You’re still living under the delusion that there was any asset within reach capable of accepting a surrender.
…do you know how we deal with enemy anti-air, and what would happen to a ship that we applied those methods to?
You may not know, so I will tell you: we hit them with special missiles that target radar arrays. What you’re basically suggesting is hitting the ship with air launched missiles, which would - just like the sub attack - have to be done as a surprise, put of the blue attack.
So, sure, I guess we could have blown the ship out of the water with a jet coming in stealthily and blowing them up before they could respond, instead of using a submarine to do the same thing. We’d just risk an airframe and a pilot for absolutely no reason to do it.
Don’t they radio their HQ? Surely, this sub didn’t attack without specific instructions. The frigate could have been contacted from numerous other locations.
Submarines rely on scheduled broadcasts to receive orders. It’s a receive-only system.
I’m of a similar feeling except that reading the description of the ship, most of the AA was in the form of guns, which are useless from a stand-off ASM missile perspective. It did have SAMs, but I don’t know what their range was.
But I agree that it did seem to have more AA capacity than ASW. Perhaps it was easier to sink it from a sub than have to worry about air defense.
Finally someone gets it.
Obviously the sub was told that we are at war with Iran and that they should seek and destroy any Iranian vessels on the way to their next objective, but if you mean that they got specific commands to destroy this specific ship or that they checked in with command between spotting the ship and deciding to sink it, that’s almost certainly not true.
So are you saying the sub attacked on its own initiative? That it did not report it had the frigate in its sites and didn’t request specific instructions before attacking?
That’s not obvious to me. Firing a torpedo to sink a warship is pretty rare these days. I would imagine the sub would have wanted specific instructions, not just “destroy any Iranian ship you come across.”
I strongly doubt that the decision to attack was made by the sub captain. The sub almost certainly received tasking orders with respect to IRIS Dena which probably included the conditions under which to destroy it. None of that would have required any transmissions from the submarine.
Well, the US military knew where the sub was and where the frigate was. I can imagine someone communicating to the sub those facts and ordering them to take it out.
See my reply to Babale above.
That’s kind of the entire point of submarines, isn’t it?
I would not be surprised to learn that the U.S. sub was in that particular place at that particular time because the U.S. knew that that particular Iranian ship would be returning from the training mission.
I’m assuming they would have received instructions that would have included under what conditions to destroy an Iranian warship, the IRIS Dena included; and they surely would have also received intelligence about the ships in the surrounding region.
What I don’t necessarily assume is that they got specific instructions that said “go and destroy this ship”.
They may very well have had instructions that said something like “Go to location X and if you see any Iranian ships on the way destroy them under these situations, and by the way the IRIS Dena is here along your probable route”.
Why does any of this rule out an ultimatum?
The US did issue an ultimatum to all Regime forces telling them to put down their arms or be destroyed.
An ultimatum to this particular ship would have required the submarine to surface, and anti-submarine warfare is in fact one of a frigate’s other specialties.
They may not be capable of detecting a stealthy submarine on approach until it’s too late, but if they surfaced and hailed the Iranian ship they’d be vulnerable.
It’s clear that the choice taken was to quickly and simply take off a minor enemy unit, instead of taking some pains and running some risks to capture it.
This is not illegal, not a war crime, not even strictly immoral (in any case the immorality lies in starting the war).
It’s a matter of opinion whether it was worth the risk to show some humanity, in both the moral and strategic domains my opinion is that it was.
But expecting the current U.S. leadership to take the side of humanity in any decision where they can refuse to do it is a fools game.
We know who they are, and they prove it constantly, it’s useless to expect something better.
We, the world, needs them out of power as soon as possible, other than that we are just talking in circles.
You should probably reread the thread. I have explained several times why it is impossible for a submarine to accept a surrender from another warship.
Here is where we part company (not the “war crime” part, but the “moral valence” part).
ETA: What Frodo said (twice, because you didn’t address this in your first reply to them).