Iran Sending Warships Close to US Maritime Borders

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

Yeah, That’s not good news to me either. But, why would I worry more about that than within a few months period of time
1st. China claiming a restricted air space that both US and Japan were disputting the claim. Then China started inforcing that air space and pretty much last I heard, that is now China’s air space by the looks of it.
2nd. Iran, even though they have far inferior capabilities, start moving some of their warships towards our maritime borders.

Even though I agree that most likely nothing is going to happen. Aren’t these actions, that could be considered “testing the US”?

If it is not “testing the US” what is it?

22

[quote]mbdix wrote:
Yeah, That’s not good news to me either. But, why would I worry more about that than within a few months period of time
1st. China claiming a restricted air space that both US and Japan were disputting the claim. Then China started inforcing that air space and pretty much last I heard, that is now China’s air space by the looks of it.
2nd. Iran, even though they have far inferior capabilities, start moving some of their warships towards our maritime borders.

Even though I agree that most likely nothing is going to happen. Aren’t these actions, that could be considered “testing the US”?

If it is not “testing the US” what is it?[/quote]

Because it sounds scary to the uninformed. Don’t get news about international politics from sites that you can also check your email on. That’s why international relations journals exist.

Dude, I’ve only written twice it in this thread and provided a link to the summary of a seminal work on the analysis of military force. Anyone who wants to have an IR discussion should be at least somewhat familiar with Jervis’ four functions of force. It’s a short read. Do it.

23

I appreciate the link, and I have already read it.

24

Iran’s surprising decision to move warships off the Atlantic coast poses a potential catastrophic threat to America from a nuclear or electromagnetic pulse attack, according to an expert who foresaw Iran’s move.

Peter Pry, an expert on EMP attacks, said the ships are likely a dry run for a future attack, a maneuver meant to lull Washington into complacency while also embarrassing President Obama and his effort to convince Tehran to give up production of a nuclear bomb in return for a lifting of some economic sanctions.

“Yes, patrols by the Iranian Navy off our coasts could pose threat of a surprise EMP attack,” said Pry, who with others such as former CIA Director R. James Woolsey, has convinced several state legislatures to take moves to harden their electric and energy grids from EMP attack because Washington won’t.

“I and my colleagues, including Reza Kahlili, who warned six months ago that these Iranian patrols were coming, think it more likely Iran would make an EMP attack by launching a missile off a freighter, so they could do the deed anonymously, and escape retaliation,” Pry explained.

“Iran has demonstrated the capability to launch a missile off a freighter. Iran has also purchased Russia’'s Club-K missile system. The Club-K is a complete missile launch system, disguised to look like a shipping container, that could convert any freighter into a missile launch platform. The Club-K, if armed with a nuclear warhead, could be used to execute an EMP attack.”

He also has joined with Pry and others, including Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, in warning about a nuclear blast in the atmosphere that would knock out electric transformers and facilities in the mid-Atlantic

An EMP attack does more than just knock out power (this is a Catholic piece but makes you think about what you might do in the scenario)

25

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:
If the photos of the ships that I saw were accurate, it’s more of a joke than a threat.[/quote]

It’s not intended to be a threat. Swaggering is the peaceful exercise of force, usually to enhance state prestige.

See number 4 in this concise summary of Art’s four functions of force.
http://www.waynemclean.com/docs/Art%20-%20Four%20Uses%20of%20Force%20(2).pdf[/quote]

From the article-

It’s nice that you are trying to lend some common vocabulary to the conversation, so allow me to do the same-

Sucker Punch- Thats when you walk up to someone and punch them in the face. The recipient may see you coming, or not. It doesn’t really matter. The whole idea is to hit as hard as possible on the first strike and fuck what ever happens after that. You got yours in and that is all that matters. It could be a TKO or you could get beaten to a pulp.

For more on the art of the sucker punch see the USS Cole, 9-11, etc.

My take on this is that we’d entered a new socio-political realm about 20 some years ago and have been engaged by an enemy that is writing their own book on unconventional politics and warfare. Heck, some of them may never even have heard of Robert J. Art. In fact, I would bet that they haven’t.

