7 ms·

Completely false. That ship was involved in naval exercises at the invitation of the host navy, India. That ship was unarmed. Nothing unusual there - that was

by isr 6mo ago

Completely false. That ship was involved in naval exercises at the invitation of the host navy, India. That ship was unarmed. Nothing unusual there - that was the original plan for the joint navy drills. A large complement of the crew was A BRASS BAND! The Indian's (and this has been formally confirmed since) communicated to the Americans that this was an UNARMED ship which was about to leave Indian territorial waters on its way home. So the Americans KNEW where the ship was (they were told) and KNEW it was completely unarmed. And they sunk it anyway, and refused to pick up any survivors. Thats a crystal clear WAR CRIME. The kind which is writ large in western history books for 80 years, condemning the conduct of the Nazi Germany submarine units.

bob778 6mo ago
It’s, by definition, not a war crime. Military brass bands are eligible targets as are unarmed naval ships.
- acdha 6mo ago
  The U.S. definition balances military necessity against humanity, which in this case is not looking good: no mitigating attempts to reduce the death toll – no warnings, no attempt to disable the ship – and since the ship was trying to get permission to dock in Sri Lanka or India at the time, it’s hard to justify a claim of military necessity for a ship which was either unarmed or very lightly armed and clearly posed absolutely no threat to the much larger and better equipped U.S. navy. It’s unlikely to ever see a formal trial but I think quite a few people will see it as if not an outright war-crime, at least a betrayal of military honor.
  - jdkee 6mo ago
    A submarine has no duty to warn a surface ship.
    - tptacek 6mo ago
      A surface ship has no duty to warn a surface ship! This is the military analogue of people who thing police have an obligation to "shoot to wound".
      - acdha 6mo ago
        I was thinking more like the expectation we used to have that the police didn’t just start shouting in a surprise ambush. For example, the U.S. navy knew that the ship was unarmed and returning from an event hosted by the Indian government which the U.S. had also participated in, that it was attempting to dock rather than attack, and that even fully loaded it posed an insignificant threat, so there’s an argument that the Navy could have one of their thousands of aircraft to give them the opportunity to surrender or evacuate before the boat was sunk. We did that for actual Nazis, who posed far more of a peer-level threat than Iran does. The ship posed the only plausible threat, not the sailors.
        JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
        > there’s an argument that the Navy could have one of their thousands of aircraft to give them the opportunity to surrender or evacuate before the boat was sunk. We did that for actual Nazis I think there is absolutey an argument that good decorum would have provided a nearby surface vessel to assist with rescue. But not being nice in a war isn't the same as a war crime. And expanding the notion of war criminality to cover even breaches of decorum fundamentally waters down a term that has already started being seen as meaningless because people want to make it apply to any act of war.
        acdha 6mo ago
        [dead]
    - bookofjoe 6mo ago
      Very distantly related: >U-505 [the capture of a German U-boat in the Atlantic Ocean in 1944, written by the captain of the sub that did it] https://www.amazon.com/U-505-Rear-Admiral-Daniel-Vincent-Gallery-ebook/dp/B01KUGU5S0/ref=sr_1_1?crid=254K1BTLIPPON&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.ETiII-l9PsRSJmqG5y9jocsm0JW2Awd-cZnc5F38HB3MesO7Dsq21cyAMNSXwqJq.jHfkU9_J6BzqRo67WkAka6dKpsioBQnFXkQaP7bKd78&dib_tag=se&keywords=capture+u505+daniel+gallery&qid=1774787323&sprefix=capture+u505+daniel+gallery%2Caps%2C110&sr=8-1# https://www.amazon.com/U-505-Rear-Admiral-Daniel-Vincent-Gal... >"AWAY BOARDERS" WWII CAPTURE OF GERMAN SUBMARINE U-505 ON HIGH SEAS U.S. NAVY FILM 20994 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5Z5YOz_8gc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5Z5YOz_8gc Both excellent
    - acdha 6mo ago
      No, but the U.S. navy has more than a single submarine. Given the vast power differential and the fact that they knew the ship was unarmed having participated in the same International Fleet Review exercise, there’s an argument that, say, an aircraft radio message giving them an opportunity to surrender first. The “shot across the bow” phrase comes from a relevant naval tradition, such as when the U.S. Navy captured ships from far more serious threats like Nazi Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Callao_(IX-205) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Callao_(IX-205)
thereisnospork 6mo ago
In what world is sinking a warship in international waters a war crime? Because it isn't in this one.
- isr 6mo ago
  From my original post: "AND REFUSED TO PICK UP ANY SURVIVORS" In the absence of any threat (the ship was alone, and unarmed), then refusing to pick up survivors is ABSOLUTELY a TEXTBOOK war crime. Under the Geneva Convention, and under the US's own legal code. Thats not an opinion, thats a statement of fact. Exactly this was one of the charges against Admiral Doenitz at Nuremberg.
  - defrost 6mo ago
    The Geneva Convention II hedges a lot wrt submarine warfare - few submarines have the capacity to take on many survivors .. they're already pressed for space. You could ague they had an obligation to notify search and rescue ... at a time when the nearest search and rescue was already alerted and en route. See: https://www.justsecurity.org/133397/sinking-iran-frigate-dena-law-naval-warfare/ https://www.justsecurity.org/133397/sinking-iran-frigate-den... and scroll down to Failure to Rescue IRIS Dena’s Shipwrecked Crew > Exactly this was one of the charges against Admiral Doenitz at Nuremberg. A charge that didn't stick, a practice engaged in by both the British and U.S. submarines In the aftermath of World War II, the issue of rescuing survivors following submarine attacks took center stage during the trial of Admiral Karl Dönitz before the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. After Allied attacks on a U-boat attempting to rescue survivors of an ocean liner, the RMS Laconia, Dönitz issued the Laconia Order, which instructed: “All attempts at rescuing members of ships that have been sunk, including attempts to pick up persons swimming, or to place them in lifeboats, or attempts to upright capsized boats, or to supply provisions or water are to cease.” The court held that the order violated the 1936 London Protocol on submarine warfare, which required that the passengers and crew of merchant vessels be placed in safety before a warship could sink them. Yet, because British and U.S. submarines engaged in the same practice during the conflict, it did not factor the breaches of the law of submarine warfare into Dönitz’s sentence. Legally, there's much here that's hard to pin down, massive grey areas and a lot of jelly to nail to the wall. Ethically - the US forces under Hegeseth are behaving like arseholes and absolutely skating a line, the same objective (taking out the ship) could have been achieved in a number of less odious ways. Trump loves rolling in this kind of mud.
mpyne 6mo ago
None of that changes that it was an Iranian warship. Warships of nations involved in armed conflict are always valid targets for the adversary. Otherwise it would also have been a bunch of war crimes for the Iranian ships destroyed at the pier by cruise missile or bombs. India was not a party to the conflict so they can't vouch for the unarmedness of a warship on either side one way or another. But even if they could, unarmed warships are valid targets for the reason the other commenter pointed out (they can quickly become armed). Nor does international law necessarily require a warship to personally pick up all survivors, and in fact gives warships a fair amount of leeway to consider their own security along with their own ability to execute a successful rescue and successfully berth the shipwrecked. Modern submarines, while not exempt, tend to fall into that proviso more than other classes because they are not equipped to conduct surface rescue (unlike WWII-era submarines they don't even have a keel for surfaced stationkeeping), have no brig facilities, have no sickbay and very little other medical facilities. Once it was clear that the Sri Lankan navy (the closest ships to the Dena's survivors) was responding, the responsibility of the U.S. to see to rescue had been accomplished. Edit: Actual legal experts go into this more at https://www.justsecurity.org/133397/sinking-iran-frigate-dena-law-naval-warfare/ https://www.justsecurity.org/133397/sinking-iran-frigate-den... but this is basically a slam dunk. Whether it was a good idea is a whole different question, but warships sinking warships is what is supposed to happen in war.

