[isr]

Completely false.

That ship was involved in naval exercises at the invitation of the host navy, India.

That ship was unarmed. Nothing unusual there - that was the original plan for the joint navy drills. A large complement of the crew was A BRASS BAND!

The Indian's (and this has been formally confirmed since) communicated to the Americans that this was an UNARMED ship which was about to leave Indian territorial waters on its way home.

So the Americans KNEW where the ship was (they were told) and KNEW it was completely unarmed.

And they sunk it anyway, and refused to pick up any survivors.

Thats a crystal clear WAR CRIME. The kind which is writ large in western history books for 80 years, condemning the conduct of the Nazi Germany submarine units.

[mpyne]

None of that changes that it was an Iranian warship.

Warships of nations involved in armed conflict are always valid targets for the adversary.

Otherwise it would also have been a bunch of war crimes for the Iranian ships destroyed at the pier by cruise missile or bombs.

India was not a party to the conflict so they can't vouch for the unarmedness of a warship on either side one way or another. But even if they could, unarmed warships are valid targets for the reason the other commenter pointed out (they can quickly become armed).

Nor does international law necessarily require a warship to personally pick up all survivors, and in fact gives warships a fair amount of leeway to consider their own security along with their own ability to execute a successful rescue and successfully berth the shipwrecked.

Modern submarines, while not exempt, tend to fall into that proviso more than other classes because they are not equipped to conduct surface rescue (unlike WWII-era submarines they don't even have a keel for surfaced stationkeeping), have no brig facilities, have no sickbay and very little other medical facilities.

Once it was clear that the Sri Lankan navy (the closest ships to the Dena's survivors) was responding, the responsibility of the U.S. to see to rescue had been accomplished.

Edit: Actual legal experts go into this more at https://www.justsecurity.org/133397/sinking-iran-frigate-den... but this is basically a slam dunk.

Whether it was a good idea is a whole different question, but warships sinking warships is what is supposed to happen in war.

[bob778]

It’s, by definition, not a war crime. Military brass bands are eligible targets as are unarmed naval ships.

[acdha]

The U.S. definition balances military necessity against humanity, which in this case is not looking good: no mitigating attempts to reduce the death toll – no warnings, no attempt to disable the ship – and since the ship was trying to get permission to dock in Sri Lanka or India at the time, it’s hard to justify a claim of military necessity for a ship which was either unarmed or very lightly armed and clearly posed absolutely no threat to the much larger and better equipped U.S. navy. It’s unlikely to ever see a formal trial but I think quite a few people will see it as if not an outright war-crime, at least a betrayal of military honor.

[jdkee]

A submarine has no duty to warn a surface ship.

[bookofjoe]

Very distantly related:

>U-505 [the capture of a German U-boat in the Atlantic Ocean in 1944, written by the captain of the sub that did it]

https://www.amazon.com/U-505-Rear-Admiral-Daniel-Vincent-Gal...

>"AWAY BOARDERS" WWII CAPTURE OF GERMAN SUBMARINE U-505 ON HIGH SEAS U.S. NAVY FILM 20994

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5Z5YOz_8gc

Both excellent

[tptacek]

A surface ship has no duty to warn a surface ship!

This is the military analogue of people who thing police have an obligation to "shoot to wound".

[acdha]

I was thinking more like the expectation we used to have that the police didn’t just start shouting in a surprise ambush. For example, the U.S. navy knew that the ship was unarmed and returning from an event hosted by the Indian government which the U.S. had also participated in, that it was attempting to dock rather than attack, and that even fully loaded it posed an insignificant threat, so there’s an argument that the Navy could have one of their thousands of aircraft to give them the opportunity to surrender or evacuate before the boat was sunk. We did that for actual Nazis, who posed far more of a peer-level threat than Iran does.

The ship posed the only plausible threat, not the sailors.

