SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
CNN reports that a U.S. Navy patrol craft fired warning shots at an Iranian vessel:
A US Navy patrol craft fired three warning shots at an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps boat Wednesday after US officials said it had harassed that patrol craft, CNN has learned. Another US patrol craft and a Kuwaiti Navy ship were also harassed in the incident, which took place in the northern end of the Persian Gulf.
At one point, the Iranian boat came within 200 yards of one of the US Navy boats. When it failed to leave the area after the Navy had fired flares and had a radio conversation with the Iranian crew, the US officials said, the USS Squall fired three warning shots. Following standard maritime procedures, the Navy fired the three shots into the water to ensure the Iranians understood they needed to leave the immediate area.
Also at Reuters.
The incident occurred a day after four Iranian vessels made a "high speed intercept" of a U.S. warship.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Spook brat on Friday August 26 2016, @05:05PM
Seems like the Iranians haven't figured out that teasing a warship is a good way to get yourself dead. There is little difference between a "high speed intercept" and a ramming run; there's a reason that warships insist on maintaining a clear perimeter around them, namely, that if/when it's time to go to war the friendly sailors don't find out by being torpedoed by a kamikaze boat.
There's two main things I take from this article:
1) the U.S. Navy is doing a great job training its sailors on not rising to the bait when harassed. A more hot-headed skipper might have authorized a kill, a less skilled gunner might have sunk the Iranians with the "warning shot".
2) the Iranians have some agenda here, not clear what exactly. Maybe they think that "standing up to the Yanks" will win them some standing among their neighbors, who knows. Maybe they are actually trying to justify starting a war with the U.S., and hoping to provoke the U.S. Navy into giving them an excuse. Wars have certainly been started over less.
Regardless of their motive, this article is definitely news, and I'll be watching whether this escalates or de-escalates over the coming weeks. I'm not looking forward to the U.S. going to war with yet another country in the middle east, and that's exactly what the Iranian boats are risking by pulling stunts like this.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 3, Funny) by bob_super on Friday August 26 2016, @05:13PM
I love the contrast between your comment and mine...
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Spook brat on Friday August 26 2016, @09:52PM
I'm encouraged by the comparisons that can be drawn. We each in our own way are saying we're suspicious of the Iranian motives, and that we need to be VERY careful to not get drawn into yet another war.
The comparison, in my mind, is that you're asking whether the President and Joint Chiefs are doing the right thing by sending the Navy there there at all; I'm asking whether the sailors on site are making the right choices once ordered to be there.
Both questions need to be asked, and seriously considered for National Defense to be done right. And if the National Command Authority makes the right decisions, there's fewer times when a sailor can start a war by making the wrong decision. Keep questioning stuff like this, it keeps our Republic healthy!
The soldier above all others prays for peace, for it is the soldier who must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war.
Douglas MacArthur
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Joe Desertrat on Friday August 26 2016, @10:07PM
The Iranians have absolutely no interest in drawing the US into a real war with them. Regardless of how costly and unpopular such a thing might be to the US, it would be suicide for the Iranian government. I'm sure any confrontations are for "cold war" propaganda purposes. They can use our response as an example of how the US threatens them and that Iranians should continue to support the current regime.
(Score: 2) by gnampff on Friday August 26 2016, @05:28PM
So would the US agree with Iran patrolling the Caribbean sea with warships? Because that is the rough equivalent of the shit going on down there.
(Score: 5, Informative) by frojack on Friday August 26 2016, @05:55PM
Yup. The US would agree. So would the UN.
Law of the sea.
Rights of innocent passage.
Freedom of navigation
All these new things you've never heard of before, which have been around for hundreds of years.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @06:44PM
And so would almost all the countries of the world who have sailing ships. You've got to be a pretty big dumbass to not know that laws governing the seas have been around as long as their have been floating trade vessels and navies.
(Score: 3, Informative) by fritsd on Friday August 26 2016, @09:46PM
Actually, the idea of "the ocean is for everyone" was worked out in detail about 400 years ago by Hugo de Groot [wikipedia.org] (a lawyer; but, a good one apparently).
The book's called Mare Liberum [wikipedia.org] and caused quite a stir with its invention of international law.
The reason why it was published, and he wasn't just burned at the stake with all the existing exemplars as kindling, is that it was to the benefit of the Dutch republic government of the time.
So that's why the seas are currently free.
What I learned about it from primary school history class: he escaped from prison inside a box of books, and he was a filthy protestant.
(So much for primary school history classes)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by gnampff on Friday August 26 2016, @07:53PM
I know that they should be fine with Iranian ships patrolling the US coast. I just doubt that they would be as cool about it as they would have to be if that ever actually happened.
The US like to raise their finger from time to time and talk about what is right and good but when it comes to actually signing all the conventions the UN produced to codify the Right Thing(tm) they backpedal.
I do not see why I am supposed to put my trust into a nation that refuses to sign a few pieces of paper saying that they will adhere to minimum standards about human rights.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 27 2016, @01:10AM
The US doesn't really agree with the Laws of the Sea. Or they would have signed the treaty of said name...
The Iranians are simply upholding their rights of navigation. They don't want the Americans to think they can get away with blockading their country, who knows when we may try to overthrow their government again?
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday August 26 2016, @07:50PM
As a kid i did a caribbean cruise (senior trip). Our port of call had several non-US "warships" posted there. Dashed all my hopes of being a pirate. Those guns were serious.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.