US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth condemned for sinking Iranian ship in international waters. Indian politicians criticize US attack as cowardly and despicable.
It is still a military warship. Surely you don’t actually think countries can just put up an “unarmed flag” and expect their warships can safely make it across to a dry dock or for rearmament.
How do you KNOW it was unarmed? Because they had a flag up? Because they said so? Because India boarded the Iranian ship and conducted a thorough search of the entire interior? I’m genuinly curious as to how you are so confident it didn’t carry a single shell, rocket, torpedo or missile.
You cannot possibly think any nation at war would let an enemy warship sail by without consequence just because they claim they’re unarmed.
If Russia sailed a warship right outside Ukrainian waters with an “unarmed flag”. Do you think Ukraine would just let it be? Oh damn guys, they say it’s unarmed. Guess we have no choice but to let it hang around…
It’s a military target, it isn’t a warship. When deployed unarmed to naval exhibitions they are deployed as auxillary, it’s the same as training ships.
Because it was boarded and inspected to take part in a fleet week of sorts, yes.
You can when it’s beyond combat zones and flying flags signaling peaceful intention and being unarmed. There’s a proportionality issue when it comes to striking military targets and moreover there’s an obligation to rescue crew.
It wasn’t anywhere near Iran unless you are somehow under the impression sri lanka is adjacent to Iran. And Ukraine tends to abide by normal military conventions so yes if they knew it to be unarmed they would likely seize the ship and not sink it.
I cannot help but laugh at your notion that Ukraine would let a Russian warship just sit outside of their waters simply because Russia said it was unarmed. Seizing something isn’t always possible.
You can absolutely engage enemy military targets regardless if they are within “combat zone” or not. With the sole exception if they are within another nations border. That is something that would make it more complicated. But that wasn’t the case.
Naval vessels are not required to rescue sailors. They are requires to take all possible measures to redcue sailors. Which can include rescuing sailors. If possible. There is a huge difference. Sometimes it is not possible to conduct a rescue operation. For a plethora of reasons.
One being that submarines do not want to surface unless they have support of other vessels.
Another is that submarines are generally not equipped to conduct rescue operations. Nor equipped to handle POW’s
A third would be that submarines generally do not have what you would call a lifeboat. Because first of all, where would they even keep one? And secondly, they are submerged, at times several hundreds of meters deep. They don’t need a lifeboat, they need a system to send their crew to the surface.
If they deploy all of them in the hopes that a few Iranian sailors might find them and climb aboard once they inflate at the surface. What are they themselves going to use in case of an emergancy?
They’ve given fair warning to literally every ship they’ve sunk. Laugh all you want but that’s just a fact. Seizing an unarmed ship is literally the original purpose of attack subs.
You can attack proportionally, sinking an unarmed ship that’s made no aggressive moves is not at all proportional.
Yes they are, and subs can release lifeboats while submerged. It’s an option for just such an occasion. We are not at total war, we’re not even legally at war we’re involved in special combat operations which are intended to be ao limited.
They had a strike group nearby, try again.
They’re absolutely equipped to take part in post action rescue operations, they train for it and everything.
Yes they absolutely do, you’re talking out your ass. Almost all subs will carry two or more rafts for surface operations and that’s ignoring the overstock of seie suits.
You’re contradicting yourself. You can’t say they don’t have X and then say what of they run out of X.
submarines generally do not have what you would call a lifeboat. Because first of all, where would they even keep one? And secondly, they are submerged, at times several hundreds of meters deep. They don’t need a lifeboat, they need a system to send their crew to the surface.
Would you like to read that paragraph again with more than a second grade reading comprehension?
What submarines tend to have, is almost like an individual “lifeboat” that will send a few sailors to the surface, while being submerged. it will then deploy on the surface to provide a very small raft. They are not intended to act as lifeboats for sailors peddling water at the surface.
They are intended to act as a means for the crew to escape the submarine while it’s submerged.
You can have whatever belief you want. You are entitled to be wrong. It was not illegal for the US to sink that ship. It was not illegal for their submarine to not approach, surface, and engage in active rescue operations.
Your personal belief of the morality of the action isn’t relevant.
Submarines were ‘literally’, not invented for the purpose of siezing other ships. They were invented to blow them up while remaining undetected. Which is for all intents and purposes, the exact opposite of capturing enemy vessels.
They’ve given fair warning to literally every ship they’ve sunk. Laugh all you want but that’s just a fact.
That’s not what I found laughable.
I cannot help but laugh at your notion that Ukraine would let a Russian warship just sit outside of their waters simply because Russia said it was unarmed.