In response to these new tactics the US military developed a division called JSOC. They’re pretty well aware of the functions of force and how to apply it too.

26

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:
If the photos of the ships that I saw were accurate, it’s more of a joke than a threat.[/quote]

It’s not intended to be a threat. Swaggering is the peaceful exercise of force, usually to enhance state prestige.

See number 4 in this concise summary of Art’s four functions of force.
http://www.waynemclean.com/docs/Art%20-%20Four%20Uses%20of%20Force%20(2).pdf[/quote]

From the article-

It’s nice that you are trying to lend some common vocabulary to the conversation, so allow me to do the same-

Sucker Punch- Thats when you walk up to someone and punch them in the face. The recipient may see you coming, or not. It doesn’t really matter. The whole idea is to hit as hard as possible on the first strike and fuck what ever happens after that. You got yours in and that is all that matters. It could be a TKO or you could get beaten to a pulp.

For more on the art of the sucker punch see the USS Cole, 9-11, etc.

My take on this is that we’d entered a new socio-political realm about 20 some years ago and have been engaged by an enemy that is writing their own book on unconventional politics and warfare. Heck, some of them may never even have heard of Robert J. Art. In fact, I would bet that they haven’t.

In response to these new tactics the US military developed a division called JSOC. They’re pretty well aware of the functions of force and how to apply it too.
[/quote]

Right.
Gay Dude: “I have read many books on the art of War”

King: “Tell me, what would you do in regards to the uprising?”

Gay Dude: “AAAAAGGGHHHH!!!”(As he is falling from getting thrown out the window)

You could say that it would be a great Military tactic to act like you are just going to do some Military “swaggering” and then sucker punch them.

Miyamoto Musashi: Confuse your opponent…Become your opponent…Draw your opponent in…Never use the same tactic twice…The head of the rat, the neck of the bull… I could go on.

27

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:
Yeah, That’s not good news to me either. But, why would I worry more about that than within a few months period of time
1st. China claiming a restricted air space that both US and Japan were disputting the claim. Then China started inforcing that air space and pretty much last I heard, that is now China’s air space by the looks of it.
2nd. Iran, even though they have far inferior capabilities, start moving some of their warships towards our maritime borders.

Even though I agree that most likely nothing is going to happen. Aren’t these actions, that could be considered “testing the US”?

If it is not “testing the US” what is it?[/quote]

Because it sounds scary to the uninformed. Don’t get news about international politics from sites that you can also check your email on. That’s why international relations journals exist.

Dude, I’ve only written twice it in this thread and provided a link to the summary of a seminal work on the analysis of military force. Anyone who wants to have an IR discussion should be at least somewhat familiar with Jervis’ four functions of force. It’s a short read. Do it.[/quote]

You never answered the question I asked you.

Why should I be more worried about Al-Qaeda gaining control over a city in Iraq, over Iran sending warships to our Maritime Borders?

Is your answer? Because, Iran is just Militarily Swaggering at our Maritime Borders.

Because if it is? That is my concern that countries that could be considered an enemy of America are starting to act like they CAN Militarily Swagger at our borders.

28

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:
If the photos of the ships that I saw were accurate, it’s more of a joke than a threat.[/quote]

It’s not intended to be a threat. Swaggering is the peaceful exercise of force, usually to enhance state prestige.

See number 4 in this concise summary of Art’s four functions of force.
http://www.waynemclean.com/docs/Art%20-%20Four%20Uses%20of%20Force%20(2).pdf[/quote]

From the article-

It’s nice that you are trying to lend some common vocabulary to the conversation, so allow me to do the same-

Sucker Punch- Thats when you walk up to someone and punch them in the face. The recipient may see you coming, or not. It doesn’t really matter. The whole idea is to hit as hard as possible on the first strike and fuck what ever happens after that. You got yours in and that is all that matters. It could be a TKO or you could get beaten to a pulp.

For more on the art of the sucker punch see the USS Cole, 9-11, etc.

