicide bomber!

[UnrepentantSinner]

Apparently they were practice dumping boxes out right in front of the ships.

{snip snide comment}

Drug runners dump cargo when confronted by Coast Guard ships. What do boxes have to do with the Cole and a ship full of explosives ramming a vessel docked in an ostensibly friendly port? Or do you have some intelligence the rest of us fellow layman have that Iran has developed a magical box mine that tracks down U.S. Navy destroyers and blows them up?

Get back to me with your snippyness when you've got evidence that they were mines or dwarf Iranians with nuclear belt bombs hiding in those boxes trying to blow up American ships. Mmmm'kay?

[Tailgater]

Drug runners dump cargo when confronted by Coast Guard ships.

....and then they drive circles around the Coast Guard making radio threats while dumping the drugs?

[Tailgater]

Looks like a trial run for a future strategy to me. If gunships can drop packages ahead of ships without fear of attack, the next step would be to create a waterproof bomb detonated from the boat. Doesn't sound too complicated.

[mrbaracuda]

....and then they drive circles around the Coast Guard making radio threats while dumping the drugs?


Wanna play rough? OKAI! :p

[Seismosaurus]

Makes no difference. How much explosive can be carried in a kamikaze type speedboat? I think that the RG boats were trying to provoke a response or determine what our defensive posture is in regard to the open water (there are quite a few man portable ATGMs that have around a 3000m range that could be launched of a boston whaler type boat)

An ATGM would do very little to a ship, though.

In a way, it's the very pitifulness of these boats that makes them a danger. Small boats are fast, often much faster than a destroyer. They're agile. If you're talking rubber speedboat, they often have a very small radar signature and are not easy to spot. An average destroyer carries very few weapons capable of dealing with them; typically you are talking a couple of manually aimed and fired machine guns on the rails. All the fancy anti ship missiles, surface to air missiles... pretty much useless against a speedboat.

Things have improved in recent years though. The Block 1B PSuM CIWS has an infra red sensor that lets it engage surface targets. These things are 20 mm cannon that fire several thousand of high velocity rounds a minute, and would absolutely shred a small boat and anybody on it. However, last I heard they were still upgrading the old CIWS (which can't engage surface targets) with these... no idea if the ships present have them. If they don't, then small boats would certainly not be a huge problem, but not something you'd be blase about.

[ServiceSoon]

Where in the world did this happen?
we [USA] are now practicing a preemptive war policyAccording to C. Rice we are not.

[Praktik]

And while the Iranian boats could conceivably have been laden with explosives - and let's even say they manage to SINK a destroyer, or even TWO - what happens next?

The military capability of America to project power into Iran right now is insanely off the charts. The fact is that whatever limited threat these boats posed to a few Navy vessels, they were NO THREAT to the larger strategic position of America in the Gulf.

So maybe a few American boats could have been sunk (and I think that might be granting a bit too much power to the Iranian boats), but really, it would represent a drop in the bucket of America's military might and the response would be over and above anything the Iranians could ever hope to match.

So in some ways, both sides of the debate here on the nature of the Iranian threat are right: yes its possible given the Cole that some damage may be inflicted with this type of method, but in the larger picture, that possible damage is like a bee sting to a bear..;)

[DaChew]

<gode>Ha! Like any sissy, Navy-boy could hit one of those speeding boats. Never going to happen. In a million years, no boatbuddy is going to shoot straight enough to hit something that fast. If it was Richard Gere in a tutu holding a hamster they'd lock onto it in milliseconds but not Iranians in a speed boat. Heck, I'd bet any one of those water pansies a case of beer that they couldn't hit one of those boats the next time this happens.</gode>

[Tailgater]

And while the Iranian boats could conceivably have been laden with explosives - and let's even say they manage to SINK a destroyer, or even TWO - what happens next?

War? at most. Retaliation? at least one aspirin factory.

So in some ways, both sides of the debate here on the nature of the Iranian threat are right: yes its possible given the Cole that some damage may be inflicted with this type of method, but in the larger picture, that possible damage is like a bee sting to a bear..;)

Ya, a couple boatloads of sailors=bee sting, gotcha;)

[WildCat]

An average destroyer carries very few weapons capable of dealing with them; typically you are talking a couple of manually aimed and fired machine guns on the rails.
This pic is from the deck of the USS Hopper, which was involved in the incident:

http://home.mindspring.com/~chitaper/WNUS_40mm_Mortar_mk19_navy_pic.jpg

That's a 40 mm Mark 19 grenade launcher being fired, with a 25mm Mark 38 in the background. This destroyer is well-equiped for such speedboats!

[senorpogo]

So maybe a few American boats could have been sunk (and I think that might be granting a bit too much power to the Iranian boats), but really, it would represent a drop in the bucket of America's military might and the response would be over and above anything the Iranians could ever hope to match.

Again, as I mentioned in the other thread, see Millenium Challenge 2002, a war game where civilian boats and planes along with cruise missles shot from small boats sank 16 US warships, which would have equated to 20,000 dead.

You can argue the legitimacy of US policy all you want and I won't say a word, but please do not downplay the real threat such a dedicated attack presents against the US Navy, even if it does employ tactics and forces most would consider unconventional.

To quote Van Riper - "A phrase I heard over and over was: 'That would never have happened and I said: nobody would have thought that anyone would fly an airliner into the World Trade Centre, but nobody seemed interested."