By your own accord, they did not just let ships sit outside of their territory. They told them to go home or be attacked. Which isn’t because they’re so nice to give them a fair warning. It’s to show the rest of the world that they are justly defending themselves from an forgein invader and would give Russians a fair chance to leave their country and go home. It’s PR.
You keep using words like “literally” and “equivocating” but doesn’t seem to understand what they mean or how to use them.
Again, you have what seems like countless of actual war crimes to choose from to criticise the US. Why you want to die on the hill in the one case where it wasn’t a war crime is beyond me.
A warship is a legit target. Their supply of ammunition onboard is irrelevant. The requirement is to “take all possible measures” which is at best, up for some serious interpretation. They did not deem it a possible measure to rescue them on their own.
As a matter of fact. They probably did not even know they didn’t have (enough) lifeboats deployed. They fires a torpedo well out of range of the ships own sonar. There’s no reason for a submarine to go in and personally inspect the aftermath.
Yes a seie and actual rafts, is not a reading comprehension issue, it’s a you meeting factually wrong.
Duh.
It was on both accounts.
Neither is yours especially when you’re wrong.
Yes they were, you’re talking about the modem use not their original intention.
Again dena was not outside of Iran’s waters nor for that matter us waters they were 2000 miles from the ao and unarmed, they’re not at all comparable.
Yes my point is they didn’t choose cowardice on purpose. They issued a warning and then took action. It’s the law but yes sure it’s good pr and the right thing to do.
Ya huh, tell me where I used either incorrectly rather than playing for personal insults yet again.
It’s a war crime and you’re equivocating.
Its a military target not a warship when unarmed acting as an auxiliary ship. They didn’t even warn sri lanka which would be the least of all available measures again you’re making excuses for the inexcusable.
There is, it’s too rescue the crew because we aren’t at war with them let alone total war.
Stop simping for hegseth and his illegal bullshit dude, it’s gross.
“Yes my point is they didn’t choose cowardice on purpose. They issued a warning and then took action. It’s the law but yes sure it’s good pr and the right thing to do.”
No, it is not the law that you have to warn a military ship before engaging it in combat. The only ones you have to warn are merchant ships, or civilian ships. You are just wrong.
tell me where I used either incorrectly rather than playing for personal insults yet again.
Ok… how about we start where you said Submarines were “litterally” invented to seize and capture other ships. (That was not what they were literally invented to do. Just because early German uboats snuck up on merchant ships to seize contraband, doesn’t mean it was “literally” what they were invented for.)
And I’m not obscuring or trying to hide behind anything. I’ve been nothing but clear.
It’s a cowardly, planned attack on an allegedly unarmed vessel. But it’s not illegal. They are under no obligation to preemptively warn Sri Lanka. It is believed however they did tell Sri Lanka of where people had to be rescued after torpedoing it.
And you are at war with Iran. Just like Russia is at war with Ukraine. War was a fact the moment the US starting bombing Iran. I know the US doesn’t want to call it a war. Because if they do, they have to admit Trump started one without congressional approval.
By not calling this war for what it is, you’re literally defending Trump.
And I’m not even remotely defending hegseth, you and others claimed attacking this ship was a war crime. It’s not. And that by not rescuing the sailors personally, was another war crime. It can be. But unless the US had other ships that could safely do so in the vicinity, it’s not a war crime to instead signal a third country and informing them of their location.
That’s not me defending anyone. I’m simply telling you it wasn’t a war crime.
What was a war crime, and probably breaks lots of other “international laws” was the indiscriminate bombing of Venezuelan civilian ships. Particularly the part where after bombing a ship, which was disabled by the strike. They then ordered a second strike. Ensuring the death of any potential survivors.
THAT was a blatant crime and an actual illegal order. And everyone involved should be tried as such.
It is when it’s an auxillary ship carrying civilians bud. You are just wrong.
Ya huh. The most successful subs of the class being designed to do just that is what? Coincidence?
Also wrong but clearly so at least.
Not allegedly, it was boarded and searched and Iran doesn’t have the unrep ability the US does unless you’re implying they docked somewhere and replenished munitions it was in fact unarmed. No one said preemptively, they didn’t even notify them after the strike. Sri lanka said they did not add I do not trust the US because it has time and time again lied about it’s actions.
We are not at war, we are taking part in special combat operations. After 150 days without approval from Congress we will be at defacto war. Until then we aren’t at war.
By not calling it a war I’m saying Congress did not approve and thus it is not a war. See above for why. But nice try at yet another personal insult.
It was a war crime, auxillary ships are not taken in the same way an active fleet ship is. The US did have other ships in the area notably the pict which had just left sri lanka from the same fleet exhibition.
That’s equivocating which is why I keep saying it and it is in fact defending the indefensible.
That is also a war crime, yes. Good job accepting that fact.
