And that’s what it really comes down to isn’t it? Nevermind that actually executing the orders of this administration have the same strengths and the same limitations as any “benevolent” leadership. I have tried to provide some insight as to what those strengths and limitations are, based on my experience in analyzing tactical and strategic information in the prosecution of naval warfare. I believe HMS_Irruncible has offered the same. What I have not done is express an opinion on the justification or morality of this action. But somehow most of the folks here seem to have become experts in naval warfare based solely on their distaste for those issuing the orders. It’s like explaining gravity to a dog, and about as fruitful.
I thought we were trying to talk through realistic ways of eventually holding Trump & Hegseth accountable via official means. But if this is purely a demonization exercise, you can use any phrasing you like! War crime, crime of passion, mayhem, first-degree murder, aggravated vandalism, RICO, grand theft auto, whatever.
If you’re not talking consequences then call it whatever you want, because it doesn’t matter.
You are unfortunately completely right concerning how war is fought: mercilessly. But also cleverly, rusefully. You fight to win.
The point some others, I think, are trying to make (at least I am trying to) is that it might have been not nice, but clever not to sink the ship. Not in this way, immedeately, without warning. It simply looks bad, specially in the context of a war that many, you included, doubt was legally or legitimately initiated. Even Alessan sees better ways to proceed in this case!
But of course even treating the Iranian ship
would not make this war right. We are venting our anger. Because
I see none in a forseeable future, unfortunately. The USA are the only country that can hold them accountable and it is not going to happen. International law is powerless against the mighty players.
I can agree with this, if we agree that what we’re doing is critiquing the political choices of how the war is waged, rather than its legality.
I have stipulated a couple of times upthread that yes, I presume the US had the resources and optionality to simply detain Dena and its crew for the duration of hostilities. No obligation, but it was likely a possibility. I see no real military advantage in sinking it on sight. It was a political decision, and the choice was either to take the ship in an attempt to prove that we’re not so bad after all, or sink it with a nuclear sub to create a badass spectacle. I probably would’ve chosen the detention myself, at least the first incident, but of course there are limits to making that a universal policy.
Of course it wasn’t necessary. That doesn’t make it a “war crime” nor does it attach any moral valence at all. If we agree we’re at war, every enemy warship is a valid target. We have to respect a flag of surrender if offered, we have to rescue survivors, but otherwise it’s legitimate to simply sink it and move on.
I agree with that, we are discussing how the war is waged, which is technical matter of law interpretation and application (and political cleverness), provided that does not prejudge whether the whole war is illegal.
Or you use your submarine’s inherent stealth and long-range weaponry.
It seems very obvious that the answer is no.
I disagree with that part, even in war you can be moral if you have the kind of force superiority the U.S. has in that theater.
You are not in a war for survival that’s going to be defined on a knife’s edge, you can take the luxury of being compassionate, the fact that the current U.S. leadership pointedly doesn’t speaks volumes.
It’s a frigate, which would imply it’s armed with anti-air capabilities.
Is the claim that the ship had no ammunition actually confirmed yet? From what I can tell, and this Snopes article backs it up, it comes from a single tweet from an Indian official who wasn’t actually sure if it was true or not.
I thought we agreed the USA knew it was returning from a naval exercise in India and had no ammunition on board. It. Was. Harmless.
Defenceless.
Innocuous.
Inoffensive.
Did we? Again, as far as I can tell, that claim entirely comes down to a single Indian official’s tweet where he said he was “told” it had no ammunition.
Having participated in several multinational naval exercises, I don’t buy that claim for one minute. The idea of inviting a warship to participate in an exercise but requiring that they remove all of their live ammunition is ridiculous and unheard of in my experience. Requiring that no live ammunition is LOADED for the duration of the exercise is more likely and reasonable.
If this is the case I wonder why trump, hegseth and the usual sources have not loudly said so on xitter, truth social, talk radio and facebook.
In fact, here is some evidence that directly contradicts it, found after literally five minutes of googling (the time since my last post):
Russian ship at the same naval excercise took part in live fire drills.
Live fire drills means that ammunition was in fact aboard the ships.
How fucking low have our news agencies fallen that they can’t do this level of research?
This is I think the most honest and correct summation of what people actually think. And yes, you’re right, it does speak volumes. You can & should draw some conclusions based on the refusal to detain the ship and create a different kind of PR spectacle.
All I’m pointing out is that there’s no legal or military obligation to do so. This cannot be called a “war crime” in the sense of something you could put anyone on trial for, and it’s well on the fair side of how every similar “war crime” charge has ever been adjudicated in history. Enemy warships can be sunk with no warning, end of story. There’s no crime until you ignore surrender signals or fire on survivors.
Even neglecting survivors in the water has been adjudicated as not a crime, extraordinarily enough. The bar for “war crime” is a lot higher than people want to understand.
I agree with that, I was just disagreeing with the “moral” part of your post, not the legal part.
I was posting under the assumption that the ship was unarmed and that the U.S. military knew it was unarmed. Otherwise all bets are off.
So, in other words, we had plenty of time to get something else there. Or are you seriously suggesting that we started a war with Iran while none of our ships were anywhere near Iran?
We’re not obligated to allow the enemy to surrender. It’s just really, really stupid not to. Even on the most cynical level, if you destroy an enemy ship, you deny the enemy a ship, but if you capture an enemy ship, you deny the enemy a ship and gain a ship. Plus you get prisoners who you might be able to exchange for your own personnel who get captured. Plus you make it a lot easier for the enemy, as a whole, to surrender, and thus win the war more quickly and easily. Plus you make the entire rest of the world hate us slightly less, which, believe it or not, also has value in warfare.
The important thing here is that the sinking of this ship is an indisputable act of war. A war that the US Administration coyly refuses to acknowledge exists and has not been legally authorized by the US congress.
No, I am saying that peeling a submarine off of its original mission for 4-10 days to track a frigate is an unreasonable expectation and a waste of operational resources. If the boat was operating in that area, there was a reason it was doing so and it’s very unlikely that its mission had anything to do with a single Iranian frigate returning from an exercise. It was tasked with dealing with the Iranian frigate precisely BECAUSE most of our ships were near Iran.
Indeed. Al enemigo que huye, puente de plata (offer the fleeing enemy a silver bridge) was already an old saying when it was quoted in the Quijote, over 400 years ago. And it means exactly what we are discussing here. It is and looks better to accept surrender than to annihilate. Tactically, strategically, morally, ethically…