world

Pentagon: 2 U.S. Navy boats held by Iran but will be returned

78 Comments
By LOLITA C. BALDOR

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

78 Comments
Login to comment

So when will they be returned? Are they being held hostage? Why are they being held?

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

The sailors were in Iranian custody on Farsi Island at least for some time, but it’s not certain where they are now.

So are they imprisoned and or restrained?

The incident comes amid heightened tensions with Iran, and only hours before President Barack Obama is set to deliver his final State of the Union address

The sailors in iranian custody is making a bold political statement (just like the iranians firing rockets within proximity of US warships.) Oh but obama doesn't care. He's in bed with mullahs, remember how generous of a "deal" he arranged for them? I still think he got played to be the the sucker and the whole world watches.

The state dept. had better act quicker. Free the sailors asap.

-19 ( +6 / -25 )

The Iranians never tire of mocking Obama even after he gave them everything they wanted in the Iranian nuclear negotiations. The Mullahs know Obama is impotent so they just bully him around and laugh in his face.

-13 ( +10 / -23 )

The state dept. had better act quicker. Free the sailors asap.

Send the armchair general career pogues to help them! Have them finally earn their government pay! Oh wait, maybe they've been pogues for so long because they're best just sitting at desks reading JT and Stars and Stripes.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Why do we never read about Iranian Navy boats drifting into US waters. Oh, right, Iran is not heavily involved in the affairs of a far off country and has never invaded or occupied another nation in modern times.

2 ( +15 / -13 )

"Oh, right, Iran is not heavily involved in the affairs of a far off country and has never invaded or occupied another nation in modern times."

What about the Iranian Revolutionary Guard In the Syria? Lebanon?

0 ( +10 / -10 )

The Mullahs know Obama is impotent so they just bully him around and laugh in his face.

Everyone knows obama is a push-over. Look how the russians snubbed him in Syria. Now the Iranians. . . . . but hey don't blame me, I didn't vote for "change."

Oh, right, Iran is not heavily involved in the affairs of a far off country

Some of those far off countries self-govern like savages. It is imperative that superpowers get "involved" in those affairs. Like when Saddam "invaded and occupied" kuwait (everyone forgets he started it) the Americans "liberated" it. Politics=Power, nothing more.

-18 ( +8 / -26 )

but hey don't blame me, I didn't vote for "change."

But as someone in the military pay system, are you going to volunteer to put yourself at risk? Or do you still expect others to do that while you're sitting at your desk picking up government pay.

4 ( +10 / -6 )

@PT. Been there done that.

What about the Iranian Revolutionary Guard In the Syria? Lebanon?

Yeah, and what about Hezzbolah? And how the Iranians would love to wipe Isreal from the map.

With all their "unfrozen assets", as a result from the nuclear "deal", the mullahs will have more hard cash to put into upgrading their missile technology. And they'll be funding the "Houthis" in Yemen too.

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

"drifted into Iranian waters"...what a gem

5 ( +11 / -6 )

Can't understand why some people here became so agitated. Two military boats of one country drifted into tettitorial waters of another country, authorities of that country are investigating. What's the problem? If some boat vioalates US territorial waters I'm sure the US Coast Guard would detain the crew for investigation.

Iranians said that the crews of the two boats would be released soon. So calm down and don't make global political conclusions from a minor border incident.

14 ( +19 / -5 )

Gulf of Tonkin rehash.

The Pentagon was hoping that the Iranians would fire on the sailors so the US could plaster pictures of dead sailors on TV and start the war the Neocons are just salivating for, a war with Iran.

The Iranians didn't bite.

The US sailors, who did indeed intrude upon Iranian sovereignty and were liable to get shot (legally) are probably being fed delicious Iranian food right now in some Iranian navy base.

4 ( +13 / -9 )

If you believe it was that accidental and innocuous I've got a dinosaur to sell you

7 ( +13 / -6 )

Can't understand why some people here became so agitated

Right wingers are easily excitable.