Agreed, I didn’t say this was an illegal order. I said it was a war because it clearly was.
An unarmed boat is not a warship as per international law. They fly flags that state they are unarmed as this one was.
Quit equivocating.
It is still a military warship. Surely you don’t actually think countries can just put up an “unarmed flag” and expect their warships can safely make it across to a dry dock or for rearmament.
How do you KNOW it was unarmed? Because they had a flag up? Because they said so? Because India boarded the Iranian ship and conducted a thorough search of the entire interior? I’m genuinly curious as to how you are so confident it didn’t carry a single shell, rocket, torpedo or missile.
You cannot possibly think any nation at war would let an enemy warship sail by without consequence just because they claim they’re unarmed.
If Russia sailed a warship right outside Ukrainian waters with an “unarmed flag”. Do you think Ukraine would just let it be? Oh damn guys, they say it’s unarmed. Guess we have no choice but to let it hang around…
It’s a military target, it isn’t a warship. When deployed unarmed to naval exhibitions they are deployed as auxillary, it’s the same as training ships.
Because it was boarded and inspected to take part in a fleet week of sorts, yes.
You can when it’s beyond combat zones and flying flags signaling peaceful intention and being unarmed. There’s a proportionality issue when it comes to striking military targets and moreover there’s an obligation to rescue crew.
It wasn’t anywhere near Iran unless you are somehow under the impression sri lanka is adjacent to Iran. And Ukraine tends to abide by normal military conventions so yes if they knew it to be unarmed they would likely seize the ship and not sink it.
Iran:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#/media/File:Iran_(orthographic_projection).svg
Sri lanka:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lanka#/media/File:Sri_Lanka_(orthographic_projection).svg
Location of sinking : https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1536/cpsprodpb/3188/live/10450900-17e7-11f1-b048-c9424b2cf5fd.png.webp
I cannot help but laugh at your notion that Ukraine would let a Russian warship just sit outside of their waters simply because Russia said it was unarmed. Seizing something isn’t always possible.
You can absolutely engage enemy military targets regardless if they are within “combat zone” or not. With the sole exception if they are within another nations border. That is something that would make it more complicated. But that wasn’t the case.
Naval vessels are not required to rescue sailors. They are requires to take all possible measures to redcue sailors. Which can include rescuing sailors. If possible. There is a huge difference. Sometimes it is not possible to conduct a rescue operation. For a plethora of reasons.
One being that submarines do not want to surface unless they have support of other vessels.
Another is that submarines are generally not equipped to conduct rescue operations. Nor equipped to handle POW’s
A third would be that submarines generally do not have what you would call a lifeboat. Because first of all, where would they even keep one? And secondly, they are submerged, at times several hundreds of meters deep. They don’t need a lifeboat, they need a system to send their crew to the surface.
If they deploy all of them in the hopes that a few Iranian sailors might find them and climb aboard once they inflate at the surface. What are they themselves going to use in case of an emergancy?
They’ve given fair warning to literally every ship they’ve sunk. Laugh all you want but that’s just a fact. Seizing an unarmed ship is literally the original purpose of attack subs.
You can attack proportionally, sinking an unarmed ship that’s made no aggressive moves is not at all proportional.
Yes they are, and subs can release lifeboats while submerged. It’s an option for just such an occasion. We are not at total war, we’re not even legally at war we’re involved in special combat operations which are intended to be ao limited.
They had a strike group nearby, try again.
They’re absolutely equipped to take part in post action rescue operations, they train for it and everything.
Yes they absolutely do, you’re talking out your ass. Almost all subs will carry two or more rafts for surface operations and that’s ignoring the overstock of seie suits.
You’re contradicting yourself. You can’t say they don’t have X and then say what of they run out of X.
Seriously quit equivocating dude.
Would you like to read that paragraph again with more than a second grade reading comprehension?
What submarines tend to have, is almost like an individual “lifeboat” that will send a few sailors to the surface, while being submerged. it will then deploy on the surface to provide a very small raft. They are not intended to act as lifeboats for sailors peddling water at the surface.
They are intended to act as a means for the crew to escape the submarine while it’s submerged.
You can have whatever belief you want. You are entitled to be wrong. It was not illegal for the US to sink that ship. It was not illegal for their submarine to not approach, surface, and engage in active rescue operations.
Your personal belief of the morality of the action isn’t relevant.
Submarines were ‘literally’, not invented for the purpose of siezing other ships. They were invented to blow them up while remaining undetected. Which is for all intents and purposes, the exact opposite of capturing enemy vessels.
That’s not what I found laughable.
