Bush Castigates Iran, Calling Naval Confrontation ‘Provocative Act’

[Gunny]

Okay. I don’t know ship hull thickness and weapon power. My principle still applies but I’ll change the numbers. Wow! 1000 feet seem to be very far away. I’d give the first warning at 600 feet, the second warning at 500 feet, and shoot them at 400 feet.

Damn matts ... he just explained where you cannot do that. Their attack would succeed if you wait until that boat is at 400 feet. I don't know of ANY Naval officer I ever met that would let a possible antagonist approach that close.

I really think you aren't appreciating the situation fully.

 

[Gunny]

"Bush Castigates Iran, Calling Naval Confrontation ‘Provocative Act’


More fear-mongering, war mongering, assumptions, and exaggerated threats, evidently

More obfuscation from DeadCanDance, evidently.

 

[CSM]

Damn matts ... he just explained where you cannot do that. Their attack would succeed if you wait until that boat is at 400 feet. I don't know of ANY Naval officer I ever met that would let a possible antagonist approach that close.

I really think you aren't appreciating the situation fully.

Truly, MK is what I believe representative of much of the population of this country. I do not believe that in this case MK is trying to be decietful; he just does not truly understand the situation or the realities involved. Yet he is more than willing to pass judgement and criticize others based on conjecture which is just plain wrong. I fully realize that we all engage in this at one time or another but in this particular case (setting rules of engagement) lives are at stake.

I also find it ironic that had the current administration set the rules of engagement as some have outlined in this thread (the US ship could not fire until the attackers approached within less than 40 feet), some posters on this board would be calling Bush an idiot/moron etc. Along those same lines, it is easy to make judgement calls after the fact and from the safety of your own little world. Further, it is apparent that some who make these judgement calls have never held the responsibility for other's lives. That alone most certainly has (or should have!) a huge impact on determining a coursee of action when under attack.

 

[Warner]

I am admittedly no explosives expert but I seem to remember that for 50 pounds of C-4 or SEMTEX, the "safe" distance is around 1100 feet. For a charge over 500 pounds, the safe distance is something like 300 feet times the cubed root of the number of pounds of explosives.

Well yes, but that is for someone totally exposed on the ground. To damage a destroyer class ship would require even a 500 lbs charge to detonate very close to the ship. If a warning is given at 1000 feet and is heeded the enemy boat would probably still come within less than 800 feet, it takes time to reverse course. If it was not heeded, then it would probably come within about 500 feet before the destroyer actually destroyed it.

The reason why I selected 1000 feet is it gives enough decision response time to have 100% confidence in destroying the boat before it gets within 250 feet or so, which is close enough to launch a special weapon. In this case a "special weapon" would be something like a giant RPG built into the structure a boat intended as a suicide. If the boats road in the water in such a way to make the commander believe they might house a torpedo the minimum distances would be greater.

Distances also depend somewhat on the speed of the boat and its heading. I'm talking about the boat being at high speed and headed toward the destroyer. Also there have to be realistic considerations. Yes a boat that is carrying a significant amount of high explosive (probably RDX) and appropriate casing might kill a sailor two even given the above distances, but that is a risk you kind of have to take. Otherwise, you'd have to blow up the boats out past 2000 feet which is sniper range.

 

[Annie]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but in a general sense, the captain would not want to wait until the last meter is crossed before deciding to take action? Not saying they should be trigger happy, but IMO 'erring on the side of caution' should be regarding the ship, not the potential threat?

 

[eots]

can you say.... "tonkin"

 

[onedomino]

can you say.... "tonkin"

No, but we can say "idiot."

 

[Annie]

No, but we can say "idiot."

or tinfoil or ewwww, a shower is needed!

 

[eots]

Can You Say Baaa ! Baaaa !

 

[Lookout]

Well yes, but that is for someone totally exposed on the ground. To damage a destroyer class ship would require even a 500 lbs charge to detonate very close to the ship. If a warning is given at 1000 feet and is heeded the enemy boat would probably still come within less than 800 feet, it takes time to reverse course. If it was not heeded, then it would probably come within about 500 feet before the destroyer actually destroyed it.

The reason why I selected 1000 feet is it gives enough decision response time to have 100% confidence in destroying the boat before it gets within 250 feet or so, which is close enough to launch a special weapon. In this case a "special weapon" would be something like a giant RPG built into the structure a boat intended as a suicide. If the boats road in the water in such a way to make the commander believe they might house a torpedo the minimum distances would be greater.

Distances also depend somewhat on the speed of the boat and its heading. I'm talking about the boat being at high speed and headed toward the destroyer. Also there have to be realistic considerations. Yes a boat that is carrying a significant amount of high explosive (probably RDX) and appropriate casing might kill a sailor two even given the above distances, but that is a risk you kind of have to take. Otherwise, you'd have to blow up the boats out past 2000 feet which is sniper range.

