You must log in or register to comment.

WirelessBCupSupport t1_iwgeqpv wrote

Now who wouldn't want to see that blow up? Right?


BloodyRightNostril t1_iwgh915 wrote

I'd feel bad for all the sea life below that would be destroyed. But yes.


othercargo t1_iwgnb1k wrote

Just tow it out of the environment


reflUX_cAtalyst t1_iwgnhlw wrote

Do it away from the coast then. The surface of the middle of the ocean is like a desert.


007meow t1_iwgqs8w wrote

Remember the 2020 Beirut explosion?


[deleted] t1_iwhx1gw wrote



UglyInThMorning t1_iwiltxb wrote

They’re both very strong oxidizers, and dusts of them can explode because of that. They aren’t really traditional explosives on their own but in the event of a fire in a contained space they can deflagrate or detonate.


Hall-Double t1_iwjrwn8 wrote

Remember what happened 2 years ago, when they stored ammonium nitrate at the port in Beirut. May that never happen again.


Actual__Wizard t1_iwgvm9j wrote

Does ammonium perchlorate have a use outside of being a propellant?


VenserSojo t1_iwh4kd9 wrote

Yes but fertilizer isn't one of them which is what the bags claimed it was.

>Ammonium perchlorate is an explosive agent used as a component of fireworks, flash powders, explosives, smokeless jet, and rocket propellants.
>It is also used in oxidizing, engraving, or etching compounds, and as a reagent in analytical chemistry.


Jim_from_GA t1_iwgi99x wrote

Why is the US Coast Guard operating in the Gulf of Oman? I'm not up to date on their mandate, but I don't see how that is guarding our coasts.


Cricket_Vee t1_iwgjqzy wrote

The USCG is responsible for protecting economic and security interests abroad. The Gulf of Oman is a key strategic location and the USCG stays very active in that area.


Harris828 t1_iwgmedd wrote

The real answer is that the Coast Guard falls under the department of Homeland Security rather than the department of defense. Because of this, the coast guard can take actions overseas that the navy cannot without them being considered an act of war.


wufiavelli t1_iwgu9o5 wrote

One of my uncles got sent to Vietnam under the coast guard when it was under the treasury. They kept very meticulous records.


johnny_memetic t1_iwhmcmp wrote

The real real answer is the USCG are police and can carry out law enforcement actions without the pesky military jurisdiction thing. That's why their flag is hoisted higher than the national Ensign during AAVs.


tsunami141 t1_iwhomtm wrote

> without them being considered an act of war.

I know nothing about this - is this broadly accepted as truth by the world at large or is it just something that we can point to when we get accused of intervention and it allows us to act all innocent like "nah bro it was the USCG so everything is alright we ain't doin nothing"


D3adInsid3 t1_iwhm1sk wrote

It's because nobody wants to be regime-changed but that just doesn't sound good lol.


SmokeyUnicycle t1_iwgn97s wrote

The responsibility of the Coast Guard is not simply guarding America's water borders, but also maintaining safety and security in the international maritime trade network.

The US is very heavily tied into the world economy and most of the transportation of goods is done via ship.


WheresMyCrown t1_iwhbacz wrote

Because the US Navy and Coast Guard foot the bill for protecting the entire worlds shipping lanes more or less to keep the prices of said goods in said shipping lanes down. You want stable economies relying on shipping goods across the world?


aew360 t1_iwhw2ld wrote

Lot of people will likely complain about the cost but it’s smart. Gets them live practice and helps global supply chains. I like it


RKU69 t1_iwibs0n wrote

If that's their desire, they should stop destroying countries and stoking civil wars around important shipping lanes. In this case the main purpose of the US military has been to help blockade Yemen while Saudi Arabia and the UAE try to bomb it into submission.


Thac0 t1_iwgwo0c wrote

When I was in the USCG we had cutters going over to Iraq and also port security teams. At that time we were under DoT. The coast Guard operates globally as maritime law enforcement for the U.S.


IamSauerKraut t1_iwiinrm wrote

Thank you for your service. The USCG gets neither adequate recognition nor enough thanks for what it does.


Thac0 t1_iwiiz3i wrote

You’re welcome. Most of the time people forget it’s even one of the armed services. Or they make puddle pirate jokes. No respect 🫡🤪


that1LPdood t1_iwhdqsc wrote

The coast guard has been operating around the world for decades, yo.


mtarascio t1_iwh3p32 wrote

> but I don't see how that is guarding our coasts.