[sackett]

...That's a 40 mm Mark 19 grenade launcher being fired, with a 25mm Mark 38 in the background. This destroyer is well-equiped for such speedboats!

Well...Let's hope the baddies are crazy enough to try it on in daylight and clear weather. Light guns of the type shown are basically WW2 stuff. (I'm a little surprised to see a landlubber's piece like the 40 mm going to sea, but I'll assume that the Navy knows what it wants.) Darkness and fog will cut down the effective range of any flexible mount. IR and, maybe, acoustic detectors would help with that problem, and you can be VERY sure that all the navies of the world are deploying whatever they can get in that line. And yet: To this day, the kamikaze is the most effective guided missile ever used.

Darth will, I hope, tune in and respond. I'd like to know for sure that the USN can handle this particular threat.

Those 'Ranians are damned lucky I wasn't on the bridge that day. Allah would be putting in overtime to replenish the virgin supply.

[Praktik]

Again, as I mentioned in the other thread, see Millenium Challenge 2002, a war game where civilian boats and planes along with cruise missles shot from small boats sank 16 US warships, which would have equated to 20,000 dead.

You can argue the legitimacy of US policy all you want and I won't say a word, but please do not downplay the real threat such a dedicated attack presents against the US Navy, even if it does employ tactics and forces most would consider unconventional.

To quote Van Riper - "A phrase I heard over and over was: 'That would never have happened and I said: nobody would have thought that anyone would fly an airliner into the World Trade Centre, but nobody seemed interested."


Right - but isn't it fair to say that even with a loss on that scale, that the US could STILL hit back much harder than the hit they received?

Aren't there shipyards that could be brought online double-time to replace the lost capacity?

Doesn't the US have an overwhelming air and intelligence advantage?

Doesn't the US have powerful allies that would intercede immediately to replace the lost capacity while the US rejigs and rebuilds?

So maybe I undershot what the real maximum impact of "a few boats" could be, but even in the theoretical maximum of the war game, the US would still hold an overwhelming military advantage.

The Iranians just aren't capable of overcoming that, even in an attack as devastating as the one in the war game.

[WildCat]

Well...Let's hope the baddies are crazy enough to try it on in daylight and clear weather. Light guns of the type shown are basically WW2 stuff.
There's a very good chance the Mark 38 shown is a Mod 2:
Improvements compared to the Mark 38 include an on-mount electro-optical sight, improved ammunition loading, improved man/machine interface, an embedded trainer and ship roll compensation. The new system also provides the capability to have two different ammunition types loaded and selecting between them from the remote console. The remote operator console is a 12-inch (30.5 cm) color LCD equipped with 12 soft keys. The picture on the computer screen is extremely clear, displaying a real-time, 360-degree, 7,000 - 8,000 yard (6,400 - 7,300 m) picture. In 2003, successful testing was conducted aboard the USS Decatur (DDG-73) and USS Howard (DDG-83). USS Princeton (CG-59) was the first ship to have this weapon system permanently installed. Tests on Princeton demonstrated a very robust capability during day and night tracking and firing on a high speed maneuvering surface target (HSMST). During the live fire against the HSMST, the system gained a kill of the target at more than twice the range of the current Mod 1 gun. Other tests have shown a two to three fold increase in Probability of Hit (POH) versus the Mod 1.

In 2004, United Defense received a $395.5 million contract to produce the Mark 38 Mod 2 weapon system. The contract runs through 2010 with the first eight units and spares to be delivered in 2004, 13 in 2005 and 67 in 2006.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_25mm_mk38.htm

[E.J.Armstrong]

Looks like a trial run for a future strategy to me. If gunships can drop packages ahead of ships without fear of attack, the next step would be to create a waterproof bomb detonated from the boat. Doesn't sound too complicated.



Au contraire. The next step is clearly a water proof nuclear weapon. I understand that Iran has an ongoing nuclear weapon waterproofing programme. Doesn't sound too complicated.

The sky is falling. The sky is falling.

[WildCat]

Au contraire. The next step is clearly a water proof nuclear weapon. I understand that Iran has an ongoing nuclear weapon waterproofing programme. Doesn't sound too complicated.

The sky is falling. The sky is falling.
Do you really think that everyone (or even a tiny percentage) who takes such things seriously really have that Chicken little mentality? Grow up.

I think this was a planned event for the Iranians, their motives we can only guess. I doubt it was to provoke the martyrdom of the speedboats crews, but an attempt to discover a weakness. Sinking a destroyer (and claiming it was in Iranian waters when struck, of course) would be a propaganda coup for the Iranians. Much bigger than the capture of the British sailors was several months back.

[Tailgater]

Au contraire. The next step is clearly a water proof nuclear weapon. I understand that Iran has an ongoing nuclear weapon waterproofing programme. Doesn't sound too complicated.

The sky is falling. The sky is falling.

The only person here freaking out seems to be you. Just because someone discusses military strategies doesn't mean they are building a bomb shelter.

[Praktik]

Do you really think that everyone (or even a tiny percentage) who takes such things seriously really have that Chicken little mentality? Grow up.

I think this was a planned event for the Iranians, their motives we can only guess. I doubt it was to provoke the martyrdom of the speedboats crews, but an attempt to discover a weakness. Sinking a destroyer (and claiming it was in Iranian waters when struck, of course) would be a propaganda coup for the Iranians. Much bigger than the capture of the British sailors was several months back.

