What if they were American?

[PrinceOfLeigh]

I dont think its a stereotype talking, its our history with Iran. Im old enough to remember the embassy hostage crisis. As an American, I would rather take my chances, call for support, run like hell and shoot it out with Iranians than be put through something similar to what was done to the poor bastards in 1979.

Understandable. In most cases a US call for help will be replied with death from above by their airforce such are the resources available to the US. The Brits often have to operate without a safety net unfortunately.

That's why the SAS are trained to be dropped in a desert somewhere with all the support of a penknife and compass.

 

[steveedster]

Now at the end of the day the Brits do have enough firepower themselves to bomb iran to pieces, however, and this is a big however I believe they are doing the smart and the right thing, the most important thing in britain as would be america at this time is the safe return of the personnel, once this is achieved then you bomb the **** out of the iranian navy to teach them a lesson, this is the smart way. going in all guns blazing which the brits are well capable of doing would solve nothing at this point, the hostages would not be returned if ever. perhaps even killed etc. whatever leader ordered force at this point would basically commit political suicide.

as i said once the hostages are returned through the softly softly approach then iran better watch out for its limited navy might not last too long.

and having a go at the brits for surrendering is out of order, its all about rules of engagement under UN mandate. there would be no point in these guys having a firefight against 6 well armed gunboats, it would lead to nothing, also if they were in a situation were at gun point they were being forced into other waters they could do nothing, the point i have here it that the british warship should have used her advanced technology to warn the sailors of the iranian activity, this i think is probably due to an officer onboard the frigate not doing what he should have.

 

[Little Raven]

Understandable. In most cases a US call for help will be replied with death from above by their airforce such are the resources available to the US. The Brits often have to operate without a safety net unfortunately.

Maybe. But they weren't operating without a safety net on March 23. The US has two carrier groups in the Gulf just itching for a casus belli. Do you really think they would have ignored calls for help from British sailors fending off Iranians?

That's why the SAS are trained to be dropped in a desert somewhere with all the support of a penknife and compass.

Ok...I can see how the compass is helpful in finding someone to surrender to. What's the penknife for?

 

[Yeeek]

Yet again you have US posters sticking to the well known american stereotype. Sorry to break it to you, but if they were American soldiers and as you assume, easy on the trigger, we 'd have dead people and most likely another conflict going on.

You have to praise those british soldiers who kept their blood cool. Surrendered? Of course they did, it was the only solution to not end it in a blood bath. Props to the officers in charge.

Now we can only hope this mess end asap with those soldiers released through diplomacy. Who cares that they are forced to claim they were in iranian water. We know its wrong, let Iran do their show. The only thing important is that those soldiers are alive.

 

[Xanikk999]

Yet again you have US posters sticking to the well known american stereotype. Sorry to break it to you, but if they were American soldiers and as you assume, easy on the trigger, we 'd have dead people and most likely another conflict going on.

And your not falling for a stereotype right there?

 

[Little Raven]

Yet again you have US posters sticking to the well known american stereotype. Sorry to break it to you, but if they were American soldiers and as you assume, easy on the trigger, we 'd have dead people and most likely another conflict going on.

Oh, I don't deny that. As I said in my first post, I don't know that the situation would be better if the Iranians had gone after American sailors instead of British ones. But I believe it would have been different. I really don't think Americans would have surrendered, and I think they would have resisted if the Iranians had pressed the point. And yes...at minimum, that would have led to a situation where a number of people died. I like to think that when push came to shove, the Iranians would have been satisfied with simply escorting the Americans out of their waters...but I fully admit that the possibility of escalation would be very real.

However, I also don't believe it's a coincidence that the Iranians tried this with British sailors instead of American ones.

The only thing important is that those soldiers are alive.

Tell that to John Moyse.

 

[Yeeek]

Wich one? The coward one? Guess its wrong to value Human life above all.

 

[Knowltok]

Maybe you'd like to back that one up? And then you can explain where the parallel between British SAILORS and US MARINES comes in?

Sure.

first, from what I read it was a mixed group of sailors and marines for the Brits. There's the parallel.

Now, as for scenarios where US Marines will surrender, why not? I'll grant that they may be less or even a lot less likely to surrender than their British counterparts (without arguing the relative merits), but last time I checked US Marines aren't held to a standard of Bushido, where surrender is never an option. Sorry, but since I wasn't on the water with them, I don't know how things unfolded and how much of a drop the Iranians may have had on them. As such I don't think we can difinitively say that US marines absolutely positively would not have surrendered.

