Would 15 American Marines/Sailors Given Into Iranian Boaters Without A Fight?

Question

What do you think ?

Answer 1

Well the Iranians tried this crap with some US personnel and it didnt work out for the Iranians too good.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1605487,00.html

The Americans involved were US Army. I can only guess that US Marines would have opened fire the second they were threatened.

In the past US Marines have only surrendered when they were ordered to in embassy situations ect or when they were under US Army command like at Corregidor ect ect.

Lets say for the sake of arguement that they did capture some US Marines, and Sailors. Say what you want about the Bush administration but I am sure that it would have been met with a very serious military response after a certain amount of time.

The facts seem to point to the Brits being in Iraqi waters. That has been confirmed by GPS from the Brits, US, the Indian ship that just had been searched, and even the Iranians who accidently sent the GPS coordinates confirming the Brits location. The Iranians then sent a second set of GPS grids backing up their claim of the Brits being in Iranian waters which they obviously doctored.

Based on that I cant see US Marines and Sailors just giving up without a fight. It would seem that the Iranians took this into account in that they targeted the Brits instead of the US.

Say what you want about rules of engagement (ROE) and all that BS. I was in the Marines, and in the Infantry and my personal belief is this...f-ck the rules of engagement if it means my life, or my buddies lives are going to end, I can always get out of jail.

To all those saying that they wouldnt have fired until fired upon thats total BS. I am guessing that they were taken into custody at gun point. When someone aims a weapon at you then your cleared hot to open up you do not have to wait until they actually shoot at you, if they are preparing to shoot by aiming at you then your life is directly threatened.

Rules of Engagement are guidelines, do not fire until fired upon is a myth its more like do not fire until fired upon, or your pretty sure they are going to fire. If someone pointed a weapon at me I would be "pretty sure they were going to fire."
Uniformed personnel attempting to take you prisoner is an act of war...period.
My attitude about this is common in the US Marines. One day I even asked my PLT SGT about ROE and if I should never engage unless it meets ROE, and he told me that if I see something that is a direct threat to my life or any other Marines life to engage it immediately, and we can "figure it out" later with everyone alive.

No one in the US military has the authority to tell you "do not fire under any circumstances even if your life is in danger." To do so would be an illegal order and a violation of the Geneva Convention, and the UN rules of Warfare. And even if they could order you to do that good luck having people follow that order.

Answer 2

.No one knows exactly what they would do in such a situation. The commanding officer has to weigh the odds of survival and the political implications on a moments notice. As far as we know, no shots were fired to induce the British to to act in firing back. The commanding officer would have to measure the odds against the superior firing power of the Iranians and take a course of action that would require self-preservation. There have been historical examples of our sailors surrenduring under these very circmstances. For example: the "Mayaguez Incident", May 12-15, 1975 , whereupon the Khymer Rouge of Cambodia took our sailors hostage: The January 23, 1968 U.S.S Pueblo Incident, whereupon a NSA surveillence ship was fired upon (1 sailor killed and & 7 wounded) and captured by North Korean forces. The American crew spent 11 months in captivity before being released: And, One that should be mentioned even though our sailors were not captured is the U.S.S Liberty Incident in June/July of 1967 during the "Six Days War." This was an American NSA surveillence ship of the coast of the Sinai peninsula in international waters. The ship was attacked without provocation by Israeli Defense Forces, first by straffing it, then napalmed, and finally torpedoed by Israeli gunboats. Thirty-four of our sailors were unjustfiably murdered by our ally Israel. It was John McCain's father Admiral John McCain Sr. who ordered the Liberty's sailors to silence on this act of aggression. President Johnson, it has been learned now, said this--"I don't care how many of our American boys were killed, I will not attack our friend and ally Israel." This makes you think before firing, doesn't it?

Answer 3

I can speak truthfully that if it was a group of 15 Marines, they would have done exactly what the Royal Marines and Sailors did. The kept their calm and chose NOT to escalate the situation. The key to being the finest fighting force the world has known is knowing when its appropriate to fight and when there is a non-voilent solution. No NCO will knowingly engage a battle that would positively get 15 Marines under his command slaughtered for no reason. The British Royal Marines acted more professional than you could possibly expect from anyone. What they did was smart, not cowardly, and any decent NCO in the Marine Corps would have given the same order.

Answer 4

They would most likely have done the same thing as the Brits . . . since there are currently no hostilities (as in shooting guns at each other as opposed to running off at the mouth) between Iran and the US any US troops would not have fired unless fired upon.

If the Iranians had fired on them however there would be a lot of dead Iranian sailors and sunken Iranian ships.

Answer 5

Let me get this straight. Fifteen people carrying SMALL ARMS, in an inflatable rigid frame boat in the middle of the Arabian gulf against a war ship. Yup, I'd sure pull out my 9mm and hold them off.
HAHAHAHAOHOHOHOHEHEHEHE
I am amazed at how some of you CHILDREN think.

Answer 6

Those people have been given an SOP for this type of situation. They also have to live with their rules of engagement. Since I don't know what the SOP or ROE are for that area of ops, it's impossible to answer your question. Given that the rules allowed it, those Americans would do their best to take names and kick tail.

Answer 7

I think they would fight; Iranians hate Americans, if some of our troops were captured by Iranians they would probably be tortured to death by Iran

Answer 8

Fight from a rubber raft against guys with guns? One shot and all 15 would be in the water. You must be in charge of our strategy over there!

Answer 9

No friggin way - we would have fought our a$$es off!

Answer 10

maybe they were too much drunk to the extent they were not able to fight