Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
d-usa wrote: I'm not a military person, so maybe some of our military members can educate me on this:
Is it normal for the US Navy to take two small unit CB90s that were designed for river and shallow water use and equipped with enhanced communication equipment and optical gear that make it particularly useful for night operations, and send them on a 200 mile journey that takes them far enough away from the coastal waters that it was designed for and close enough to an Iranian military base located in the middle of the gulf that it ended up drifting less than 12 miles from the coast when the mechanical malfunction happened?
Bro I'm going to need a properly formatted cite that they had that enhanced equipment, that they were less than 12 miles away, that they were military, that they were American, and that they were actually in a boat.
sloppy posting FTL
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/13 04:22:39
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
d-usa wrote: I'm not a military person, so maybe some of our military members can educate me on this:
Is it normal for the US Navy to take two small unit CB90s that were designed for river and shallow water use and equipped with enhanced communication equipment and optical gear that make it particularly useful for night operations, and send them on a 200 mile journey that takes them far enough away from the coastal waters that it was designed for and close enough to an Iranian military base located in the middle of the gulf that it ended up drifting less than 12 miles from the coast when the mechanical malfunction happened?
A good friend of mine is a SWO who finished out his days with RIVRON 2. I asked him that very question. Wasn't something he ever did, but we were still around and relevant before the Iraq pullout, and he hasn't kept up with what Riverine's up to since he got out, so this could very well be what they do now. Coastal patrol would be something that falls within their capabilities. They're a new and bastardized organization, so mechanical faults are kinda par for the course.
Well it looks like the 'crisis' is over. Still a lot of unanswered questions that remain...unanswered.
Whenever I see incidents like this happening, so close to crucial treaties being implemented, I'm reminded of Eisenhower, the CIA, U2 spy planes, and a certain nuclear treaty.
Relapse wrote: How is a malfunctioning boat going anywhere, though? I 'd hate to be in the crew that signed off on the maintanence of that thing right now.
My question is; If there were two of the same type, why didn't they tow the broke one?
A very good point. Iran accused the sailors of being "unprofessional."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/13 10:56:07
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
d-usa wrote: Original Story: 4:43 p.m. EST — Officials said it was unclear whether the 10 American sailors on one of the boats had gone into Iranian waters before being captured
UPDATE: 4:45 p.m. EST — Secretary of State John Kerry called Iranian officials in Tehran Tuesday to explain that two U.S. Navy vessels had mistakenly strayed into Iranian territorial waters in the Persian Gulf
UPDATE: 5:50 p.m. EST — Two small U.S. Navy boats that were stopped by Iran Tuesday may have run out of gas or had mechanical problems when they drifted into Iranian territorial waters in the Persian Gulf
Yes, the article said it was unclear if they were, and after that there have been two updates reporting that it was clear that they were.
Washington (CNN)—Ten American sailors were being held in Iranian custody after two small U.S. naval craft entered Iranian territorial waters, defense officials said Tuesday.
The 10 American sailors aboard the small riverine vessels were on a training mission around noon ET when one of the boats may have experienced mechanical failure and drifted into Iranian-claimed waters, officials said..
Leaving aside your omissions of context again; Thank you for finally acknowledging what I have been saying - that the news reports are giving conflicting information as to where the boat was intercepted.
Ouze wrote: I can't realistically imagine patrol boats loaded with military personnel from any country drifting into a non-ally's coastal waters and not being briefly detained.
Briefly being the key word here, of course.
That is my view also, provided that it is finally established that the vessels were in fact in Iranian waters
Ouze wrote: Well, did you interview the principals yourself? I really can't trust you when you say "the news" without an APA citation.
Ouze wrote: Bro I'm going to need a properly formatted cite that they had that enhanced equipment, that they were less than 12 miles away, that they were military, that they were American, and that they were actually in a boat.
sloppy posting FTL
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/13 11:13:05
Not at all. Remember how peaceful the world was in the 1990s when the Soviet Union collapsed and America had no rivals for the top spot? I do, and I enjoyed that peace. History shows us that wars tend to happen when people think that the number one guy is no longer number one.
Germany sensed weakness in Britain pre-WW1 and pre-WW2.