8 ( +16 / -8 )

Can't understand why some people here became so agitated.

Because the US has given (unfortunately) the iranians, the benefit of the doubt, yet they keep taunting the US.

The death chanting, flag-burning, ignoring the travel bans, firing missiles near our ships, refusing further cooperation with the US after the deal, not releasing the american prisoners etc.

-13 ( +7 / -20 )

if you found 2 ships worth ¥10M would you keep it?

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Nothing to be alarmed about. As stated by at least one sane comment above, this is a simple matter of one nation trespassing into the territorial waters of another and being detained temporarily for investigation.

Not even newsworthy. What would be newsworthy is why these vessels "drifted" into Iranian waters.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Can't understand why some people here became so agitated

And now you can see how the pearl clutching Republican base creates a nominating process that renders anyone with a decent chance of winning constitutionally incompatible with the temperament required for a President.

Which is why, as you all know:

the Republican party must be destroyed.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

I remember growing up during the days when the US Navy was untouchable.

-10 ( +3 / -13 )

if you found 2 ships worth ¥10M would you keep it?

Not if the say "USS" on them. Which stands for "United States' Ship" . . . example The USS Lincoln (CVN-72).

I remember growing up during the days when the US Navy was untouchable.

Me too. It all started going downhill when the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was introduced. Good riddance-

-10 ( +4 / -14 )

I remember growing up during the days when the US Navy was untouchable.

Oh, really. When was that?

1 ( +8 / -7 )

Because the US has given (unfortunately) the iranians, the benefit of the doubt

Iranians have a very good reason to be doubtful. Two boats (not old and rusty I suppose) simultaneously had "mechanical problems" and ended in the Iranian territorial waters. Sure it requires proper investigation.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Oh, really. When was that?

Probably during the height of the cold war and after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

I remember growing up during the days when the US Navy was untouchable.

Like playground bullies and mafia bosses?

Here's George Carlin (rather robust) take on military 'projection':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMwXR-1oajE

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Probably during the height of the cold war and after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Cue up 'Didn't we almost have it all' and 'Those were the days, my friend'.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s navy has detained 10 foreign forces, believed to be Americans, and said the sailors were trespassing in Iranian waters.

Heh- after Obama / Kerry serve them up some nuclear "Deal" on a silver platter, this is how they repay the US?

Trespassing? The obama administration had better get its act together in its final months. Put your foot down and "demand" on CNN TV that the iranians immediately release the sailors.

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

Probably during the height of the cold war and after the collapse of the Soviet Union

During the height of the cold war there was the Soviet Navy, rather powerful organization that did not consider the USN "untouchable" and Americans had to develop a code of coexistence with. And, as the "Pueblo" and "Liberty" incidents demostrated, North Koreans and Israelis also did not consider USN ships untouchable.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

LoL. @Asakaze. I saw the, "Hunt for Red October" but I still think the US Navy, during the height of the cold war, was better.

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

@Wc626

You're right, USN was (and now is) the strongest force on the seas. But it is not (and never was) untouchable, that's my point.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Trespassing? The obama administration had better get its act together in its final months. Put your foot down and "demand" on CNN TV that the iranians immediately release the sailors.

What part of “We have been in contact with Iran and have received assurances that the crew and the vessels will be returned promptly” is so intellectually challenging?

I saw the, "Hunt for Red October" but I still think the US Navy, during the height of the cold war, was better.

Echoes of Donald Trump?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdZuNHODBHk

4 ( +8 / -4 )

“We have been in contact with Iran and have received assurances that the crew and the vessels will be returned promptly” is so intellectually challenging?

Jeee, I don't know. How intellectually deficient do libs need to be to realize that Iran cannot be trusted. Oh but its okay, go right-on ahead Iran, here's your "Deal" on a silver platter. Courtesy of that buffoon of a politician- Kerry.

-10 ( +4 / -14 )

Can't understand why some people here became so agitated.

