Iranian speedboats threaten US ships.

  • News
  • Thread starter drankin
  • Start date
  • #1
drankin

Main Question or Discussion Point

These boys in the speedboats just about got themselves lit up:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,320587,00.html"

I believe the US showed a fair bit of constraint in this situation. It looks to me like they had the right to take out those speedboats but didn't. What would have been the repercuttion had they either side fired?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
russ_watters
Mentor
19,660
5,932
The US is in a position where even justafiable action will have negative repercussions, so it is probably good that nothing happened. For a nation already considered a rogue that has no respect for human life, there really is no downside to messing with the bull. This isn't the first time the Iranian's have risked being lit up and won't be the last.
 
  • #3
chemisttree
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
3,399
427
They (Iranians) were just asking for directions to the Gulf of Tonkin.
 
  • #4
2,985
15
They (Iranians) were just asking for directions to the Gulf of Tonkin.
:rofl: Thats hilarious!

Reading the story, I would have sunk those boats w/o hesistation.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
berkeman
Mentor
57,446
7,468
I believe the US showed a fair bit of constraint in this situation.
Funny typo. I think you meant "restraint". Or maybe not.... :rolleyes: "Constraint" is applicable in a way too, unfortunately.
 
  • #6
drankin
You are right, I meant restraint.

I too would have sunk those boats. They had transmitted to the US ships something along the lines of, "prepare to explode", as they were rushing towards the ships. Wacky. They were probably trying to draw fire and create a "situation".
 
  • #7
devil-fire
The US is in a position where even justafiable action will have negative repercussions, so it is probably good that nothing happened. For a nation already considered a rogue that has no respect for human life, there really is no downside to messing with the bull. This isn't the first time the Iranian's have risked being lit up and won't be the last.
I think there would be a huge downside for the Iran Revolutionary Guard if they attacked an American ship. I think the leaders of the organization would at least be put on assassination lists and it would be used as an object of justification for forceful regime change. I would expect at least a few buildings would be blown up as well.

btw, what does considering Iran to be a rogue nation and having no respect for human life have to do with the down sides of attacking American ships?
 
  • #8
devil-fire
You are right, I meant restraint.

I too would have sunk those boats. They had transmitted to the US ships something along the lines of, "prepare to explode", as they were rushing towards the ships. Wacky. They were probably trying to draw fire and create a "situation".
the speed boats might have been referring to being exploded on, as in shot at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BB61_USS_Iowa_BB61_broadside_USN.jpg . what would go a long way in making judgment would be an audio recording of the radio transmissions. if the IRG was conducting some sort of military exercise and didn't speak english, this would take on a different light in my view
 
  • #9
berkeman
Mentor
57,446
7,468
the speed boats might have been referring to being exploded on, as in shot at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BB61_USS_Iowa_BB61_broadside_USN.jpg . what would go a long way in making judgment would be an audio recording of the radio transmissions. if the IRG was conducting some sort of military exercise and didn't speak english, this would take on a different light in my view
from the link in the OP:
The incident lasted less than 30 minutes, Vice Adm. Kevin J. Cosgriff, commander of the the 5th fleet, told reporters Monday.

"At one point during this encounter ... the ships received a radio call that was threatening in nature to the effect that they were closing our ships and that ... the U.S. ships would explode," Cosgriff said, speaking via video camera from Bahrain.
But you're correct, it would be good to hear the audio recording of the radio traffic. Hopefully the Navy will post that up soon.
 
  • #10
740
13
These boys in the speedboats just about got themselves lit up:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,320587,00.html"

I believe the US showed a fair bit of constraint in this situation. It looks to me like they had the right to take out those speedboats but didn't. What would have been the repercuttion had they either side fired?
This is the biggest load of **** I read today. Their argument only makes any sense if you first assume that the USA owns the world. The US navy ships are in Iran's version of Chesapeake Bay, & the Americans are the ones who are complaining!? **** em!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
devil-fire
from the link in the OP:


But you're correct, it would be good to hear the audio recording of the radio traffic. Hopefully the Navy will post that up soon.
i dont know where they would release something like that though. would the US navy give a recording to FOX who would put it up as a follow-up to this story?
 
  • #12
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
....They had transmitted to the US ships something along the lines of, "prepare to explode", as they were rushing towards the ships. Wacky.
I think its kinda of cute, and I intend to use 'prepare to explode' in all of my harder fought future discussions. Indeed, PF should add a 'prepare to explode' Smilie to the editor.
 
  • #13
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
This is the biggest load of **** I read today. Their argument only makes any sense if you first assume that the USA owns the world. The US navy ships are in Iran's version of Chesapeake Bay, & the Americans are the ones who are complaining!? **** em!
Fourier, Jr:
An Englishman, a Canadian and an American were captured by terrorists.
The terrorist leader said, "Before we shoot you, you will be allowed last words. Please let me know what you wish to talk about."
The Englishman replied, "I wish to speak of loyalty and service to the crown."
The Canadian replied, "Since you are involved in a question of national purpose, national identity, and secession, I wish to talk about the history of constitutional process in Canada, special status, distinct society and uniqueness within diversity."
The American replied, "Just shoot me before the Canadian starts talking."
 
  • #14
russ_watters
Mentor
19,660
5,932
I think there would be a huge downside for the Iran Revolutionary Guard if they attacked an American ship. I think the leaders of the organization would at least be put on assassination lists and it would be used as an object of justification for forceful regime change. I would expect at least a few buildings would be blown up as well.
I don't follow. What would cause those negative repercussions?
btw, what does considering Iran to be a rogue nation and having no respect for human life have to do with the down sides of attacking American ships?
The fact that Iran is already considered a rogue nation means that behaving like a rogue nation won't reduce their status.
 