By your own accord, they did not just let ships sit outside of their territory. They told them to go home or be attacked. Which isn’t because they’re so nice to give them a fair warning. It’s to show the rest of the world that they are justly defending themselves from an forgein invader and would give Russians a fair chance to leave their country and go home. It’s PR.
You keep using words like “literally” and “equivocating” but doesn’t seem to understand what they mean or how to use them.
Again, you have what seems like countless of actual war crimes to choose from to criticise the US. Why you want to die on the hill in the one case where it wasn’t a war crime is beyond me.
A warship is a legit target. Their supply of ammunition onboard is irrelevant. The requirement is to “take all possible measures” which is at best, up for some serious interpretation. They did not deem it a possible measure to rescue them on their own.
As a matter of fact. They probably did not even know they didn’t have (enough) lifeboats deployed. They fires a torpedo well out of range of the ships own sonar. There’s no reason for a submarine to go in and personally inspect the aftermath.
Yes a seie and actual rafts, is not a reading comprehension issue, it’s a you meeting factually wrong.
Duh.
It was on both accounts.
Neither is yours especially when you’re wrong.
Yes they were, you’re talking about the modem use not their original intention.
Again dena was not outside of Iran’s waters nor for that matter us waters they were 2000 miles from the ao and unarmed, they’re not at all comparable.
Yes my point is they didn’t choose cowardice on purpose. They issued a warning and then took action. It’s the law but yes sure it’s good pr and the right thing to do.
Ya huh, tell me where I used either incorrectly rather than playing for personal insults yet again.
It’s a war crime and you’re equivocating.
Its a military target not a warship when unarmed acting as an auxiliary ship. They didn’t even warn sri lanka which would be the least of all available measures again you’re making excuses for the inexcusable.
There is, it’s too rescue the crew because we aren’t at war with them let alone total war.
Stop simping for hegseth and his illegal bullshit dude, it’s gross.
“Yes my point is they didn’t choose cowardice on purpose. They issued a warning and then took action. It’s the law but yes sure it’s good pr and the right thing to do.”
No, it is not the law that you have to warn a military ship before engaging it in combat. The only ones you have to warn are merchant ships, or civilian ships. You are just wrong.
Ok… how about we start where you said Submarines were “litterally” invented to seize and capture other ships. (That was not what they were literally invented to do. Just because early German uboats snuck up on merchant ships to seize contraband, doesn’t mean it was “literally” what they were invented for.)
And I’m not obscuring or trying to hide behind anything. I’ve been nothing but clear.
It’s a cowardly, planned attack on an allegedly unarmed vessel. But it’s not illegal. They are under no obligation to preemptively warn Sri Lanka. It is believed however they did tell Sri Lanka of where people had to be rescued after torpedoing it.
And you are at war with Iran. Just like Russia is at war with Ukraine. War was a fact the moment the US starting bombing Iran. I know the US doesn’t want to call it a war. Because if they do, they have to admit Trump started one without congressional approval.
By not calling this war for what it is, you’re literally defending Trump.
And I’m not even remotely defending hegseth, you and others claimed attacking this ship was a war crime. It’s not. And that by not rescuing the sailors personally, was another war crime. It can be. But unless the US had other ships that could safely do so in the vicinity, it’s not a war crime to instead signal a third country and informing them of their location.
That’s not me defending anyone. I’m simply telling you it wasn’t a war crime.
What was a war crime, and probably breaks lots of other “international laws” was the indiscriminate bombing of Venezuelan civilian ships. Particularly the part where after bombing a ship, which was disabled by the strike. They then ordered a second strike. Ensuring the death of any potential survivors.
THAT was a blatant crime and an actual illegal order. And everyone involved should be tried as such.
It is when it’s an auxillary ship carrying civilians bud. You are just wrong.
Ya huh. The most successful subs of the class being designed to do just that is what? Coincidence?
Also wrong but clearly so at least.
Not allegedly, it was boarded and searched and Iran doesn’t have the unrep ability the US does unless you’re implying they docked somewhere and replenished munitions it was in fact unarmed. No one said preemptively, they didn’t even notify them after the strike. Sri lanka said they did not add I do not trust the US because it has time and time again lied about it’s actions.
We are not at war, we are taking part in special combat operations. After 150 days without approval from Congress we will be at defacto war. Until then we aren’t at war.
By not calling it a war I’m saying Congress did not approve and thus it is not a war. See above for why. But nice try at yet another personal insult.
It was a war crime, auxillary ships are not taken in the same way an active fleet ship is. The US did have other ships in the area notably the pict which had just left sri lanka from the same fleet exhibition.
That’s equivocating which is why I keep saying it and it is in fact defending the indefensible.
That is also a war crime, yes. Good job accepting that fact.
Agreed, I didn’t say this was an illegal order. I said it was a war because it clearly was.