My take on this is that we’d entered a new socio-political realm about 20 some years ago and have been engaged by an enemy that is writing their own book on unconventional politics and warfare. Heck, some of them may never even have heard of Robert J. Art. In fact, I would bet that they haven’t.

In response to these new tactics the US military developed a division called JSOC. They’re pretty well aware of the functions of force and how to apply it too.
[/quote]

Right.
Gay Dude: “I have read many books on the art of War”

King: “Tell me, what would you do in regards to the uprising?”

Gay Dude: “AAAAAGGGHHHH!!!”(As he is falling from getting thrown out the window)

You could say that it would be a great Military tactic to act like you are just going to do some Military “swaggering” and then sucker punch them.

Miyamoto Musashi: Confuse your opponent…Become your opponent…Draw your opponent in…Never use the same tactic twice…The head of the rat, the neck of the bull… I could go on.

[/quote]

Yeah. Thats why I mention specific incidents like the USS Cole and Stark.

They may loosely fit into some type of very broad analysis, but more specifically they seem to be more like a sucker punch.

I would not for a second write this up to “swaggering”. That would be a disservice to the history of the region and the people who’s lives are on the line.

29

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:
If the photos of the ships that I saw were accurate, it’s more of a joke than a threat.[/quote]

It’s not intended to be a threat. Swaggering is the peaceful exercise of force, usually to enhance state prestige.

See number 4 in this concise summary of Art’s four functions of force.
http://www.waynemclean.com/docs/Art%20-%20Four%20Uses%20of%20Force%20(2).pdf[/quote]

From the article-

It’s nice that you are trying to lend some common vocabulary to the conversation, so allow me to do the same-

Sucker Punch- Thats when you walk up to someone and punch them in the face. The recipient may see you coming, or not. It doesn’t really matter. The whole idea is to hit as hard as possible on the first strike and fuck what ever happens after that. You got yours in and that is all that matters. It could be a TKO or you could get beaten to a pulp.

For more on the art of the sucker punch see the USS Cole, 9-11, etc.

My take on this is that we’d entered a new socio-political realm about 20 some years ago and have been engaged by an enemy that is writing their own book on unconventional politics and warfare. Heck, some of them may never even have heard of Robert J. Art. In fact, I would bet that they haven’t.

In response to these new tactics the US military developed a division called JSOC. They’re pretty well aware of the functions of force and how to apply it too.
[/quote]

Right.
Gay Dude: “I have read many books on the art of War”

King: “Tell me, what would you do in regards to the uprising?”

Gay Dude: “AAAAAGGGHHHH!!!”(As he is falling from getting thrown out the window)

You could say that it would be a great Military tactic to act like you are just going to do some Military “swaggering” and then sucker punch them.

Miyamoto Musashi: Confuse your opponent…Become your opponent…Draw your opponent in…Never use the same tactic twice…The head of the rat, the neck of the bull… I could go on.

[/quote]

Yeah. Thats why I mention specific incidents like the USS Cole and Stark.

They may loosely fit into some type of very broad analysis, but more specifically they seem to be more like a sucker punch.

I would not for a second write this up to “swaggering”. That would be a disservice to the history of the region and the people who’s lives are on the line.
[/quote]
I hear your point about the USS Cole and a history of sucker punch incidents but I think this situation is slightly different.For one thing, the attack on the Cole was pre 9/11. It could be argued that the lack of any real response after the Cole emboldened such assholes and helped to lead to 9/11 itself. However, the world learned after 9/11 how easily and completely any state player can be fucked up by the US after awakening the beast. Secondly, as demonstrated both by Pearl Harbour and 9/11, an attack on the US itself has never really worked out that well for the aggressor. It’s one thing to attack a US warship or embassy in some backwater; it’s a completely different thing to attack US soil itself. Iran knows it would immediately have a half dozen nukes launched up its ass from the submarines that are constantly patrolling the Straits of Hormuz if it ever even pointed a gun towards the US mainland. Iran has a history of blustery rhetoric; this is just more of the same.

