Official: US ship fires on boat off Dubai, 1 dead

www.ajc.com...

The official gave no further details, but it appears the boat could have been mistaken as a threat in Gulf waters not far from Iran's maritime boundaries.

So I guess this indicates the US willingness to initiate armed conflict with Iran. Not much detail given due to the nature of incident (god forbid that Dubai gets offended) but reading between the lines it looks like the US forces fired without confirming identity of vessel or confirming that it was a threat.

This could only come about with authorisation of a senior commander who must be under command to neutralise any perceived threat within the area of operations.

What happens when it actually is an Iranian vessel that gets shot at without due process of identification/threat assessment.

Clear move to try and escalate conflict.

reply to post by murch

What happens when it actually is an Iranian vessel that gets shot at without due process of identification/threat assessment.

Why are you assuming there wasn't the appropriate due process and threat assessment? The article says it was perceived to be a threat.

As for Iran, I'm against the looming invasion there, but let's not pretend the US Navy is going to fear Iranian reprisals in any way. If this were an Iranian boat, the outcome would have been the same. The US is not worried about escalating a war with Iran, they pose very little threat to us.

As for Dubai, they love us, this won't taint the relationships one bit. They love US money, and they don't care who we sink.

reply to post by murch

So I guess this indicates the US willingness to initiate armed conflict with Iran.

How so?

Interesting.....
But not enough information out yet to really comment on wether or not it was a justified shot on the boat.
Was the boat confronting them?
Did they radio the boat and ask them to identify themselves?

According to THIS article, "the boat appeared to be a civilian vessel".

How on EARTH was a civilian vessel "mistaken as a threat"

reply to post by murch


Went back and starred and flagged you, because it appears this story is barely breaking, and there are only 1 or 2 sources, so kudos for getting it up on ATS so fast!!

reply to post by getreadyalready


Yeah, I'm thinking a boat got too close and the USN said "STAND THE FARG DOWN"!!
Command was ignored and voila, fiberglass chips!
Our boys over there on boats need to be extra vigilant, even our own allies try to kill us.

reply to post by damingus


The US Navy is mired in protocol and procedure. You can bet your ass they don't just shoot at anyone in the water. Procedures were followed, and if they weren't you will shortly see the forced resignation of high ranked individuals.

If a guy walks down the street looking a bit dodgy he could be perceived to be a threat. You wouldn't get away with shooting him though.

This is supposedly the best equipped military in the world. What threat could it possibly have posed that it warranted shooting before it was correctly ID'ed.

The point is that actions like these are clearly against the Geneva convention. Targeting and shooting at unidentified targets is a terrible act of violence.

As for the usual rhetoric spouted about how Iran poses no threat. If the US enters into a damaging war against another sovereign country that will inevitably show the shortcomings of there military prowess and foreign policy decisions, then that's their problem.

What I don't like is that everyone else will inevitably be drawn into the conflict.

reply to post by g146541


Exactly. After the USS Cole, we're not going to let some unidentified craft get to close. They get radio contact, they might even get a warning shot (I don't know if the Navy does this, I'm pretty sure the Coast Guard does), but if those warnings are ignored, then they they are going to shut it down at all costs.

It is too risky to let a boat, that might be laden with explosives, get too close to a military asset.

Yes I do admit that there is not a lot of detail and a lot of what I am saying is conjecture. I just fail to see how the US navy could fail to identify the craft before targeting.

I am thinking more along the the lines of mistaken identity and a deliberate act of provocation.

Remember, the US is not at war with Iran. They have imposed sanctions. There is nothing to say that an Iranian vessel cannot sail in as close proximity to military vessels as allowed by maritime law (though that would rash and would not contribute to a long and happy life).

