Did world war 3 just start?

[Route 45]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tr...stroy-any-iranian-gunboats-harassing-us-ships

 

[T.Lex]

It'll be interesting to see if the Trump Doctrine is followed by commanders in the field.

I don't recall "harassment" as being legitimate casus belli.

"Imminent threat of violence" might (see "Bush Doctrine"), but that's an important word choice.

 

[BugI02]

The Iranian ships repeatedly crossed in front and behind the U.S. vessels at extremely close range and high speeds, including multiple crossings of one ship, the Puller, with a 50-yard closest point of approach and within 10 yards of another ship, the Maui's, bow, a 5th Fleet statement said.

One would think a repeat of the USS Cole would be a legitimate concern, especially with crossing the path of the ships perhaps interfering with headway and causing speeds to be reduced to mitigate the risk of collision. Multiple boats make it difficult to constantly track all participants continuously and a slower forward speed of the 'targets' could make pressing home a suicide attack easier. I think firing on boats that breach a security perimeter after warning them would be a sensible precaution, if it happens to be the 5" gun that gets used, C'est la Guerre

 

[JettaKnight]

One would think a repeat of the USS Cole would be a legitimate concern, especially with crossing the path of the ships perhaps interfering with headway and causing speeds to be reduced to mitigate the risk of collision. Multiple boats make it difficult to constantly track all participants continuously and a slower forward speed of the 'targets' could make pressing home a suicide attack easier. I think firing on boats that breach a security perimeter after warning them would be a sensible precaution, if it happens to be the 5" gun that gets used, C'est la Guerre

...and at the same time, Fmr. Navy Sec Mabus says we need to recall the fleet and sanitize them.
https://www.npr.org/2020/04/22/8407...eme-steps-to-fix-covid-19-problems-mabus-says

 

[Phase2]

Which would accomplish what exactly? It's not like the Wuhan coronavirus will disappear after the ship is sanitized.

 

[BugI02]

1) What would be the point of sanitizing the fleet unless you can guarantee no new cases of WuVid 19 will come aboard

2) Think of the new Persian Gulf policy as reducing the inventory of five inch shells that might need to be sanitized as well as keeping potential carriers from a known WuVid 19 hot spot at a 'social' distance

I see no problem with 'This is your final warning. If you close within 100 meters of any American warship or ship it may be escorting you will be fired upon'

Edit: So, is there a transcript of what Obama's Secretary of the Navy said we should do? If I can't read something and skim over the bull**** to the important parts I just don't bother, listening to a presentation is always inferior to reading same

 

[JettaKnight]

1) What would be the point of sanitizing the fleet unless you can guarantee no new cases of WuVid 19 will come aboard

So even my pre-coffee brain asked that question this morning.


That's a lot of work that will likely do no good.

 

[Alpo]

So even my pre-coffee brain asked that question this morning.


That's a lot of work that will likely do no good.

You've just enumerated the job description of a sailor E-1 to E-3.

 

[Leadeye]

I confess ignorance about these boats but could the navy ships just run them over like a car over a squirrel? Unfortunate accident, but they were warned about getting to close.

 

[smokingman]

I confess ignorance about these boats but could the navy ships just run them over like a car over a squirrel? Unfortunate accident, but they were warned about getting to close.

Not if they are loaded with explosives.
It is an actual threat, think USS Cole.

 

[T.Lex]

I totally understand the Cole reference, but the Cole was docked, not underway.

It would be helpful to know the ROE for those fast boats. I'm confident that there is a minimum distance - both expressed to the other boats and an internal one that's the REAL minimum. Any closer and it probably is weapons hot.

So far, those boats have been a hassle for years, but rarely more than that. It is international waters, so reckless acts are only engage-able if they post an actual risk to US personnel or materiel. Kinda like the flights in international airspace.

IMHO the ROE should remain the same: if the boats are dangerous, shoot them; if they are just harassing, practice targeting.

 

[Thor]

The bigger boat has the right of way. If the Iranian fun boats get in the way shoot them or drive over them.

They may just be looking for an excuse for launching a few Silk Worm missiles but most of our folks can probably solve that issue too. Then we can take out their launch locations and anything relevant in the general area...and their command structure...

It's long past time (like since 1975) to give the ayatollahs their comeuppance.

 

[OakRiver]

It is important to understand that last week 11 Iranian craft engaged in provocative acts, including crossing close in front of US warships, and getting within 10 feet of our vessels. This lasted for over an hour. Iran has also boarded the vessels of other nations.

I have to say that allowing potentially hostile craft to get so close, on a continued basis, is a concern, as it could be a tactic designed to erode willingness to engage potential threats, and facilitate a later attack.

Both Iran and Russia have been engaging in this behavior, and they are risking a needless response that could lead to a greater conflict.

 

[Route 45]

From the story:

The Iranian ships repeatedly crossed in front and behind the U.S. vessels at extremely close range and high speeds, including multiple crossings of one ship, the Puller, with a 50-yard closest point of approach and within 10 yards of another ship, the Maui's, bow, a 5th Fleet statement said.

Seems a bit too close for comfort to me.

 

[T.Lex]

I notice one thing Iran is not doing is laying mines.

They know how that ends.

 

[OakRiver]

From the story:

The Iranian ships repeatedly crossed in front and behind the U.S. vessels at extremely close range and high speeds, including multiple crossings of one ship, the Puller, with a 50-yard closest point of approach and within 10 yards of another ship, the Maui's, bow, a 5th Fleet statement said.

Seems a bit too close for comfort to me.

Agreed. I should also mention that this took place in international waters. On the one hand I appreciate the restraint that the US Navy exercised. On the other, I fully understand if the Iranian vessels had been fired upon.

 

[KittySlayer]

So far, those boats have been a hassle for years, but rarely more than that. It is international waters, so reckless acts are only engage-able if they post an actual risk to US personnel or materiel. Kinda like the commercial flights [STRIKE]in international airspace [/STRIKE]on 911.

IMHO the ROE should remain the same: if the boats are dangerous, shoot them; if they are just harassing, practice targeting.

Death to America!!!

The Iranians have already stated their intent. We have now stated our intent. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

 

[Dead Duck]

What we don't "officially" know is.....

There has been chatter of an imminent coming threat from Iran.





So there is that.

 

[Alpo]

Firing on Iran in the gulfs or strait is a tactical nightmare.

 

[OakRiver]

Firing on Iran in the gulfs or strait is a tactical nightmare.

So what is your suggestion on how to combat this provocation and prevent potentially hostile vessels getting within 10 foot of our vessels?