British Sailors Captured By Iran

Remove all ads!

The F-18 E/F is the Super Hornet, and yes, they are brand new. The initial F-18s were introduced in 1983, however, and my point was that there are probably more of them in current service than any other US fighter plane. The Super Hornet, on the other hand, didn't enter service until 1999, and it's not like they took existing Hornets and upgraded them into Super Hornets. The Super Hornet is a completely new design. In fact, I'm not even sure it should still be considered an F-18, as it is considerably bigger than the original F-18.

 

I know the aircraft It's the same design, scaled up, and with more modern manufacturing techniques and materials. Aerodynamically it's nothing new, internal arrangement and general concept remained unchanged, thus the very little problems encounted in the development - it was known terrain
It's an evolutionary improvement. I think the USN wanted to play it safe and opted, after the A-12 was cancelled, for a low-risk candidate in case the JSF encountered technical problems or program obstacles. As a result they have the most advanced swing-rôle fighter in the US inventory.

The F-18 E/F is as much an F-18, as the F-2 is an F-16 ...

PS: But of course they all suck and cannot beat my favourite, the ingenious (if lamentably unbuilt) Northrop-Dornier ND-102. All supercruise, in 1982 already. A design ahead of its time.
PPS: Is it just me or are we heading ?

 

So... what do you guys think of the latest pics and interview that have been aired?

To me, the sailor interviewed (Faye Turney) seems to be using terms that sound a little too generous to the Iranians to be natural, so I wonder if she was forced to say them.

I hope they all get returned safe and well (and soon), without anything escalating.

 

yes, i thought her interview sounded very coerced to me, britain has stepped up the pressure now by freezing all bilateral contracts between Iran and the UK, they have also released evidence placing the team 1.7 nauticle miles inside Iraqi waters.

you guys seem to have an affinity with aircraft should start another thread, sounds like you could fill a few pages

 

One thing that I have been waiting for and so far no one has even mentioned...Geneva Conventions...seems to me that the Iranians have broken at least a couple here , and yet not one bit of outrage displayed anywhere about it?

HMMMM, could give one something to ponder.

 

What, spare an afterthought for a quaint remnant of the last millenium? Darky, I didn't know you were such a softy, to be concerned over the human rights of terrorists...

 

Yeah, that's why I said I wasn't even sure it should still be called an F-18.

Forget the Geneva Convention, because if this is true:

then Iran has committed an act of war.

 

The UN and EU are being FAR too quiet about this. A bit of loud backup would be nice, even from GW Bush. As usual we are left to hang out to dry.

 

I would presume the Brits have asked them to be quiet in order to not undermine their diplomatic efforts.

 

latest quotes from reuters:

charts = proof?

is iran pushing britain too far on this one?

 

Mmm, this is good. Carrier Stennis joins Eisenhower for exercises in Persian Gulf. As if things weren't hot enough already. Can't wait to see where this takes it.

Edit: Woopsie, just saw the last part of the post above. Oh well, more news coverage I guesses.

 

Ah, proof at last that SPers hate America, and don't really care about any of the things they post about.

Yes, Iran has broken the Geneva conventions. This is a Bad Thing. No ifs, ands, or buts.

So what? Iran is not my country, and I'm not about to advocate going to war over it (especially since, as far as we know, the violation has been parading people around on television. Inexcusable, yes. Casus belli, no).

 

Well, it's all coming down to something that people are forgetting - the whole issue of "they were in Iraqi waters" means a little less than a lie to an Iranian who sincerely believes the charts and maps include the BULK of the waterway as their territorial waters.

(from the Wikipedia page about this event)

Basically the point of the this is that I'd guess neither party disagrees on the absolute position(latitude/longitude) of the inspection boats, but it's the territoriality of that position - Iran says that it's inside their waters, whilst the UK (and likely Iraq) disagree that it's within Iraq's territory.

In essence, it's a property dispute that needs to be settled in some 'international court'. This is a much more thorny and convoluted issue than it seems, due to the fact that the waterway is an alluvial basin and constant build-up of silt CHANGES the locations of sand bars and shallows constantly - the Shatt al-Arab needs continuous dredging to keep it navigable, so any discussion of "each owns waters up to n km from their shores" will have to take into account that those shores WILL change fairly quickly as silt builds up.


Oh, and if the Iranian government does fulfill one rumor and indict these folks with espionage, would the Geneva Conventions become moot?

 

Well, if that happens there will be a war. So the conventions, I'm sure, will be important to all those Iranian prisoners-of-war that will be filling allied camps.

 

to be blunt, im convinced that there will be war, two months ago i would have said thats never going to happen, but this is the best thing that could have ever happened to george bush, the support is now there, the british public is outraged by the clear agressive stance shown by the iranian government, which is adding to the concern about their nuclear goals, and claims that they support terrorism inside iraq. the international community is likewise supporting in the release of the 15 despite those who have strong arms deals (russia and china) with iran keeping their mouths shut over the location dispute.

a millitary buildup is already underway, and i have it on reliable rumor that several royal navy warships are on standby from the med to move to the gulf.

