Rules of engagement

An Update on the event

Hi everyone,

Well it looks like the Australians did it first.

Perhaps they did a better job.

In any event this was kept from us at the time, had we known then ?

See the news report via the link given below.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/6228342.stm

Alex

Please note this is an opinion piece from MSNBC…a cable and internet part of the NBC television network.
Before you get too upset with his views, note the author’s background given at the end of the piece. He won the US equivalent of the VC.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17972136/

Why would anyone “get upset” with his views, I wonder… Depressing to admit, he hits the nail on the head, as many people in UK would agree. That this episode should coincide with the 25th anniversary of victory in the Falklands underscores its shameful nature, which contrasts starkly with the vigorous no-nonsense success of the Royal Marines in Afghanistan the other day. Whether brought about by government-imposed rules of engagement, or by RN fuddled thinking, the capture of our people was shameful and their subsequent performance deeply discreditable. That the party included a woman was a handicap from the start, and any/every opponent we ever face in future will feel encouraged to stick two fingers up if we continue to put women in the front line. HMS Cornwall wasn’t the right sort of vessel to supervise the operation; she wasn’t close enough; she didn’t engage the enemy when they presented a threat to the boarding party. Why the f**k not? An absolute bl***y shambles, deeply humiliating for Britain’s armed forces.
hps

A commentary from a media military analyst…

Please note this is an opinion piece from MSNBC…a cable and internet part of the NBC television network.
Before you get too upset with his views, note the author’s background given at the end of the piece. He won the US equivalent of the VC.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17972136/

In reply to Phil Foster

Hello,

I had thought that my question was simple enough.

Wherever in the World I am, would the distance in Nautical miles between the position I am in and a position that was given as being 1 minute N and 2 minutes E of that position be the same or would the distance vary dependent on where in the World I am ?

For example – I am at 29 Degrees and 50 minutes North , 48 Degrees and 43 minutes East.

But Someone else said that I was at position 29 Degrees and 51 minutes North , 49 Degrees and 45 minutes East.

What would the difference of position be in Nautical miles ?

Would that distance be the same if the co-ordinates were different, say I was at 9 degrees and 50 minutes North , 8 Degrees and 43 minutes East and the position someone gave were given as 9 degrees 51 minutes North , 8 degrees 45 minutes East ?

Alex

Are you still following the Iranian official line? Not sure why you ask the question.

A simple question

Hi,

my simple question is –

Wherever in the World I am.

What would be the distance in nautical miles if the longitude and latitude where I was were given as one minute north and two minutes east of the correct position that I was in ?
And would that distance vary if the position in the World was different ?

thanks

Alex

The official line is that they are free to say whatever they need to say, don’t give any secrets away assuming you know any but otherwise, do as they ask.

BTW I doubt they were thinking of Blairs popularity at all, or propping up his government. The RN are more professional than that.

Sauron wasn’t writing about picking a fight with the Iranians, rather…defending themselves when the Iranians “suggested” they accompany them to their ship.
If an armed force wants to take you somewhere and you don’t want to go, I would think that’s self defense, not piracy.

Yes the RN is professional..so I’m sure they did have rules of engagement…which were probably carried out. They probably said something like “don’t shoot unless fired on”. So the Uk forces did not shoot to defend their boats and went with the Iranians.

My point about Blairs government, is if the Iraq actions were more popular with the UK public and Blair was in a better political stance, the rules of engagement possibly would have been a bit more robust. Simply put, if a government has the support of the people it has a wider range of military options. That’s why leaders in WWII had virtually unlimited military options (firebombing cities, destroying dams, nuclear weapons) and the US in Vietnam did not.

BTW: Do UK forces receive any “resistance” training…how not to give into enemy military information or give into demands for making propaganda statements?

I wasn’t aware that those in the military or police force only carried weapons for personal safety. You learn something every day.:confused:

Sauron

Might come as a shock but just because they are carrying firearms doesn’t mean they will shoot at anything. Their weapons are for personal defence and defence of comrades. Shooting first and asking questions later is called Piracy no matter whose waters you are in.

Add to that they weren’t looking for Iranian targets, but Iraqi ones. Firing at Iranian vessels is just counterproductive. Starting firefights on board ships is a stupid thing too.
Ask any policeman, even SWAT member and they will say if they can talk someone down and not use a gun at all then that is the best case scenario all round.

BTW I doubt they were thinking of Blairs popularity at all, or propping up his government. The RN are more professional than that.

My guess is the government doesn’t see it as worth getting shot over. They probably figured the personnel would be home by now.
Given that, I don’t think the rules of engagement were too far off.
Since Blair’s popularity is so weakened by the Iraq war, his government doesn’t want to “rock the boat”, so to speak.
I understand that video shows the Iranians possessing only a single machine gun…and with the RN warship so close they were not outgunned.

Just my opinion.