Bonhomme Richard may be considered Arson.

[AVR_Project]

I've been seeing hints and flashes of this as security tightens up.  Areas of the ship will remain intact in case a Jury needs to visit.

✅ The amphibious assault ship burned for more than four days in July and was the Navy’s worst U.S. - YouTube

[Capt_Ahab1776]

If that is the case. If the culprits are found, it will be the most costly mistake they have ever made in their life. Bar none.

[Royeaux]

14 minutes ago, Capt_Ahab1776 said:

If that is the case. If the culprits are found, it will be the most costly mistake they have ever made in their life. Bar none.

If it was a mistake, it's legally not arson.

[BrushWolf]

16 minutes ago, Capt_Ahab1776 said:

If that is the case. If the culprits are found, it will be the most costly mistake they have ever made in their life. Bar none.

Yeah, that would be an instant dishonorable discharge even if they somehow avoided prison time.

2 minutes ago, Sventex said:

If it was a mistake, it's legally not arson.

Mistake as in something they should not have done.

[BayraktarDeath]

There's always this...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/15/uss-miami-military-submarine-fire-sentence

 

The 17 year sentence is warranted sure but what would scare me is the $400 million in restitution owed. That's a lot of community service. 

[BrushWolf]

4 hours ago, Darmokattenagra said:

There's always this...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/15/uss-miami-military-submarine-fire-sentence

 

The 17 year sentence is warranted sure but what would scare me is the $400 million in restitution owed. That's a lot of community service. 

That is a message.

[HamptonRoads]

4 hours ago, Darmokattenagra said:

There's always this...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/15/uss-miami-military-submarine-fire-sentence

 

The 17 year sentence is warranted sure but what would scare me is the $400 million in restitution owed. That's a lot of community service. 

I wonder if he plead guilty to avoid possible domestic terrorism charges.

[Royeaux]

It should be noted though that the Japanese never did figure out why the Battleship Mutsu exploded in port, but they were happy to conclude it was most likely arson by a disgruntled crewman whose name they conveniently did not know.  I suppose it's easier to blame a mysterious scapegoat than to admit fault.  That could be what's happening here with the Bonhomme Richard to save face.

[BayraktarDeath]

8 hours ago, Sventex said:

It should be noted though that the Japanese never did figure out why the Battleship Mutsu exploded in port, but they were happy to conclude it was most likely arson by a disgruntled crewman whose name they conveniently did not know.  I suppose it's easier to blame a mysterious scapegoat than to admit fault.  That could be what's happening here with the Bonhomme Richard to save face.

Kind of like what happened to the USS Iowa when the turret blew up. 

[AVR_Project]

12 hours ago, Sventex said:

It should be noted though that the Japanese never did figure out why the Battleship Mutsu exploded in port, but they were happy to conclude it was most likely arson by a disgruntled crewman whose name they conveniently did not know.  I suppose it's easier to blame a mysterious scapegoat than to admit fault.  That could be what's happening here with the Bonhomme Richard to save face.

According to an OSI analyst and interviewer, Jack Rudy (deceased), the USS Drum, on her first patrol was to mine the Bungo Straits.
Her Captain took the initiative to lay a couple more further inside the harbor.  He laid one at the empty marker where he was told 'the largest Japanese Battleship' docks.
Problem #1 - the Captain never knew that his mine went off, but he kept asking about it for a few months.
Problem #2 - US Mines were not reliable after 2-3 months.  They were supposed to 'disarm and scuttle' after a set timer.  That 'timer' was usually disabled in the early war.
 

Another US Submarine noticed the salvage activity at that marker during a recon mission.  Intel had the IJN searching for a disgruntled saboteur.  All this was forwarded to Washington.
Decision was to let the Japanese think their battleship was destroyed by one of their own, since if we claimed the kill, their men would have been considered honored and proper to have died in battle.  The notion was to demoralize the enemy.

Could it have been a disgruntled sailor?  Maybe.  But the fact the USS Drum laid a mine there several months earlier is also something to consider.

[Royeaux]

2 minutes ago, AVR_Project said:

According to an OSI analyst and interviewer, Jack Rudy (deceased), the USS Drum, on her first patrol was to mine the Bungo Straits.
Her Captain took the initiative to lay a couple more further inside the harbor.  He laid one at the empty marker where he was told 'the largest Japanese Battleship' docks.
Problem #1 - the Captain never knew that his mine went off, but he kept asking about it for a few months.
Problem #2 - US Mines were not reliable after 2-3 months.  They were supposed to 'disarm and scuttle' after a set timer.  That 'timer' was usually disabled in the early war.
 

Another US Submarine noticed the salvage activity at that marker during a recon mission.  Intel had the IJN searching for a disgruntled saboteur.  All this was forwarded to Washington.
Decision was to let the Japanese think their battleship was destroyed by one of their own, since if we claimed the kill, their men would have been considered honored and proper to have died in battle.  The notion was to demoralize the enemy.