[ March 30, 2007, 10:40: Message edited by: Shoshino ]

 

The longer this ridiculous bull**** goes on, the more chance there is of fasttracking the war (I'm thinking that it probably would've happened anyway). At first I thought this would be resolved really quickly seeing how reasonable Britain have been, but it looks like that's not going to happen. Looks like America's secured an ally for their next bit of rampant stupidity.

As for the Geneva Convention - I don't think it's relevant anymore. When the world's superpower happily ignores it, it doesn't really matter when other less influential nations do.

 

I guess our government either went to Britain and made arrangements to place their sailors where they would be captured or our government went to Iran and made arrangements to have them capture the British Sailors. Naturally it is all the USA's fault. [sarcasm intended]

 

OK, I understand that the shorelines can change, but I was under the impression that international maritime law dictates that international waters start 10 km (about 6 miles) from the coast. I certainly am not familiar enough with the geography of the region, but the only way I can see where the waters could be disputed is if the area they were in was less than 20 km across, or in other words, that they could be within 10 km of both Iran and Iraq.

That having been said, do not all ships nowadays have GPS on them? Shouldn't you be able to tell (not even going by the satellites) exactly where the ships were located? Granted the small boats the Brits used to board the other ship probably do not have GPS systems, but if we know where the British ship was, and we know where the boarded ship was, is it not fair to assume that the small boats were located at one of the two ships or some point in between when they were captured? Like I said before, unless we are in a situation where you are within 10 km of both nations, I don't see how the waters can be disputed. And even if they are disputed, shouldn't GPS settle the debate about where they were?

 

I scratched together some history from the web:

The Shatt al Arab is a vital strategic waterway, as it constitutes Iraq's only access to the sea and provides a transportation corridor for oil exports and commodity imports for both Iran and Iraq. Due to its economic and strategic significance, control of the river has long been contested. The earliest documented dispute dates to the Treaty of Zohab of 1639. This treaty was intended to establish a boundary-partly at the river-between Persia (now Iran) and the Ottoman Empire (including what is now Iraq). The language of the treaty was vague, however, and conflict over the Shatt al Arab persisted through a number of subsequent agreements.

Outside powers became involved in the issue during the 19th century, with Russia backing Persian claims to the eastern bank of the river, and Britain supporting Ottoman claims to control of both banks. The Second Treaty of Erzurum, signed in 1847, generally confirmed the Russo-Persian position, but again the language was so vague that the Ottomans claimed ownership of the entire Shatt al Arab, while ceding navigation rights to the Persians. Under agreements signed just prior to World War I the boundary remained on the river's eastern bank except around Khorramshahr and Âbâdân, where it shifted to the middle point of the river.

In 1937 a commission sought to determine the border around Shat al Arab region, and in 1938 a fresh treaty between Iraq and Iran was signed, leaving Iran with control only of the approaches to Abadan and Khorramshahr, its chief ports, and unable to develop new port facilities in the delta. In 1950, Iraqi monarchy was dethroned by a bloody military revolution. The pact was shelved. Disputes persisted. To preclude Iraqi political pressure and interference with its oil and freight shipments on the Shatt al Arab, Iran built ports on the Persian Gulf to handle foreign trade.

So prior to 1975 Iraq claimed full sovereignty over the waterway and charged Iranian ship for services such as providing pilots and also other equipment required for safe navigation in the area. The Iranian government bitterly complained that none of the money paid to the Iraqis was used on improvements. It was just a cash cow, waylaying so to say.

Generally, while Iraq wanted access, in regards to navigation rights, to full width of the river as it is crucial to its sea trade & exports, the Iranians preferred a delineation along the thalweg (mid-river) principle. After years of tension, Saddam Hussein and the Shah of Iran shook hands, with Iraq agreeing to the middle of Shat al Arab as the boundary between their countries at the Arab summit in Algiers in 1975.

Five years later and one year after the Iranian revolution Saddam tore up the agreement and called it null and void. Subsequently in September 1980 the Iraqi army invaded Iran with the goal of, among other things, establishing full sovereignty over the shat al Arab. To sum up a long blody war: Saddam Hussein didn't succeed, and eventually Ayatollah Khomeini agreed to an armistice, and to UN resolution 598, that called on them to withdraw all forces to the internationally recognized boundaries without delay.

Which is amusing, because the very question of where the borders are in respect to the Shat al Arab is again an open question. While Saddam thought he killed the agreement of Algiers by invading, the Iranians (prudently IMO) insist in its validity. So today the Iraqi position is that of Saddam Hussein, that evil agressor. Iraq's continued rejection of the Algiers Treaty, even after the armistice, reveals its commitment to control the entire border waterway. To say it blunt: There is no agreement. Iran and Iraq still have conflicting ideas about their respective shorelines. They never really sorted that out Sharing the river in the middle doesn't sound excessive or crazy to me. It's outright salomonic

Pinpointing your position doesn't really help when the quarreling is about on whose side that point is. I find the point that's being made that clearly the Brits cannot have been in Iranian waters daring, even in the age of GPS. I feel sorry for the British soldiers, but I find it downright hilarious that the liberators of Iraq from Saddam's agression and tyranny find themselves supporting his old casus belli against Iran.

[ March 30, 2007, 19:20: Message edited by: Ragusa ]