You mean when the US was under attack from al Qaeda prior to 9/11, at war in Iraq, at war in Bosnia, in a dust-up in Somalia, in a dust-up in Haiti, and engaged with narcotics traffickers in South and Central America?
No, I fething well *don't* remember the peace of the 1990s, because it damned well wasn't peaceful.
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, this is interesting. Is Obama about to have his Jimmy Carter moment?
Despite the dozen or so times you've tried to make this analogy happen, the answer is still "no".
People think I'm trying to stir up a gak storm here, but a peaceful world is what I'm after.
If Iran is firing live ammunition near US ships, grabbing its sailors, and the US doesn't lift a finger in reply, then that will only embolden Iran to go further, which could lead to a serious situation. That's my concern.
Iran is about to have sanctions against it lifted = an increase in Iranian power and influence = Saudi Arabia, America's ally, annoyed and anxious.
The Saudis and Iran are already engaged in two proxy wars, and tensions between them are only likely to increase.
I've consistently argued that the best thing the USA could do is stay well clear of the Middle East - it'll only drag you down.
But America has chosen to stay, which is fair enough, but at the very least, it could start acting like it gives a damn, and it could start reassuring its allies by showing the Iranians who's boss, instead of acting in a half ass manner.
It's simple geo-politics. Like I said earlier, if America doesn't give a damn about its own military being menaced, then its allies will only concluded that they won't give two hoots for them.
That nobody in Washington sees this, is only cause for further concern.
Not at all. Remember how peaceful the world was in the 1990s when the Soviet Union collapsed and America had no rivals for the top spot? I do, and I enjoyed that peace. History shows us that wars tend to happen when people think that the number one guy is no longer number one.
Germany sensed weakness in Britain pre-WW1 and pre-WW2.
You mean when the US was under attack from al Qaeda prior to 9/11, at war in Iraq, at war in Bosnia, in a dust-up in Somalia, in a dust-up in Haiti, and engaged with narcotics traffickers in South and Central America?
No, I fething well *don't* remember the peace of the 1990s, because it damned well wasn't peaceful.
The world trade centre bombing, as bad as it was, was an isolated incident. Home grown terrorists were more of a threat to the USA.
The first gulf war showed quick, effective and decisive American action that nipped that situation in the bud.
Bosnia was a civil war, so can hardly be construed as a threat to the US or the world, and ended up being contained within Europe, so these are not valid comparisons IMO.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/13 11:32:13
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Desert storm was one of the the first time the US let loose with its entire arsenal as part of a massive coalition force of a scale not seen in decades. Thousands of tanks, Armour, artillery brigades and old fashioned Battleship 16 inch guns.
It was a real peak of US power. after that all seems downhill.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: People think I'm trying to stir up a gak storm here, but a peaceful world is what I'm after.
(snip)
But America has chosen to stay, which is fair enough, but at the very least, it could start acting like it gives a damn, and it could start reassuring its allies by showing the Iranians who's boss, instead of acting in a half ass manner.
I definitely believe you're using the US as a proxy in a pecker measuring contest, which is unfortunate.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: People think I'm trying to stir up a gak storm here, but a peaceful world is what I'm after.
(snip)
But America has chosen to stay, which is fair enough, but at the very least, it could start acting like it gives a damn, and it could start reassuring its allies by showing the Iranians who's boss, instead of acting in a half ass manner.
I definitely believe you're using the US as a proxy in a pecker measuring contest, which is unfortunate.
On the contrary, it's unfortunate that a non-American gives more of a damn about American interests than an American!
All I'm saying is that America should have one eye on the future, the long term gameplan.
Instead, it finds itself distracted by a loud mouth billionaire with a dodgy toupee, a fact which will have been noted in Tehran and Beijing...
Sinister piano music starts playing
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
"Nobody did this to Britain in the 19th century without a gak storm heading their way in retaliation."
"Gak storm. That act would trigger a Royal Navy hammer down if not released immediately back in empire days. No one fethed with the RN back before in history."
"Yes. But Royal Navy is a weak shadow of itself."
"It's not news to Brits that we're no longer the world's most powerful military or superpower. We've been in decline for a long time. I know it, you know it, and everybody in the UK would say the same. Still, we're not the nation with the 600 billion dollar defence budget"
Truly, Britain is the Al Bundy of the world stage.
To be fair, we do have weak leadership and an easily distracted populace...