30

P.S. Awesome Braveheart reference! Lol

31

[quote]CMdad wrote:
P.S. Awesome Braveheart reference! Lol[/quote]

haha. Thanks, nice catch

32

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:
If the photos of the ships that I saw were accurate, it’s more of a joke than a threat.[/quote]

It’s not intended to be a threat. Swaggering is the peaceful exercise of force, usually to enhance state prestige.

See number 4 in this concise summary of Art’s four functions of force.
http://www.waynemclean.com/docs/Art%20-%20Four%20Uses%20of%20Force%20(2).pdf[/quote]

From the article-

It’s nice that you are trying to lend some common vocabulary to the conversation, so allow me to do the same-

Sucker Punch- Thats when you walk up to someone and punch them in the face. The recipient may see you coming, or not. It doesn’t really matter. The whole idea is to hit as hard as possible on the first strike and fuck what ever happens after that. You got yours in and that is all that matters. It could be a TKO or you could get beaten to a pulp.

For more on the art of the sucker punch see the USS Cole, 9-11, etc.

My take on this is that we’d entered a new socio-political realm about 20 some years ago and have been engaged by an enemy that is writing their own book on unconventional politics and warfare. Heck, some of them may never even have heard of Robert J. Art. In fact, I would bet that they haven’t.

In response to these new tactics the US military developed a division called JSOC. They’re pretty well aware of the functions of force and how to apply it too.
[/quote]

Right.
Gay Dude: “I have read many books on the art of War”

King: “Tell me, what would you do in regards to the uprising?”

Gay Dude: “AAAAAGGGHHHH!!!”(As he is falling from getting thrown out the window)

You could say that it would be a great Military tactic to act like you are just going to do some Military “swaggering” and then sucker punch them.

Miyamoto Musashi: Confuse your opponent…Become your opponent…Draw your opponent in…Never use the same tactic twice…The head of the rat, the neck of the bull… I could go on.

[/quote]

Yeah. Thats why I mention specific incidents like the USS Cole and Stark.

They may loosely fit into some type of very broad analysis, but more specifically they seem to be more like a sucker punch.

I would not for a second write this up to “swaggering”. That would be a disservice to the history of the region and the people who’s lives are on the line.
[/quote]

Exactly. I don’t care if they are on the way over here in wooden boats with sails. Those fuckers don’t need to be anywhere close to our borders.

Even though some disagree with the US being in the Persian Gulf, I do understand why they are there. All that oil, unstable region, US allies in the region. If the US wasn’t there a different supper power would be trying to control what goes on. The only allies that Iran has in the North American region is the Drug Cartels(rumored).

33

[quote]CMdad wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:
Secondly, as demonstrated both by Pearl Harbour and 9/11, an attack on the US itself has never really worked out that well for the aggressor. It’s one thing to attack a US warship or embassy in some backwater; it’s a completely different thing to attack US soil itself. Iran knows it would immediately have a half dozen nukes launched up its ass from the submarines that are constantly patrolling the Straits of Hormuz if it ever even pointed a gun towards the US mainland. Iran has a history of blustery rhetoric; this is just more of the same.

[/quote]

Yet. Key word to add here is yet. In history all major super powers have come to an end, when they (most of the time) never had lost a major battle prior. I don’t want to give any country even a slight chance to take America off the top of the hill. Not in my lifetime, my kids lifetime, their kids lifetime and so on.

34

We are just talking here, and I don’t think they will try anything. But, what if they do get close to our borders? Then what? Do we sink their battle ship? Doesn’t that start a war? Do we kindly ask them to leave? And what if we let them leave? Doesn’t that now give other countries an opening to do the same thing? What if China decides to send a couple of their ships close to our borders? Russia?

I know what I think our response should be. We stop them before they even get close. I don’t know man, the more I think about Iran deciding to do this the more I don’t like it.

35

[quote]mbdix wrote:
We are just talking here, and I don’t think they will try anything. But, what if they do get close to our borders? Then what? Do we sink their battle ship? Doesn’t that start a war? Do we kindly ask them to leave? And what if we let them leave? Doesn’t that now give other countries an opening to do the same thing? What if China decides to send a couple of their ships close to our borders? Russia?