So literal lol.

They protect the US with the assets and expertise they have.


diablosinmusica t1_iwgizu6 wrote

I found that very odd too. When I read the title I assumed it was found off the US coast.


marti810 t1_iwgjkoo wrote

I had a buddy in the Coast Guard stationed in the Persian Gulf. He guarded ports in Bahrain.


diablosinmusica t1_iwh5u1p wrote

Before this article, I had no idea the US Coast Gaurd had such a wide responsibility. After some thought, it does make sense that the Navy and Coast Gaurd would serve different rolls.


Morgrid t1_iwhkq7l wrote

One of the duties of the USCG is protecting Navy ships in harbor and confined waterways.


TheOnlySars t1_iwiatwc wrote

I hear that the China is protecting the South China Sea from pirates

Sorry when did we make the US the world police and we know how corrupt police are.


sb_747 t1_iwizvpj wrote

> Sorry when did we make the US the world police

When the Royal Navy fell apart.


Nexus_of_Fate87 t1_iwkc79j wrote

>I hear that the China is protecting the South China Sea from pirates

China are the pirates in the SCS.

>Sorry when did we make the US the world police and we know how corrupt police are.

Well, there were a couple of small wars that occurred in the first half of the 20th century that resulted in the US being the only nation with the capability of force to sufficiently protect a globalized economy that many countries wanted to engage in, so they were literally invited by many countries to do so.


unclecaveman1 t1_iwgilwe wrote

It wasn’t the US coast guard. It was the US Navy and Coast Guard.


Jim_from_GA t1_iwgj166 wrote

My understanding is that is the US Coast Guard and the US Navy. Help me understand how it is not.


Jim_from_GA t1_iwgl69r wrote

Thanks for all the info about the mission of the Coast Guard and thank you to all that have, do and will serve in it.


reflUX_cAtalyst t1_iwgnmi5 wrote

Not anymore. US Coast Guard is under the Department of Homeland Security. They used to be under the Navy but not anymore.

EDIT: Since 2003. Coast Guard is not under the Department of Defense at all. Point number 2. Not DoD.


Noahdl88 t1_iwgz8ys wrote

Since 1945, prior to 2003 it was DOT, and for some time before that it was the Department of the Treasury.

Only during a declared war, and subject to the direction of the president, does the CG become a function of the navy.

They are separate because they have totally different mission sets, one fights wars, the other one protects our national interests though maritime security, safety, environmental protection, and treaty enforcement.


SmokeyUnicycle t1_iwgncte wrote

The Coast Guard does play a role I don't know why people are saying it's not.


iamtoe t1_iwgkg4o wrote

Yeah I looked up the ship to confirm, USCGC John Scheuerman, definitely a US Coast Guard ship. Brand new too, was just commissioned in February. Why in the hell are we sending our coast guard ships to the other side of the world. Thats what the Navy is for.


SmokeyUnicycle t1_iwgnpdw wrote

This comes from a misunderstanding of what the Coast Guard is for.

Maritime trade is what makes the world economy run and the US is the biggest part of that economy.

The Coast Guard has a responsibility to maintaining shipping lanes as safe and secure, and enforcing international law such as UN sanctions.

They can also be roped in by the Navy for military purposes when necessary but I'm not sure if that happened here or not.

Regardless the US Coast Guard operates all over the world


unclecaveman1 t1_iwgnpzg wrote

Coast Guard serves as the maritime law enforcement arm of the Navy when matters of war are involved.


unclecaveman1 t1_iwgknin wrote

The US Coast Guard is the maritime policing wing of US military. It acts under the control of the Navy when matters of war are considered. As this supposedly involves an ongoing conflict, I imagine they had jurisdiction in that area. In peacetime the Coast Guard acts under the DHS so it would have nothing to do with waters in the Gulf of Yemen.


reflUX_cAtalyst t1_iwgnstd wrote

They are under DHS completely now. They separated from the Navy entirely in 2003. The US Coast Guard is not controlled by the Department of Defense at all.


unclecaveman1 t1_iwgok2l wrote

Tell that to the Coast Guard, I don’t think they know.

“In times of peace, the Coast Guard operates as part of the Department of Homeland Security, enforcing the nation's laws at sea, protecting the marine environment, guarding the nation's vast coastline and ports, and performing vital life saving missions. In times of war, or at the direction of the President, the Coast Guard serves under the Department of the Navy, defending the nation against terrorism and foreign threats.”