Because some posters feel that the best way to live a vicarious life of responsibility-free machismo is through their elected representatives.

And woe be to the politician who doesn't counterbalance his or her constituents' relative impotence with over-the-top bravado and tough talk in domestic and international affairs, intelligent diplomacy be damned.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

I can see one ship having mechanical difficulties, but not two. What are the odds?

3 ( +8 / -5 )

And woe be to the politician who doesn't counterbalance his or her constituents' relative impotence with over-the-top bravado and tough talk in domestic and international affairs

Its that over-the-top "bravado" which brings balance to the force. If not, let the politicians like Merkel have their way and disrupt the lives of her countrymen who want their country back.

Can't understand why some people here became so agitated.

Because strong allies like Isreal or France "get snubbed" in favor of better "relations" with countries like Iran.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Because strong allies like Isreal or France "get snubbed"

Israel gets snubbed because it continues to be obnoxious by any standard.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

No they don't. Isreal is recognized state.

-6 ( +5 / -11 )

Wc626,

Wc626 -- "Because strong allies like Isreal or France "get snubbed" in favor of better "relations" with countries like Iran."

LFRAgain -- "Israel gets snubbed because...."

Wc626 -- "No they don't."

My apologies. I was under the impression that you thought it was unfair that Israel was being "snubbed" in favor of "countries like Iran." Oh, wait. I was under that impression because you wrote precisely that.

So, is Israel snubbed or not? Or does your opinion change based mainly on how much you want to win a given argument? I'm confused...

3 ( +8 / -5 )

So not one but two U.S. Navy boats apparently simultaneously, broke down at the same time and "drifted" into Iranian waters?

Then you have posters like Wc626 bringing up topics like Saddam invading Kuwait, the Iranian nuclear deal, Hezbolah, Mullahs, Lebanon, Isreal, liberals, "don't ask don't tell" and so on!

What does any of that have to do with these two U.S. Navy boats oddly breaking down at the same time and "drifting" into another countries waters?

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Snubbed or not, Obama hates Bibi. Why? Cause Bibi is a stand-up guy and obama isn't.

The isrealis will be keeping a watchful eye on Iran in hopes that the iranians will comply with the inspectors. Oh yeah, the Republicans too. This deal is very bad for the US, the iranians know this. This is why they continued the "death" chants and flag-burning, even while buffoon KERRY was forging his relationship with Mohammad Jarad Zarif.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

From other sources, only 1 had mechanical issues, and the other was trying to assist. One ran aground. Having been in the Persian Gulf more than enough times, you see small boats break down all the time, and when they happen to be Iranian dhows, the Navy normally sticks around or puts them on the ship, and gets close enough to Iranian waters until a patrol boat of their own comes out and picks them up, and everyone goes their own ways.

But again, with the ROE (Rules of Engagement) as they are, the best story to say is that they had mechanical difficulties. It would not be in anyone's best interest to say that they were forced to surrender.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Wc626: Now you're actually bringing up several more off topic comments. The U.S. Navy simply screwed up, they failed in what ever mission they were tasked with. Iran has agreed to return the boats and their crew, yet you are somehow trying to connect this topic with the relationship between Obama and Bibi? Wow!

3 ( +7 / -5 )

Snubbed or not, Obama hates Bibi. Why? Cause Bibi is a stand-up guy and obama isn't.

What?! What in the world does that even mean, "stand-up guy"? That's not an argument. That's not a compelling example to drive home a point. That's just you making a character judgement about a person you've never even met.

In the meantime, Obama takes issue with Israel, not because he dislikes Natanyahu persons only, but rather because Netanyahu continues to support the morally and legally questionable practice of spreading Israeli settlements throughout the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights.

Again, Obama refuses to kiss Israel's behind because it continues to act obnoxiously in the Middle East, fostering anger, hatred, and terrorism with its entrenched policy of slow-rolling colonialism.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Facts: United States navy boats ran into engine trouble, accidentally strayed into Iranian territory, Iranian authorities apparently acted the way any country in similar situation would. No big whoop, everyone is fine.