It is definitely difficult to parse the motivations of a relatively opaque decision making process such as that present in the Iranian system. That being said, I think you're right that they weren't seeking "martyrdom", but that it was more of a probe of American protocol, or even simply a gesture to say, "watch out, we're here too and not afraid to get close".

Now I would hazard to guess that sinking a destroyer - even one that had (intentionally or unintentially) strayed into Iranian waters would be more than a few notches up the "tension ladder".

I think there would definitely be more than a few cruise missiles and bombing sorties in response, and I'm not sure that's something the Iranian leadership looks interested in pursuing right now. It may be in their interest to sow some tension and keep things destabilized: higher oil prices, more likelihood that the world will see US involvement there as unsucessful, more of the "rallying effect" around the ruling elite back at home. Since any movements they've made to integrate themselves into a stable regional order have been rebuffed - this really is their only road until there's "regime change" back in Washington.

So while keeping things tense is perhaps a smart move right now (from the perspective of Iran) - I think it should be fairly obvious to everyone that going so far as to precipitate an actual head-on confrontation with the world's largest navy and air force is a pretty foolish and dangerous proposition. And that's what would happen if they sunk a destroyer - especially in an election year.

They're walking a tightrope - and this latest incident is just their latest footstep along the "tension line" that extends between them and America.

Postscript: I'd also argue that for the Bush administration they're in a "some tension is good - but too much tension is bad" situation as well. They've backed themselves into a rhetorical corner so any rapprochement is completely off the table - I mean completely. To engage with Iran would be to go back on years of harsh and unyielding rhetoric, and Bush is not the kind of President that would ever be so bold as to contradict himself so obviously (nor is he of the ilk that would even consider a rapprochement as in the strategic interest of the US). EDIT: and I bet the Republican base, fed a rather steady diet of anti-Iranian rhetoric, would finally go all the way and rescind his party membership, burning him in effigy on the steps of the White House.

But going too far right now is also bad for the US - tied down in Iraq in an unpopular war - what would open conflict with Iran portend for Iraq? Or Lebanon? Or Israel? For american military capacity? It would be one giant sh*tstorm, and one with unpredictable effects. Even if they can't see through the blind spots that led them to war, the Bush administration is not composed of idiots. They know there's been a lot of "collateral damage" from their policy in terms of declining Republican fortunes and less flexibility in exacting positive results from alliances - even with "close" countries.

So here we are - stuck in a place where maintaining a "manageable amount" of tension is in the perceived interest of both sides - and this carries a lot of risk for everybody. Who's going to go too far, and when?

Or will Iran's parliamentary elections and America's elections occur in time for policy changes in both countries?

[WildCat]

I think there would definitely be more than a few cruise missiles and bombing sorties in response, and I'm not sure that's something the Iranian leadership looks interested in pursuing right now.
I'm not so sure about that, there is no political capital left in the Bush Admin. to do much more than "a few cruise missiles and bombing sorties in response". Too volatile a region for that, both geographically and politically.

But going too far right now is also bad for the US - tied down in Iraq in an unpopular war - what would open conflict with Iran portend for Iraq? Or Lebanon? Or Israel? It would be one giant sh*tstorm, and one with unpredictable effects. Even if they can't see through the blind spots that led them to war, the Bush administration is not composed of idiots. They know there's been a lot of "collateral damage" from their policy in terms of declining Republican fortunes and less flexibility in exacting positive results from alliances - even with "close" countries.
Which is why I think a big response would be limited.

Or will Iran's parliamentary elections and America's elections occur in time for policy changes in both countries?
Iran's Parliament (nor Ahmadinejad) has nothing to do with policy in Iran. That power rests solely on the Mullahs who run the place, and they are not elected.

[Praktik]

Iran's Parliament (nor Ahmadinejad) has nothing to do with policy in Iran. That power rests solely on the Mullahs who run the place, and they are not elected.

Yes for sure. Ultimate power rests with them. But there was definitely a change of tone under the guy before Ahmadinehjad (was it Matami??), and a change in tone (in both Iran and America) may be all it takes to get the ball rolling on a wider regional solution to both "the Iran problem" and the "Iraq problem". Ahmadinejhad's political capital is actually on a pretty weak footing across Iranian society (many have become disillusioned with his rhetoric, though there is a segment energized by it).

Most predictions are for his supporters to lose a lot of seats, and if this happens, his political capacity will diminish still further.

The Mullah's aren't stupid. They know they're sitting on a pretty uppity, young population.

If the population signals they're fed up with Ahmadinejad's antics - which is likely to be the case - you can expect to see the Mullah's put a firmer hand on his activities and guide him more towards moderation.

They crave stability, because internal stability means continued power.

[Phrost]

Why are there two threads for this?

[Praktik]

I'm not so sure about that, there is no political capital left in the Bush Admin. to do much more than "a few cruise missiles and bombing sorties in response". Too volatile a region for that, both geographically and politically.


Which is why I think a big response would be limited.



Good points. Man, what a complex problem eh? Part of me thinks that the Bush's would not let something like that fly on their watch - how could they?? - but then the sober realist in me thinks about "some tension but not too much" thing and the way Iraq and America's strained military complicate that perspective.

:confused:

[senorpogo]

So maybe I undershot what the real maximum impact of "a few boats" could be, but even in the theoretical maximum of the war game, the US would still hold an overwhelming military advantage.

