Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If this is used as evidence to invade Iran, *I* will question it.
There is no proof that Bush lied or he'd have been impeached for it. The military as an organization does not lie in order to commit acts of aggression. The military carries out the policies of the government.
Individual military persons who commit individual acts of aggression and lie about it are punished by law for doing so BY the military and are not representative of the military as a whole.
And you cannot prove that Iran actually taunted our ships and that is the fucking point.
Im not big into bizarre conspiracies. Yet, Ive learned to not take everything that our government or our military says as absolute truth. I take it with a grain of salt. Check out the U-2 incident and I think that you will understand what I mean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-2_Crisis_of_1960
NOOO!!!! The "FUCKING POINT" is, I don't give a damn about some stupid terrorists being within 5000 yards of our ships for any reason. The end is comming so lets quit pussyfooting around with it. Fuck political correctness and the evil black horse that drug it to this planet! Kill em all, let GOD sort em out!!! watch my avatar.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Fals...itchcraft/origin_of_the_satanic_hand_sign.htm
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Wicca & Witchcraft/signs_of_satan.htm
NOOO!!!! The "FUCKING POINT" is, I don't give a damn about some stupid terrorists being within 5000 yards of our ships for any reason. The end is comming so lets quit pussyfooting around with it. Fuck political correctness and the evil black horse that drug it to this planet! Kill em all, let GOD sort em out!!! watch my avatar.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Fals...itchcraft/origin_of_the_satanic_hand_sign.htm
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Wicca & Witchcraft/signs_of_satan.htm
Again, you have no idea of what you are talking about. Have you ever seen any type of explosives in action?
I also find it interesting that you are willing to risk a "sailor or two" (US sailors) for the sake of a boatload of terrorists.
I am not suggesting taking everything our government says as truth. After all, it is comprised of politicians. The military in and of itself has no public voice as far as policy goes. The government is the voice of the military and makes policy and the military carries it out.
Doesnt the military, along with other organizations, give information (correct information or incorrect information) to the president? Then, doesnt the president act based, in some degree, on what information he is given?
Isnt that the very point made by the pro-Bush as they explain that Bush did not lie about Iraq and WMD. He was simply given incorrect or incomplete information. Well, the military provides information to the president too and the president makes decision based on what information he receives. Therefore, to some degree and indirectly, the military does have a voice, as small as it may be.
Again, you have no idea of what you are talking about. Have you ever seen any type of explosives in action?
I also find it interesting that you are willing to risk a "sailor or two" (US sailors) for the sake of a boatload of terrorists.
The Iranian gunboats ALWAYS have taunted our ships, and I have seen it firsthand. I would say any other Marine of Sailor on this board who has gone through the Strait of Hormuz will tell you the same.
As far as I know, and as far as the fact show, they were sailors of the iranian navy...not terrorists.
We don't know exactly what happend, but the facts suggest the boats weren't armed, and the mysterious voice on the radio was possibly not even coming from the boats, but from somebody on shore. Navy Times has a good article which says that for decades there's been kooks and cranks on the radio frequencies in the gulf that say all kinds of crazy crap.
I hope you didn't spend too much time on your response, it being so well-thought-out and all ....
Again, you have no idea of what you are talking about. Have you ever seen any type of explosives in action?
I also find it interesting that you are willing to risk a "sailor or two" (US sailors) for the sake of a boatload of terrorists.
Have you? I experienced a road side bomb attack about 2 and a half years ago.
30 years Army ...retired 4 years ago....left a few body parts in SE Asia.
We opt to take risk any time we go into hostile territory. I don't like such a risk, but where are you going to draw the line? If you insist on 100% safety for our sailors that means they pretty much cannot operate in the strait at all.
No one is asking for or insisting on 100% safety for anyone.
Whatever minimum distance we require we have to live with as well, so to me 1000 feet seems suitable. The sailors should be wearing body armor and helmets, so the chances of being killed by a suicide boat with an HE load (couldn't be all that much given the way the boats road in the water) at 800 feet or so are reasonably small.
The whole point is that the captain of that vessel has should be abiding by the ROE as well as his own personal judgement. He is responsible for the safety of his command and has to determine what is acceptable risk. It is his call....
I have agreed that ~1000 feet is reasonable....60 feet is not. Especially that inside a certain radius, that vessel could not depress its guns to defend itself. That too has to be a consideration in the commander's decision making process.
By the way, the boats could just as easily have been carrying a load of HE equivalent to the weight of two men (lets say 300 lbs.) and rode as you saw in the videos.
Again, the point is such decisions are up to the commander on the scene and not some armchair wannabe who has never had the responsibility or training to make such judgements.
I agree. However, if he makes the wrong call and shoots the boats when they are too far out, or fails to shoot them until they are too close, his ass is grass. That's the way things work for CO's in the military.
I agree 300 lbs of HE might be onboard such a boat. But I don't think 300 lbs of HE detonating on the water at, say, 500' from the DD would pose much of a risk. In order for it to pose a substantial risk to sailors on the rails of the DD it would require some kind of casing, such as 1/4" steel/iron, and that would be quite heavy.
HE in and of itself is devastating within its expansion radius (~1000 x HE volume), nasty for about another 2x-3x that radius due to the ss shock wave, and from there on out the damage potential drops off at the cube of the distance. To get any significant increase in the radius of effect you must include some kind of mass (or be able to recruit such from the blast point), such as a steel casing, to provide shrapnel. Also, HE effects detonated just above the water tend to be significantly attenuated because the downward half of the detonation simply displaces water, it does not shunt out sideways nor does it recruit damaging mass. You'd have to almost double the amount of HE to get the same effect as detonating it on land.
To do significant damage to a DD from 500' would take a hell of a lot of HE, probably several tons.
No argument from me on this but I would point out that the USS Cole was rendered combat ineffective by a small boat carrying a lot less than "several tons" of HE. Again, the poster was advocating that in his opinion the first warnig should be given at 60', the second at 40' and engagement at 20'. I submit that is beyond a reasonable expectation...and thus my comment regarding that poster.
