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.
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.
> 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)
> 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?
> > 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.
Indeed. And modern submarines have nil ability to search for and safely collect the shipwrecked. Multiple submarines from at least 3 countries have fired torpedoes to sink enemy ships since WW2. None have ever stuck around to look for survivors, let alone surfaced to try to rescue them.
> 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.
No, I'm pointing out the opposite: the U.S. does have assets that could have been sent from the Persian Gulf to execute a rescue operation for the Iranian sailors shipwrecked by their warship being attacked by bombs or cruise missiles.
If nothing else, a helo could "drop a life raft", as some of the other comments seem to think is easy for a submarine to do.
But no such attempt at this was made, and no one seems to have any issue with that (for obvious reasons... my point is that the same obvious reasons extend to the submarine attack).
> the treatment seems cursory and more germane to conflicts where there is more parity
Parity doesn't really factor in, it's not something you'll see in international law. You're not supposed to have to put yourself at risk to effect a rescue. The requirement to take all possible measures applies whether its two peers fighting or David and Goliath.
The fact that you think it's cursory just tells me you don't understand submarine operations, but that's OK, most don't.
> In this situation what was the risk to the submarine?
Conducting a surfaced rescue is inherently risky to the crew of a modern submarine. Unlike surface ships, there is no keel to improve station-keeping while surfaces. The hull is shaped for hydrodynamics, not for the ability to be navigated on foot by the crew. There are no davits to launch or recover boats or life rafts. There is no hanger deck or brig or sickbay or really any empty space to hold survivors. There are not extra crew onboard to guard survivors and thereby keep the submarine (and its nuclear reactor) safe.
Even aside from Mother Nature, there was an Iranian sister ship nearby who could have attacked the submarine had she surfaced (she wasn't attacked because she opted to stay behind in a neutral port rather than put to sea but it was the same port Dena had sailed from before her attack). And again, unlike during World War 2 there's no real provision to do a "crash dive" to quickly submerge (and that's even assuming the submarine captain is willing to kill the members of his crew that are topside in order to quickly submerge). A surfaced submarine is a sitting duck, militarily.
I know it may feel to you like Iran has no military assets but even a single helicopter with a lightweight torpedo (and Iran operates at least 8) would be enough to have put the submarine at serious risk of hull loss with the deaths of all crew. The Chinese have anti-ship ballistic missiles. Iran has ballistic missiles that can reach to Diego Garcia.
Iran also has submarines which may have been deployed to the area (even one of their "midget" submarines had deployed to India in 2014) and if present could easily have conducted a counterattack which the American submarine would have had difficulty detecting ahead of time, since sonar is fairly useless while surfaced.
No sane submarine captain from any country's navy operating nuclear-propelled attack submarines would have done anything different regarding survivors. A modern nuclear submarine is a glass cannon, avoiding counter-detection is basically its only means of defense, and even if that weren't the case they are not equipped to take on passengers, they have enough trouble handling their own crew, who have to share bunks because of the lack of space onboard.
> And modern submarines have nil ability to search for and safely collect the shipwrecked.
A definitive reference that was more conclusive on this point as well as your extensive further assertions would be helpful. I have no expertise in submarines and I apologize if it seemed otherwise (but I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night!) but you've not laid out your bona fides to be able to make these proclamations either.
> Parity doesn't really factor in, it's not something you'll see in international law. You're not supposed to have to put yourself at risk to effect a rescue.
Sure, I was commenting on the reference you provided being targeted to situations where there was more risk and not directly addressing a similar situation as to what occurred here.
> Conducting a surfaced rescue is inherently risky to the crew of a modern submarine.
You could argue there is risk to any vessel, not just submarines, using the examples you have provided later on yet GCII Article 18 still requires you to do it.
The best argument for there being no possibility for a war crime is one that focuses on the inability of the submarine to assist at all in a rescue. An ironclad example would be with a peace-time situation involving a ship of one's own navy that was in significant distress.
This is for discussion's sake - I don't really believe that there would actually be a war crime trial around this one incident even if it were a surface vessel that did the sinking.
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?
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?
> GCII Article 18 [2] seems to clearly make this a requirement however
Also not an expert. But my understanding is "all possible measures" and "whenever circumstances permit" have historically been taken to not apply to submarines. Largely because in WWII, we "ordered" a B-24 to attack a German U-boat who had "broadcast her position on open radio channels to all Allied powers nearby, and was joined by several other U-boats in the vicinity" following its "sinking of a British passenger ship" [1].
What do you think is supposed to happen when a warship is destroyed with a cruise missile? There are people on this thread arguing in a way that makes me think the answer is "you're not allowed to strike warships with cruise missiles". From what I've read, the practical obligation to survivors is met once the attacker is confident that some SAR team somewhere has been notified, which was the case here.
> What do you think is supposed to happen when a warship is destroyed with a cruise missile? There are people on this thread arguing in a way that makes me think the answer is "you're not allowed to strike warships with cruise missiles".
This thread has many tendrils. I'm not sure what this has to do with any of my replies as I've not said, nor implied that.
> From what I've read, the practical obligation to survivors is met once the attacker is confident that some SAR team somewhere has been notified, which was the case here.
Can you point to that in San Remo which you've referenced multiple times - or somewhere if appropriate? I cannot find sections that deal with requiring the rescue, or notification of the need for, of shipwrecked survivors in San Remo - perhaps I am not using the right terms.
What do you think the legalities of sinking a warship with a cruise missile should be? They can be fired from over 1000 miles away, and obviously they can't take on shipwrecked passengers.
> not sure why that would say they don't apply just to submarines though?
Because it isn't "possible" for modern submarines to assist with rescue. They're pathetically unstable on the surface. Vulnerable as hell to even drones. Don't have a deck to speak of where rescues could be held. And have a nuclear reactor inside–you can't take randos through the airlock.
The only "circumstances permit" place where a submarine might be able to help is if it's operating in friendly waters, with air support and naval support close by to ensure no e.g. drones make a run for it while it's on the surface. And even then, it would be a risky operation.
But why would what parties take from what happened with Laconia be limited to the attacking craft being submarines? The exact same situation could have happened with attacking surface ships instead of U-boats. The takeaway seems to be that we can't trust our enemies not to attack us while performing rescues so we don't have to perform them.
San Remo which you referenced in another reply doesn't seem to go into what is required of combatants around rescues but it does say that rescuers can't be attacked [1]. That would make the Laconia argument be that I can't be committing a war crime by not rescuing survivors because I presume that I am at risk of having a war crime being committed against me.