Curbside_Hero t1_iwguf1y wrote

While that is true, this is not one of those times where the CG is operating under the Navy. That has not happened since WWII.


Inappropriateangel t1_iwi78pr wrote

If you scroll down like 2 inches on that link, it actually has a timeline of which departments the coast guard was under at what time with dates and states that the coast guard is now fully under Homeland security now.


SmokeyUnicycle t1_iwgngh0 wrote

It is also a law enforcement agency so it has the responsibility of enforcing things like maritime sanctions.

I'm not sure under which capacity it's operating under but I don't really think it matters


sevotlaga t1_iwgo9so wrote

The article specifically names US coast guard ship John Scheuerman.


unclecaveman1 t1_iwgosp4 wrote

Yes, I was pointing out it was a joint affair. Not that it matters, the coast guard deals with maritime law and defending from foreign threats and terrorism, and was working in an official capacity as law enforcement with the navy.


Grabba-The-Butt t1_iwh2wy4 wrote

Tow it under the crimea bridge and set it off


Orwick t1_iwi26wi wrote

That good that we stopped a shipment of explosives from going to Yemen. Now can we stop selling explosives to the Saudi’s?


RKU69 t1_iwibkvo wrote

I disagree - in this case Iran is helping defend against Saudi/Emirati aggression against Yemen. The more weapons the Houthis get to fight the Saudis and Emiratis, the better I say.


Gygyfun t1_iwk1j3z wrote

Bro the Houthis are Allie’s with North Korea. If North Korea is your ally you might want to reconsider what you’re fighting for.


RKU69 t1_iwk2dno wrote

When your people are facing a slow genocide by starvation, I'll take whatever help I can get.

When North Korea is backing up a good cause in opposition to you, you might want to reconsider what you're fighting for.


cryptotrader87 t1_iwh6cm2 wrote

Give it all to Ukraine to use against Russia


_Jamwara_ t1_iwkd4ep wrote

A gesture of goodwill, I’m sure…


bubblehead_maker t1_iwm8ag8 wrote

"Con Sonar Ship bearing 185, Range 4000 yards, designate Sierra 5"

"Sonar Con Aye"

"Man Battle Stations"

"Firing point procedures, Sierra 5"

"Shoot Tube 2"

"Con Sonar weapon running normal, acquired"

That'd be cool to hit with a torpedo.


zekex944resurrection t1_iwk1krh wrote

I’m not defending the actions but the us should not have a right to involve itself in the matters of countries it has no place becoming involved in.


Ent_Soviet t1_iwhlpo8 wrote

Aren’t we in a fertilizer shortage?


Capt_morgan72 t1_iwhrmm2 wrote

ammonium perchlorate isn’t a fertilizer. It’s a powerful oxidizer and propellant.


[deleted] t1_iwgo09c wrote



Atotallyrandomname t1_iwgsywx wrote

It's the ammonium perchlorate, that's used in the propellant. If they wanted to grow crops they'd use nitrate ( nitrogen)


scragglyman t1_iwgrspr wrote

Yes but they haul quantities as large as this in much safer ways. The craft was not designed to carry a load like that safely, which is illegal everywhere so the USCG got to seize it and sink it. Maybe it was just a large scale farm trying to save money (doubt), but it's shady regardless.


[deleted] t1_iwg0ab3 wrote



this_dudeagain t1_iwg1abw wrote

Trolls getting lazy these days.


[deleted] t1_iwgogt0 wrote



Atotallyrandomname t1_iwgsvb4 wrote

"180 tons of urea fertilizer and ammonium perchlorate" There's absolutely no need to ship these two items together, additionally, ammonium perchlorate is not ammonium nitrate, perchlorate is used in combustible material.


3thirtysix6 t1_iwgsq9c wrote

The Iranians were probably just shipping it someplace to be turned into explosives.


CrackaZach05 t1_iwg53ot wrote

We block weapons to Yemen while we supply the Saudi's w weapons to use against Yemen. Got it


ShellOilNigeria t1_iwgf9pn wrote

And we allow Russia to fight Ukraine and supply Ukraine with weapons.

And we propagandize our own citizens into believing fabricated lies which lead to war.

It's hard.


iehova t1_iwgho0q wrote

What lies are you speaking about, regarding the Ukraine war?


CrackaZach05 t1_iwgfeiz wrote

Also not our fight. These are all proxy wars that justify Washington's inflating of our defense budget.


