Officials in New Delhi say that an Iranian warship that was sunk by a U.S. submarine near Sri Lanka had participated in naval exercises hosted by India before heading out into international waters in the Indian Ocean on its way home.
The americans knew the ship was coming for a military exercise without ammunition, they couldn’t just seize it and captured everyone and got the ship? I’m missing something?
First principles: Even assuming they somehow magically knew there really were no smallarms on the ship, why take the risk of getting stabbed or beaten with a pipe or trapping you and starting a fire or whatever. It would be another thing if the ship surrendered, but no reason to put yourself and your fellow soldiers at risk to go easy on your enemy.
Deeper reason: With long range missiles and drones being the primary threat to a ship, the biggest limitations are actually locating the enemy ship, tracking it and guiding the missile/drones towards it. Even a ship with no ammo can do that by relaying your position to another ship or shore based missiles/drones. So pulling your ship right next to an enemy one and having to stay there while your marines go board it is not a safe thing to do.
Capturing a vessel is very different than performing a boarding action. If the U.S. captured the Iranian vessel then there wouldn’t be any risk of “getting beaten with a pipe” because the Iranian vessel surrendered.
Deeper Dumber reason: Given the state of technology today and with all of the jamming, electronic warfare tech, and counter drone and missile stuff that the U.S. Navy has, it wouldn’t make a lick of difference whether the Iranian vessel was right next to a U.S. warship or not.
Edit: lol at getting beaten with a pipe. Jesus fucking Christ. Get off of LLMs, they’re clearly ruining your ability to reason
In a warfighting context, to capture an enemy vessel or position means you coerced them to surrender with overwhelming firepower or threat of force. Also is semantics the only counterargument you have?
Normally I wouldn’t care this much, but the whole reason for this conversation was that you were defending the murders of unarmed sailors who were not at war. So fuck you, you fucking shitwhistle.
And you accuse me of semantics? Is Russia also not at war in your mind, because they did not make some war declaration ritual?
Normally I wouldn’t care this much, but the whole reason for this conversation was that you were defending the murders of unarmed sailors who were not at war. So fuck you, you fucking shitwhistle.
WTF is this argument? Oh no, they did not have ammo in their gun at the particular moment they were killed. I guess any sniper who kills a general or an assassin trying to kill Hitler should go straight to hell, because their target was not holding a gun at that particular moment.
I find it mind boggling that the part that troubles you is the death of soldiers supporting brutal theocratic dictator most well known for killing his own people and supporting terrorist groups throughout the region. However many issues I have with the US military, the US as a whole, and it’s pedophile president, this really isn’t one of them.
they did not have ammo in their gun at the particular moment they were killed.
The Geneva convention is something I appreciate, war crimes is not something I appreciate.
Is Russia also not at war in your mind
This is a fallacy: Iran is at war, but that does not mean all Iranians are active combatants.
Moreover, there’s a bit of a difference: Russia illegally attacked Ukraine, while on the other hand Iran was illegally attacked.
brutal theocratic dictator most well known for killing his own people and supporting terrorist groups throughout the region.
Sure I do agree. I’m not sure bombing the country is a good way to help those people. It does not seem to me that people in Libya are much better off after Gaddafi was murdered, same goes with Afghanistan and Kosovo.
The Geneva convention is something I appreciate, war crimes is not something I appreciate.
There is nothing in the Geneva convention that says a combatant has to have ammo or a gun to be a combatant.
This is a fallacy: Iran is at war, but that does not mean all Iranians are active combatants.
There is no fallacy, because I am not arguing about them being combatants in my last comment. I am debunking a straight up lie that they are not at war. But sure, not everyone is a combatant. Military personel on a warship are.
I’m not sure bombing the country is a good way to help those people.
Who is saying it is? There is a world of middle ground between something being a good idea and a war crime. I am just saying the people being bombed are hardly innocent bystanders.
One aspect of this is not that anyone is interested in some “war declaration ritual” but that it is an illegal war that lacks justification under international law.
That said, legally speaking it is true that the laws of armed conflict still apply once hostilities have began and the legality of the war itself is a separate question from whether the attack is. Under those laws an enemy warship is a legitimate target whether it has ammunition or not.
Obviously laws are not morals and you could still take issue on moral grounds with an action that is legal though.
That said, legally speaking it is true that the laws of armed conflict still apply once hostilities have began and the legality of the war itself is a separate question from whether the attack is. Under those laws an enemy warship is a legitimate target whether it has ammunition or not.
Exactly.
Obviously laws are not morals and you could still take issue on moral grounds with an action that is legal though.
I think you mean ethical? On moral grounds, you can take issue with anything, including a woman not wearing a Hijab or speaking in public. Since morals are subjective. It is just unethical to impose such morals on others.
And yes, laws are generally often misaligned with what is ethical, though I am not convinced they are in this particular case.
it is an illegal war that lacks justification under international law.
I guess, technically yes? Although that is true for pretty much any war, even arguably just ones. Regardless, that is not relevant to the topic as you pointed out.
I think you mean ethical? On moral grounds, you can take issue with anything, including a woman not wearing a Hijab or speaking in public. Since morals are subjective. It is just unethical to impose such morals on others.
