[LI SNOWBIRD]

Originally Posted by TexaninVA

I forgot about that national disgrace and textbook example of fecklessness.

I love the use of the word fecklessness . Thanks for your phraseology.

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by rustyp

I can't remember but wasn't that planted explosives on our ship at dock. If these boats wanted to fire a missile while both sides were underway why didn't they? Because their motive is to demonstrate we are the aggressor. I would have a totally different opinion if this were off our coast.

Yes the ship was at dock but the explosives were on a small boat that pulled up to the ship and detonated.
Their motive is to show that the US is a cowardly paper tiger.

[Tblue]

I would have thought after the USS Cole the Navy would have instituted some kind of prevention policy. A policy of when operating in certain parts of the world any unwelcome/unscheduled crafts approaching a US warship would be subject to being fired upon. Maybe warning shots if possible, but if you come within say 100 yards you are fair game.

[TexaninVA]

Originally Posted by Travelingal702

Don't bother changing course? Just run 'em over!!

Depending on the US ship, and relative speed of collision, that could damage equipment and cause the ship to have to go to a repair facitliy.

About ten well-placed .50 cal rounds much simpler and cheaper,

[TexaninVA]

Originally Posted by Tblue

I would have thought after the USS Cole the Navy would have instituted some kind of prevention policy. A policy of when operating in certain parts of the world any unwelcome/unscheduled crafts approaching a US warship would be subject to being fired upon. Maybe warning shots if possible, but if you come within say 100 yards you are fair game.

It depends upon the Rules of Engagement and, at some level especially when you're authorized to shoot back, is determined by POTUS.

I would say the rules are now quite clear.

[BS Beef]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

This would be more like poking a gnat

The "bear" is the US of A.

[blueash]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Look a little closer. To me, they sure appear to be on their knees.

You are absolutely correct. I was looking at the little thumbnail on post 33 where it is not obvious. It is visible on an earlier larger photo. But, as I said, being placed on your knees when having been legitimately captured is not humiliation. It is a reasonable measure to control the captured sailors. I missed it, you are right.

[Two Bills]

Originally Posted by blueash

You are absolutely correct. I was looking at the little thumbnail on post 33 where it is not obvious. It is visible on an earlier larger photo. But, as I said, being placed on your knees when having been legitimately captured is not humiliation. It is a reasonable measure to control the captured sailors. I missed it, you are right.

I agree.
It is not what anyone wants to see.
But!
Is it any worse than what US troops do to captured personell?
Is it any worse than what US Police do to their own ciizens when apprehended?

[Chi-Town]

Originally Posted by TexaninVA

It depends upon the Rules of Engagement and, at some level especially when you're authorized to shoot back, is determined by POTUS.

I would say the rules are now quite clear.

The funny thing is that it will be communicated in another tweet.

[Moderator]

Please confine comments to the original topic of the current situation described in the OP’s post. The discussion has been redirected by posts bringing up past occurrences.

Moderator

[ficoguy]

Do it quickly and get those little pr!cks off the high seas

[tophcfa]

I wonder what the Vegas line is on how long a member of the Iranian Revolunatary Guard can tread water?

[Twiganne]

You’re kidding right? I figured lol. Yes we should blast them out of the water. I never again Want see such humiliation against our US military soldiers.

[PennBF]

The thinking of these Countries is that American's are "Cowards". This is not a guess, as it is what drove the Military in Beirut to take our hostages when that occurred a few years back. They took 20 some American's as hostages. As they were being abused we sat back and tried to negotiate with them. At the time I met with a couple of guys from Paris whos father lived in Beirut and when I asked them what they would suggest they said land the Marine's on their shore and go get the American hostages. By not doing that we were just adding to the Beirut's opinion that we were cowards. What is happening in Iran demonstrates the need not to allow ourselves to be pictured as "cowards" as it will just get worse.

[TexaninVA]

Originally Posted by Two Bills

I agree.
It is not what anyone wants to see.
But!
Is it any worse than what US troops do to captured personell?
Is it any worse than what US Police do to their own ciizens when apprehended?

This article may be of interest. It provides insight on the various weaponry the US Navy has available with which to deal with the harassing IRGC Navy small boats. This includes interceptor missiles, attack drones, deck-mounted guns, electronic warfare weapons and even lasers could quickly be called upon should provocations, hostile actions or attacks require a lethal response.

This is a Fox New link.

US Navy ships authorized to '''destroy''' Iranian threats if needed: How would they do it? | Fox News

I know some are not big fans of Fox but I did not see any comparable articles on weaponry in CNN, MSNBC and other sources. If I missed it, someone let me know please.