Could it have been a disgruntled sailor?  Maybe.  But the fact the USS Drum laid a mine there several months earlier is also something to consider.

Given a number of witnesses noticed smoke from Mutsu's 3rd turret before the explosion, that mine would at best only serve as a secondary explosion after the magazine blew.  Sort of like how the Richelieu was mined with depth charges by Royal Marines but the explosives only went off when Ark Royal torpedoed the ship.  However the Japanese commission issued its preliminary conclusions on 25 June, well before the divers had completed their investigation of the wreck, and concluded that the explosion was the result of a disgruntled seaman.  It appears they weren't really interested in answers.

[AVR_Project]

3 minutes ago, Sventex said:

Given a number of witnesses noticed smoke from Mutsu's 3rd turret before the explosion, that mine would at best only serve as a secondary explosion after the magazine blew.  Sort of like how the Richelieu was mined with depth charges by Royal Marines but the explosives only went off when Ark Royal torpedoed the ship.  However the Japanese commission issued its preliminary conclusions on 25 June, well before the divers had completed their investigation of the wreck, and concluded that the explosion was the result of a disgruntled seaman.  It appears they weren't really interested in answers.

In the case of USS Bonhomme Richard if it parallels my Mutsu situation....

Then Iran set the fire, and we are going to blame it on a patsy instead of admitting our security screwed up.

Like when Iran blew up the airport at Beirut..  They denied it..  we couldn't prove it...  Now Iran has a memorial to the named 'martyrs' who did it for all to see.

[Royeaux]

1 minute ago, AVR_Project said:

In the case of USS Bonhomme Richard if it parallels my Mutsu situation....

Then Iran set the fire, and we are going to blame it on a patsy instead of admitting our security screwed up.

Like when Iran blew up the airport at Beirut..  They denied it..  we couldn't prove it...  Now Iran has a memorial to the named 'martyrs' who did it for all to see.

This fired occurred in San Diego and there's been a blanket travel ban since 2017 by executive order.  That would be highly unlikely.

[AVR_Project]

4 hours ago, Sventex said:

This fired occurred in San Diego and there's been a blanket travel ban since 2017 by executive order.  That would be highly unlikely.

Like spies, operatives, and saboteurs follow the law ?  
Any nation, with enough time, resources, and talent can hit us.  We just don't know where.

One thing for certain:  It would be something we don't expect, and at a weak spot we haven't noticed.
Like start a fire on a copter carrier when the fire fighting gear is off-line.

Bad luck?  Coincidences happen all the time.  I don't trust them.

[Royeaux]

11 minutes ago, AVR_Project said:

Like spies, operatives, and saboteurs follow the law ?  
Any nation, with enough time, resources, and talent can hit us.  We just don't know where.

One thing for certain:  It would be something we don't expect, and at a weak spot we haven't noticed.
Like start a fire on a copter carrier when the fire fighting gear is off-line.

Bad luck?  Coincidences happen all the time.  I don't trust them.

Sure, but with the travel ban, saboteurs would have to be planted years in advance, the operation would either have to be pre-planned years in advance, or they would have to risk communicating the plan internationally and the saboteurs would not be able to quickly escape the country.  Because of the extra time, resources and talent and incredible distances involved, it becomes highly unlike that Iran would be the culprit.

Frankly it would be a million times easier and cheaper and less risky to get any yahoo to toss matches into the brushes of California and set half the state on fire again than to infiltrate the Bonhomme Richard with an elite Iranian saboteur.  Because if that saboteur gets caught it becomes an extreme diplomatic incident.  

[AVR_Project]

7 minutes ago, Sventex said:

Sure, but with the travel ban, saboteurs would have to be planted years in advance, the operation would either have to be pre-planned years in advance, or they would have to risk communicating the plan internationally and the saboteurs would not be able to quickly escape the country.  Because of the extra time, resources and talent and incredible distances involved, it becomes highly unlike that Iran would be the culprit.

Frankly it would be a million times easier and cheaper and less risky to get any yahoo to toss matches into the brushes of California and set half the state on fire again than to infiltrate the Bonhomme Richard with an elite Iranian saboteur.  Because if that saboteur gets caught it becomes an extreme diplomatic incident.  

Far cheaper to have the 'Elite Iranian Saboteur' get leverage on one of the sailors or contractors to plant/fabricate an incendiary.
I'm sure our Intel community is all over it.

[SgtBeltfed]

I'd seriously doubt foreign involvement if the fire was indeed set intentionally. It's likely to have been either been a disgruntled sailor or contractor that was upset about having to work, working conditions, ect ...

It's equally probable that poor housekeeping combined with an incompetent or completely missing firewatch is to blame.

