Just to chime in and observe that this is probably the most informative Pit thread I have read in years. I don’t think this would have worked as well in a “serious” thread with Mods pruning hijacks and warning off personal insults. SDMB moderation is usually better, but in this case I am glad it has not interfered.
Just a pity that Thumper668 went away without telling us his opinion. I did not understand the reason why, it had something to do with what I wrote in the preceding post that insulted him, it would have been enlightening, I am certain.
Yes, my fault. I would have liked to know what a sturgeon class spadefish has to do with a headphones wearing rabbit.
It was because the Nazi regime had little regard for human life throughout the duration of the Third Reich that the Second Geneva Convention was adopted in 1949 which dealt, in part, with precisely this sort of situation, though making exceptions for submarines in cases where rescue was impossible.
Well, I’m far from an expert on the subject, but no one is suggesting that the Iranians be boarded and taken somewhere on the sub. They were drowning, many possibly too injured to swim. In my simple mind, a submarine on the surface is a thing that floats; it’s also a thing that probably contains flotation devices like life rafts and PFDs. We’re talking about helping them out for a very short time – probably just a few hours or less – until rescue vessels arrived, which were already on their way.
Or are you suggesting that in the same situation, if it had been an American vessel torpedoed by Iranians, with 130 American sailors flailing in the water, the American sub captain would have said, “fuck 'em, let 'em drown!”
We are discussing international law, which US law doesn’t supersede, and
Your second statement isn’t just wrong, it’s ridiculous. Do you really think the UN charter says that illegal wars AREN’T WARS? The UN charter doesn’t even define war. It says when you can legally start a war. It doesn’t say illegal wars AREN’T WARS. Come on, use your head.
Now you’re engaged in a ridiculous semantic argument. I’ll cut to the chase. I don’t care what you call it, by the terms of the UN Charter and international law this whole military assault is an illegal act of aggression by lawless, murderous thugs that should be condemned in the strongest possible terms by every civilized nation on earth.
Is that clear enough?
The Trump cabal is trying to achieve political change in a sovereign nation through illegal means heedless of civilian suffering and death. Look up the definition of “terrorist”.
My opinion is really only relevant to the war itself and not to the topic of the thread. I believe that the war is unlawful, to the extent that it is a war of aggression. I also believe that most of the blame for starting it rests on Israel. I believe that Donald Trump and his flunkies are the most inept government ever to be elected. I also believe that this is an entirely separate discussion and not germane to the sinking of the Dena. As for the warfighters, I expect them to conduct themselves as professionals and follow all lawful orders, which is exactly what happened with respect to this incident as far as I can tell. If not for the time and place, it might have been me plotting the target motion analysis to calculate a firing solution, and under the same circumstances (as I understand them) I would have done my job. In my day, I had serious reservations about Bush the First, but that didn’t change how I did my job, especially in carrying out a war I did not believe in. Likewise, agreeing with or supporting this administration is simply not a factor in this equation. I also understand something that most civilians don’t. Without trying to get sappy, service members fighting a war are not fighting for a flag, or a president, or even a nation. They’re fighting for each other. Who the President is rarely enters your thoughts - you’re thinking about the guys standing on either side of you (or in the same pressurized tube as you)…whether or not you even like them.
I did not “go away” per se - I simply decided that I had contributed all I could to the conversation (despite being mostly ignored) and it was not worth my time to participate further. I’m not even sure it was worth the effort I have expended already. For the record, your post did not insult me and was not what made me retreat from the conversation. It did play a part in my conclusion that anything further I had to contribute would only be ignored.
As for the meaning behind my name, I have discussed this in other threads and it shouldn’t take too much effort to find. I know there at least 2 other submarine veterans on SDMB, and I would be happy to elucidate if they want to PM me.
Good point. Even in the Pit I have tendency to try and maintain a certain level of decorum and respect. But since you pointed it out…
Do you seriously believe that’s what I think, or do you just amuse yourself by being an argumentative asshole?
What I actually believe is that we’re drifting away from the optimistic post-war norms that motivated the establishment of the United Nations in the first place. Today we have tyrants running the American government who openly declare that “might is right”, who have pulled out of major UN organizations like WHO and the UNFCCC and threaten to pull out of the UN itself, and who wage illegal wars on multiple nations and threaten others with the same, just because they can.
So when I get lectured on the laws of war by those inculcated into the military culture of the past, I’m inclined to think that in any moral world of the present day those laws should not apply to cases of illegal aggression, and that at some point in the chain of command there is a moral obligation to invoke what remains of the power of democracy and public opinion to end these atrocities.
“These are long-standing third country arrangements that have been in place for a long period of time,” Mr Albanese said.
“What they do is ensure that Australian Defence Force personnel, where they’re embedded in third countries’ defence assets, they act in accordance with Australian law, with Australian policy, and that, of course, is taking place across the board.”
Not sure how important it is, but it’s interesting.
In the hypothetical situation you describe with 130 American sailors in the water, the sub wouldn’t be able to do much there, either. Firstly, they would call for help. Then they could surface and throw a couple of life rafts and a dozen or so PFDs into the water. If seas were unusually calm they could maybe open a topside hatch and try to retrieve people. In more typical seas that would be impossible, so you would be looking at the Herculean task of trying to get people in through the sail (i.e. conning tower). You might save a few people that way.
But none of this is feasible if there is a hostile vessel still in the area (surface ship or submarine). That seems like a great way to lose a billion dollar submarine and incur a lot more casualties. A surfaced nuclear submarine has given up its defining characteristic (stealth) and is a sitting duck.
And trying to do something similar with dozens of enemy POWs that survived their ship being torpedoed? Not happening. The potential benefit is far outweighed by the risk. At best they might alert the local coast guard (the Sri Lankans in this case) that rescue was needed for survivors.