The Iranians just aren't capable of overcoming that, even in an attack as devastating as the one in the war game.

Yes, you're right.

But it's worth adding that inflicting massive casualties/damage on a foe while absorbing only a fraction is not necessarily a recipe for long term victory in this day and age.

[gtc]

Get back to me with your snippyness when you've got evidence that they were mines or dwarf Iranians with nuclear belt bombs hiding in those boxes trying to blow up American ships. Mmmm'kay?

Your comment would appear more intelligent if we didn't already know that the boxes dropped were not mines or dwarf Iranians, at least this time.

Now can you provide evidence that it would be impossible for such boxes to contain some sort of weapon in the future?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Where in the world did this happen?
According to C. Rice we are not.

According to a March 2006 national security report reaffirming and updating a 2002 report it is the policy of the United States for preemptive war.

Bush Reaffirms Strike-First Policy (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/16/politics/main1409079.shtml)

"The president's strategy affirms that the doctrine of preemption remains sound and must remain an integral part of our national security strategy," Hadley said. "If necessary, the strategy states, under longstanding principles of self defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack."

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Again, as I mentioned in the other thread, see Millenium Challenge 2002, a war game where civilian boats and planes along with cruise missles shot from small boats sank 16 US warships, which would have equated to 20,000 dead.

How small a boat are we talking here?

Cruise missiles are not shoulder fired.;)

[UnrepentantSinner]

Your comment would appear more intelligent if we didn't already know that the boxes dropped were not mines or dwarf Iranians, at least this time.

Now can you provide evidence that it would be impossible for such boxes to contain some sort of weapon in the future?

I wouldn't be too worried about that, we have counter measures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS).

[BenBurch]

Clashes with gunboats at the Territorial Limit is sufficient reason to sink some gunboats.

It is not, however, an adequate Casus Belli, no matter what Rush Limbaugh bloviates.

[DaChew]

I wouldn't be too worried about that, we have counter measures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS).

The USS Stark had those.

[sackett]

Wildcat: Thanks for the gen on the Mod 2 package. I hope that's an objective description, not just contractor's boilerplate. (Of course, it helps a lot to require a defense contractor, preferably somebody in the company's head office, to sail with the first model, ideally into harm's way. Irons out them bugs pretty fast.)

I'd still have sunk the SOBs. That's how I argue with fascists.

[senorpogo]

How small a boat are we talking here?

Cruise missiles are not shoulder fired.;)

Unfortunately I was not involved in Millenium Challenge 2002 so I don't know. There's quite a few articles about it on the web though so I'd guess that the info is out there somewhere.

[Darth Rotor]

Clashes with gunboats at the Territorial Limit is sufficient reason to sink some gunboats.

It is not, however, an adequate Casus Belli, no matter what Rush Limbaugh bloviates.

While I tend to agree with you, our opinions don't matter as much as the opinions in Teheran and Washington, the dancers who make up the two who tango when someone prepares the dance floor with such an incident.

Walter Russel Meade points out that if you are begging for trouble, you will likely find it if you get too froggy in your game of "chicken" with American maritime forces.

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=13778

The Irnaian motive is still open to conjecture, the timing related to Bush in the Mid East seemingly deliberate, and the disciplined response of the CO's of the US ships involved appropriate. I am still curious as to why Bush and other Pentagon level speakers have made such a big deal over this.

I tend to side with the anonymous Iranian official who indicated that this is standard stuff, and has been resolved/handled as per usual methods.

FWIW, I think Captain Rogers would have opened fire. (CO of USS Vincennes)

DR

[Praktik]

FWIW, I think Captain Rogers would have opened fire. (CO of USS Vincennes)

DR

The same guy was lionized by his hometown, who built a statue in his honour. Further, each crew member received a medal.

Don't think the Iranians didn't notice that salt-in-the-wound.

[Darth Rotor]

The same guy was lionized by his hometown, who built a statue in his honour.
Rogers? Really? Never heard that. That's sorta funny.
Further, each crew member received a medal.
You are either talking out of your arse, or a victim of incredibly shoddy reporting.

If you are referring to a "Sea Service Ribbon" that is typically awarded for any extended deployment over X days (used to be 120, but it has varied over the years) which has NOTHING to do with the shoot down event.

I don't recall anyone being awarded a medal for the airliner shot down by Vincennes.

Can you back up your assertion that anyone won a military award for that incident?

I'll be watching the grass grow in the meantime . . .

DR

[E.J.Armstrong]

Do you really think that everyone (or even a tiny percentage) who takes such things seriously really have that Chicken little mentality? Grow up.

I think this was a planned event for the Iranians, their motives we can only guess. I doubt it was to provoke the martyrdom of the speedboats crews, but an attempt to discover a weakness. Sinking a destroyer (and claiming it was in Iranian waters when struck, of course) would be a propaganda coup for the Iranians. Much bigger than the capture of the British sailors was several months back.

In that case a nuclear attack on a US warship would be a bigger propaganda coup.

US policy seems to be more and more Minority Report based. If an Iranian granny walked near the beach the US navy would claim it was a prelude to throwing a bomb onto a US warship. After all have you seen the amount of munitions an Iranian granny can get under her burkha? It is awesome man. Truly awesome.

Ther is a new international index of threats to the USA.