No I meant moral here. The context is that law codifies an ethical standard and I’m not necessarily arguing the standard should be different, just that someone may personally have a different one (which would be their personal ethical standard). Ethics in general is not universal either of course, there are legal systems and thus codes of ethics that take issue with not wearing a Hijab.
I guess, technically yes? Although that is true for pretty much any war, even arguably just ones. Regardless, that is not relevant to the topic as you pointed out.
No, the former (illegality) follows from the latter (lacking legal justification). There is no jus ad bellum under international law here.
The americans knew the ship was coming for a military exercise without ammunition, they couldn’t just seize it and captured everyone and got the ship? I’m missing something?
That’s not what bullies and war criminals usually do mate.
Terrorists want blood.
Because the sailors would just hand over one of their most advanced warships.
They could’ve done that with Venezuela’s “drug boats” too but didn’t. That’s because the goal was actually to kill people.
You assume they wanted the ship or prisoners more than the death and suffering
First principles: Even assuming they somehow magically knew there really were no smallarms on the ship, why take the risk of getting stabbed or beaten with a pipe or trapping you and starting a fire or whatever. It would be another thing if the ship surrendered, but no reason to put yourself and your fellow soldiers at risk to go easy on your enemy.
Deeper reason: With long range missiles and drones being the primary threat to a ship, the biggest limitations are actually locating the enemy ship, tracking it and guiding the missile/drones towards it. Even a ship with no ammo can do that by relaying your position to another ship or shore based missiles/drones. So pulling your ship right next to an enemy one and having to stay there while your marines go board it is not a safe thing to do.
Follow your leader imperial scum
Capturing a vessel is very different than performing a boarding action. If the U.S. captured the Iranian vessel then there wouldn’t be any risk of “getting beaten with a pipe” because the Iranian vessel surrendered.
DeeperDumber reason: Given the state of technology today and with all of the jamming, electronic warfare tech, and counter drone and missile stuff that the U.S. Navy has, it wouldn’t make a lick of difference whether the Iranian vessel was right next to a U.S. warship or not.Edit: lol at getting beaten with a pipe. Jesus fucking Christ. Get off of LLMs, they’re clearly ruining your ability to reason
Putting aside your other bullshit, you answered the question yourself then. They did not capture it because it did not surrender.
In a warfighting context, to capture an enemy vessel or position means you coerced them to surrender with overwhelming firepower or threat of force. Also is semantics the only counterargument you have?
Normally I wouldn’t care this much, but the whole reason for this conversation was that you were defending the murders of unarmed sailors who were not at war. So fuck you, you fucking shitwhistle.
And you accuse me of semantics? Is Russia also not at war in your mind, because they did not make some war declaration ritual?
WTF is this argument? Oh no, they did not have ammo in their gun at the particular moment they were killed. I guess any sniper who kills a general or an assassin trying to kill Hitler should go straight to hell, because their target was not holding a gun at that particular moment.
I find it mind boggling that the part that troubles you is the death of soldiers supporting brutal theocratic dictator most well known for killing his own people and supporting terrorist groups throughout the region. However many issues I have with the US military, the US as a whole, and it’s pedophile president, this really isn’t one of them.
The Geneva convention is something I appreciate, war crimes is not something I appreciate.
This is a fallacy: Iran is at war, but that does not mean all Iranians are active combatants. Moreover, there’s a bit of a difference: Russia illegally attacked Ukraine, while on the other hand Iran was illegally attacked.
Sure I do agree. I’m not sure bombing the country is a good way to help those people. It does not seem to me that people in Libya are much better off after Gaddafi was murdered, same goes with Afghanistan and Kosovo.
There is nothing in the Geneva convention that says a combatant has to have ammo or a gun to be a combatant.
There is no fallacy, because I am not arguing about them being combatants in my last comment. I am debunking a straight up lie that they are not at war. But sure, not everyone is a combatant. Military personel on a warship are.
Who is saying it is? There is a world of middle ground between something being a good idea and a war crime. I am just saying the people being bombed are hardly innocent bystanders.
One aspect of this is not that anyone is interested in some “war declaration ritual” but that it is an illegal war that lacks justification under international law.
That said, legally speaking it is true that the laws of armed conflict still apply once hostilities have began and the legality of the war itself is a separate question from whether the attack is. Under those laws an enemy warship is a legitimate target whether it has ammunition or not.
Obviously laws are not morals and you could still take issue on moral grounds with an action that is legal though.
Exactly.
I think you mean ethical? On moral grounds, you can take issue with anything, including a woman not wearing a Hijab or speaking in public. Since morals are subjective. It is just unethical to impose such morals on others.
And yes, laws are generally often misaligned with what is ethical, though I am not convinced they are in this particular case.
I guess, technically yes? Although that is true for pretty much any war, even arguably just ones. Regardless, that is not relevant to the topic as you pointed out.
No I meant moral here. The context is that law codifies an ethical standard and I’m not necessarily arguing the standard should be different, just that someone may personally have a different one (which would be their personal ethical standard). Ethics in general is not universal either of course, there are legal systems and thus codes of ethics that take issue with not wearing a Hijab.
No, the former (illegality) follows from the latter (lacking legal justification). There is no jus ad bellum under international law here.
I’m curious, what excuses will you make for the nazis when they’re dragging you out of your house ?
it will be" your suppose to be hurting them , not me"
You think they live on a warship?