I'm wondering what those specifically advocating for a strong US response think should be done. I'm no fan of Iran, but with the available information I can't really say they are in the wrong especially if we get our people and stuff hack in a timely manner. I can't really fault any country, whether I like them or not, for protecting the integrity of their territory. If the US crossed into that territory, it is wrong and should be escorted back into international waters.
Someone or several persons in our armed forces probably need an ass chewing at the very least. I don't know if it was bad maintenance, mission planning or execution, inadequate support, or something else, but we shouldn't have been in the position for this to happen in the first place.
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: I'm wondering what those specifically advocating for a strong US response think should be done. I'm no fan of Iran, but with the available information I can't really say they are in the wrong especially if we get our people and stuff hack in a timely manner. I can't really fault any country, whether I like them or not, for protecting the integrity of their territory. If the US crossed into that territory, it is wrong and should be escorted back into international waters.
Someone or several persons in our armed forces probably need an ass chewing at the very least. I don't know if it was bad maintenance, mission planning or execution, inadequate support, or something else, but we shouldn't have been in the position for this to happen in the first place.
They were not escorted back to international waters though. They were boarded, made to kneel with hands on heads, removed from their boats and detained on land while the boats and the associated gear were gone over.
You are right though, intercepting the boats after they crossed into Iranian waters is what we should expect sovereign nations to do. I do think treating the crews and boats as if they were captured went a bit further than I would expect from a country we are removing sanctions from. Of course, the 4 hostages they've had for a while should also have be released as part of the nuke deal, and that more than reaction or lack there of for this incident, is what shows the current administration to be weak in my opinion.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/13 17:12:22
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
CptJake wrote: is what shows the current administration to be weak in my opinion.
You're literally saying in the same post that they did what the should have done, but it was wrong because Obama weak blahblahblah. Yeah, this never would have happened under a strong administration like George W Bush, in which American aviators were held for 2 weeks until the letter of two sorries was sent.
You guys are unbelievable.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
CptJake wrote: is what shows the current administration to be weak in my opinion.
You're literally saying in the same post that they did what the should have done, but it was wrong because Obama weak blahblahblah. Yeah, this never would have happened under a strong administration like George W Bush, in which American aviators were held for 2 weeks until the letter of two sorries was sent.
You guys are unbelievable.
Read my whole post, not just the few words you quoted. I said the Administration not making release of the four hostages the Iranians are currently holding as a condition of the nuke deal makes them weak in my opinion.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Is what I typed really that hard for you to grasp?
I'm agreeing this 10 sailor incident does not show the administration as weak, and further agreed with the post I replied to that stopping the boats/intercepting the boats was what sovereign nations do.
I then added my opinion that there ARE examples of the Obama Admin being weak in their dealings with the Iranians (the existing hostages), but again, agree yesterday's incident and the administration's response is not what shows weakness.
Want me to PM you my phone number so you can call me and hear me say the words instead of having deciphering my attempts at explaining them again via posting?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/13 17:34:24
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
My take as a civilian who doesn't read Twitter or milblogs (and I'm sure that if I'm completely off the mark our military guys can tell me):
Two small shallow water boats with small crews were out in the middle of the gulf near an Iranian military base in Iranian waters. The articles from the US Navy when the boats were purchased make it sound like these boats would be good boats for some special operations missions. They seem like the kind of small fast vessel you might like to use if you are doing some spying tactical intelligence gathering inside the territorial waters of your frenemy. They got caught and everyone went with the "oh...hey there.....can you believe we were going from coast to coast and somehow ended up in the middle of the gulf and inside your water when the engine broke down and we were fresh out of rope to tow ourselves back home....can you help" plausible deniability routine. We know we were snooping, Iran knows we were snooping, our allies know we were snooping, their allies know we were snooping. Considering we were caught with our hands in the cookie jar it makes sense that we didn't respond in full DEFCON 3 mode and instead went with the more reasonable "hey guys, thanks for detaining our spies rescuing our sailors, can we please have them back pretty please" routine.
That's my suspicion, and nobody has reported any of this.