Some commenters here: OMG this totally proves how weak Obama is! Next thing the Iranians will be in Washington trying to convert everyone to Islam! If only Trump were president, then we could start a war and all this horrible problem of our sailors accidentally going into their territory and being treated in an entirely reasonable manner by the other side would be over and done with.

5 ( +8 / -4 )

"If you believe it was that accidental and innocuous I've got a dinosaur to sell you." Really? how much you asking?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Oh but obama doesn't care. He's in bed with mullahs

This passes for intelligent conversation in the bubble. It says precisely nothing yet means everything to them. It's one reason why the Right is the minority party in the US and Trump is their spokesperson. And it will only get worse for them.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Note that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is against the US-Iran Nuclear Deal.

At the eve of the US Pres. State of the Union address, maybe trying to make Obama not be able to tout the Deal as a success with Iran.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Jeee, I don't know. How intellectually deficient do libs need to be to realize that Iran cannot be trusted.

And when will you understand that not everything can be achieved by posturing and bellicosity? The Iranian regime has been around for a long time, and is likely to be around for a while yet. They never respected the United States or its leaders. The US has many opponents who act much as they please, regardless of whether a Republican or Democrat administration is in power. Those opponents include Iran, China, Russia, Cuba, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan.

In your dream world, Obama is weak where Republican presidents were strong. In reality, during the Reagan administration, the United States sold missiles to Iran to secure the release of 7 US hostages in Lebanon.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Ha ha, classic!

No harm, no foul. Iran are within their rights to ask a few questions. But talk about grabbing the tiger by the tail.

It'll get sorted.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

CNN is reporting that they have been released.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I can see one ship having mechanical difficulties, but not two. What are the odds?

Nowhere does the above report mention two ships having mechanical troubles.

And, oh yes, I just read the sailors have been freed. Nothing is said about the return of the vessels. But lets keep an eye or ear on the news being updated.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

It is a power play. The lifting of sanctions is not going fast enough, so the Iranian mullahs put some pressure on Barry, knowing that he will cave very quickly.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

what a waste of time

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Extremists in both countries are against peace, but it looks like peace is breaking out anyway.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

OMG this totally proves how weak Obama is!

He is. Putin and Iran have already shown that.

It says precisely nothing yet means everything to them.

It says everything. Obama made them richer and the sanctions lifted.

The Iranian regime has been around for a long time, and is likely to be around for a while yet. They never respected the United States or its leaders

This is why obama shouldn't have gave in. Appeasement only made them more aggressive . . . look how they don't want any future negotiations with the US beyond this deal.

In your dream world, Obama is weak where Republican presidents were strong.

McCain would've never settled for that "deal."

the United States sold missiles to Iran

So what? Those missiles were prob fired at Iraq, in which Iran was in the midst of a war with. Heck, the Reagan administration was arming Saddam too. Sounds like that administration knew what they were doing.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Yesterday, we all got an earful from the hysterical right wingers about how the feckless and weak Obama allowed Iranian to walk all over the US Navy.

And today, our boys and girl are back with us. And so too are our boats.

The appropriate hysterical response from such rudderless minds should be Obama is 10 ft tall and can break cars in half with his bare hands.

But somehow I don't expect we'll be hearing that from the right wing slime machine.

No, they will forget how the sky was falling, and console themselves with their lies, and bide their time. And they will blame Obama for their missing a parking spot and misplaced keys. Until the next OUTRAGE against US prestige. Where they will gnash their teeth, and froth at the mouth, and scream, yet again, the sky is falling.

And they will invent more lies. And believe them.

The Republican party must be destroyed.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

If you believe it was that accidental and innocuous I've got a dinosaur to sell you

OK, where is the dinosaur?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Republicans must be just three steps from throwing themselves off a cliff in hysterics after seeing the sailors released unharmed, well-fed, and with a good night's sleep under their belts, without so much as a single shot being fired or threats of bedlam and righteous Star-Spangled retribution.

