yeah, stupid East Coast ships.

I heard about that. I guarantee some gunners went to Mast for that.

Only an m240? Meh.

The USS Ramage Ramaged.

Big deal. Accidents happen... :/

I would have thought that they'd have yknow, taken the ammo out of it while they cleaned it.

Maybe that's exactly what happened.

This is not just a simple accident. It's what the navy calls a Negligent Discharge. Negligent because someone has to have screwed up for a gun to go off "accidentally". What if there'd been Polish citizens in the way? And even though there wasn't we technically commited an act of war against Poland. We're lucky they didn't see it as such.

My negligent discharges usually result in me doing laundry.

Better than a getting a girl pregnant.

heh heh heh

unexpected friendly fire?

Village air strike.

We're lucky they didn't see it as an act of war???

Well yeah, kinda a big deal when a big military ship of another country shoots at you.

Although unlikely, the poles had every right to perform their investigation to figure out wth happened.

I'm not saying we're lucky they didn't see it as an act of war in hindsight. I'm saying we're lucky the Polish military on the docks didn't see it as an act of war right when it happened, and return fire, which would have undoubtedly escalated into something terrible.

[Also, there's very specific rules about what is considered an act of war and what isn't. It's not just up to the individual. It's based on treaties set forth by the UN. For example, while we were in the Gulf, Iranian pilots flew up alongside our ship on a regular basis. They'd come in fast, and they'd come in close enough to make out the individual features of the pilots. They'd photograph us and continue on. However, by UN treaties, it's not considered an act of war unless they'd actually flown directly over our ship (which they knew and so stayed off to one side). On the other hand, if someone was manning a gun and got jumpy and fired on the plane, *we'd* have been the ones at fault for starting something, even though (it's my opinion that) they were baiting us.

But firing a weapon in the direction of anything is definitely considered an act of war, and thus the Polish would have had every right to return fire when it happened.]

A polish citizen couldn't have gotten in the way, there aren't any of them living in Poland anymore.

I think the chances of that happening are probably lower than the possibility that there will be nuclear war tomorrow.

Sarn should be happy anyway, a war with Poland might see him some action seeing as he joined the Navy and America is only at war in 2 countries that are almost entirely landlocked.

Obi: Maybe, maybe not. You'd be surprised how that kind of stuff can escalate. If someone shot a gun at you, and you had a gun yourself, wouldn't you fire back? You probably wouldn't even think about whether or not it could have been an accident. Then you firing back would cause them to return fire, and so on. This kind of stuff easily builds on itself.

Now obviously it wouldn't have turned into a full out war, but it could have been a disaster and lives could have been lost.

And Baco, I imagine you were joking, but for the record, I have no interest in seeing some action. There's a reason I joined the Navy and not the Marines or the Army. Also, I'm pretty much a pacifist and wouldn't wish war anyway, and do wish we didn't have to be in the wars we're already in. But a man does what he has to do.

Yeah I agree. If I was at a port with a friendly ship from another country docked, and I hear a few shots fire off somewhere, my first thought is NOT going to be "We're under attack by enemy forces!". I'm more likely to think it's a criminal or a police officer somewhere.

Even if I realize it's the ship, it's going to be long over before I figure that out (machine guns are fast). I imagine you don't start a war with three bullets when a sustained fire would be far more effective. Not to mention missiles and bombs and such.

Sarn I think your "return fire" theory only really works with infantry vs infantry, or maybe ships vs ships. If a ship fires at infantry, their first response isn't going to be to fire back. If they think it's war, they're probably going to run since they're outgunned and not come back until they have some sort of ship-busting strategy. By that time they will have long realized it was only three shots and it was probably an accident.

Soldiers don't use sustained fire. 3 to 5 round bursts. (and this guy fired 3, so it would be just like an initial salvo) Now you may be right that they might realize that rounds are not continuing to be fired before they figured out what was going on (which, granted is probably what happened), but not necessarily. Even "friendly" ports are wary of us. We're Americans (meaning we like guns and we like shooting and we're irrational and quick to act, by our reputation) and we've got all that firepower. They would definitely be on alert, and when shots are fired, military members are not like civilians. Civilians might look around and casually wonder what happened. Military are going to know and take action right away.

Yeah I agree with all that, makes sense. I still think "take action" means "fall back until we get a jumbo size tin can opener".

Or at least "take cover and watch for landing parties to ambush".

Or "figure out what the hell is going on"...........

Imagine the kind of message it would send if an American ship did just start shelling the crap out of Poland.

Obama just holds a press conference with a banner behind him "And that's what we do to our FRIENDS!"

That would give America.... The same kind of reputation it has now....