Regardless, it's an extremely expensive mistake. I'm a little surprised that the Navy didn't go the absurdly expensive route of repairing the ship, as the only other real alternative is to go without. I wonder if there's some other game getting played there, like maybe trying to get someone other than Huntington-Ingalls involved with Large Amphibious Assault Ship construction.

[Royeaux]

41 minutes ago, AVR_Project said:

Far cheaper to have the 'Elite Iranian Saboteur' get leverage on one of the sailors or contractors to plant/fabricate an incendiary.
I'm sure our Intel community is all over it.

How is that easier than buying a book of matches and driving a few miles out of the city to set wildfires?  How is Iran supposed to "cheaply" get leverage over American military personal on the other side of the planet, such to the point they commit terrorism?

[AVR_Project]

1 hour ago, Sventex said:

How is that easier than buying a book of matches and driving a few miles out of the city to set wildfires?  How is Iran supposed to "cheaply" get leverage over American military personal on the other side of the planet, such to the point they commit terrorism?

Easy has nothing to do with it.  If they need to get people in here, they will get them here.  Cost is negotiable.

Iran doesn't seem to do 'civilian' targets.  Look at the history of their confirmed attacks -- clearly military, and very well planned/executed.
I don't admire them.  On the other hand, I don't underestimate them either.  The only thing that doesn't fit in the Bonhomme Richard incident is the low body-count.  That's because, Iran usually goes after killing people, not damaging equipment.
This is more of a Russia/China thing...  slow..  methodical... calculated... careful....  like a chess game.

This takes away a rather import asset, at a very low price.
If it was a disgruntled sailor, we need to track down what shaped and manipulated this attitude into torching that ship.
Look at Timothy McVey (Oklahoma City Bomber) and his prior affiliation with El Qaida.

[Royeaux]

Just now, AVR_Project said:

Easy has nothing to do with it.  If they need to get people in here, they will get them here.  Cost is negotiable.

Iran doesn't seem to do 'civilian' targets.  Look at the history of their confirmed attacks -- clearly military, and very well planned/executed.
I don't admire them.  On the other hand, I don't underestimate them either.  The only thing that doesn't fit in the Bonhomme Richard incident is the low body-count.  That's because, Iran usually goes after killing people, not damaging equipment.
This is more of a Russia/China thing...  slow..  methodical... calculated... careful....  like a chess game.

This takes away a rather import asset, at a very low price.
If it was a disgruntled sailor, we need to track down what shaped and manipulated this attitude into torching that ship.
Look at Timothy McVey (Oklahoma City Bomber) and his prior affiliation with El Qaida.

It's not a matter of getting people here.  It's a matter of getting them here without being noticed, which is not something easy for the Iranian military to do.  The Soviet Union had vastly greater resources and a vastly larger spy network and yet they were never capable of sabotaging entire capital ships of the United States Navy.  Why should Iran of all nations be so much more capable than the Soviet Union during a travel ban?

[AVR_Project]

2 minutes ago, Sventex said:

It's not a matter of getting people here.  It's a matter of getting them here without being noticed, which is not something easy for the Iranian military to do.  The Soviet Union had vastly greater resources and a vastly larger spy network and yet they were never capable of sabotaging entire capital ships of the United States Navy.  Why should Iran of all nations be so much more capable than the Soviet Union during a travel ban?

Travel Bans only effect commercial airlines.

There are many other ways to get people here.  Shipping containers work.

[Royeaux]

1 minute ago, AVR_Project said:

Travel Bans only effect commercial airlines.

There are many other ways to get people here.  Shipping containers work.

If it's so easy, why didn't the Soviet Union use such methods to put the United States Navy to the torch?

[AVR_Project]

19 minutes ago, Sventex said:

If it's so easy, why didn't the Soviet Union use such methods to put the United States Navy to the torch?

There is a running 'mission' battle between Intel and Operations.

It's like the difference between MI-6 and SOE in WW2 Britain.

Intel wants to keep quiet, blend in, not get noticed.  And this means not blowing anything up or killing people.

Operations takes this Intel and turns it into attacks.  The target usually beefs up security and arrests everyone after attacks, so Intel folks are always compromised by Ops.

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union didn't want to escalate the cold war too much with the US.  There was a bit of a 'gentleman's handshake' agreement of actions we wouldn't pursue.  Apart from bashing into each other's ships on the oceans, we wouldn't intentionally destroy each others stuff.
Besides, the Soviet Union was losing too many of their own ships to the exact same malady as the Bonhomme Richard.

Had the Soviet Union partaken in any acts of sabotage, the US would have responded in kind.

[Royeaux]

1 minute ago, AVR_Project said:

Had the Soviet Union partaken in any acts of sabotage, the US would have responded in kind.

So Iran is willing to do what the vast Soviet Union could not?  Based on what information?

[AVR_Project]

Just now, Sventex said:

So Iran is willing to do what the vast Soviet Union could not?  Based on what information?

Huh ????

What are you talking about?