On another forum, yesterday afternoon/early evening is mentioned "I'm guessing we were probing (show of force/quick runs to determine reactions, gather some intel on sensors that lit up) after the recent rocket firing and they had an engine crap out in the wrong place. "
These were not naval spec ops types though, that is pretty clear from the pictures of the crews (and the small boat units that support SEALs use different boats). That does not change my guess as to what happened though. It would be interesting to see what air platforms we had collecting in the area.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
So maybe the naval equivalent to reving the engine at the stoplight to challenge a drag race only to have your engine blow while the cop lights up behind you?
d-usa wrote: So maybe the naval equivalent to reving the engine at the stoplight to challenge a drag race only to have your engine blow while the cop lights up behind you?
More like revving your engine in the hopes your potential opponent shows he has nitro hooked up so you can better understand his capabilities.
But the reality is we don't know, and likely never will have the real reasons/sequence of events released in open source reporting. It could have just been our guys screwed up (bad navigation/poor maintenance) or whatever. It could be the IRG jammed/spoofed GPS to get them to go inside Iranian waters. It could a bunch of factors. gak happens...
I remember the Cav scouts the Serbs captured in '99. It took a while for the truth to come out about what really happened (and I can't remember if it ever came out open source).
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
d-usa wrote: My take as a civilian who doesn't read Twitter or milblogs (and I'm sure that if I'm completely off the mark our military guys can tell me):
Two small shallow water boats with small crews were out in the middle of the gulf near an Iranian military base in Iranian waters. The articles from the US Navy when the boats were purchased make it sound like these boats would be good boats for some special operations missions. They seem like the kind of small fast vessel you might like to use if you are doing some spying tactical intelligence gathering inside the territorial waters of your frenemy. They got caught and everyone went with the "oh...hey there.....can you believe we were going from coast to coast and somehow ended up in the middle of the gulf and inside your water when the engine broke down and we were fresh out of rope to tow ourselves back home....can you help" plausible deniability routine. We know we were snooping, Iran knows we were snooping, our allies know we were snooping, their allies know we were snooping. Considering we were caught with our hands in the cookie jar it makes sense that we didn't respond in full DEFCON 3 mode and instead went with the more reasonable "hey guys, thanks for detaining our spies rescuing our sailors, can we please have them back pretty please" routine.
That's my suspicion, and nobody has reported any of this.
A very good point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gwaihirsbrother wrote: I'm wondering what those specifically advocating for a strong US response think should be done. I'm no fan of Iran, but with the available information I can't really say they are in the wrong especially if we get our people and stuff hack in a timely manner. I can't really fault any country, whether I like them or not, for protecting the integrity of their territory. If the US crossed into that territory, it is wrong and should be escorted back into international waters.
Someone or several persons in our armed forces probably need an ass chewing at the very least. I don't know if it was bad maintenance, mission planning or execution, inadequate support, or something else, but we shouldn't have been in the position for this to happen in the first place.
A lot of people seem to be under the impression that I will fight to the last American Marine, but nothing could be further from the truth.
To use a cliché, Iran is playing chess, whilst America is playing checkers. Capturing American sailors and firing live missiles near American ships, is not a message to the USA, it's a message to Iran's regional rivals. Iran is saying they're back in business.
When the sanctions are lifted, and Iran's economy gets boosted, that extra money will be spent on Hezbollah, propping up Assad, and propping up Iran's allies in Iraq. And will probably be used in proxy wars against the Saudis.
This is not news to American intelligence agencies, but the question is this: what is America going to do about it in order to protect its interests and allies in the long term?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/01/13 18:15:03
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
CptJake wrote: On another forum, yesterday afternoon/early evening is mentioned "I'm guessing we were probing (show of force/quick runs to determine reactions, gather some intel on sensors that lit up) after the recent rocket firing and they had an engine crap out in the wrong place. "
These were not naval spec ops types though, that is pretty clear from the pictures of the crews (and the small boat units that support SEALs use different boats). That does not change my guess as to what happened though. It would be interesting to see what air platforms we had collecting in the area.
You're not technically wrong, but it's worth mentioning that RIVRONs did do a few SEAL-ferrying runs during OIF. But you're correct in that anything with even a whiff of Iran to would have SWCCs rather than RIVRON guys involved.
To use a cliché, Iran is playing chess, whilst America is playing checkers. Capturing American sailors and firing live missiles near American ships, is not a message to the USA, it's a message to Iran's regional rivals. Iran is saying they're back in business.