by isr 6mo ago

bob778 6mo ago

It’s, by definition, not a war crime. Military brass bands are eligible targets as are unarmed naval ships.

acdha 6mo ago
The U.S. definition balances military necessity against humanity, which in this case is not looking good: no mitigating attempts to reduce the death toll – no warnings, no attempt to disable the ship – and since the ship was trying to get permission to dock in Sri Lanka or India at the time, it’s hard to justify a claim of military necessity for a ship which was either unarmed or very lightly armed and clearly posed absolutely no threat to the much larger and better equipped U.S. navy. It’s unlikely to ever see a formal trial but I think quite a few people will see it as if not an outright war-crime, at least a betrayal of military honor.
- jdkee 6mo ago
  A submarine has no duty to warn a surface ship.
  - tptacek 6mo ago
    A surface ship has no duty to warn a surface ship! This is the military analogue of people who thing police have an obligation to "shoot to wound".
    - acdha 6mo ago
      I was thinking more like the expectation we used to have that the police didn’t just start shouting in a surprise ambush. For example, the U.S. navy knew that the ship was unarmed and returning from an event hosted by the Indian government which the U.S. had also participated in, that it was attempting to dock rather than attack, and that even fully loaded it posed an insignificant threat, so there’s an argument that the Navy could have one of their thousands of aircraft to give them the opportunity to surrender or evacuate before the boat was sunk. We did that for actual Nazis, who posed far more of a peer-level threat than Iran does. The ship posed the only plausible threat, not the sailors.
      - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
        > there’s an argument that the Navy could have one of their thousands of aircraft to give them the opportunity to surrender or evacuate before the boat was sunk. We did that for actual Nazis I think there is absolutey an argument that good decorum would have provided a nearby surface vessel to assist with rescue. But not being nice in a war isn't the same as a war crime. And expanding the notion of war criminality to cover even breaches of decorum fundamentally waters down a term that has already started being seen as meaningless because people want to make it apply to any act of war.
        acdha 6mo ago
        [dead]
  - bookofjoe 6mo ago
    Very distantly related: >U-505 [the capture of a German U-boat in the Atlantic Ocean in 1944, written by the captain of the sub that did it] https://www.amazon.com/U-505-Rear-Admiral-Daniel-Vincent-Gallery-ebook/dp/B01KUGU5S0/ref=sr_1_1?crid=254K1BTLIPPON&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.ETiII-l9PsRSJmqG5y9jocsm0JW2Awd-cZnc5F38HB3MesO7Dsq21cyAMNSXwqJq.jHfkU9_J6BzqRo67WkAka6dKpsioBQnFXkQaP7bKd78&dib_tag=se&keywords=capture+u505+daniel+gallery&qid=1774787323&sprefix=capture+u505+daniel+gallery%2Caps%2C110&sr=8-1# https://www.amazon.com/U-505-Rear-Admiral-Daniel-Vincent-Gal... >"AWAY BOARDERS" WWII CAPTURE OF GERMAN SUBMARINE U-505 ON HIGH SEAS U.S. NAVY FILM 20994 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5Z5YOz_8gc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5Z5YOz_8gc Both excellent
  - acdha 6mo ago
    No, but the U.S. navy has more than a single submarine. Given the vast power differential and the fact that they knew the ship was unarmed having participated in the same International Fleet Review exercise, there’s an argument that, say, an aircraft radio message giving them an opportunity to surrender first. The “shot across the bow” phrase comes from a relevant naval tradition, such as when the U.S. Navy captured ships from far more serious threats like Nazi Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Callao_(IX-205) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Callao_(IX-205)

