I think you may need to change this to “Any ship in the ocean can be sunk with no warning, as long as the USA does not like them.”
Because that’s where we’re at now - at least that’s how the rest of the world sees things.
Well of course it is, because we don’t need to devote any ships to that. We could have tracked it back to wherever it was going (which was almost certainly directly to the place where we had lots of ships) entirely by satellite. With modern tech, it’s impossible for a nation with the US’s resources to not know where any given surface ship is.
And it’s also wasteful to peel a submarine off of its original mission for long enough to fire a torpedo and to hide again, instead of letting it be dealt with by the ships that were in the area precisely for the purpose of dealing with Iranian ships.
Well we are in the pit, not great debates. You make excellent points for a great debate. Not so much for a rant. 
If you really believe that you clearly have no concept of how big oceans are and how small ships are. To wit, reference how long it takes to identify and locate slow moving tankers in the shadow fleet. If your imagined reality were true there wouldn’t be any of them left.
Yeah, I’m not sure you have an accurate perception of “the area”. To get an idea, imagine driving non-stop from New York to San Francisco in a car with a maximum speed of 35 mph.
Ships are small. Wakes are huge. So huge, in fact, that they’re impossible to miss.
And then you’re claiming that there’s therefore no way that the San Francisco police can reach the car before it reaches San Francisco.
Really? Do you have a lot of experience looking at satellite photos of the open ocean? Because I do.
Well, if you want to continue the metaphor, the SFPD would need to be willing to divert their assets driving to Iowa at 35 mph, which doesn’t seem like a good use of resources. And keep in mind if the pursued vehicle suspected that SFPD were on their way to Iowa they might decide to pop over the Canadian border on the way and hide out in Saskatchewan until the heat was off.
…and of course, all this is moot, since the evidence shows that the ship was indeed armed.
No, the SFPD just waits in San Francisco for it. And if the pursued vehicle decides not to go to SF after all, then we’ve managed to neutralize it without expending any resources at all.
What a brilliant straw man argument you have constructed.
One could argue that the US did precisely that since after they sank this warship two others docked in Sri Lanka and will be sitting out the war. Three for the price of one ain’t bad.
So what we’re arguing here is which is the better option:
Option 1: Take a minor enemy asset off the board as quickly as possible without tying up additional resources
Option 2: Divert significant resources to tracking and pursuing a minor enemy asset so we can offer the opportunity to surrender and be the “good guys”. Bonus: we get a puny ship and lots of good publicity.
Look, I’m not arguing the morality or the optics of one option over the other. In my first career it was my job to offer tactical and strategic analysis to those who made the decisions, and I was actually pretty damned good at it. From that perspective, Option 1 is the only realistic or pragmatic outcome, whether or not it’s palatable. We can argue over the overall legality or morality of the war/special military option/conflict etc., but the thread is specifically about the torpedo attack on the IRIS Dena.
Here’s a question. If this is a “special operation” to achieve regime change, isn’t preserving assets for use by the (presumably friendly) successor regime of some importance? If such is the case, why not radio an ultimatum to the warship to proceed to a neutral port before blowing them out of the water?
It seems reasonable that furthering the goal of changing the regime would take precedence over any thoughts of preserving assets for a successor.
As I’ve said in this and other threads, compromising one’s position is just bad submarinin’. Launching an ADCAP is compromising in and of itself, but radioing anyone is announcing your presence to every hostile and potentially hostile adversary in the region. Submarines on patrol don’t radio anyone, even allies.
Does anyone realize that we have loads of planes capable of sinking this ship if they didn’t surrender and take it to a port of our choosing? Taking this ship out with a sub was overkill and grandstanding.
The captain could have choose to abandon ship and scuttle the ship if he didn’t want to appear to have surrendered.
Do any of us people understand that one of the primary purposes of a frigate in modern naval warfare is to provide a seaborne anti-air defense platform?
The “If” is carrying a lot of weight there.
I don’t believe that there is any actual outcome that has been planned out. This administration does not particularly know what the end game is, or even what the strategy should be. Apart from “send missiles in to blow shit up like it’s a video game.”
Which we have demonstrated an overwhelming capability to jam. Point is we had choices.
Except that Option 1 was the one where we call on the ship to surrender, and Option 2 is the one we chose. Except without the good publicity. We compromised whatever this sub’s mission was, instead of the option that didn’t cost us anything.
And where are those planes launching from? And given that the mission of the frigate is primarily surface to air warfare, isn’t it a bit of a risk to send a pilot on a strike in the open ocean, far from any surface assets? Do you really think that if that were a viable expedient option it wouldn’t have been chosen?