My.

God.

Is this what diplomacy is supposed to look like? What's the world coming to?

3 ( +6 / -3 )

What's the world coming to?

For Republicans, politics is an extension of war by other means....

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Iran released a propaganda film of the American sailors on their knees with their hands on their heads surrendering to armed Iranians. What kind of military allows themselves to be captured so easily? They were obviously armed with heavy weapons. No attempt to defend themselves at all? I hope there is a good explanation for this - it really looks pathetically weak and impotent. After 7 years of Obama leading from behind the military appears demoralized. And now humiliated.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Black Sabbath

Hear hear, very well said, sir. This was a victory for sensible statesmanship and effective diplomacy. I have long liked Obama very much. He is intelligent, sensitive, articulate and seemingly very well-balanced. Iran had every right to do what they did, and clearly they themselves have handled the situation quite well as well. Hurrah for common sense!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Iran released a propaganda film of the American sailors on their knees with their hands on their heads surrendering to armed Iranians.

Yeah, saw that film too . . .americans with their hands on their heads and DOWN on their knees. On their own ships. With the ship's american flag waving in the background.

The iranians, especially the Republican Guard, like to humiliate the US. (this sits well with libs tho)

it really looks pathetically weak and impotent. After 7 years of Obama leading from behind the military appears demoralized. And now humiliated.

Tell me about it. Pathetic.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

. After 7 years of Obama leading from behind the military appears demoralized.

Yeah it totally sucks. Remember how pumped the military was just before Obama took over, after 8 years of Bush leading the military from the front? Like that time when he rode his battle-unicorn through Fallujah during the worst fighting there in 2004, throwing hand grenades at the terrorists while rescuing all those kittens from the local vet's office that Al-Qaida had been using as kitten-shields? And everyone was all like USA! USA! Obama would never do anything that cool.

-1 ( +1 / -3 )

What kind of military allows themselves to be captured so easily? They were obviously armed with heavy weapons. No attempt to defend themselves at all? I hope there is a good explanation for this

Pssst! Hey Wolfpack. The explanation is . . we aren't at war with Iran.

Don't tell any of your friends. They might have aneurysms.

1 ( +3 / -3 )

Obama would never do anything that cool.

Obama is the kind of leader who thinks he can remove a dictator by signing something or other (executive order) with his pen. Yeah, that would be cool.

In the real world it takes hard-line unilateral ultimatums, Tomahawk missiles, and boots on the ground.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

LFRagaon:

" Pssst! Hey Wolfpack. The explanation is . . we aren't at war with Iran. Don't tell any of your friends. They might have aneurysms. "

Pssst! Hey LFRA. The Iranian mullahs at war with the Great Satan. Which you would know if you read their statements. Don't tell any of your friends. They might have aneurysms.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Once the U.N. nuclear agency confirms Iran’s actions to roll back its program, the United States and other Western powers are obliged to suspend wide-ranging oil, trade and financial sanctions on Tehran.

Ahh, the plot thickens.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

In the real world it takes hard-line unilateral ultimatums

Ultimatums like "give us your WMDs we know you have, or we'll invade your country"?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

@wc626

McCain would've never settled for that "deal."

That's up to him. Currently he's the president of nothing, with, at his age, no more presidential races to enter.

Choosing Palin as a running mate - or allowing her to be foisted on him - was a catastrophic error. Some dealmaker.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Wc626

Seeing the mods are happy with your posts, allow me to comment.

After Saddam was gone, the iraqis weren't able to govern themselves and its security forces were a joke. Its their own fault. The people of the ME are savages.

