[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.

[tptacek]

This is a rare case of an HN discussion on international law where there is something approximating an RFC that we can just go consult on these issues --- it's the San Remo Manual, which is trivially Googlable, and consists of a series of numbered paragraphs. Cite the paragraphs that support the argument you're making about the unacceptability of sinking a flagged enemy warship simply because the attacker knows it to be unarmed.

[isr]

Are you deliberately trying to misrepresent what I have said across multiple posts? The war crime was not the sinking of the ship.

That was a cowardly act (unarmed vessel), but not strictly a war crime.

The ACTUAL war crime was the immediate refusal to render any aid to the sunken sailors. How many times do I have to repeat that line? Shall I bold it for you? And the fact that the ship was ALONE and UNARMED removed any pretence that the US sub would have been in danger by doing so.

I repeatedly mention the Geneva Convention & the fact that the same principle is written into the official US naval doctrines (so its US law as well), and yet you're still barking up the wrong branch.

If you're going to refute my argument, then please refute my ACTUAL argument, and not the strawman version you've concocted.

[peyton]

The guys on the Iranian warship also knew they were on a warship. I mean come on. What’s the expectation here. This isn’t tag on a kindergarten playground. People are gonna die.

[isr]

What I said to tptacek just above applies here ...

[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."