The Iranians knew exactly what they were doing. Given the light of past events and how close they were...This is what should have happened.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY6nm-6eCzM&NR=1[/ame]

 

[CSM]

Well yes, but that is for someone totally exposed on the ground. To damage a destroyer class ship would require even a 500 lbs charge to detonate very close to the ship. If a warning is given at 1000 feet and is heeded the enemy boat would probably still come within less than 800 feet, it takes time to reverse course. If it was not heeded, then it would probably come within about 500 feet before the destroyer actually destroyed it.

The reason why I selected 1000 feet is it gives enough decision response time to have 100% confidence in destroying the boat before it gets within 250 feet or so, which is close enough to launch a special weapon. In this case a "special weapon" would be something like a giant RPG built into the structure a boat intended as a suicide. If the boats road in the water in such a way to make the commander believe they might house a torpedo the minimum distances would be greater.

Distances also depend somewhat on the speed of the boat and its heading. I'm talking about the boat being at high speed and headed toward the destroyer. Also there have to be realistic considerations. Yes a boat that is carrying a significant amount of high explosive (probably RDX) and appropriate casing might kill a sailor two even given the above distances, but that is a risk you kind of have to take. Otherwise, you'd have to blow up the boats out past 2000 feet which is sniper range.

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.

 

[Taomon]

The Iranians knew exactly what they were doing. Given the light of past events and how close they were...This is what should have happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY6nm-6eCzM&NR=1

So you have faith that our military will always make the correct moral and ethical choice? Those boats were not a threat to our Naval ships. The whole thing is a farce and was created to garnish support for a third war theater.

I remember Rumsfeld bragging back in early 2001 that our military could be involved in three simultaneous war theaters and still protect the nation. I guess this will be put to the test, whether it is right or wrong.

And by the way, it is wrong. Our actions in Afghanistan have allowed al Qaeda to escape while we kill/bomb civilians...and allow the poppy trade to flourish again.

But that is part of the plan; without a shadowy enemy like al Qaeda the state cannot clamp down on dissent here, eliminate liberty, and create a closed society.

The CIA needs that extra money that drug trafficking provided so the poppy fields must stay - according to them. Never mind that America suffers from those powerful addictive derivatives of the poppy plant.

 

[Lookout]

So you have faith that our military will always make the correct moral and ethical choice? Those boats were not a threat to our Naval ships. The whole thing is a farce and was created to garnish support for a third war theater.

I remember Rumsfeld bragging back in early 2001 that our military could be involved in three simultaneous war theaters and still protect the nation. I guess this will be put to the test, whether it is right or wrong.

And by the way, it is wrong. Our actions in Afghanistan have allowed al Qaeda to escape while we kill/bomb civilians...and allow the poppy trade to flourish again.

But that is part of the plan; without a shadowy enemy like al Qaeda the state cannot clamp down on dissent here, eliminate liberty, and create a closed society.

The CIA needs that extra money that drug trafficking provided so the poppy fields must stay - according to them. Never mind that America suffers from those powerful addictive derivatives of the poppy plant.

I don't have faith in anyone doing anything for the right reason. There is no morality when it comes to defending our ships in international waters against terrorists. We are at war. Taunting our ships was an act of aggression. It isn't like we would be killing some innocent children if we took em out. In San Francisco, a tiger just killed a teen because he was drunk and taunting it...He got what he deserved. O K for a tiger but not O K for our war ships defending our assets? As far as the poppies, our government has been using drug trafficing for a long time to fund wars. Why do you think W. just recently opened up the trade routs to Peru? In a month or two the U.S. will be inundated with Cocaine...AGAIN! Same thing his daddy did. Vietnam was no different. WWII had its influence of sugar and alcohol. I love the U.S.A. This is a great country. The people running it are what needs to change. We could end the fighting in afg. iraq and everywhere else we are real quick, but we don't. Why, because its big money. An all out offensive starting with a draft like WWII and in a year or two its all over. I really have no rabbit in this race. I believe mankind is a stupid animal that will eventually exterminate itself. I'm just sitting back watching it happen. Its comming soon. WWIII is going to happen...YAHOOOOO!!!! What a show that will be!!!! An hour after it starts, I'm not here to care, and I get to go see my maker...Win Win for me...C-mon ICBM'S...YEEE-EE_HAAAW!!!!! THe best thing mankind has managed to accomplish in its very short time of its existance is figure out every conceivable way to kill its own species. Wow, aren't we R E A L bright?