Wow. Astonishingly myopic and racist rant. Saddam was deposed and executed by the US who invaded his country on completely false and bogus assertions of the existence of weapons of mass destruction. That is fact. He ruled Iraq with a strong-arm for years with CIA support. Fact. The US created a power vacuum, tried to band-aid the problem quickly and get out. And subsequently left the place in a complete mess, out of which the likes of ISIS emerged. Fact. The result? The current mess in Iraq, Syria, Turkey etc, and a very quick return the region for US forces. Thanks Mr Bush, what a sterling job you did.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@rainyday

Remember how pumped the military was just before Obama took over, after 8 years of Bush leading the military from the front?

Bush is way more popular with service personnel and veterans than Obama is.

@LFRAgain Pssst! Hey Wolfpack. The explanation is . . we aren't at war with Iran.

Obviously. But Iran thinks it's at war with the US - which is probably why it come to the aid of the stranded sailors with their guns drawn and made a big deal of their shabby treatment of the Americans on television. Imagine if you were in the Iranian opposition and you see the US humiliated in the region? This kind of thing matters to the domestic opposition and to the Saudi's, Jordanians, and others in the region that are concerned about the outsized influence the Iranians have acquired in recent years. Iran is doing everything it can to humiliate the US and next week Obama is going to hand over a $100 billion to the Mullahs. It's a pathetic display of weakness and lack of commitment to Americas international obligations as the worlds strongest democracy.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

@wolfpack

Obviously. But Iran thinks it's at war with the US - which is probably why it come to the aid of the stranded sailors with their guns drawn and made a big deal of their shabby treatment of the Americans on television.

When military personnel of one country make an incursion, accidental or otherwise, into the territory of another, they risk detention. In this case, it was exceptionally brief, so you have little cause for complaint there.

But you're rabbiting on about them "allowing themselves to be captured". They had no right (and certainly no obligation) to resist or to evade capture. The Iranians were very much within their rights to detain them, and when they do so, they call the shots. You don't have to like it.

Think of it as Iran's own "stand your ground" law. If this is a problem to the US, it must ensure that its personnel stay outside Iranian territory, and only operate where they are permitted to do so.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

When military personnel of one country make an incursion, accidental or otherwise, into the territory of another, they risk detention. In this case, it was exceptionally brief, so you have little cause for complaint there.

The iranians could've made an exception. They could've given the two ships a "free pass". The Americans gave them a "nuclear deal" which iranians will benefit greatly from (although I don't agree with the deals terms and conditions).

They didn't have to humiliate them. The iranians even made the Captain give a verbal "apology" which was broadcast on iranian TV. That's coercion. The iranians should reciprocate common courtesy.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Oh, really. When was that?

80s and 90s.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The iranians could've made an exception. They could've given the two ships a "free pass".

The Iranians did make an exception. They picked these sailors up in the afternoon and released them at sunrise the next day. That's your free pass.

The American military doesn't belong in Iranian waters.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The American military doesn't belong in Iranian waters.

K, fair enough. It was still humiliating for those sailors and USN. The iranians can bully those small boats, they'll never seize anything larger. Infringed upon their territorial waters or not.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The quick release of thee sailors (and hostages) and how the Iranians have recently been rewarded with the reductions in sanctions just shows the superior competency of the Obama administration. It shows the relations between the US and Iran getting better. How can it be argued otherwise?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It shows the relations between the US and Iran getting better. How can it be argued otherwise?

Just the other day I read how the U.S. has imposed new sanctions on Iran for a "precision-guided ballistic missile" test that was conducted last October. This is interesting because I was always under the assumption that a missile could be ballistic OR guided, but not both. Anyway, Iran has officially condemned the new sanctions. Relations are now worse than two days ago.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Fadamor: This is interesting because I was always under the assumption that a missile could be ballistic OR guided, but not both.

'Guided' at the end of their trajectories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_missile

A ballistic missile is a missile (rocket) that follows a ballistic trajectory with the objective of delivering one or more warheads to a predetermined target. A ballistic missile is only guided during relatively brief periods of flight (there are unguided ballistic missiles as well, such as 9K52 Luna-M, although these may well be considered rockets), and most of its trajectory is unpowered and governed by gravity and air resistance if in the atmosphere.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites