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.
In the part about rescuing the survivors, he is correct in that the US adhered within the laws of naval warfare.
A submarine is not expected to be able to rescue sailors. A precedence dating back to WW2 when a German submarine DID rescue allied sailors, surfacing and carrying them on top of their sub while towing a lifeboat. They were then fired upon by allied forces, and were forced to cut the line and submerge. After that. Orders were issued to submarines to not engage in rescue operations.
Wheater or not the sub was in danger in that region is ultimately speculation. It’s possible the ship sent mayday back to Iran, who could have sent aircrafts. Regardless of probability, it is a possibility.
What the law says, is you need to take all possible measures. Surfacing isn’t seen as a possible measure. And where would they even keep them? Subs are cramped enough as it is.
The article notes that Sri Lankan rescue ships were quick to arrive at the scene. Possibly due to the US sending a message about the coordinates of the sinking. Which does fall in line with “all possible measures”
The guy isn’t defending anyone. He clearly said he thinks the war is illegal and Trump is a monster.
Thanks for the sane comment. Anybody can check my posts and see that I hate the orange clown. That doesn’t change the facts about this submarine attack.
I don’t know all risks they may or may not face while surfacing outside of Sri Lankan waters. I’m not privy to any of those details. I doubt you are either.
But where exactly do you think they would keep the rescued sailors? Submarines are not known for their abundance of space for captives.
There is no good reason for a submarine to linger around after sinking a ship. You go away and hide.
What they did do was notify Sri Lanka, which launched a rescue operation. Which does satisfy the “all possible measures” of conducting rescue.
You seemingly also read the same article I did. i thought it was explained quite well.
And why are you bringing up Venezuela? What do they have to do with Iran?
I assume it’s some little aha but what do you think of this!? And this!? Bet you liked that! Bla bla bla.
I’ll make it short. US strikes on Venezuelan boats is not ok, it’s state sponsored murder. Any other country would be sanctioned if they did it.
Trump is an idiot. The US is unreliable. Israel is committing genocide. Nazis are bad. Gestapo is bad.
Anything else I didn’t cover that you need to know about?
Considering the US lost 3 bomb planes to a “friendly” aircraft. It’s hardly surprising they don’t want to take any unnecessary risk. Surfacing a Submarine is an unnecessary risk.
The Sri Lankan rescuers seemingly arrived at the scene very quickly. It is not unreasonable to believe the US might have sent them a message. Is it a fact. No. But it looks very plausible given the circumstances.
I’m sure the US will continue to commit war crimes. But sinking this ship isn’t one of them.
So I ask you again. Where on the submarine do you think they can accommodate the entire crew of a ship they just sank? Where can they keep them prisoners in a manner that is safe for the crew and ship? The answer is nowhere.
Submarines are not equipped to conduct rescue operations as sea.
You have so many options of situations where you can accuse the US of actual war crimes. Why don’t you use them instead of hyper-fixating on the one incident that isnt?
deleted by creator
In the part about rescuing the survivors, he is correct in that the US adhered within the laws of naval warfare.
A submarine is not expected to be able to rescue sailors. A precedence dating back to WW2 when a German submarine DID rescue allied sailors, surfacing and carrying them on top of their sub while towing a lifeboat. They were then fired upon by allied forces, and were forced to cut the line and submerge. After that. Orders were issued to submarines to not engage in rescue operations.
Wheater or not the sub was in danger in that region is ultimately speculation. It’s possible the ship sent mayday back to Iran, who could have sent aircrafts. Regardless of probability, it is a possibility.
What the law says, is you need to take all possible measures. Surfacing isn’t seen as a possible measure. And where would they even keep them? Subs are cramped enough as it is.
The article notes that Sri Lankan rescue ships were quick to arrive at the scene. Possibly due to the US sending a message about the coordinates of the sinking. Which does fall in line with “all possible measures”
The guy isn’t defending anyone. He clearly said he thinks the war is illegal and Trump is a monster.
Thanks for the sane comment. Anybody can check my posts and see that I hate the orange clown. That doesn’t change the facts about this submarine attack.
deleted by creator
I don’t know all risks they may or may not face while surfacing outside of Sri Lankan waters. I’m not privy to any of those details. I doubt you are either.
But where exactly do you think they would keep the rescued sailors? Submarines are not known for their abundance of space for captives.
There is no good reason for a submarine to linger around after sinking a ship. You go away and hide.
What they did do was notify Sri Lanka, which launched a rescue operation. Which does satisfy the “all possible measures” of conducting rescue.
You seemingly also read the same article I did. i thought it was explained quite well.
And why are you bringing up Venezuela? What do they have to do with Iran?
I assume it’s some little aha but what do you think of this!? And this!? Bet you liked that! Bla bla bla.
I’ll make it short. US strikes on Venezuelan boats is not ok, it’s state sponsored murder. Any other country would be sanctioned if they did it.
Trump is an idiot. The US is unreliable. Israel is committing genocide. Nazis are bad. Gestapo is bad.
Anything else I didn’t cover that you need to know about?
deleted by creator
Considering the US lost 3 bomb planes to a “friendly” aircraft. It’s hardly surprising they don’t want to take any unnecessary risk. Surfacing a Submarine is an unnecessary risk.
The Sri Lankan rescuers seemingly arrived at the scene very quickly. It is not unreasonable to believe the US might have sent them a message. Is it a fact. No. But it looks very plausible given the circumstances.
I’m sure the US will continue to commit war crimes. But sinking this ship isn’t one of them.
So I ask you again. Where on the submarine do you think they can accommodate the entire crew of a ship they just sank? Where can they keep them prisoners in a manner that is safe for the crew and ship? The answer is nowhere.
Submarines are not equipped to conduct rescue operations as sea.
You have so many options of situations where you can accuse the US of actual war crimes. Why don’t you use them instead of hyper-fixating on the one incident that isnt?