...(one the US has done many times in the past in other areas of the planet), this wouldn't have raised the attention of anyone past the UK shadowing the Ruskis with their own warship. The US Navy also sails in international sea lanes just to let everybody know they can, especially with China in the South China Seas.

This is weird.

... they were being shadowed (as always) by a UK warship.

which may explain why, although the UK said in March was prepared to stop tankers with the embargoed Russian oil, it hasn't happened until this week. If this Russian warship has been close to many of the tankers in the channel, the UK probably didn't want to risk an incident with an armed Russian ship.

You don't get close to ANY warship. They were just waking up the captain.

... lighter touch.

You give them a wide berth.

I was fishing out of Kings Bay in GA and watched a Trident nuclear sub come out of the base. We powered down and let it go past.

... we would have used high pressure hoses on you if you got too close.

When I was at New London there was a guard at each boat on the pier. He was armed with only a .45. An unloaded .45. No bullets, not even like Barney Fife, who got to have a round in his pocket.

It put out a hellva wake.

Rec

Warships are not moving blobs of sovereign territory, just because they've got weapons. Getting close to them in a busy shipping lane should be no different to getting close to any similarly sized ship; just a question of what traffic rules apply, and the options of each vessel.

Also, again according to the article, the shots were not close, just waking them up. If they meant any harm, we would be reading about ship debris. A US flag warship would have most likely done the same thing. Remember the USS Cole? No Captain is going to make that mistake again.

There is no specific legal requirement of a licence to skipper a boat that size in UK waters, or to visit France from the UK: https://www.rya.org.uk/boating-abroad/country-specific-advice/france/

But my main point is that you are saying there is an explicit rule that the British boat broke. This isn't about whether the Russian frigate meant harm, or if it did the right thing. You were saying no boat, anywhere, should approach with 500m of any warship (and there's been nothing indicating it was a collision course).

... even if heavy handed. Every Navy in the world would have the same in the Channel - where every Blue Water navy plies in international waters, though short of firing over the bow. And in this case all it meant was a handful of sailors firing rifles.

How did you feel about the the the attack on the US detroyer that let small boats get too around Hormuz and almost the only US Navel vessel sunk since WWII?

https://www.fbi.gov/history/cases-and-criminals/uss-cole-bombing

On October 12, 2000, two suicide pilots of a small bomb-laden boat pulled alongside of the USS Cole at midship, offered friendly gestures to several crew members, and detonated their explosives.

The U.S. destroyer, en route to the Persian Gulf, was making a prearranged fuel stop at the port of Aden, Yemen, when the attack occurred.

The blast ripped a 40-foot-wide hole near the waterline of the Cole, killing 17 U.S. sailors and injuring nearly 40 other crew members.
















Maybe the Cole should have started shooting sooner?

/@@images/image/high

/@@images/image/high

And 17 dead swabbies and 40 wounded.

Almost forgot the Sullivan.

The extensive FBI investigation ultimately determined that members of the al Qaeda terrorist network planned and carried out the bombing. The investigation also revealed that the USS Cole bombing followed an unsuccessful attempt on January 3, 2000, to bomb another U.S. Navy ship, the USS The Sullivans. In this earlier incident, the terrorist boat sank before the explosives could be detonated; however, the boat and the explosives were salvaged. The boat was then refitted, and the explosives were tested and reused in the USS Cole attack.

This was half a fucking kilometre away, in a slow sailing boat, and you're pretending this is equivalent to getting close enough to damage it with explosives?

I really didn't think the bloody shirt would be waved like this here.

... the US, UK, France, Russia and China is now building one.

These fleets are for one purpose whether in peace or war project a national presence wherever they go either for the "press", snuffing out political unrest ("Gunboat Diplomacy&quot or to fight.

Let alone that the US Navy/US Army by being everywhere is one of if the biggest sources of humanitarian aid on the planet.

It's not the Navy you should fear. It's some of the leaders we have. I totally believe the US military did not go along with or do some of the things TACO wanted done in Iran. Our military has been among the most unpolitical forces anywhere, UK's is also: they just don't meddle in national politics, past looking for your tax dollars.

especially with this sub-thread, in which the claim was made that the skipper of the yacht should "lose their licence" for coming within 500m of a warship. As if warships (are you saying "just warships of the permanent Security Council members", since you list them?) have special rights to have nothing approach them, even if they're in one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world, and this is something that is enforced by banning people from sailing.

... I'm trying to explain why he was in the wrong, why the Russians were correct (they remember the Cole, they might have even supplied the 3,000# of high explosives), if maybe a little heavy handed. Why didn't the small boat answer when the Russians hailed on radio and by loud speaker? The Russians didn't use machine guns like the US does.

I don't know what you don't get about this, but it's pretty clear I'm not getting though. Have a great DU day!

Are you saying there's a law that you can't approach within 500 metres of another vessel? Citation needed.

The couple on the yacht say they altered course after the frigate sounded its horn. But the Russians did think that was enough, and then did the small arms fire (and everyone acknowledges that was not aiming near the yacht at all). The yacht then started its motor, and turned 90 degrees (which should not be needed, but when the other guy has used a weapon, you don't count on them being reasonable). I cannot see what the "law" you claim was broken was.

And I still can't see how your post on blue-water navies explained your position.

The assumption - might is right.
This planet is in deep trouble.

... the rail. Somali pirates are fired at before they shoot and at distance further than 1,600 ft (half a kilometer) beforethey open fire themselves..

Stay clear of anybody's warship at sea.

What are you trying to say about me?

Thing is, you don't get too close to a warship uninvited, Russian or not.

Tell the yacht owners

. open their eyes
. turn on their ship radio
. stay away from war ships (especially Russian)
. change their underwear

If they get anywhere within 1000 miles of Ukraine it will be quickly promoted to submarine.

The Russians tried radio, loud hailer and finall got a response. The yacht idiot moved the tiller about 2 degrees which is not enough. That's when the Russian fire the warning shot.

Yacht idiot, " Oh I guess they want us to move" starts aux engine and swings 90 degrees out of the ship.

You don't claim right away with trains or ships.

The facts first! It was a SAILBOAT!
It did not answer hails from the Russian vessel.
Calling it a pleasure yacht doesn't jibe with jibs!
It is intentionally misleading to inflame tensions!

I have a hard time choosing sides here.