I know what I think our response should be. We stop them before they even get close. I don’t know man, the more I think about Iran deciding to do this the more I don’t like it.[/quote]
I think if they did get close to the US you’d see something similar to what happened in the Cuban missile crisis. I think they’d be surrounded by US warships and planes well before they got into US waters and be told in no uncertain terms to turn around or they’d be erased. Just like the Russians did, I think they’d run back home with their tails between their legs. Iran knows they have no chance if they went toe to toe with the US and that they would very quickly be annihilated in such an encounter. I have 2 friends who served in Afghanistan in the Canadian Army, one of whom served in JTF-2 (Canada’s version of Delta Force) and they both said the same thing: that for all their big fanatical talk, these so called mujahideen and Islamic fundamentalists are self-serving pussies. There is a reason why it’s always the 16 yr old goatherd who’s blowing himself up and not the Zarqawi’s and Osama’s. They are willing to manipulate simpletons into dying for their cause but they themselves would never put themselves in harm’s way. And for all their religious zeal, my friend in the SF said all you’d have to do when you brought one of these assholes in was offer them a few dollars and they’d be willing to give up their own mother. Similarly, the Iranian leadership knows damn well that at any second of the day there are numerous warships and warplanes within a minute’s striking distance and that, in the event of any attack on the US, they wouldn’t even have a chance to wipe their ass and get out the door before a cruise missile wiped it for them. The global reach of the US Navy puts these assholes in the crosshairs just as much as the “cadets” on these ships and they know that very well. They aren’t stupid enough to try anything that would surely result in their deaths. However, the game changer in all of this is if Iran is successful in developing nuclear capability. By all accounts, they are deadset on developing a weapon and the only reason why they haven’t so far is the heroic and unsung actions of the Mossad working in conjunction with the CIA and MI6. I suspect that if they ever get close, you will see an Israeli air strike to destroy it such as what happened In 1981 on the Iraqi Osiris nuclear reactors.

36

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]shorty_blitz wrote:
It bothers you that a piece of shit boat is close to your maritime borders but it’s ok for U.S.Navy ships to cruise around in the Persian Gulf.
Maybe they just want to come and share a few spliffs with your boys and chat shit about pussy.

[quote]mbdix wrote:
The thing that bothers me about this, is that they are doing it. Like China with that restricted air space deal. I don’t like the idea of them moving any type of ship even close to our maritime borders. And I don’t like the idea of Countries starting to try and test us.

[/quote]
[/quote]

I was thinking about that angle when I was writing that. Still bothers me.[/quote]

Why should it? It doesn’t constitute a threat. Testing the United States? That is not what is occurring.

Perhaps you should be more concerned with the deteriorating situation in Iraq, where an Al-Qaeda affiliated group, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, (ISIS) established control of the western city of Fallujah at the beginning of 2014.
[/quote]

Yes, I am mich more concerned about that and about the recent rift with Karzai where he has decided to let a bunch of militants out of jail.

37

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:
If the photos of the ships that I saw were accurate, it’s more of a joke than a threat.[/quote]

It’s not intended to be a threat. Swaggering is the peaceful exercise of force, usually to enhance state prestige.

See number 4 in this concise summary of Art’s four functions of force.
http://www.waynemclean.com/docs/Art%20-%20Four%20Uses%20of%20Force%20(2).pdf[/quote]

From the article-

It’s nice that you are trying to lend some common vocabulary to the conversation, so allow me to do the same-

Sucker Punch- Thats when you walk up to someone and punch them in the face. The recipient may see you coming, or not. It doesn’t really matter. The whole idea is to hit as hard as possible on the first strike and fuck what ever happens after that. You got yours in and that is all that matters. It could be a TKO or you could get beaten to a pulp.

For more on the art of the sucker punch see the USS Cole, 9-11, etc.

My take on this is that we’d entered a new socio-political realm about 20 some years ago and have been engaged by an enemy that is writing their own book on unconventional politics and warfare. Heck, some of them may never even have heard of Robert J. Art. In fact, I would bet that they haven’t.

