Iranian speedboats threaten US ships.

[caslav.ilic]

[...] I think it is obvious that those boats were trying to provoke a response or at least harass. It caused the ships to deviate from their course. If they continue to harass warships in this way, what do you suggest should be done [...]

It's very obvious what the American authorities should do then: point at the international laws that the harassing vessels are breaking, provide evidence to support those claims, and propose a resolution on the UN Security Council giving any nation's warships in international waters near Strait of Hormuz legal right to an exclusion zone, for a certain period of time. Or something to that effect, such things are always heavily haggled.

Alternatively, if the American government perceives the harassment too impeding and processing in the UN SC too slow, it can declare war on Iran, which would automatically allow exclusion zones under wartime rules (e.g. similar to that declared by the British during the Falklands affair).

--
Chusslove Illich (Часлав Илић)

 

[kyleb]

.. but why would unmarked Iranian gun boats bluff an attack on a Navy squadron?

Do you see any guns on anything but our own Navy's boats in the video they released?

I doubt there is any law specifically. In other words it's at the descretion of the acting captain of the vessel to determine if he is threatened and within his authority to defend his crew as is necessary.

Yet, by virtue of the fact that no harm came to the ships or their crews, it is obvious that blowing those boats out of the water would have been completely unnecessary.

 

[Gokul43201]

Would there be any action (committed by a threatening adversary) after which it would be justifiable for a Navy ship to take out the entity posing the threat? If not, or until that level of threat is reached, what protective measures would be considered justifiable?

 

[caslav.ilic]

Would there be any action (committed by a threatening adversary) after which it would be justifiable for a Navy ship to take out the entity posing the threat? [...]

Being fired upon: either after taking damage, or by positively determining the launch platform of incoming missiles or torpedos. Assisting another vessel under same duress. Attempt at ramming, attempt at boarding.

[...] If not, or until that level of threat is reached, what protective measures would be considered justifiable?

Deploying anti-missile chaff and torpedo decoys. Passive radar spoofing, active electronic jamming. Calling in other deterents, such as aircraft from a nearby carrier to harras in return (low passes, sound booms).

Turning the tail and steaming away at full speed is perfectly fine as well.

--
Chusslove Illich (Часлав Илић)

 

[russ_watters]

Check the US Navy links that I quoted when making the statement (after Gokul43201 pointed to them few posts above).

My first impression of the report was that of small enclosed boats with a single MG mount on the front deck, but the photos clearly show them to be unarmed, with crews in plain view of the warships.

Looks like we both saw the mixed, loose wording of the media and assumed different things. You were right - I saw the video today. The picture in the link I posted was a stock photo and was wrong for the incident.

Regardless, this doesn't change the nature of the three facts of the situation I posted. It just makes it a Cole-type situation instead of a Stark (with boats, not a plane) type situation. In some ways, a Cole situation is more difficult because you don't really know if or how heavily the boats are armed.

One of those, however, is not certain - it is not easy to tell if the voice heard over the radio was coming from one of the boats or from a hoaxster on land. But since the crew couldn't know the answer, they would have to assume for their own safety that the threat was coming from the boats.

 

[russ_watters]

Mmmm so it boils down to no you can't support your claim that Iran acted illegally. Why not just admit you made that up to lend false legitimacy to your argument?

The video speaks for itself. Art, as others noted, your hypocrisy and attempt at deception are clear.

 

[russ_watters]

Do you also not care if our government fabricated claims to the contrary?

Seems you can if you want, or at least I've yet to see any law agaisnt it.

No, kyleb, the point is that the boats are reported to have made three overtly hostile actions, and trying to poke holes in one to shoot down the entire scenario is a smoke screen. Any one on its own is worthy of defensive action by the US Navy. The Iranians here just either got lucky or knew just how far they could push their luck before turning back. According to the American account, the American ships were preparing to fire before the boats turned away.

 

[russ_watters]

Being fired upon: either after taking damage, or by positively determining the launch platform of incoming missiles or torpedos. Assisting another vessel under same duress. Attempt at ramming, attempt at boarding.

I doubt there is any law specifically. In other words it's at the descretion of the acting captain of the vessel to determine if he is threatened and within his authority to defend his crew as is necessary.

I was in the Navy. After the USS Cole was hit, the US published rules of approach for boats/ships that included a 100 yd exclusion zone where entering that zone could result in immediate defensive action. The Cole incident demonstrated that merely approaching a Navy ship could be a hostile action.

Similar rules apply to police, by the way. If you approach a police officer and don't respond to requests to stand down, they are allowed to take measures to protect themselves. You don't have to have a weapon and you don't have to attempt to hit them. The proximity itself is enough evidence that you are a threat.

I'll see if I can find a copy of the rules or the notice...

 

[f95toli]

It seems Iran is now claiming that the video is fake.
While I don't think anyone seriously belives this, it does support the theory that this was the work of a local republican guard commander. It is difficult to see why Teheran would continue to downplay the importance of this event (even in their national media) if the orders came from the top and they really meant for it to be conceived as a threat.

 

[russ_watters]

I'll see if I can find a copy of the rules or the notice...

I'm still looking for the applicable one, but here is an example of a British one:

LOCAL NOTICE TO MARINERS
No 40/05

The Queen's Harbour Master Portsmouth hereby gives notice of the following Direction hereby made under schedule 2 paragraph 5 to the Dockyard Port of Portsmouth Order 2005 (“the 2005 Order”) for the proper protection of HM’s vessels and property, namely, the protection and security of warships underway within the Dockyard Port of Portsmouth (DPP) by the imposition of an exclusion zone of up to 250m radius around such warships.

Vessels which enter the exclusion zone will, after being warned by at least two of the following methods; radio, flashing light, and voice, be deemed to have the intention of committing a hostile act against the warship being escorted.

http://www.qhmportsmouth.com/holding-lntm/?action=view&id=61

So after ignoring a warning, a boat's very presence inside the exclusion zone is deemed a hostile act.

 

[russ_watters]

It seems Iran is now claiming that the video is fake.
While I don't think anyone seriously belives this, it does support the theory that this was the work of a local republican guard commander. It is difficult to see why Teheran would continue to downplay the importance of this event (even in their national media) if the orders came from the top and they really meant for it to be conceived as a threat.

Well if you remember from last year when they siezed a group of British sailors, claiming the other side is lying and downplaying the incident is their standar operating procedure. The reason why they would downplay the importance of the event is that it is a way to avoid admitting wrongdoing. That's how criminals act.

 

[Evo]

This thread is not progressing.