Remix.run Logo
joe_mamba 13 hours ago

I like how Pete Hegseth was gloating how the world's most powerful military managed to sink Iran's navy's shoddy boats sitting in the harbors, like it was some some crazy achievement.

JumpCrisscross 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Iran's navy's shoddy boats sitting in the harbors

A win isn’t diminished because the enemy fucked up. Neutralizing a massive national investment is a military win. Why Tehran didn’t scatter its boats is a chapter for a future manual.

bdangubic 11 hours ago | parent [-]

6 weeks after this conflict is over china will re-supply whatever was bombed :)

JumpCrisscross 11 hours ago | parent [-]

> 6 weeks after this conflict is over china will re-supply whatever was bombed

Probably. Same as us to the Gulf and Israel. Beijing has proven itself a non-terrorist actor. I’d be fine with Tehran as its suzerainty alongside Russia.

ninjagoo 10 hours ago | parent [-]

> Beijing has proven itself a non-terrorist actor

Oh, they do just fine terrorizing their own populace, and chinese citizens & chinese origin folks living abroad, and neighbors; those that they can currently reach.

testing22321 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Or the one coming back from manoeuvres that wasn’t carrying any munitions.

War crimes every day.

https://asiatimes.com/2026/03/trump-us-navy-sank-unarmed-ira...

credit_guy 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That is not a war crime. First, there is no way to know that a naval vessel is unarmed. Second, even if unarmed, it does not mean it has safe passage. Once it gets back to its base, it can load with munitions and then come and fight. Put it differently: if instead of a naval ship, you see an enemy tank, should you not shoot at it because it is unarmed?

orwin 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Even if it isn't a war crime, every sailor in the world know what the US did and how US sailors treat shipwreck survivors, from the Caribbean to the Indian Ocean. Truly shameful.

That said, I will still help any distressed boat, whatever their nationality, because I'm better than them. Just, expect me to be rude and avoid talking to them.

testing22321 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If a random country right now sunk a US warship, you don’t think that would be a war crime?

tptacek 7 hours ago | parent [-]

No? It would be an act of war.

isr 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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

acdha 11 hours ago | parent [-]

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 10 hours ago | parent [-]

A submarine has no duty to warn a surface ship.

bookofjoe 4 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

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 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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".

thereisnospork 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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

isr 11 hours ago | parent [-]

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 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> 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 11 hours ago | parent [-]

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 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> 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 9 hours ago | parent [-]

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 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

peyton 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

defrost 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

defrost 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 10 hours ago | parent [-]

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 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> 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 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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

thereisnospork 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

JumpCrisscross 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You’re absolutely allowed to sink a warship in a war. The term war crime becomes meaningless if we cover military materiel.

xocnad 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Others have pointed out that the war crime is not picking up survivors. What shocks the conscience here regardless that sinking the ship itself may not be a war crime is the seemingly obvious reason this was done was target practice involving mostly innocent lives. The US would have had many opportunities to simply board and seize the ship. If there had been any resistance at that point that put US forces at risk then force may have some minimal justification for taking lives.

tptacek 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The San Remo Manual will be on the first SERP of a Google search and consists of numbered paragraphs specifically to make it easy to cite. Which paragraph numbers support the position you're stating here?

xocnad 17 minutes ago | parent [-]

Technically not my position - was pointing out the redirect other's had made. I however did that with the background of media reports identifying the the "double tap" missile strike by the US on a supposed drug boat in the Caribbean as a war crime [1].

Not being familiar with the San Remo manual, a quick review says it does not contradict the 2nd Geneva Convention but it does not seem to directly address shipwrecked survivors. My read of GCII Article 18 [2] seems to clearly make this a requirement however.

My focus was on the the inhumanity of torpedoing the ship given the situation. Are you implying you disagree with this?

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/11/28/...

[2] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gcii-1949/art...

JumpCrisscross 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> war crime is not picking up survivors

Honest question, is this required of belligerents? How is a submarine even meant to provide such aid?

It was a mean attack. But we seek to be continuing the trend of turning highly precedented and obvious tactics into war crimes, thereby making the term equate to war in general.

mpyne 10 hours ago | parent [-]

> > war crime is not picking up survivors

> Honest question, is this required of belligerents? How is a submarine even meant to provide such aid?

No, it is not. Otherwise the U.S. committed several more war crimes for each of the other Iranian navy ships that were sunk by bombs or cruise missiles rather than by submarine-launched torpedoes.

International law (including treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory) require belligerents to attempt to rescue survivors if possible without putting the rescuing ship at undue risk. ‘[a]fter each engagement, Parties to the conflict shall, without delay, take all possible measures to search for and collect the shipwrecked, wounded and sick, to protect them against pillage and ill-treatment, to ensure their adequate care, and to search for the dead and prevent their being despoiled’. (emphasis added for clarity)

https://seapower.navy.gov.au/analysis/fire-and-forget-search... is a good writeup (written before the current hostilities) and specifically notes the difficulty involved for submarines in particular of directly engaging in rescue after an engagement.

xocnad 2 minutes ago | parent [-]

> Otherwise the U.S. committed several more war crimes for each of the other Iranian navy ships that were sunk by bombs or cruise missiles rather than by submarine-launched torpedoes.

I am having difficulty parsing your reasoning here. What matters is were "all possible measures taken to search for and collect the shipwrecked", not the manner of the attack. You may be implying that bombs/cruise missiles left no possibilities but that isn't a certainty if there were US ships in the vicinity.

Regarding your provided reference to it being "difficult" for submarines to collect shipwrecked survivors - the treatment seems cursory and more germane to conflicts where there is more parity. In this situation what was the risk to the submarine? Exposing it's positions to the Iranians who had not other ships in the area (and per US assertions no other Navy at all)? Coming under attack from a missile launched from Iran while surfaced?

testing22321 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

War? Trump himself today said it’s not a war.

He invaded a foreign country because he wanted to. The whole thing is a crime too to bottom

levinb 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

As someone who disdains hyperbolic, motivated framings of everything in the news cycle, I normally don't like to use words like that. But, it was interesting to see the news discuss the "first time since world war two" component of this event, that by WWII standards, would have been seen as a cowardly violation of the rules of war.

The were in allied water, on a regularly scheduled drill, unarmed.

JumpCrisscross 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> that by WWII standards, would have been seen as a cowardly violation of the rules of war

Source? Torpedoing anything with the enemy flag, down to civilian boats and merchant marines, was normalized by centuries of precedent by WWII.

defrost 11 hours ago | parent [-]

  “failing to do everything possible to rescue those aboard is certainly a war crime,” as the Second Geneva Convention requires militaries to take all possible measures to search for and collect the shipwrecked, wounded, and sick.
JumpCrisscross 11 hours ago | parent [-]

What are you quoting?

tptacek 7 hours ago | parent [-]

"the co-director of the Institute for Policy Studies’ New Internationalism Project".

defrost 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Ahh, cheers for that - busy morning & I failed to circle back.

This instance is hardly clear cut .. I put more effort into this peer comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47559796

OutOfHere 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It was the first time for the US since WWII. Other countries have used them in combat over the years since WWII. He couldn't even get that right.