US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth condemned for sinking Iranian ship in international waters. Indian politicians criticize US attack as cowardly and despicable.
I cannot help but laugh at your notion that Ukraine would let a Russian warship just sit outside of their waters simply because Russia said it was unarmed. Seizing something isn’t always possible.
You can absolutely engage enemy military targets regardless if they are within “combat zone” or not. With the sole exception if they are within another nations border. That is something that would make it more complicated. But that wasn’t the case.
Naval vessels are not required to rescue sailors. They are requires to take all possible measures to redcue sailors. Which can include rescuing sailors. If possible. There is a huge difference. Sometimes it is not possible to conduct a rescue operation. For a plethora of reasons.
One being that submarines do not want to surface unless they have support of other vessels.
Another is that submarines are generally not equipped to conduct rescue operations. Nor equipped to handle POW’s
A third would be that submarines generally do not have what you would call a lifeboat. Because first of all, where would they even keep one? And secondly, they are submerged, at times several hundreds of meters deep. They don’t need a lifeboat, they need a system to send their crew to the surface.
If they deploy all of them in the hopes that a few Iranian sailors might find them and climb aboard once they inflate at the surface. What are they themselves going to use in case of an emergancy?
They’ve given fair warning to literally every ship they’ve sunk. Laugh all you want but that’s just a fact. Seizing an unarmed ship is literally the original purpose of attack subs.
You can attack proportionally, sinking an unarmed ship that’s made no aggressive moves is not at all proportional.
Yes they are, and subs can release lifeboats while submerged. It’s an option for just such an occasion. We are not at total war, we’re not even legally at war we’re involved in special combat operations which are intended to be ao limited.
They had a strike group nearby, try again.
They’re absolutely equipped to take part in post action rescue operations, they train for it and everything.
Yes they absolutely do, you’re talking out your ass. Almost all subs will carry two or more rafts for surface operations and that’s ignoring the overstock of seie suits.
You’re contradicting yourself. You can’t say they don’t have X and then say what of they run out of X.
submarines generally do not have what you would call a lifeboat. Because first of all, where would they even keep one? And secondly, they are submerged, at times several hundreds of meters deep. They don’t need a lifeboat, they need a system to send their crew to the surface.
Would you like to read that paragraph again with more than a second grade reading comprehension?
What submarines tend to have, is almost like an individual “lifeboat” that will send a few sailors to the surface, while being submerged. it will then deploy on the surface to provide a very small raft. They are not intended to act as lifeboats for sailors peddling water at the surface.
They are intended to act as a means for the crew to escape the submarine while it’s submerged.
You can have whatever belief you want. You are entitled to be wrong. It was not illegal for the US to sink that ship. It was not illegal for their submarine to not approach, surface, and engage in active rescue operations.
Your personal belief of the morality of the action isn’t relevant.
Submarines were ‘literally’, not invented for the purpose of siezing other ships. They were invented to blow them up while remaining undetected. Which is for all intents and purposes, the exact opposite of capturing enemy vessels.
They’ve given fair warning to literally every ship they’ve sunk. Laugh all you want but that’s just a fact.
That’s not what I found laughable.
I cannot help but laugh at your notion that Ukraine would let a Russian warship just sit outside of their waters simply because Russia said it was unarmed.
By your own accord, they did not just let ships sit outside of their territory. They told them to go home or be attacked. Which isn’t because they’re so nice to give them a fair warning. It’s to show the rest of the world that they are justly defending themselves from an forgein invader and would give Russians a fair chance to leave their country and go home. It’s PR.
You keep using words like “literally” and “equivocating” but doesn’t seem to understand what they mean or how to use them.
Again, you have what seems like countless of actual war crimes to choose from to criticise the US. Why you want to die on the hill in the one case where it wasn’t a war crime is beyond me.
A warship is a legit target. Their supply of ammunition onboard is irrelevant. The requirement is to “take all possible measures” which is at best, up for some serious interpretation. They did not deem it a possible measure to rescue them on their own.
