What are the chances of a new Gulf of Tonkin incident?

As the USS Carl Vinson heads towards North Korea and begins war game exercises with Japanese ships, I'm sure we can all agree the carrier group is heading for contested, busy and dangerous waters.

The thought of how easy an incident could take place involving the group, and the ramifications of such an incident taking place, have been in my mind for a few days. I can't stop thinking of the Gulf of Tonkin either. History has a habit of repeating itself and I find it entirely possible something may happen (even if it actually hasn't) that proves to be a flashpoint.

a reply to: sg1642

They'll be in the area, but they won't be particularly close, unless they make a port call. Unlike when the Gulf of Tonkin happened, they don't have to be within 400 miles of shore. During exercises they go out into a deep and hide, and send their aircraft in. They don't come close to shore anymore.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: sg1642

They'll be in the area, but they won't be particularly close, unless they make a port call. Unlike when the Gulf of Tonkin happened, they don't have to be within 400 miles of shore. During exercises they go out into a deep and hide, and send their aircraft in. They don't come close to shore anymore.

I get your point but I don't mean an exact copy of the incident I mean something happening at sea where the facts are questionable.

a reply to: sg1642

Being that far out to sea, not much. The North Korean navy isn't a blue water navy, and is designed to operate close to shore, where they can put troops into the South. They might have 14 frigate or corvette class ships, but almost all of them are 70s or earlier designs. Getting one of those even close to a carrier group would be a non-trivial exercise.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: sg1642

They'll be in the area, but they won't be particularly close, unless they make a port call. Unlike when the Gulf of Tonkin happened, they don't have to be within 400 miles of shore. During exercises they go out into a deep and hide, and send their aircraft in. They don't come close to shore anymore.

What's the difference between dropping a ship in a 1000 feet of water and 15000 feet of water? About a year in determining what happened and time for altered perception, cause and media spin. You want a good false flag? Control the narrative by preventing evidence recovery, using time as a weapon.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: sg1642

They'll be in the area, but they won't be particularly close, unless they make a port call. Unlike when the Gulf of Tonkin happened, they don't have to be within 400 miles of shore. During exercises they go out into a deep and hide, and send their aircraft in. They don't come close to shore anymore.

I get your point but I don't mean an exact copy of the incident I mean something happening at sea where the facts are questionable.

Like instead of small PT boats maybe NK subs or some stuff?

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

It makes a huge difference. If North Korea can't get to where the water is 15,000 feet deep to do something, then that sort of makes it difficult to pull off don't you think?

a reply to: sg1642


His navy doesn't pose much of a threat, but I would keep an eye on him launching a nuke.
Even dropping one down wind would be a disaster.

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: sg1642

They'll be in the area, but they won't be particularly close, unless they make a port call. Unlike when the Gulf of Tonkin happened, they don't have to be within 400 miles of shore. During exercises they go out into a deep and hide, and send their aircraft in. They don't come close to shore anymore.

I get your point but I don't mean an exact copy of the incident I mean something happening at sea where the facts are questionable.

Like instead of small PT boats maybe NK subs or some stuff?

That kind of thing yeah.

Zaphod my point is it doesn't take a ship being sunk for there to be an incident. That hornet that went down in a training exercise could easily be passed off as an aircraft downed by enemy fire in the right circumstances for instance. What I am getting at isn't Korea's ability to attack, it's the US Government's ability to fabricate one to begin with.

a reply to: sg1642

There Iranians took possession of some nice Exocet Missiles burning the 2nd Gulf war. Some could have found their way to NK. They have a range of only say 100+- miles but one could get that close with an aircraft. We would see what our anti missile systems were working.

The Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened..

a reply to: sg1642

I'm pretty sure they swapped out their war games weaponry for real weaponry on that fleet. It could be that they kept going on that scheduled training mission to use up some of that stuff and make room for more stuff. I would guess that would be necessary before deployment to a real conflict. Zaphrod might be able to shed more light on this subject.

a reply to: sg1642

It would take something big though. Carriers lose aircraft every deployment. It's almost SOP that aircraft are going down before they get home. Aircraft are lost around Korea at least every couple of years so there is no need to move a carrier to pull off something like that.

If they're going to try to pass off another Gulf of Tonkin it's going to take a ship getting hit at minimum.

a reply to: rickymouse

All ships carry live weapons when they deploy, regardless of if they're heading to am exercise or not.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: rickymouse

All ships carry live weapons when they deploy, regardless of if they're heading to am exercise or not.

Wouldn't they boost their stocks if going into an area of possible extreme conflict? Add extra supplies of what they need, like Taco shells from Spain for their sailors to enjoy some good Spanish food? How about some good cudaghi they had ordered from Italy when they knew they were going down there? I suppose they could have had it flown in but that is beside the point.

a reply to: rickymouse

They're limited in the ultimate capacity they can carry. That's why they meet up with the fleet oilers. The oilers bring them more weapons to replace what they used in addition to fuel and other supplies.

a reply to: sg1642

Based on 9/11, Iraq's "WMDs" and Assad's "chemical weapons attacks", I'd say that the chances are pretty good.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: sg1642

It would take something big though. Carriers lose aircraft every deployment. It's almost SOP that aircraft are going down before they get home. Aircraft are lost around Korea at least every couple of years so there is no need to move a carrier to pull off something like that.

If they're going to try to pass off another Gulf of Tonkin it's going to take a ship getting hit at minimum.

I'm maybe just being cynical who knows. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised. Let's just hope everyone in that carrier group comes home safely.

originally posted by: RedDragon
The Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened..

That is exactly my point.