One Iranian granny equals sheer terror but when six of the get together even the Gods of demonising entire countries Dick and Condie run for the hills.

10 Iranian grannies equals a tactical thermonuclear weapon.
100 Iranian grannies makes Bush quake in The King David Hotel - which interestingly Israeli terrorists bombed in the days of the British mandate. Some things just never change.
1000 Iranian grannies is a world threatening army.

PS The British navy are figures of fun in the UK. They couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag.

[Pardalis]

Uh...anyone remember the U.S.S. Cole?
http://www.cargolaw.com/images/Disaster2000.Cole.1.Gif

I do.

[Praktik]

Rogers? Really? Never heard that. That's sorta funny.

You are either talking out of your arse, or a victim of incredibly shoddy reporting

From wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655#Medals_awarded):

The men of the Vincennes were all awarded combat-action ribbons. Lustig, the air-warfare co-ordinator, won the navy's Commendation Medal for "heroic achievement," noting his "ability to maintain his poise and confidence under fire" that enabled him to "quickly and precisely complete the firing procedure".[25] The Legion of Merit was presented to Rogers and Lustig on 3 July 1988, according to a 23 April 1990 article in The Washington Post. The citations did not mention the Iran Air flight. It should be noted that the Legion of Merit is often awarded to high-ranking officers upon successful completion of especially difficult duty assignments and/or last tours of duty before retirement.


I wonder if the "combat action ribbons" are the same thing as the Sea Service Ribbons?

They both use the word "ribbons" so maybe you're right.

That being said, Lustig's Commendation Medal was a pretty inexcusable thing to do (shooting down a civilian airliner is heroic??) - but given the ideological climate and the history of the time, understandable at least.

I guess I may have confused the medal to Ludig with the ribbons - so I apologize for that - it had been a while since I read up on this.

Though I've never had trouble talking out of my ass, typing out of my ass is a different matter. It usually looks like this:

" asdkdfakjasdlasd ak;jdfh asdfkh'lsd"

Perhaps you could give me some tips on better ass-to-keyboard accuracy?

[E.J.Armstrong]

The only person here freaking out seems to be you. Just because someone discusses military strategies doesn't mean they are building a bomb shelter.

You invented a new weapon for the Iranians as a apparent justification for the appalling crime of sailing past US ships by some small boats.

Isn't it time to grow up?

[SoBitter]

I think that this is highly publicized due to the country involved, not what actually transpired. It's an attempt to drum the word "Iran" into our heads enough times that when war is declared, we don't ask, "what, I haven't heard anything about Iran!".

I think the response will be nothing, because nothing really happened. Probably a press conference promising action if something like this ever happens again.

[Darth Rotor]

From wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655#Medals_awarded):

The men of the Vincennes were all awarded combat-action ribbons.
Yes. There was a surface engagement, COMBAT, underway at the time of the airliner shootdown. Have you caught on yet? Lustig, the air-warfare co-ordinator, won the navy's Commendation Medal for "heroic achievement," noting his "ability to maintain his poise and confidence under fire" that enabled him to "quickly and precisely complete the firing procedure".[25]
See above, the surface action. IIRC, the guy was the TAO on watch at the time of the surface action.
The Legion of Merit was presented to Rogers and Lustig on 3 July 1988, according to a 23 April 1990 article in The Washington Post.
Not an atypical end of tour award for a Cruiser CO.

Note: there was considerable debate within USN professional circles as to whether Rogers should be lauded, or pilloried, for how that day went, and whether or not he'd gone looking for trouble. That debate, so far as I know, has never been reslolved, see the CO of USS Sides and the numerous articles and arguments he wrote and offered in the US Naval Institute Proceedings. One of the factors in Rogers' favor was that he, unlike the CO of Stark, 1987, brought all his sailors home.
I wonder if the "combat action ribbons" are the same thing as the Sea Service Ribbons?
No. See above. Surface action with Iranian naval units, also known as Combat. Sea Service Ribbon a different ribbon, but yes, the CREW did not get medals, but thanks for reminding me that the TAO did.
That being said, Lustig's Commendation Medal was a pretty inexcusable thing to do (shooting down a civilian airliner is [I]heroic??) - but given the ideological climate and the history of the time, understandable at least.
I'll not comment further on the Awards system, other than to point out that his medal was hardly an award for shooting down the airliner.
I guess I may have confused the medal to Ludig with the ribbons - so I apologize for that - it had been a while since I read up on this.
Seems to be the case. Glad we had this chat. :) No need to apologize, the aracana of the Military Awards system is hardly required knowledge if you don't have to write them, as I have. You really don't want to know.

This has been a bit unfair, as I happened to know, via professional association, a few of the helicopter pilots on Vincennes who were there that day. These gents shared with me, some years ago, an interesting insight into that surface action, and some of Captain Rogers' curious operational habits.

DR

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I think that this is highly publicized due to the country involved, not what actually transpired. It's an attempt to drum the word "Iran" into our heads enough times that when war is declared, we don't ask, "what, I haven't heard anything about Iran!".

I think the response will be nothing, because nothing really happened. Probably a press conference promising action if something like this ever happens again.

Gulf of Tonkin.

[UnrepentantSinner]

The USS Stark had those.

Boxes aren't Exocets.

Maybe they were early Norooz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_New_Year) presents?