In response to these new tactics the US military developed a division called JSOC. They’re pretty well aware of the functions of force and how to apply it too.
[/quote]

Art’s four functions have analytical utility. Your “sucker punch” does not. Terrorist attacks are almost always an attempt at compelllence, and can therefore be studied within Art’s analytical framework.
Actually, JSOC was founded in the aftermath of the failure of Operation Eagle Claw. Thanks for the (a)historical lesson though.

38

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:
If the photos of the ships that I saw were accurate, it’s more of a joke than a threat.[/quote]

It’s not intended to be a threat. Swaggering is the peaceful exercise of force, usually to enhance state prestige.

See number 4 in this concise summary of Art’s four functions of force.
http://www.waynemclean.com/docs/Art%20-%20Four%20Uses%20of%20Force%20(2).pdf[/quote]

From the article-

It’s nice that you are trying to lend some common vocabulary to the conversation, so allow me to do the same-

Sucker Punch- Thats when you walk up to someone and punch them in the face. The recipient may see you coming, or not. It doesn’t really matter. The whole idea is to hit as hard as possible on the first strike and fuck what ever happens after that. You got yours in and that is all that matters. It could be a TKO or you could get beaten to a pulp.

For more on the art of the sucker punch see the USS Cole, 9-11, etc.

My take on this is that we’d entered a new socio-political realm about 20 some years ago and have been engaged by an enemy that is writing their own book on unconventional politics and warfare. Heck, some of them may never even have heard of Robert J. Art. In fact, I would bet that they haven’t.

In response to these new tactics the US military developed a division called JSOC. They’re pretty well aware of the functions of force and how to apply it too.
[/quote]

Art’s four functions have analytical utility. Your “sucker punch” does not. Terrorist attacks are almost always an attempt at compelllence, and can therefore be studied within Art’s analytical framework.
Actually, JSOC was founded in the aftermath of the failure of Operation Eagle Claw. Thanks for the (a)historical lesson though.[/quote]

Yes, the attempted rescue of hostages in Iran. I should have said thirty some years.

If they are an attempt at compellence, to what end?

What political or strategic value does a terrorist act have, and more importantly, does it work to the desired end?

Lay it out for me. Pick a specific act and how it achieved the desired result.

39

[quote]Bismark wrote:
It’s nothing but swaggering to enhance state prestige. [/quote]

Yeah same with the Nazis. Just swaggering. They’re both completely sane and pose/d no threat to the free world. Your ideas on foreign policy are brilliant.

40

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:
Yeah, That’s not good news to me either. But, why would I worry more about that than within a few months period of time
1st. China claiming a restricted air space that both US and Japan were disputting the claim. Then China started inforcing that air space and pretty much last I heard, that is now China’s air space by the looks of it.
2nd. Iran, even though they have far inferior capabilities, start moving some of their warships towards our maritime borders.

Even though I agree that most likely nothing is going to happen. Aren’t these actions, that could be considered “testing the US”?

If it is not “testing the US” what is it?[/quote]

Because it sounds scary to the uninformed. Don’t get news about international politics from sites that you can also check your email on. That’s why international relations journals exist.

Dude, I’ve only written twice it in this thread and provided a link to the summary of a seminal work on the analysis of military force. Anyone who wants to have an IR discussion should be at least somewhat familiar with Jervis’ four functions of force. It’s a short read. Do it.[/quote]

You never answered the question I asked you.

Why should I be more worried about Al-Qaeda gaining control over a city in Iraq, over Iran sending warships to our Maritime Borders?

Is your answer? Because, Iran is just Militarily Swaggering at our Maritime Borders.

Because if it is? That is my concern that countries that could be considered an enemy of America are starting to act like they CAN Militarily Swagger at our borders.
[/quote]

Yeah Iran was just ‘swaggering’ when they planned and carried out the truck bombing murders of hundreds of US Marines via their proxy Hezbollah. I’m sure the families of those marines agree.