[JumpCrisscross]

> there’s an argument that the Navy could have one of their thousands of aircraft to give them the opportunity to surrender or evacuate before the boat was sunk. We did that for actual Nazis

I think there is absolutey an argument that good decorum would have provided a nearby surface vessel to assist with rescue. But not being nice in a war isn't the same as a war crime. And expanding the notion of war criminality to cover even breaches of decorum fundamentally waters down a term that has already started being seen as meaningless because people want to make it apply to any act of war.

[acdha]

No, but the U.S. navy has more than a single submarine. Given the vast power differential and the fact that they knew the ship was unarmed having participated in the same International Fleet Review exercise, there’s an argument that, say, an aircraft radio message giving them an opportunity to surrender first.

The “shot across the bow” phrase comes from a relevant naval tradition, such as when the U.S. Navy captured ships from far more serious threats like Nazi Germany:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Callao_(IX-205)

[thereisnospork]

In what world is sinking a warship in international waters a war crime? Because it isn't in this one.

[isr]

From my original post:

"AND REFUSED TO PICK UP ANY SURVIVORS"

In the absence of any threat (the ship was alone, and unarmed), then refusing to pick up survivors is ABSOLUTELY a TEXTBOOK war crime.

Under the Geneva Convention, and under the US's own legal code.

Thats not an opinion, thats a statement of fact.

Exactly this was one of the charges against Admiral Doenitz at Nuremberg.

[mpyne]

> Exactly this was one of the charges against Admiral Doenitz at Nuremberg.

Indeed, however despite being convicted of that and other charges, this particular charge was not factored into his sentence, precisely because British and U.S. submarines also engaged in the same practice during the conflict.

And that was with WW2-era submarines which were designed to operate mostly on the surface and could make provision for doing things like picking up downed aviators and engaging in "crash dives" to rapidly submerge.

Modern submarines are designed to operate mostly submerged and have very poor station-keeping while surfaced, and even lack the ability to crash dive (because you're supposed to be submerged long before you get into the danger zone and then stay submerged throughout).

It's not entirely uncommon for submariners on the submarine deck to die from fairly basic operations while on the surface (e.g. USS Minneapolis-St. Paul in 2006 lost 2 sailors this way: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/sir-men-went-overboar...)

[isr]

Thats not why he wasn't convicted of THAT charge.

It was proven in court that even the Nazi German submarines made good faith efforts to rescue drowning sailors, and they only stopped when one u-boat was sunk (or damaged?) by a US plane while it was rescuing US sailors (after which, the German navy gave out orders forbiding the practice).

Everything I said in my previous 2 posts stands.

[mpyne]

> Everything I said in my previous 2 posts stands.

It was wrong before and still wrong though.

For example, you haven't explained why you feel that a torpedo for an Iranian warship in international waters is a war crime, but sinking Iranian warships at the pier in Iranian waters is not.

The U.S. did even less for shipwrecked survivors in the latter case than in the former. Why are bombs and cruise missiles to sink ships from destroyers 800 nm away not also war crimes in your mind?

Is it also a war crime when Ukraine sinks Russian navy ships at their piers with USVs or cruise missiles with no ability to recover survivors? (Hint: no, it's not)

[isr]

I have explained why, multiple times. You just don't want to accept it (fine, this will be determined at Nuremberg 2,0, not by you or me, here)

The sub knew it was clear of any Iranian guns, for over 100 miles in every direction, once it had sunk the only (unarmed) Iranian asset within 100 miles of it. Thats not the same as being within (or close to) Iranian territory.

Hence, the lack of threat, as per the established laws of naval warfare, neccesitate some attempt at helping survivors. The sub was in the immediate vicinity of the ship. Not 800 miles away firing a cruise missile.

To still maintain that, even in that situation, there's still some theoretical threat means that you're effectively trying to say that in NO conceivable situation do the established laws of naval warfare apply, in practical terms. For anyone, anywhere, ever.