[Distracted1]

I wonder if these Iranian boat crews might have been acting on their own. I don't assert that as likely, but it seems possible. If, in fact, these men are as fanatical as is claimed, might they have been testing their own Islamic Machismo?
Is it a moot point if they were?

[Schneibster]

I googled this (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/24/africa/ME-GEN-Iran-Economic-Woes.php) up after coming across this (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/1-0&fp=47846b8c1f2899e1&ei=fHKER5uzOo-aqwPktMSCBA&url=http%3A//www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/07/africa/tehran.php&cid=1126038046).

Makes me wonder if someone was trolling for a war with the US to try to boost Ahmedinejad's support with Khamenei and the hard-liners and get everyone's minds off the economy.You folks seem remarkably incurious about the internal workings of the opposition.

The attempt to propagandize that it was some sort of peaceful encounter makes me wonder if there wasn't a certain element of that propaganda intended for internal ears over there. I'm watching, and I think Achmedinejad might be in trouble. You know what they say about cornering a wild animal.

[UnrepentantSinner]

You folks seem remarkably incurious about the internal workings of the opposition.

The attempt to propagandize that it was some sort of peaceful encounter makes me wonder if there wasn't a certain element of that propaganda intended for internal ears over there. I'm watching, and I think Achmedinejad might be in trouble. You know what they say about cornering a wild animal.

You honestly think Ahmadinejad is running the country to the point where he alone could order some sort of suicidal paroxyzm of war with the U.S.?

Anyone know why Basijis are young or poor older men and not mullahs?

[Schneibster]

If you really wanna know, my guess is some buddy of his in the military decided he'd take the heat off Ahmadinejad by giving the mullahs something else to think about, maybe figured after Vincennes that the US warships might fire, REALLY giving them something to think about, and this is the cover-up so nobody gets in trouble with the mullahs. Mighta worked anyway. Then again, it might not.

Figuring you're the center of the universe always has a tendency to cause you to ignore that people may have motives for things that have not the least slightest thing to do with you. Cats do cat things for cat reasons.

I'll also point out that this isn't, IIRC, the first time somebody's expressed dissatisfaction with Ahmedinejad's performance some way and that was followed up shortly by some incident or other like this, but I couldn't find a good pair of references so you can ignore that if you like.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'm more inclined to think that this is the Revolutionary Guard, which is semi-autonomous from the Majlis, Presidency and even the Revolutionary Council poking the U.S. Naval presence in the Gulf with a stick to try and demonstrate that we don't have hegemony over the region - at least militarily. They get footage for Al-Jazeera (hey, look at us grabbing the tail of the lion) and don't get their enrichment sites bombed or instigate, as I noted, the suicidal paroxysm of military confronation with the U.S. that a lot of sabre rattlers seem to think they are pining for.

Perhaps the 50 yearsish of the Cold War, where the leadership of the Soviet Union didn't see incinerating 300 million people worth proving Marx correct, has tainted my Realpolitick to the point where I think the mullahs won't allow an immediate nuclear attack on Isreal and/or the U.S. resulting in a glowing ash heap where Tehran was. While I think the RG's provocations should be responded to, their actions don't make me think they want to dent a U.S. Destroyer just so we can level wide swaths of their populated areas.

[richardm]

The British navy are figures of fun in the UK. They couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag.

I'd love to have some of whatever it is you're drinking, except I'm sure it must be pretty toxic.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'd love to have some of whatever it is you're drinking, except I'm sure it must be pretty toxic.

I missed that pathetically jingoistic comment, but then again, some people responding to this thread are confusing boxes tossed by fishing boats with Exocets. :(

[Tailgater]

double post

[Tailgater]

You invented a new weapon for the Iranians as a apparent justification for the appalling crime of sailing past US ships by some small boats.

Isn't it time to grow up?

I didn't invent anything. It's a common strategy to test reactions for future engagements. That would be the most probable reason for anyone with a brain. You're just so foaming at the mouth, you want to invent reasons that it was a couple Iranian tourists having some drunk fun.

[Tailgater]

I'm more inclined to think that this is the Revolutionary Guard, which is semi-autonomous from the Majlis, Presidency and even the Revolutionary Council poking the U.S. Naval presence in the Gulf with a stick to try and demonstrate that we don't have hegemony over the region - at least militarily. They get footage for Al-Jazeera (hey, look at us grabbing the tail of the lion) and don't get their enrichment sites bombed or instigate, as I noted, the suicidal paroxysm of military confronation with the U.S. that a lot of sabre rattlers seem to think they are pining for.

Perhaps the 50 yearsish of the Cold War, where the leadership of the Soviet Union didn't see incinerating 300 million people worth proving Marx correct, has tainted my Realpolitick to the point where I think the mullahs won't allow an immediate nuclear attack on Isreal and/or the U.S. resulting in a glowing ash heap where Tehran was. While I think the RG's provocations should be responded to, their actions don't make me think they want to dent a U.S. Destroyer just so we can level wide swaths of their populated areas.

I agree with this other than Iran is know for putting on a good show every so often and actually doing something stupid. Stupid enough to kidnap or kill, but never quite enough to go to war over. Just enough to say, "look at me", let the US cry about it and "sabre rattle", then talk about a misunderstanding or that it was somehow the fault of the west. The US would not nuke Iran even if they sank a ship.

[originalgagster]

How reliable was the initial version of events? According to this piece (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/10/iran/) even the Pentagon is acknowledging key facts from the original story were incorrect.