 

[Taomon]

I don't have faith in anyone doing anything for the right reason. There is no morality when it comes to defending our ships in international waters against terrorists. We are at war. Taunting our ships was an act of aggression. It isn't like we would be killing some innocent children if we took em out. In San Francisco, a tiger just killed a teen because he was drunk and taunting it...He got what he deserved. O K for a tiger but not O K for our war ships defending our assets? As far as the poppies, our government has been using drug trafficing for a long time to fund wars. Why do you think W. just recently opened up the trade routs to Peru? In a month or two the U.S. will be inundated with Cocaine...AGAIN! Same thing his daddy did. Vietnam was no different. WWII had its influence of sugar and alcohol. I love the U.S.A. This is a great country. The people running it are what needs to change. We could end the fighting in afg. iraq and everywhere else we are real quick, but we don't. Why, because its big money. An all out offensive starting with a draft like WWII and in a year or two its all over. I really have no rabbit in this race. I believe mankind is a stupid animal that will eventually exterminate itself. I'm just sitting back watching it happen. Its comming soon. WWIII is going to happen...YAHOOOOO!!!! What a show that will be!!!! An hour after it starts, I'm not here to care, and I get to go see my maker...Win Win for me...C-mon ICBM'S...YEEE-EE_HAAAW!!!!! THe best thing mankind has managed to accomplish in its very short time of its existance is figure out every conceivable way to kill its own species. Wow, aren't we R E A L bright?

And you cannot prove that Iran actually taunted our ships and that is the fucking point.

 

[doniston]

I don't have faith in anyone doing anything for the right reason. There is no morality when it comes to defending our ships in international waters against terrorists. We are at war. Taunting our ships was an act of aggression. It isn't like we would be killing some innocent children if we took em out. In San Francisco, a tiger just killed a teen because he was drunk and taunting it...He got what he deserved. O K for a tiger but not O K for our war ships defending our assets? As far as the poppies, our government has been using drug trafficing for a long time to fund wars. Why do you think W. just recently opened up the trade routs to Peru? In a month or two the U.S. will be inundated with Cocaine...AGAIN! Same thing his daddy did. Vietnam was no different. WWII had its influence of sugar and alcohol. I love the U.S.A. This is a great country. The people running it are what needs to change. We could end the fighting in afg. iraq and everywhere else we are real quick, but we don't. Why, because its big money. An all out offensive starting with a draft like WWII and in a year or two its all over. I really have no rabbit in this race. I believe mankind is a stupid animal that will eventually exterminate itself. I'm just sitting back watching it happen. Its comming soon. WWIII is going to happen...YAHOOOOO!!!! What a show that will be!!!! An hour after it starts, I'm not here to care, and I get to go see my maker...Win Win for me...C-mon ICBM'S...YEEE-EE_HAAAW!!!!! THe best thing mankind has managed to accomplish in its very short time of its existance is figure out every conceivable way to kill its own species. Wow, aren't we R E A L bright?

And this whole thread has been propogated by the actions of persons who quite likely were nao a part of the Iranian Government nor were their actions approved by said government.

If I am wrong, PROVE IT.

 

[Gunny]

And you cannot prove that Iran actually taunted our ships and that is the fucking point.

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.

I am curious as to why you are so willing to give the Iranians such a benefit of doubt but with no evidence whatsoever make this statement:

So you have faith that our military will always make the correct moral and ethical choice? Those boats were not a threat to our Naval ships. The whole thing is a farce and was created to garnish support for a third war theater.

Presumed guilt for the assumed motives of US forces.

There is NO moral and ethical choice under the conditions presented. It is purely tactical between to armed vessels of war.

The boats ARE indeed a threat to US warships. The are ships of war manned by military personnel of a nation hostile to the US.

Since the entire event is documented fact, it is hardly a farce.

 

[Gunny]

And this whole thread has been propogated by the actions of persons who quite likely were nao a part of the Iranian Government nor were their actions approved by said government.

If I am wrong, PROVE IT.

They were vessels of the Iranian Navy. The Iranian Navy is the maritime force projection of the Iranian government. What more proof do you need? An I Iranian squid with a sign that says "the Iranian Navy is part of the Iranian Government"?

 

[Taomon]

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.

I am curious as to why you are so willing to give the Iranians such a benefit of doubt but with no evidence whatsoever make this statement:



Presumed guilt for the assumed motives of US forces.

There is NO moral and ethical choice under the conditions presented. It is purely tactical between to armed vessels of war.

The boats ARE indeed a threat to US warships. The are ships of war manned by military personnel of a nation hostile to the US.

Since the entire event is documented fact, it is hardly a farce.

So when we use that as evidence to invade Iran, I should not qusetion it? Especially since the military and the Bush administration both have no reputation for lying in order to commit acts of aggression?

 

[Gunny]

So when we use that as evidence to invade Iran, I should not qusetion it? Especially since the military and the Bush administration both have no reputation for lying in order to commit acts of aggression?

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.

 

[Taomon]

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.

Fair enough