6 ms·

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

by bob778 6mo ago

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)

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

by 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)