If Marine training is such that surrender is never an option, I will stand corrected.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Not a chance. We have what, two carrier groups in the region? No matter how outnumbered our hypothetical American marines are, the Fury of Heaven is only a radio call away. And both sides know it.

After the Iraq debacle, the American 'Fury of Heaven' has lost alot of its luster. Theyve seen that alot of good can come from an American assault. I think a war with Iran would officially mark the end of the US as a military superpower. Iraq has just been the next to last nail. If I was a martyr minded leader of Iran, I might think that an attack on my country would be a good thing, if it helped cut the 'Great Shaitan' down to size.

 

[steveedster]

Yes was all about rules of engagement under UN mandate. No matter what nation found themselves in this situation, it would have been extremely stupid to start a firefight against 6 gunboats while only being in rigid inflatables with light arms, they would have been slaughtered. remember also this happened in shallow waters which is why HMS Cornwall was not nearby.

 

[nc-1701]

Maybe you'd like to back that one up? And then you can explain where the parallel between British SAILORS and US MARINES comes in?

They were surrounded by like 6 heavy ships armed with heavy crew served weapons. I don't care if the're marines, fighting against those odds isn't the ballsy thing to do it's the suicidal thing to do. From what I've read Iran had enough firepower on the boats to turn them to matchsticks in seconds. The sailors had only small arms immediatly available, and couldn't have survived a firefight. Sure we could retaliate, but we couldn't move fast enough to support them before these little boats were blown out of the water.

Iran would have exactly the same thing to an American boat.

 

[Zarn]

I think the Americans would have surrendered.

This can go either way (the capture of British personal). You better believe US intelligence is very concerned over the issue. They don't see this as a pebble at all.

It all depends on Iran's intentions.
-If they don't, they'll eventually release them. It is a pebble after all.
-If they want war, they'll eventually execute them.

 

[Little Raven]

After the Iraq debacle, the American 'Fury of Heaven' has lost alot of its luster.

Not against naval vessels. The Fury of Heaven won't dislodge the Mullahs, but it would sure as hell have reduced the Iranian naval ships to costal reef anchors. And the Iranian captians know this as well as the (hypothetical) American one.

I happen to share your view that a war with Iran would be disasterous for the US, but make no mistake, it would be disaterous for the Iranian regime as well. Iraq has and will continue to bleed us, but Saddam IS dead. The Iranians will push, but only so far.

 

[Little Raven]

They were surrounded by like 6 heavy ships armed with heavy crew served weapons. I don't care if the're marines, fighting against those odds isn't the ballsy thing to do it's the suicidal thing to do.

No, it's not suicide. It's a gamble. There's a difference.

Assume you're the captain of the captured ship, except in this scenario, you're American. The Iranians have approached, claiming you've violated their waters. They want to board your ship and arrest your crew. You now have a choice.

• You can surrender, delivering yourself and your crew into Iranian hands. Those same, delightful chaps that treated Americans with such hospitality back in the 70s, and whose regime has been getting along just peachy with Washington these days.
• You can refuse to surrender, and warn the Iranians that you WILL resist if they attempt to board, but offer to withdraw under escort to international waters.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that you choose option B.

Now the Iranians have a choice. They either reduce you to matchsticks, and celebrate their victory for the 20 minutes or so that it takes the American Air Force to arrive before joining you in the afterlife, or they can back down, and escort you out of their waters while lodging diplomatic protests.

You're basically gambling that the Iranian captain doesn't want to die, and simultaneously lock his country into a war they can't win. Granted, it's a bit ballsy, because if you're wrong, you're dead. But it's a gamble I suspect virtually every American captain would take. It’s certainly not suicide.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

After the Iraq debacle, the American 'Fury of Heaven' has lost alot of its luster. Theyve seen that alot of good can come from an American assault. I think a war with Iran would officially mark the end of the US as a military superpower. Iraq has just been the next to last nail. If I was a martyr minded leader of Iran, I might think that an attack on my country would be a good thing, if it helped cut the 'Great Shaitan' down to size.

Mark the end of the US as a military superpower?

Do you think Iran could shoot down the planes of US Navy and Airforce, sink US subs and aircraft carriers, decimate the marines, and defeat the US Army? Iran couldn't give the 'Great Shaitan' a hair cut, much less cut it down to size. All I Iran could do is show that the US military cannot be beat but the political will of the US is weak and easily defeated. But this has already been shown in Iraq and Vietnam.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Not against naval vessels. The Fury of Heaven won't dislodge the Mullahs, but it would sure as hell have reduced the Iranian naval ships to costal reef anchors. And the Iranian captians know this as well as the (hypothetical) American one.

I happen to share your view that a war with Iran would be disasterous for the US, but make no mistake, it would be disaterous for the Iranian regime as well. Iraq has and will continue to bleed us, but Saddam IS dead. The Iranians will push, but only so far.

My natural instinct is to agree with you. That the Iranian powers that be, having seen what happened to the former Iraqi elites, would think twice, or three times before bringing that type of destruction on themselves. But I stop myself because we're dealing with a completely different culture and society, which seems to have very different ideas about this sort of thing than we do. If an individual can be seen as an honorable holy martyr because he kills himself and takes some of the enemy with him, might not some of these leaders think the same about an entire country? I dont know. I hope somebody knows.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Mark the end of the US as a military superpower?

Do you think a war with Iran could shoot down the planes of US Navy and Airforce, sink US subs and aircraft carriers, decimate the marines, and defeat the US Army? Iran couldn't give the 'Great Shaitan' a hair cut, much less cut it down to size. All I Iran could do is show that the US military cannot be beat but the political will of the US is weak and easily defeated. But this has already been shown in Iraq and Vietnam.

Fugitive, Iraq was in even less of a position to shoot down our planes, but the Iraq war has turned out to be a disaster for our country. I think a conflict with Iran will be even worse.

edit: btw, we all seem to think that we can restrict the conflict with Iran to strictly bombing and naval maneuvers. The Iranians arent stupid. The smartest thing for them to do in response to an attack from us would be to invade Iraq.

 

[Little Raven]

But I stop myself because we're dealing with a completely different culture and society, which seems to have very different ideas about this sort of thing than we do. If an individual can be seen as an honorable holy martyr because he kills himself and takes some of the enemy with him, might not some of these leaders think the same about an entire country?

No. Iran is not interested in playing the role of national suicide bomber so China can dance on our grave. They are interested in being a regional superpower, (which Persia has traditionally been) and they have a plan for bringing that reality about. This plan involves them getting nukes, and thus a certain amount of conflict with us is inevitable, but they don't want a war. Let's face it...things are trending Iran's direction right now. They're greatest regional enemy has been destroyed at absolutely no cost to them, and great cost to their greatest strategic enemy; Saudi Arabia is either at peak or very close to it, which means the Sunni collective is about to get a 300 pound steel ball to the nuts; and everyone is too war weary to stop them from getting the toys to sit at the big boy table. Why piss all that away on a war?

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Fugitive, Iraq was in even less of a position to shoot down our planes, but the Iraq war has turned out to be a disaster for our country. I think a conflict with Iran will be even worse.

edit: btw, we all seem to think that we can restrict the conflict with Iran to strictly bombing and naval maneuvers. The Iranians arent stupid. The smartest thing for them to do in response to an attack from us would be to invade Iraq.

I freely admit that Iran could win a war against the United States but they can't win it militarily. And if Iran did win it would have next to no affect on the United States' military capacity. The Iraq war is a political and perhaps and economic diasaster but it is certainly not a military disaster.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

LR, while I find your logic to be flawless, and I mostly agree with you, arent we both Westerners? Westerners only seem to project victory and defeat into the immediate future. It seems to me (based on my admitted limited knowledge of ME Muslim culture) that they tend to take the long view, and depersonalize it to a certain extent. They may have no problem with having their country wrecked in the short term, if it means that in the longer term, the US is out of the picture, and theyre free to deal with Israel (their new Crusader State) at their leisure.

I freely admit that Iran could win a war against the United States but they can't win it militarily. And if Iran did win it would have next to no affect on the United States' military capacity. The Iraq war is a political and perhaps and economic diasaster but it is certainly not a military disaster.

But if something is a political and economic disaster, what does it matter if it isnt a military one? And it would have a very dire effect on our military capacity, just as the Iraq war has had.