6 ms·

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-iran

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-iran-ship-because-it-was-more-fun/ https://asiatimes.com/2026/03/trump-us-navy-sank-unarmed-ira...

levinb 7mo ago
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.
- OutOfHere 7mo ago
  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.
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  > 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 7mo ago
    “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 7mo ago
      What are you quoting?
      - tptacek 7mo ago
        "the co-director of the Institute for Policy Studies’ New Internationalism Project".
        defrost 7mo ago
        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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47559796
credit_guy 7mo ago
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?
- isr 7mo ago
  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.
  - bob778 7mo ago
    It’s, by definition, not a war crime. Military brass bands are eligible targets as are unarmed naval ships.
    - acdha 7mo ago
      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.
JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
You’re absolutely allowed to sink a warship in a war. The term war crime becomes meaningless if we cover military materiel.
- xocnad 7mo ago
  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.
  - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
    > 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 7mo ago
      > > 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-and-rescue-obligations-during-armed-conflict-sea 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.

levinb 7mo ago

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.

OutOfHere 7mo ago
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.
JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
> 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 7mo ago
  “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 7mo ago
    What are you quoting?
    - tptacek 7mo ago
      "the co-director of the Institute for Policy Studies’ New Internationalism Project".
      - defrost 7mo ago
        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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47559796

credit_guy 7mo ago

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?

isr 7mo ago
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.
- bob778 7mo ago
  It’s, by definition, not a war crime. Military brass bands are eligible targets as are unarmed naval ships.
  - acdha 7mo ago
    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.

JumpCrisscross 7mo ago

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

xocnad 7mo ago
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.
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  > 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 7mo ago
    > > 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-and-rescue-obligations-during-armed-conflict-sea 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.