thereisnospork 6mo ago

In what world is sinking a warship in international waters a war crime? Because it isn't in this one.

isr 6mo ago
From my original post: "AND REFUSED TO PICK UP ANY SURVIVORS" In the absence of any threat (the ship was alone, and unarmed), then refusing to pick up survivors is ABSOLUTELY a TEXTBOOK war crime. Under the Geneva Convention, and under the US's own legal code. Thats not an opinion, thats a statement of fact. Exactly this was one of the charges against Admiral Doenitz at Nuremberg.
- defrost 6mo ago
  The Geneva Convention II hedges a lot wrt submarine warfare - few submarines have the capacity to take on many survivors .. they're already pressed for space. You could ague they had an obligation to notify search and rescue ... at a time when the nearest search and rescue was already alerted and en route. See: https://www.justsecurity.org/133397/sinking-iran-frigate-dena-law-naval-warfare/ https://www.justsecurity.org/133397/sinking-iran-frigate-den... and scroll down to Failure to Rescue IRIS Dena’s Shipwrecked Crew > Exactly this was one of the charges against Admiral Doenitz at Nuremberg. A charge that didn't stick, a practice engaged in by both the British and U.S. submarines In the aftermath of World War II, the issue of rescuing survivors following submarine attacks took center stage during the trial of Admiral Karl Dönitz before the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. After Allied attacks on a U-boat attempting to rescue survivors of an ocean liner, the RMS Laconia, Dönitz issued the Laconia Order, which instructed: “All attempts at rescuing members of ships that have been sunk, including attempts to pick up persons swimming, or to place them in lifeboats, or attempts to upright capsized boats, or to supply provisions or water are to cease.” The court held that the order violated the 1936 London Protocol on submarine warfare, which required that the passengers and crew of merchant vessels be placed in safety before a warship could sink them. Yet, because British and U.S. submarines engaged in the same practice during the conflict, it did not factor the breaches of the law of submarine warfare into Dönitz’s sentence. Legally, there's much here that's hard to pin down, massive grey areas and a lot of jelly to nail to the wall. Ethically - the US forces under Hegeseth are behaving like arseholes and absolutely skating a line, the same objective (taking out the ship) could have been achieved in a number of less odious ways. Trump loves rolling in this kind of mud.

mpyne 6mo ago

None of that changes that it was an Iranian warship. Warships of nations involved in armed conflict are always valid targets for the adversary. Otherwise it would also have been a bunch of war crimes for the Iranian ships destroyed at the pier by cruise missile or bombs. India was not a party to the conflict so they can't vouch for the unarmedness of a warship on either side one way or another. But even if they could, unarmed warships are valid targets for the reason the other commenter pointed out (they can quickly become armed). Nor does international law necessarily require a warship to personally pick up all survivors, and in fact gives warships a fair amount of leeway to consider their own security along with their own ability to execute a successful rescue and successfully berth the shipwrecked. Modern submarines, while not exempt, tend to fall into that proviso more than other classes because they are not equipped to conduct surface rescue (unlike WWII-era submarines they don't even have a keel for surfaced stationkeeping), have no brig facilities, have no sickbay and very little other medical facilities. Once it was clear that the Sri Lankan navy (the closest ships to the Dena's survivors) was responding, the responsibility of the U.S. to see to rescue had been accomplished. Edit: Actual legal experts go into this more at https://www.justsecurity.org/133397/sinking-iran-frigate-dena-law-naval-warfare/ https://www.justsecurity.org/133397/sinking-iran-frigate-den... but this is basically a slam dunk. Whether it was a good idea is a whole different question, but warships sinking warships is what is supposed to happen in war.