4 ms·

The U.S. was in a hot war as well. The shootdown of Iran Air 655 occurred during Operation Earnest Will, which involved the convoying of Kuwaiti (not Iraqi) oi

by mpyne 13y ago

The U.S. was in a hot war as well. The shootdown of Iran Air 655 occurred during Operation Earnest Will, which involved the convoying of Kuwaiti (not Iraqi) oil tankers through the Persian Gulf to protect them from Iranian interdiction contrary to the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea regarding international waters and navigation rights. Throughout this operation, Iran conducted mining efforts within the Persian Gulf. On the very first convoy an oil tanker was hit by an Iranian mine (luckily causing no injuries or loss of life). Later in the convoy operation U.S. special operating forces managed to capture an Iranian minelayer in the act of laying mines. Later during this same operation, USS Samuel B. Roberts (FFG-58) was struck by an Iranian mine (proven based on serial numbers matching mines noted from the aforementioned spec-ops mission). The mine caused damage which is normally fatal to warships of that size (the keel cracked and both engines were knocked from their mounts). She had to limp out of the minefield on auxiliary thrusters while the crew fought to contain damage and save the ship. 10 sailors were injured badly enough to require evacuation. 4 of those were badly burned and had to be sent all the way back to the U.S. to recuperate. As a result of that, the U.S. Navy launched a short surface operation against Iranian platforms (Operation Praying Mantis) on April 18, 1988. Meanwhile, about a year before Iran Air 655, on May 17, 1987, an Iraqi (U.S. ally??) Air Force jet had attacked the frigate USS Stark (FFG-31) with two Exocet missile in the Persian Gulf. Though the damage to the ship itself was not as severe, 37 sailors died and 21 more were injured. In the context of all of that, on July 3, 1988, USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air 655. To be clear the ship captain was clearly in the wrong. Even with the 'fog of war' and the problems of having to use instruments to fight instead of one's own eyes he had enough indications to know he wasn't under attack. But the shootdown itself didn't come out of thin air, and the U.S. was brought into a tense situation in the lead-up to the events of that day (though admittedly, they didn't do much to de-escalate either once it started happening).

jlgreco 13y ago
Even more reason to not be surprised that the Iranians shot at the US.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Just so I'm clear, you're saying that a country preventing their own merchant ships from being attacked in order to maintain free trade on international waters in accordance with international law justifies blowing up one of that country's warships?
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    I'm saying that war is shit, but if you are in one then don't expect not to get shot at. There is no sense acting indignant about it. They were not shot at out of the blue, there was an existing conflict. In this discussion it hardly matters who was on the right side of the overall conflict, however, in this specific engagement: the Iranians shooting at the Americans was reasonable and should not have surprised anybody; the Americans shooting back was reasonable and should not have surprised anybody. The only real problem was the American shooting at the airliner.
    - ensignavenger 13y ago
      Keep in mind too that the Americans did not know it was a commercial airliner. It certainly was not a deliberate targeting of a civilian plane.
      - jacquesm 13y ago
        Actually, according to the WP article sources they did.
        mpyne 13y ago
        There were Americans on nearby warships who knew (and arguably, should have provided forceful backup; but the other warships had far inferior radars and thought that Vincennes knew something they didn't). The watchstanders on Vincennes did not know. They should have known, but there was no "bright line" that makes a given radar target look automatically civilian or automatically military on the display. Watchstanders and the CO have to make that determination based on a confluence of factors, including IFF transponder frequency, flight plan, whether the craft is ascending/descending, etc. The CO came to the conclusion early that the indications he had were of an attacking aircraft. Part of that was based on a determination that the aircraft was descending in a hostile attack pattern. It wasn't, and the AEGIS radar showed as much. But when the life-or-death decision point for your ship rests on whether you see a '-' or a '+' next to a altitude change rate it's not astonishing when a watchstander makes the wrong call. The Vincennes watchstanders tried hailing the aircraft two times, but didn't get a response. But even that didn't really help resolve the issue; was it an hostile aircraft maintaining radio silence or a confused civilian airliner? They used a frequency a civilian airliner could have picked up, but it turns out there were several other frequencies the airliner could have been monitoring as well, and besides... how was the Iran Air 655 pilot to know Vincennes was ever referring to them? Vincennes was having to make a hail to the effect of "unidentified aircraft south of Bandar abbas with speed 350 knots, heading 210, you are on a hostile course and this warship will take defensive measures". What civilian airliner pilot would think that applied to them (though Vincennes quoted speed-over-ground and not the airspeed the pilot would have been looking at). So there were tons of 'Final Destination'-esque problems that occurred here, but foremost of all was that the watchteam (CO and CIC watchstanders both) determined early based on a single misread indication that they were being attacked, and the evidence they had available to them after that could easily be construed to support that determination.
vacri 13y ago
That's not 'hot war', that's all 'gunboat diplomacy'. If it is a war, it's still a cold war. Militarising coastal waters to apply pressure. If the US was in a 'hot war' with Iran, there would have been more than a planeload of civilians as casualties - a 'hot war' is one were there's been a declaration of war and there's an armed conflict going on. People died all the time on the interface between the First and Second Worlds, yet it was still termed a 'cold war' for the decades it existed.
- greedo 13y ago
  Enforcing maritime law isn't "militarising coastal waters." Trying to defend what the Iranians were doing as innocent is disingenuous. And a hot war is one where bullets, missiles, shells are flying around. Just because there's no declaration of war doesn't mean it's not a war. Let's look at a little history here: Korean War - Hmm, no declaration of war Vietnam War - Same Grenada - Same Panama - Same Desert Shield/Storm - hmm, no declaration here either OIF - Same OEF - Same So the pattern is pretty clear, that declarations of war aren't worth the paper they're printed on. And try telling the combatants on both sides in the above conflicts that they weren't in a hot war.
  - vacri 13y ago
    Speaking of disingenuous, where did I defend what the Iranians did? Where did I say that gunboat diplomacy was only a US thing? And a hot war is one where bullets, missiles, shells are flying around So the Cold War was a hot war then? You can't fix a poor definition with a poorer definition.

by mpyne 13y ago

jlgreco 13y ago

Even more reason to not be surprised that the Iranians shot at the US.

mpyne 13y ago
Just so I'm clear, you're saying that a country preventing their own merchant ships from being attacked in order to maintain free trade on international waters in accordance with international law justifies blowing up one of that country's warships?
- jlgreco 13y ago
  I'm saying that war is shit, but if you are in one then don't expect not to get shot at. There is no sense acting indignant about it. They were not shot at out of the blue, there was an existing conflict. In this discussion it hardly matters who was on the right side of the overall conflict, however, in this specific engagement: the Iranians shooting at the Americans was reasonable and should not have surprised anybody; the Americans shooting back was reasonable and should not have surprised anybody. The only real problem was the American shooting at the airliner.
  - ensignavenger 13y ago
    Keep in mind too that the Americans did not know it was a commercial airliner. It certainly was not a deliberate targeting of a civilian plane.
    - jacquesm 13y ago
      Actually, according to the WP article sources they did.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        There were Americans on nearby warships who knew (and arguably, should have provided forceful backup; but the other warships had far inferior radars and thought that Vincennes knew something they didn't). The watchstanders on Vincennes did not know. They should have known, but there was no "bright line" that makes a given radar target look automatically civilian or automatically military on the display. Watchstanders and the CO have to make that determination based on a confluence of factors, including IFF transponder frequency, flight plan, whether the craft is ascending/descending, etc. The CO came to the conclusion early that the indications he had were of an attacking aircraft. Part of that was based on a determination that the aircraft was descending in a hostile attack pattern. It wasn't, and the AEGIS radar showed as much. But when the life-or-death decision point for your ship rests on whether you see a '-' or a '+' next to a altitude change rate it's not astonishing when a watchstander makes the wrong call. The Vincennes watchstanders tried hailing the aircraft two times, but didn't get a response. But even that didn't really help resolve the issue; was it an hostile aircraft maintaining radio silence or a confused civilian airliner? They used a frequency a civilian airliner could have picked up, but it turns out there were several other frequencies the airliner could have been monitoring as well, and besides... how was the Iran Air 655 pilot to know Vincennes was ever referring to them? Vincennes was having to make a hail to the effect of "unidentified aircraft south of Bandar abbas with speed 350 knots, heading 210, you are on a hostile course and this warship will take defensive measures". What civilian airliner pilot would think that applied to them (though Vincennes quoted speed-over-ground and not the airspeed the pilot would have been looking at). So there were tons of 'Final Destination'-esque problems that occurred here, but foremost of all was that the watchteam (CO and CIC watchstanders both) determined early based on a single misread indication that they were being attacked, and the evidence they had available to them after that could easily be construed to support that determination.

vacri 13y ago

That's not 'hot war', that's all 'gunboat diplomacy'. If it is a war, it's still a cold war. Militarising coastal waters to apply pressure. If the US was in a 'hot war' with Iran, there would have been more than a planeload of civilians as casualties - a 'hot war' is one were there's been a declaration of war and there's an armed conflict going on. People died all the time on the interface between the First and Second Worlds, yet it was still termed a 'cold war' for the decades it existed.

greedo 13y ago
Enforcing maritime law isn't "militarising coastal waters." Trying to defend what the Iranians were doing as innocent is disingenuous. And a hot war is one where bullets, missiles, shells are flying around. Just because there's no declaration of war doesn't mean it's not a war. Let's look at a little history here: Korean War - Hmm, no declaration of war Vietnam War - Same Grenada - Same Panama - Same Desert Shield/Storm - hmm, no declaration here either OIF - Same OEF - Same So the pattern is pretty clear, that declarations of war aren't worth the paper they're printed on. And try telling the combatants on both sides in the above conflicts that they weren't in a hot war.
- vacri 13y ago
  Speaking of disingenuous, where did I defend what the Iranians did? Where did I say that gunboat diplomacy was only a US thing? And a hot war is one where bullets, missiles, shells are flying around So the Cold War was a hot war then? You can't fix a poor definition with a poorer definition.