On the "threats" from the Iranian boats:

Iranian Hooman Majd at The Huffington Post noted that the voices on the tapes issuing the melodramatic threats were unquestionably not Persian.

Since then, additional facts have emerged strongly negating the claim that that message came from those Iranian boats. The audio of the threats is crystal clear in sound quality, with no ambient noise -- something highly unlikely to be the case if delivered from a small, speeding boat. Moreover, as the New York Times' Mike Nizza reports today, quoting a reader claiming to be a former Naval officer, the channel that was used to convey the transmission is easily accessible to all sorts of private parties and is often the venue for hoaxes, pranks, and false messages.

Just listen to the audio (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydi-TIlThaQ) , it's worth a laugh if nothing else.


On the "boxes" incident:

Neither the video of the incident released by the U.S. military, nor the video version released by the Iranian government, includes any such event, nor are there any references to it at all on the audio.

[WildCat]

On the "threats" from the Iranian boats:
Only 58% of Iranians speak Persian, so even assuming this yahoo could tell a Persian accent from that short clip it doesn't prove anything.

[The Fool]

Only 58% of Iranians speak Persian, so even assuming this yahoo could tell a Persian accent from that short clip it doesn't prove anything.
Stand firm Wildcat. This story is collapsing into the farce like it always was going to ....Hang firm, you can still take it seriously for a bit longer even after the Pentagon runs for cover.

[Silly fake accent] Theees thread will explooooode soon [/Silly fake accent]

[JEROME DA GNOME]

All that, but... Why is America posturing for war with Iran?

[Darth Rotor]

[Silly fake accent] Theees thread will explooooode soon [/Silly fake accent]
Does it occur to you to attempt to analyze this event in the context of an ongoing information campaign? Play is continuous in that game.

When analyzing it in such a framework, you find the events make more sense than any of your posts in the thread so far.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

All that, but... Why is America posturing for war with Iran?
Is or was? I don't see this as war posturing, I see it as something else altogether. See reference to the Bush trip to the Mid East.

DR

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Is or was? I don't see this as war posturing, I see it as something else altogether. See reference to the Bush trip to the Mid East.

DR

You have opened a door with many paths and not shown the direction. Could you please extrapolate?

[Schneibster]

A new copy of the video has been released by the US; it's half an hour or so, not the few minutes of the original one. Has anyone seen it?

[The Fool]

Does it occur to you to attempt to analyze this event in the context of an ongoing information campaign? Play is continuous in that game.

When analyzing it in such a framework, you find the events make more sense than any of your posts in the thread so far.

DR
No problems son, be sure to let us know if you find some extra information. Until then I'll just keep laughing if thats ok.

[Schneibster]

I'm more inclined to think that this is the Revolutionary Guard, which is semi-autonomous from the Majlis, Presidency and even the Revolutionary Council poking the U.S. Naval presence in the Gulf with a stick to try and demonstrate that we don't have hegemony over the region - at least militarily. They get footage for Al-Jazeera (hey, look at us grabbing the tail of the lion) and don't get their enrichment sites bombed or instigate, as I noted, the suicidal paroxysm of military confronation with the U.S. that a lot of sabre rattlers seem to think they are pining for.Possibly. There remains, however, the question of these "boxes." I'd be more confident in my assessment if I could confirm or deny their existence.

To be perfectly frank, I don't think the Pentagon would make something like that up, but I don't know they wouldn't. On the other hand, that sort of odd thing is just the sort of weird crap the Iranians have come up with in the past; I can't call an example to mind, but I wasn't surprised when I heard it. Again, I don't know they did it; but I think they did. And that is not a friendly act, and it's one that, if I were a skipper, might well result in me calling for a posture of heightened readiness above standard steaming. This has the benefit that whatever happens, I am prepared to respond, and if anything nasty happens, the people working for me are in their best possible places to be protected, and to be rescued if they're harmed. From what I've seen so far, that seems to be relatively close to what took place, though I'm not sure they went so far as to actually initiate General Quarters, and I'm not sure what state of readiness they were in before the incident began, they might well already have been in a heightened state and going to General Quarters might be redundant.

Perhaps the 50 yearsish of the Cold War, where the leadership of the Soviet Union didn't see incinerating 300 million people worth proving Marx correct, has tainted my Realpolitick to the point where I think the mullahs won't allow an immediate nuclear attack on Isreal and/or the U.S. resulting in a glowing ash heap where Tehran was. While I think the RG's provocations should be responded to, their actions don't make me think they want to dent a U.S. Destroyer just so we can level wide swaths of their populated areas.My concern is that they're more interested in what's going on in Iran than in what's going on with the US. And given the current state of matters in the US politically, screwing around with US ships in the Straits of Hormuz is probably a really bad idea in general. The idiots currently in charge aren't much minded to negotiate, which means a confrontation is likely to escalate.

I have little desire to witness a war between the US and Iran, and even less desire to witness an accidental war between the US and Iran. I don't think the mullahs are any dumber than you do; so I have to question what these Pasdaran are trying to accomplish. And I have to question whether the mullahs had anything to do with deciding to do it.

[UnrepentantSinner]

{snip refreshingly cogent and well thought out response for the Politics subforum}

Responding to such a great reply would cut into my chat/surfing for porn time this morning, but I did want to let you know I've read and appreciate it. I'll respond later today when time and bandwidth aren't such an issue.

