Did world war 3 just start?

[T.Lex]

I think the munitions used against boats 50m away don't have much collateral damage.

 

[Alpo]

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

Trust me, I'm all for blowing the **** out of Persians.

BUT

Tactically, we will lose ships if a war starts while we are in that area. The only safe area is out to sea.

We'll have a response, but there isn't a practical defense as the situation presently exists.

 

[Dead Duck]

Too bad we don't have any subs in that area.

Shhhhh....

 

[actaeon277]

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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis
Operation Praying Mantis
By the end of the operation, U.S. air and surface units had sunk, or severely damaged, half of Iran's operational fleet.

 

[Alpo]

32 years ago. I hope we aren't prepared for the last war.

 

[T.Lex]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis
Operation Praying Mantis
By the end of the operation, U.S. air and surface units had sunk, or severely damaged, half of Iran's operational fleet.

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

They know how that ends.

 

[IndyBeerman]

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.

Moving or at rest it does not matter, it's a serious issue that can turn deadly in a heartbeat. Too close is too close, period.

WW2 Japanese torpedo's carried around a thousand pounds of explosive. Now throw in one of the Iranian fastboats packed with C-4.

The new frigates and destroyers move at higher speeds than WW2 counterparts.
One hit right past the bow and it gets blow off, becomes a big scoop and it goes down like a rock. Get hit amidships and it can break in two. Either one involves the loss of lives a crippled ship, or possible loss of the ship.

I would inform Iran anything encroaching within 100 yards on the open sea as a hostile action and will be meet with force. Unless you're navigating a very narrow straight or in port, there is no reason for another Nations craft to be that close.

 

[T.Lex]

I think I read recently - maybe even on here - about testing of "inert" precision weapons that relied solely on kinetic energy to damage the target.

Totally unrelated, it seems to me that a boat out at sea might be particularly vulnerable to developing a hole that starts on the deck and ends through the hull.

 

[printcraft]

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.

30' away. Yeah, that's a smidge too close for ships of this size moving at speed.
You could take a person out with a baseball sized rock at that range.

 

[Tombs]

Iran is kind of small potatoes, at the moment. We have a non-trivial risk of entering warfare with China.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...h-china-sea-amid-rising-tension-idUSKCN2240FS

And even with my extremely anti-interventionist views, I know our allies have already sold out to China. If we don't address the threat swiftly, it's a very real possibility your grandchildren will be speaking Chinese.

https://www.npr.org/2018/10/09/6425...ow-hold-stakes-in-over-a-dozen-european-ports

China weaponized capitalism and aimed it straight at the naive west. I still giggle every time they refer to themselves as communist.

 

[BugI02]

I think I read recently - maybe even on here - about testing of "inert" precision weapons that relied solely on kinetic energy to damage the target.

Totally unrelated, it seems to me that a boat out at sea might be particularly vulnerable to developing a hole that starts on the deck and ends through the hull.

I believe all current rail guns are kinetic kill

 

[OakRiver]

Trust me, I'm all for blowing the **** out of Persians.

BUT

Tactically, we will lose ships if a war starts while we are in that area. The only safe area is out to sea.

We'll have a response, but there isn't a practical defense as the situation presently exists.

I thought I was being ignored. Did you close the door on your way back in?

Tactically, yes, it is unfavorable terrain. What about strategically?

 

[OakRiver]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis
Operation Praying Mantis
By the end of the operation, U.S. air and surface units had sunk, or severely damaged, half of Iran's operational fleet.

Maybe they're slow learners

 

[OakRiver]

I think I read recently - maybe even on here - about testing of "inert" precision weapons that relied solely on kinetic energy to damage the target.

Totally unrelated, it seems to me that a boat out at sea might be particularly vulnerable to developing a hole that starts on the deck and ends through the hull.

That would not surprise me. I believe that the US once considered/investigated the potential use of satellite borne "God Rods" that would have done that on a huge scale. On a smaller scale, we have developed and deployed the 'Ninja Bomb' (hellfire filled with blades rather than explosives) against terrorists

 

[Alpo]

I thought I was being ignored. Did you close the door on your way back in?

Tactically, yes, it is unfavorable terrain. What about strategically?

I ignored your remark. Refused to enter into a further discussion of the subject.

Strategically.....it will put the USA oil business back on its feet.

 

[OakRiver]

I ignored your remark. Refused to enter into a further discussion of the subject.

It's ok to be wrong. We still love you.

Strategically.....it will put the USA oil business back on its feet.

The US oil business is in pretty good shape. Militarily, what do you think the US's strategic response should be?

 

[Alpo]

If I had my druthers, we'd glass Mecca and Jerusalem. I don't have any use for the Middle East or Southwest Asia.

The oil business is not "in good shape" with oil futures where they are sitting.

 

[Tombs]

If I had my druthers, we'd glass Mecca and Jerusalem.

What do you know, we actually agree on 1 thing.

 

[Alpo]

No, we also agree that your opinions represent a minority of Americans.

 

[Dead Duck]

Korea is getting active again....




'North Korea, South Korea troops exchange gunfire along border, South says'


https://www.foxnews.com/world/north-korea-south-korea-troops-exchange-gunfire-along-border