[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.

[JumpCrisscross]

> 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?

Where possible. That restriction doesn't seem to have applied to submarines since WWII.

Repetition doesn't make right.

> ALONE and UNARMED

Doesn't change that it's a warship. Like, should warships from now on just say they aren't armed, then go off an engage in military operations and complain about war crimes afterwards?

I'll add this: the way you've argued this has taken me from being sceptical about this being a war crime to feeling confident it is not.

[tptacek]

Not "strictly" a war crime. Got it.

It's fine to just have a rooting interest!