[FireGarden]

The ‘Filipino Monkey’ may be behind radio threats, ship drivers say
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/01/navy_hormuz_iran_radio_080111/

The threatening radio transmission heard at the end of a video showing harassing maneuvers by Iranian patrol boats in the Strait of Hormuz may have come from a locally famous heckler known among ship drivers as the “Filipino Monkey.”

[...] “We don’t know for sure where they came from,” said Cmdr. Lydia Robertson, spokeswoman for 5th Fleet in Bahrain. “It could have been a shore station.”

[...] So with Navy officials unsure and the Iranians accusing the U.S. of fabrications, whose voice was it? In recent years, American ships operating in the Middle East have had to contend with a mysterious but profane voice known by the ethnically insulting handle of “Filipino Monkey,” likely more than one person, who listens in on ship-to-ship radio traffic and then jumps on the net shouting insults and jabbering vile epithets.

[...] Rick Hoffman, a retired captain who commanded the cruiser Hue City and spent many of his 17 years at sea in the Gulf was subject to the renegade radio talker repeatedly, often without pause during the so-called “Tanker Wars” of the late 1980s.

“For 25 years there’s been this mythical guy out there who, hour after hour, shouts obscenities and threats,” he said. “He could be tied up pierside somewhere or he could be on the bridge of a merchant ship.”

[...] and others believe that the Filipino Monkey is comprised of several people, and whoever gets on Channel 16 to heckle instantly gets the monicker.

“It was just a gut feeling, something the merchants did. Guys would get bored, one guy hears it, comes back a year later and does it for himself,” he said. “I never thought it was one, rather it was part of the woodwork.”

You'd have to be brain dead to send that kind of message as a joke in that kind of situation. Plenty of suspects, then.

[Darth Rotor]

The ‘Filipino Monkey’ may be behind radio threats, ship drivers say
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/01/navy_hormuz_iran_radio_080111/



You'd have to be brain dead to send that kind of message as a joke in that kind of situation. Plenty of suspects, then.
If you've ever stood a bridge watch on a ship, you know how tempting it is to come up on channel 16 and pull a stunt. This explanation makes as much sense to me as any other offered to date. Heck, it makes the most sense.

DR

[FireGarden]

If you've ever stood a bridge watch on a ship, you know how tempting it is to come up on channel 16 and pull a stunt. This explanation makes as much sense to me as any other offered to date. Heck, it makes the most sense.

DR

I take this as an admission of guilt. Do you have an alibi?



;)

[Schneibster]

Responding to such a great reply would cut into my chat/surfing for porn time this morning, but I did want to let you know I've read and appreciate it. I'll respond later today when time and bandwidth aren't such an issue.Thanks! Take your time.

[Richard Masters]

Makes no difference. How much explosive can be carried in a kamikaze type speedboat? I think that the RG boats were trying to provoke a response or determine what our defensive posture is in regard to the open water (there are quite a few man portable ATGMs that have around a 3000m range that could be launched of a boston whaler type boat) I am also willing to believe that they really were no threat, but were attempting to appear as one in order to get the US to fire on them to either create an incident or provide instant martyrs...

Edit to add:
More links on suicide speedboat attacks from 2003 & going back to WWII
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/26/1048354634465.html
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1193862,00.html
http://www.ww2pacific.com/suicide.html


Why do you assume it's a "suicide speedboat"? Iran hasn't had suicide terrorists. Ever.

[gtc]

Possibly. There remains, however, the question of these "boxes."
...
And that is not a friendly act, and it's one that, if I were a skipper, might well result in me calling for a posture of heightened readiness above standard steaming. This has the benefit that whatever happens, I am prepared to respond, and if anything nasty happens, the people working for me are in their best possible places to be protected, and to be rescued if they're harmed. From what I've seen so far, that seems to be relatively close to what took place, though I'm not sure they went so far as to actually initiate General Quarters, and I'm not sure what state of readiness they were in before the incident began, they might well already have been in a heightened state and going to General Quarters might be redundant.


Thankyou for that comment. I have wondered about how the Captain should have responded if the Iranians were dumping boxes in front of the ship.

I wouldn't want to be the Captain who discovers, by having his ship damaged and crew members killed or injured, that the Iranians have a new weapon that no-one knew about. On the other hand I wouldn't want to be the Captain who starts a shooting war because an Iranian dumped a harmless box in front of my vessel.

[Darth Rotor]

I take this as an admission of guilt. Do you have an alibi?

;)
Yes, I was at work, and my coworkers could vouch for me if push came to shove.

The temptation to pull shennanigans over the radio was, now and again, not resistable, with the predictable result that I now and again got into a bit of hot water over my unorthodox transmissions.

Something about giving some people a mic, they think they are on stage . . . ;)

DR

[Ravenwood]

Why do you assume it's a "suicide speedboat"? Iran hasn't had suicide terrorists. Ever.

Because there was doubt that a small, fast boat could do damage to a destroyer. I simply pointed out that small,fast boats can & have been used as weapons against military vessels before, & to ignore the possibility is folly.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2136638.html
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3118456,00.html

[Matteo Martini]

All that, but... Why is America posturing for war with Iran?

Maybe for the same reason they attacked Iraq.
The three letter word (O.I.L.)

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Maybe for the same reason they attacked Iraq.
The three letter word (O.I.L.)

I think the correct word would be: hegemony