When the sanctions are lifted, and Iran's economy gets boosted, that extra money will be spent on Hezbollah, propping up Assad, and propping up Iran's allies in Iraq. And will probably be used in proxy wars against the Saudis.
This is not news to American intelligence agencies, but the question is this: what is America going to do about it in order to protect its interests and allies in the long term?
You've identified the problem, what's the solution? I don't have a particularly strong view on all of this, so I'm curious what actions people think the US could/should take. How do we start paying chess instead of checkers?
I see posts saying we need a strong response, and this president is weak (this latter sentiment I strongly agree with), but no proposals on what should be done beyond the vague act tough.
(I don't recall which posters said what and am not calling you out specifically, just making a general inquiry to those holding that position.)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/13 18:34:22
To use a cliché, Iran is playing chess, whilst America is playing checkers. Capturing American sailors and firing live missiles near American ships, is not a message to the USA, it's a message to Iran's regional rivals. Iran is saying they're back in business.
When the sanctions are lifted, and Iran's economy gets boosted, that extra money will be spent on Hezbollah, propping up Assad, and propping up Iran's allies in Iraq. And will probably be used in proxy wars against the Saudis.
This is not news to American intelligence agencies, but the question is this: what is America going to do about it in order to protect its interests and allies in the long term?
You've identified the problem, what's the solution? I don't have a particularly strong view on all of this, so I'm curious what actions people think the US could/should take. How do we start paying chess instead of checkers?
I see posts saying we need a strong response, and this president is weak (this latter sentiment I strongly agree with), but no proposals on what should be done beyond the vague act tough.
(I don't recall which posters said what and am not calling you out specifically, just making a general inquiry to those holding that position.)
Well, America first needs to decide upon a strategy. Put simply, what are our interests/allies, and how do we protect them?
America's regional allies are nervous about Iran's rise, so short term, America should throw them a bone. Send Joe Biden, or Kerry, or even the president himself, on a regional tour to shore up support, fly the flag etc etc Promise the allies a few new arms deals, hold a large scale military exercise in the region etc etc
This costs nothing.
Another short term measure is stop spouting rubbish about Iran being a valuable strategic partner. The Saudis must feel like the only girl not to get a prom date. Again, this costs nothing.
Long term, America won't win every 'battle' but it only has to win the important battles, and it does this by using its advantages in situations where it holds all the cards.
Iran has three major spheres of influence in the region: Lebannon, Iraq, and Syria. America needs to contain or un-hitch Iran's influence in these areas.
America is fortunate by the fact that they have a strong ally, Israel, who have their own vested interest in keeping watch on Lebannon and Hezbollah.
Syria is different. It's a mess, and now the Russians, as well as the Iranians are involved. And there are things that the USA should have done a while back, but didn't. so that ship's sailed.
None the less, America has Turkey, and the Kurds, and they should be pushing for the end of the Assad regime (let him go into exile) to be replaced by a new regime that is friendly to the USA's interests. This won't be easy, it will take skill. But a peace deal in Washington's favour should be a priority.
Iraq is just as complicated - the government is pro-Iran, but again, opportunities present themselves. There is a large Sunni block in Iraq that America could use as leverage, if it gets them on board.
I freely admit these are diplomatic challenges that would test even Bismarck, but these are opportunities none the less.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: what is America going to do about it in order to protect its interests and allies in the long term?
Obama's only interest at this point is not to upset the Iranian cart in his quest to implement his "Nuke Agreement" (which isn't legally binding).
So... beyond that, your guess is as good as mine.
As I said before, America has challenging times ahead of it this century. China of course, Russia as well, and as always, the Middle East problem.
You guys can't wish these problems away. It will take inspired leadership to meet these tests. Unfortunately, I don't think the USA, and I include my own country in this, is capable of producing such leaders anymore.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/13 19:25:06
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
So this particular incident isn't necessarily where we need to make the show of strength, it's the overall approach that needs to be adjusted. Is that a fair summary of your view?
Like I said, I'm not pushing any particular idea here, just curious what people are thinking.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I don't think the USA, and I include my own country in this, is capable of producing such leaders anymore.
I disagree with this. Change the word "producing" to "selecting" and I'd have a harder time disagreeing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/13 19:47:07