GKanjus t1_iwgl5qz wrote

Except when Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons in the 90’s , America said they would help protect them. Well the pipers called and it’s time to pay up.


SmokeyUnicycle t1_iwgpem8 wrote

We didn't actually agree to protect them we just said we wouldn't attack them.

Russia did too lol


Moccus t1_iwhpi1m wrote

Sucks that you're getting downvoted. You're completely correct.

The Budapest Memorandum isn't a very long agreement, either, so anybody here should have time to read it.

This is what the US, the UK, and Russia agreed to in the Budapest Memorandum:

  1. Respect Ukraine's independence, sovereignty, and existing borders.
  2. Refrain from using force or threatening to use force against Ukraine except in self-defense or with the approval of the UN.
  3. Refrain from using economic coercion to undermine Ukraine's sovereignty.
  4. Seek assistance from the UN Security Council on Ukraine's behalf if anybody uses nukes or threatens to use nukes against Ukraine.
  5. Don't use nukes against Ukraine except in self-defense.

Nowhere is there any agreement to protect Ukraine, especially if they're only attacked in a conventional war. If they're attacked with nukes by Russia, then the US and the UK are supposed to go to the UN Security Council to ask for help, where Russia will promptly veto any proposed action, but that's the end of our obligations under the Budapest Memorandum.



GKanjus t1_iwj47kq wrote

“1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine”

I could dive deeper into the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, which is applicable here to prove you even further wrong, but instead I’ll just use the FULL wording of the first addendum, not just what you cherry picked to help your argument.

All in All we are in fact under the obligation to help Ukraine


SmokeyUnicycle t1_iwgpc1s wrote

Yes we are spending a whole 2% of our annual military budget on helping Ukraine, The horror the absolute horror

Thank you Russian bot for your contribution


CrackaZach05 t1_iwgq1m3 wrote

Gotta be a russian bot because I disagree w your take on foreign policy? You must claim to be very liberal 😂


SmokeyUnicycle t1_iwh89n3 wrote

No because you have an idiotic take that's parroting Russian talking points.

You could just be a useful idiot of course.


CrackaZach05 t1_iwhalqq wrote

Which Russian parrot has talked about the US militaries' inflated budget?

None that I'm aware of. But hey, I'm sure you're happy about how Vietnam, the Gulf War and the war w Iraq/Afghanistan went. Keep drinking that kool-aid.


SmokeyUnicycle t1_iwhbvw2 wrote

Like all of them...?

This is one of the dumbest gotchas I've ever heard lol

Down playing the US military and calling it ineffective and bloated is a favorite pastime of Russian trolls and useful idiots.

I like how you threw in some random bullshit at the end to try to make it seem like you had more of a point


CrackaZach05 t1_iwhda0v wrote

Sounds like you listen to more Russian news than most, comrade


AcidTWister t1_iwgk159 wrote

Proxy wars and tests, likely. Letting the world see Russia fail to just waltz in and take Ukraine really puts their position as a geopolitical super power into question. They can't even overtake a nation with a GDP smaller than Kansas. Who would possibly view them as a threat now?


poeticlicence t1_iwfychk wrote

Why did they sink the boat? Littering vandals.


PineappIeSuppository t1_iwggiy8 wrote

Guessing that the amount of urea / perchlorate dust/residue on board still made it a severe explosion risk even after offloading the material. I’d assume this stuff wasn’t in hermetically sealed packaging with the utmost care in storage and containment.


SmokeyUnicycle t1_iwgplm1 wrote

A small vessel on the ocean floor is not a big deal

Leaving it drifting would be a much bigger hazard to both chips and marine life, for when it strays into a crude oil tanker and causes an ecological disaster


[deleted] t1_iwfypue wrote



prometheus2508 t1_iwg165w wrote

I don't believe ammonium perchlorate has fertilizer applications like other ammonium compounds


Agent_Angelo_Pappas t1_iwgci0f wrote

It was a stateless vessel hauling ammonium perchlorate… They may as well have painted “Explosives 4 Sale” right on the side, like are you for real dude lol


nathanfay t1_iwgi32v wrote

But they're using it for fertilizer! LOTS of fertilizer!


Sidthelid66 t1_iwg4w0q wrote

This was the US navy and coast guard not to be confused with the non-existent North american coast guard. They are in the gulf of Oman because Columbia rules the waves.