  • #15
russ_watters
Mentor
19,660
5,932
This is the biggest load of **** I read today. Their argument only makes any sense if you first assume that the USA owns the world. The US navy ships are in Iran's version of Chesapeake Bay, & the Americans are the ones who are complaining!? **** em!
Not correct. The Chesapeake Bay is inland. The Persian Gulf is only bordered by Iran on one side. Iran doesn't own it. The incident took place in international waters.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
2,985
15
This is the biggest load of **** I read today. Their argument only makes any sense if you first assume that the USA owns the world. The US navy ships are in Iran's version of Chesapeake Bay, & the Americans are the ones who are complaining!? **** em!
Well, im Iranian, and even to my ears what you said sounds like a load of crap. Hah...

Right, speed boats can run up to a war ship in international waters, but big bad uncle sam owns the world. Oh, brother. I would have sunk those speed boats to the bottom of the caspian sea.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
740
13
That is correct. This can only be considered "news" if one takes for granted that the US owns the world. The US complaining about being harassed (assuming the US media/government's appraisal of the incident is accurate) by Iranians off the coast of Iran is like the US complaining about Iran supporting militants in Iraq. One has to take for granted that the US owns the world, otherwise there would be nothing to complain about. What would the reaction be in Washington be if Iran had been threatening the US for years & then sent their navy ships past the east coast?
 
  • #18
drankin
Like I said, I'd have sunk em.
 
  • #19
2,985
15
Iran can send their ships anywhere they want to in international waters. Soviets used to fly very close to the US in international airspace and were escorted by F-4 phantoms.

What are you getting at fourier jr. Is the US not allowed to sail in international waters now?
 
  • #20
drankin
The point is, speedboats with machine guns mounted on them speeding toward a warship unannounced in international waters is seen by any reasonable person as a threatening act, if not utterly stupid. Any of those ships would have surely blown the speedboats out of the water had they continued their course close enough that they might cause damage. And they would have been completely justified.

The US ships would use something like what we see here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuafaALL4l4"

It would be messy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
kroni3us
That is correct. This can only be considered "news" if one takes for granted that the US owns the world. The US complaining about being harassed (assuming the US media/government's appraisal of the incident is accurate) by Iranians off the coast of Iran is like the US complaining about Iran supporting militants in Iraq. One has to take for granted that the US owns the world, otherwise there would be nothing to complain about. What would the reaction be in Washington be if Iran had been threatening the US for years & then sent their navy ships past the east coast?
Mr Fourier, We (the US) were not "complaining" I think the Officers were being very calm and showed restraint as to not blowing them out of the water ,which could have happend within seconds ,by the way. We obviously didnt want to create an international crises, but would have done anything to protect our sailors in INTERNATIONAL waters.
Now that being said the Russian military has been maneuvering off the american coast in submarines and ships for years. Look If you want IRAN or any other Radical Terrorist Supporting Regime to have nuclear weapons that is your purogative. Thank god you live in Canada, we have enough Liberal anti americans here. Now how many countries in all the world wars have the USA actually taken over, and kept. The only land we have ever asked for was to bury our dead. Also its a known fact that Islamic terrorist want to turn the world into a muslim world and will not stop until they succeed or are dead, so be careful what you wish for or what side you are on. its just a matter of time.
 
  • #22
russ_watters
Mentor
19,660
5,932
That is correct. This can only be considered "news" if one takes for granted that the US owns the world. The US complaining about being harassed (assuming the US media/government's appraisal of the incident is accurate) by Iranians off the coast of Iran is like the US complaining about Iran supporting militants in Iraq. One has to take for granted that the US owns the world, otherwise there would be nothing to complain about.
That's just rediculous. Both are illegal actions by Iran!
What would the reaction be in Washington be if Iran had been threatening the US for years & then sent their navy ships past the east coast?
Iran is more than welcome to operate their ships in international waters off the coast of the US. As others pointed out, many countries do (and the US operates peacefully off the coast of many of our adversaries). The US does not overtly threaten ships in international waters.

You guys are acting pretty irrational here. This is a clear-cut situation.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
russ_watters
Mentor
19,660
5,932
Like I said, I'd have sunk em.
Legally, the American ships would have been perfectly justified in doing so. But as you can see, even doing nothing while Iran's navy does illegal things produces a negative reaction against the US! The absurdity is overwhealming.
 
  • #24
russ_watters
Mentor
19,660
5,932
The US ships would use something like what we see here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuafaALL4l4"
I've got some great vids from my time in the Navy I should post on YouTube. Lots of gun shoots, missile firings, and I even edited and set a bunch of flyovers to music.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
devil-fire
I don't follow. What would cause those negative repercussions? The fact that Iran is already considered a rogue nation means that behaving like a rogue nation won't reduce their status.
'what would cause those negative repercussions?'- if a US navy ship was attacked, it would have drawn a violent reaction to iran.

'The fact that Iran is already considered a rogue nation means that behaving like a rogue nation won't reduce their status'- i dont know what protections you envision "rogue nation" status offers iran while attacking an american ship in international waters, but i dont think it offers any. attacking a US ship would also draw a lot of scorn from china and the rest of the international community whom would be pressured to withdraw support and protection from a violently assertive nation.
 

Related Threads on Iranian speedboats threaten US ships.

  • Last Post
3
Replies
55
Views
8K
  • Last Post
10
Replies
232
Views
20K
Replies
3
Views
854
  • Last Post
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
21
Views
2K
Top