4 ms·

I suspect the point of "oceanic shipping lanes they have no ability to control or secure without the US Navy" is "shipping lanes they cannot secure FROM the US

I suspect the point of "oceanic shipping lanes they have no ability to control or secure without the US Navy" is "shipping lanes they cannot secure FROM the US Navy". There is no way for a cargo ship to arm itself against submarines.

throwawaymaths 4y ago
I think the outcome of the US navy torpedoing civilian ships of a national adversary is highly unlikely, unless 1) we were actually at war with them or 2) they are doing something generally accepted to be illegal -- like Chinese fishing boats turning off transponders and fishing in us territory. or 3) sanctions running The only way I see the landscape changing meaningfully in the direction you suggest (cargo ships going up against seafarers they are not able to defend themselves from) is if letters of marque were reinstated. At least one proposal has been floated -- and when we all stop laughing about it I grant that it might become a thing
- ethbr0 4y ago
  Given today's low cargo crew counts, it isn't crazy to think about the calculus of sinking cargo ships vs fighting an actual war, in order to prove ones seriousness. Say, because Taiwan was being invaded? And in the form of a blockade, of course.
  - Aerroon 4y ago
    But isn't sinking a civilian vessel itself an express path to war? The RMS Lusitania and the US's entry into WW1 spring to mind.
    - SturgeonsLaw 4y ago
      If the nations involved want it to be one, sure. There have been incidents of militaries shooting down passenger jets, which were all but swept under the rug.
      - avn2109 4y ago
        This sounds plausible but can you provide examples/links to wiki pages etc?
        throwawaymaths 4y ago
        Off the top of my head: Korean air lines flight over Russia, us shooting down Iranian jet in the gulf, Russia shooting down Malaysian air over Ukraine, Iran shooting down a Ukrainian jet over itself. I presume gp means Not swept under the rug in terms of information suppression, swept under the rug in terms of very little diplomatic fallout
        ethbr0 4y ago
        Also, the multiple Iranian/Israeli ships that have mysteriously sunk in the last few years.
        avn2109 4y ago
        Makes sense so far, but do you guys have flight numbers/dates/names of Iranian vessels etc?
        SturgeonsLaw 4y ago
        @throwawaymaths basically answered the question how I would. Also, just to clarify my use of "swept under the rug", my implication is that when it's not politically convenient for the parties to make a big deal out of an incident, they simply choose not to use it as a media prop to push their agenda. There's a list here that would be a reasonable starting point for any further digging you might wish to do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_inc...

throwawaymaths 4y ago

I think the outcome of the US navy torpedoing civilian ships of a national adversary is highly unlikely, unless 1) we were actually at war with them or 2) they are doing something generally accepted to be illegal -- like Chinese fishing boats turning off transponders and fishing in us territory. or 3) sanctions running The only way I see the landscape changing meaningfully in the direction you suggest (cargo ships going up against seafarers they are not able to defend themselves from) is if letters of marque were reinstated. At least one proposal has been floated -- and when we all stop laughing about it I grant that it might become a thing

ethbr0 4y ago
Given today's low cargo crew counts, it isn't crazy to think about the calculus of sinking cargo ships vs fighting an actual war, in order to prove ones seriousness. Say, because Taiwan was being invaded? And in the form of a blockade, of course.
- Aerroon 4y ago
  But isn't sinking a civilian vessel itself an express path to war? The RMS Lusitania and the US's entry into WW1 spring to mind.
  - SturgeonsLaw 4y ago
    If the nations involved want it to be one, sure. There have been incidents of militaries shooting down passenger jets, which were all but swept under the rug.
    - avn2109 4y ago
      This sounds plausible but can you provide examples/links to wiki pages etc?
      - throwawaymaths 4y ago
        Off the top of my head: Korean air lines flight over Russia, us shooting down Iranian jet in the gulf, Russia shooting down Malaysian air over Ukraine, Iran shooting down a Ukrainian jet over itself. I presume gp means Not swept under the rug in terms of information suppression, swept under the rug in terms of very little diplomatic fallout
        ethbr0 4y ago
        Also, the multiple Iranian/Israeli ships that have mysteriously sunk in the last few years.
        avn2109 4y ago
        Makes sense so far, but do you guys have flight numbers/dates/names of Iranian vessels etc?
      - SturgeonsLaw 4y ago
        @throwawaymaths basically answered the question how I would. Also, just to clarify my use of "swept under the rug", my implication is that when it's not politically convenient for the parties to make a big deal out of an incident, they simply choose not to use it as a media prop to push their agenda. There's a list here that would be a reasonable starting point for any further digging you might wish to do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_inc...