Iran War?

[garbon]

I saw headline that Iran's president has now apologized to the gulf states

[crazy canuck]

who was going to counter attack the sub off the coast of Sri Lanka?

Presumably any other Iranian ship or aircraft.  It's pretty paper thin, but it's enough. 

No, it's not enough. There were no other Iranian ships or aircraft anywhere near that area. The United States Navy knew that.

This is in no way analogies to what happened during the Falkland war.

[crazy canuck]

I saw headline that Iran's president has now apologized to the gulf states

Basically Iran is saying we're sorry for having to attack Americans in your country.  Maybe it would be a good idea to get rid of them and dismantle their military bases so we no longer have to attack you.

A commander of Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guards Corps said there was "nothing new" in the comments from President Masoud Pezeshkian that Iran would not attack neighboring countries unless an attack on Iran originated from those nations, according to the semi-official Iranian news agency Tasnim. Hamidreza Moghadamfar, the commander, added that Iran's attacks have been directed at U.S. positions and interests in the region and that the countries themselves have not been targeted.

Trump, of course has claimed that the message means that Iran has surrendered to its neighbours.

[crazy canuck]

Finally, somebody explains the true objectives for the United States in this war


https://www.instagram.com/reel/DVblMNRkbs1/?igsh=MTRzdWFoN3drY3dncQ==

[Syt]

I regret to have clicked that link.

[Neil]

Something that I think may rise to being criminal are reports that after we sunk Iran's ship that was leaving India, we made no effort to save the surviving sailors. My understanding is we are signatory to the 1949 convention that requires us to at least attempt to render aid in such circumstances (and while I think there are some exceptions, I don't believe any apply to that situation.)

There's an exemption for ship safety.  A submarine in wartime being so vulnerable to counterattack is typically the argument used.  Like when the British sank Belgrano in the Falklands. 

Belgrano was a part of a task group, there were other Argentinian ships around. Best exemplified by the fact that those Argentinian ships rescued survivors IIRC. Surfacing with a submarine next to two enemy destroyers is kind of stupid.

There were no other armed Iranian ships in the neighbourhood and that was known by the USN. Sure, it's not a war crime to not rescue survivors, there are excuses. But it is extremely disgraceful and a huge blemish on the USN. They behave like Russians.

This is what submarine war is.  People have been getting mad about it for 112 years now, but it's never going to change and this sort of behaviour is implicit in every country that operates a submarine. 

[Threviel]

This is what submarine war is.  People have been getting mad about it for 112 years now, but it's never going to change and this sort of behaviour is implicit in every country that operates a submarine. 

I agree, in a total war situation where there are real difficulties in rescuing survivors. But the times that submarine warfare led to this kind of behaviour is after years of world war. In both world wars they tried cruiser rules and they generally tried to help survivors in the beginning.

This was just brutal and unnecessary. It would have cost the USN nothing to surface and at the very least throw out a few rubber dinghies and some water for the survivors.

[Neil]

who was going to counter attack the sub off the coast of Sri Lanka?

Presumably any other Iranian ship or aircraft.  It's pretty paper thin, but it's enough. 

No, it's not enough. There were no other Iranian ships or aircraft anywhere near that area. The United States Navy knew that.

This is in no way analogies to what happened during the Falkland war.

Yes, it is.  The submarine commander does not have perfect knowledge of the battlespace, nor is he obligated to act as if he does.  He's within theoretical range of maritime patrol aircraft.  He's attacking an enemy warship.  A warship is inarguably a legitimate target, not just a Hegseth 'we shoot anything that moves' target.  The problem here isn't the actions of the submarine, but rather the political decision to go to war (or police action, or whatever) with Iran.

[Threviel]

Thinking about it perhaps they looked through the periscope and noticed lots of automatic life rafts from the sinking ship and, well, then there's just not much  they can do.

I think I will still choose to believe that the Maga rot has not infected the USN to the level that they ignore survivors in the water. Yet.

[Neil]

This is what submarine war is.  People have been getting mad about it for 112 years now, but it's never going to change and this sort of behaviour is implicit in every country that operates a submarine. 

I agree, in a total war situation where there are real difficulties in rescuing survivors. But the times that submarine warfare led to this kind of behaviour is after years of world war. In both world wars they tried cruiser rules and they generally tried to help survivors in the beginning.

This was just brutal and unnecessary. It would have cost the USN nothing to surface and at the very least throw out a few rubber dinghies and some water for the survivors.

Surfacing in theoretical range of maritime patrol aircraft just after a successful attack?  That's the sort of thing that they train submarine commanders not to do. 

You'll note that in every case, cruiser rules were abandoned as the submarine is virtually helpless against counterattack on the surface, and many submarines were lost.  Thus, modern submarines are built in such a way as to preclude even attempting such a tactic. 

You can criticize the Trump administration for launching a poorly-considered attack to try and distract from the President's policy of child molestation, but this attack on an enemy warship was pretty much Submarine 101.

[crazy canuck]

who was going to counter attack the sub off the coast of Sri Lanka?

Presumably any other Iranian ship or aircraft.  It's pretty paper thin, but it's enough. 

No, it's not enough. There were no other Iranian ships or aircraft anywhere near that area. The United States Navy knew that.

This is in no way analogies to what happened during the Falkland war.

Yes, it is.  The submarine commander does not have perfect knowledge of the battlespace, nor is he obligated to act as if he does.  He's within theoretical range of maritime patrol aircraft.  He's attacking an enemy warship.  A warship is inarguably a legitimate target, not just a Hegseth 'we shoot anything that moves' target.  The problem here isn't the actions of the submarine, but rather the political decision to go to war (or police action, or whatever) with Iran.

I find it hard to believe the Americans are that uninformed

[crazy canuck]

I regret to have clicked that link.

It's best that you understand the American fundamentalist mindset

[Bauer]

Imagine if Trump was a wartime president in WWII.

"Tomorrow we're going to bomb a little place called BERRLIN.  We're going to hit them very hard.  There might not be anything left after...... under serious consideration for total destruction!!"

[Razgovory]

I regret to have clicked that link.

It's best that you understand the American fundamentalist mindset

I mean, you don't.

[Zanza]

Imagine if Trump was a wartime president in WWII.

"Tomorrow we're going to bomb a little place called BERRLIN.  We're going to hit them very hard.  There might not be anything left after...... under serious consideration for total destruction!!"

I doubt that. Trump would have joined the Nazis.