Just seems a bit dodgy to me.

reply to post by getreadyalready


On the point of sailing to close to a military ship. Seriously, who does that. If you are sailing in an area of high tension the last thing you would do is chug up to a military vessel to say hello unless you had malicious intent.

reply to post by murch


Clear move? sounds like an assumption from a fairly new event without all the information. I'm sorry but maybe people like you who stir up assumptions are the real saber rattlers. What if the ship came close to the U.S. ship without responding to repeated warning? what if the U.S. ship upheld all rules of engagement and was provoked to fire on the vessel? Do you have this information or are you basing your opinion of one website which probably doesn't know the full story. I sick of all these sensationalist posts about the U.S. and its need to fire on any vessel to provoke war. Do you really believe that the U.S. will enter a huge conflict from a friendly fire incident which we fired upon, is the American public going to support a conflict based upon a mistake on our part. USE LOGIC.

reply to post by murch


What makes you think they failed to identify it? Just because they haven't released the identity of the attacking vessel does not mean they never confirmed their target. This is the military we're talking about, not Amnesty.

UPDATE:

news.yahoo.com...

Okay apparently vessel ignored warnings and was a small boat. Does it change much, well possibly.

Does make you wonder how they warn the vessel in question. Its a small vessel, manned by indigenous population.

Does the military communicate in their language.

Maybe not an act of direct provocation but still a heinous act. As for all those that are commenting on it may have got too close etc, remember there is no state of war declared so that does not give the US navy carte blanch to shoot people who get close to their boats.

What happens if they were in need of assistance, having radio problems.

Logic dictates that actions should be in proportion to the scale of the threat. No one has yet demonstrated any form of violence to the US Navy in this theatre during the current crisis. You cannot just shoot people because they might be a threat. You would have to kill everyone.

In a theatre of war, yes they should be blown out of the water if they ignore warnings. In this situation definitely not.

As for the rules of engagement:

Under the Rules of Engagement and the Geneva Convention, unless a person is positively identified as being a combatant, they should be considered a civilian and treated accordingly.

reply to post by followtheevidence


I refer you to the likes of what happened with the USS Cole, attacked by a civilian vessel and nearly sunk her.

Seriously, what are some of you talking about. The USS Cole. If Iran tries that with the US then I would support retaliatory action.

No-one has. Until they do the US is not allowed to target anyone without confirming they are a combatant.

This is not up for debate, its international law.

The media is saying that a 'US ship' fired on a civilian vessel. No where are there any reports that it was a US military ship.

Why is this in WW3. Slow news day?

reply to post by murch


I believe the buffer zone is 200 meters (650 feet), if a vessel enters this area they will be fired upon. This rule went into affect after a boat that was loaded with explosives was rammed into the USS Cole.

Link

If a vessel needs help, it is best to power down and try to signal the US warship, the navy is always willing to help, but if you approach after being warned via radio and various other signals then you will be involuntarily stopped dead in the water.

They do not only try to communicate via radio.

2. After this incident, the navies of many countries undertook an exercise to revise and update the rules of engagement when confronted with a possible maritime terrorism situation. Two possible scenarios received special attention:

SCENARIO NO 1: An unidentified boat approaches a naval ship in or near a harbor. The revised rules of engagement reportedly provide for immediate neutralisation of such a boat before it could come within ramming or boarding distance of the ship without waiting to verify the intention of the boat. Action can be initiated even at the risk of casualties of innocent civilians.

SCENARIO NO.2: A naval ship moving or patrolling in high seas encounters an unidentified ship or boat moving around in suspicious circumstances or which seems to be coming towards the naval ship. This scenario gives some window for verification. The revised rules of engagement provide for opening fire if the suspicious ship or boat resists attempts at verification or opens fire or seems to be planning to open dire on the naval ship. Appropriately judging the situation and acting is left to the discretion of the naval personnel depending on the circumstances of the case.

3. These revised rules of engagement, which were designed mainly to deal with maritime terrorism situations, also apply to situations involving armed pirates, irrespective of whether they are acting on their own or in association with a terrorist organisation. These revised rules of engagement are now being brought into action by naval ships on anti-piracy patrol in the Gulf of Aden and other areas to counter the activities of Somali pirates. The French naval ships operating in these waters were the first to start using more robust methods to deal with suspected pirate boats and ships. .