As a matter of fact. They probably did not even know they didn’t have (enough) lifeboats deployed. They fires a torpedo well out of range of the ships own sonar. There’s no reason for a submarine to go in and personally inspect the aftermath.
I cannot help but laugh at your notion that Ukraine would let a Russian warship just sit outside of their waters simply because Russia said it was unarmed. Seizing something isn’t always possible.
You can absolutely engage enemy military targets regardless if they are within “combat zone” or not. With the sole exception if they are within another nations border. That is something that would make it more complicated. But that wasn’t the case.
Naval vessels are not required to rescue sailors. They are requires to take all possible measures to redcue sailors. Which can include rescuing sailors. If possible. There is a huge difference. Sometimes it is not possible to conduct a rescue operation. For a plethora of reasons.
One being that submarines do not want to surface unless they have support of other vessels.
Another is that submarines are generally not equipped to conduct rescue operations. Nor equipped to handle POW’s
A third would be that submarines generally do not have what you would call a lifeboat. Because first of all, where would they even keep one? And secondly, they are submerged, at times several hundreds of meters deep. They don’t need a lifeboat, they need a system to send their crew to the surface.
If they deploy all of them in the hopes that a few Iranian sailors might find them and climb aboard once they inflate at the surface. What are they themselves going to use in case of an emergancy?
They’ve given fair warning to literally every ship they’ve sunk. Laugh all you want but that’s just a fact. Seizing an unarmed ship is literally the original purpose of attack subs.
You can attack proportionally, sinking an unarmed ship that’s made no aggressive moves is not at all proportional.
Yes they are, and subs can release lifeboats while submerged. It’s an option for just such an occasion. We are not at total war, we’re not even legally at war we’re involved in special combat operations which are intended to be ao limited.
They had a strike group nearby, try again.
They’re absolutely equipped to take part in post action rescue operations, they train for it and everything.
Yes they absolutely do, you’re talking out your ass. Almost all subs will carry two or more rafts for surface operations and that’s ignoring the overstock of seie suits.
You’re contradicting yourself. You can’t say they don’t have X and then say what of they run out of X.
Seriously quit equivocating dude.
Would you like to read that paragraph again with more than a second grade reading comprehension?
What submarines tend to have, is almost like an individual “lifeboat” that will send a few sailors to the surface, while being submerged. it will then deploy on the surface to provide a very small raft. They are not intended to act as lifeboats for sailors peddling water at the surface.
They are intended to act as a means for the crew to escape the submarine while it’s submerged.
You can have whatever belief you want. You are entitled to be wrong. It was not illegal for the US to sink that ship. It was not illegal for their submarine to not approach, surface, and engage in active rescue operations.
Your personal belief of the morality of the action isn’t relevant.
Submarines were ‘literally’, not invented for the purpose of siezing other ships. They were invented to blow them up while remaining undetected. Which is for all intents and purposes, the exact opposite of capturing enemy vessels.
That’s not what I found laughable.
By your own accord, they did not just let ships sit outside of their territory. They told them to go home or be attacked. Which isn’t because they’re so nice to give them a fair warning. It’s to show the rest of the world that they are justly defending themselves from an forgein invader and would give Russians a fair chance to leave their country and go home. It’s PR.
You keep using words like “literally” and “equivocating” but doesn’t seem to understand what they mean or how to use them.
Again, you have what seems like countless of actual war crimes to choose from to criticise the US. Why you want to die on the hill in the one case where it wasn’t a war crime is beyond me.
A warship is a legit target. Their supply of ammunition onboard is irrelevant. The requirement is to “take all possible measures” which is at best, up for some serious interpretation. They did not deem it a possible measure to rescue them on their own.
As a matter of fact. They probably did not even know they didn’t have (enough) lifeboats deployed. They fires a torpedo well out of range of the ships own sonar. There’s no reason for a submarine to go in and personally inspect the aftermath.