In any case, this is all an academic exercise. In this world order, no laws - international, military, or common decency - apply to the US or its chosen allies.

Justice will have to be served the old fashioned way.

[defrost]

Dönitz's blanket order that no submarine should ever pick up survivors is absolutely not equivilant to any individidual submarine deciding not to pick up survivors because {reasons}.

The first is a blanket order to ignore all survivors all the time,

the second is a specific case of not picking up survivors under a general umbrella of picking up survivors save for when there are other factors.

In this specific instance they can argue, should it ever go before an international tribunal, that they lacked room and that more applicable search and rescue was already en route.

I'm not arguing in defence of Hegseth et al. but I am pointing out that things are not nearly as clear cut and straighforward as you claim.

[thereisnospork]

Declaring "my position is a fact" doesn't make it so. Wanting something to be doesn't make it so either.

Channel your indignation and anger into a more productive avenue, there's hardly a shortage of actual war crimes occuring these days to be pissed about.

[defrost]

The Geneva Convention II hedges a lot wrt submarine warfare - few submarines have the capacity to take on many survivors .. they're already pressed for space.

You could ague they had an obligation to notify search and rescue ... at a time when the nearest search and rescue was already alerted and en route.

See: https://www.justsecurity.org/133397/sinking-iran-frigate-den...

and scroll down to Failure to Rescue IRIS Dena’s Shipwrecked Crew

> Exactly this was one of the charges against Admiral Doenitz at Nuremberg.

A charge that didn't stick, a practice engaged in by both the British and U.S. submarines

  In the aftermath of World War II, the issue of rescuing survivors following submarine attacks took center stage during the trial of Admiral Karl Dönitz before the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg.

  After Allied attacks on a U-boat attempting to rescue survivors of an ocean liner, the RMS Laconia, Dönitz issued the Laconia Order, which instructed: “All attempts at rescuing members of ships that have been sunk, including attempts to pick up persons swimming, or to place them in lifeboats, or attempts to upright capsized boats, or to supply provisions or water are to cease.”

  The court held that the order violated the 1936 London Protocol on submarine warfare,  which required that the passengers and crew of merchant vessels be placed in safety before a warship could sink them.

  Yet, because British and U.S. submarines engaged in the same practice during the conflict, it did not factor the breaches of the law of submarine warfare into Dönitz’s sentence.

Legally, there's much here that's hard to pin down, massive grey areas and a lot of jelly to nail to the wall.

Ethically - the US forces under Hegeseth are behaving like arseholes and absolutely skating a line, the same objective (taking out the ship) could have been achieved in a number of less odious ways.

Trump loves rolling in this kind of mud.

[isr]

They didn't have to pick them up. They could have surfaced (remember, it was KNOWN that there was no threat) and tossed out a few inflatable life rafts.

[mpyne]

> They could have surfaced (remember, it was KNOWN that there was no threat)

It was by no means "KNOWN" that there was no threat. A modern submarine is inherently in a much more unsafe posture when surfaced, which is precisely why they never do that, especially when it's possible to encounter an enemy.

> tossed out a few inflatable life rafts.

Why do you think submarines randomly carry inflatable life rafts? If they had enough space for those they'd toss them overboard and load additional food stores instead.

Moreover, a surfaced submarine close enough to a floating group of survivors is actually dangerous to those survivors. It has a rotating screw at the back which can seriously injure or kill people and it's not like there's a deck trebuchet equipped to lob life rafts at a distance, even if it carried them.

[tptacek]

At the point where you're implying that a submarine is compelled to surface, you've departed any recognizable modern law of naval warfare.

[xocnad]

Per the GP:

> Legally, there's much here that's hard to pin down, massive grey areas and a lot of jelly to nail to the wall.

Similar to an earlier comment you made to me, what references do you have that say that GCII Article 18 is 100% not applicable to submarines? Or more broadly that support your assertion that "you've departed any recognizable modern law of naval warfare."