These rules apply to naval warfare and require belligerents, so far as military circumstances permit, to assist survivors at sea.
In practice, however, submarines face particular challenges in fulfilling this obligation. Surfacing to rescue survivors may expose them to significant risk. You also can’t usually fit a large number of survivors on a submarine.
If a submarine cannot safely surface to rescue survivors, it may instead facilitate rescue by reporting their location to other vessels or authorities.
“Surfacing […] may expose them to significant risk”. Tell me which risk the submarine was facing in Sri fucking Lanka after sinking an Iranian boat.
Wheater or not the sub was in danger in that region is ultimately speculation. It’s possible the ship sent mayday back to Iran, who could have sent aircrafts. Regardless of probability, it is a possibility
Tell me which strike aircraft model Iran possesses that can travel the thousands of kilometers from Iran to Sri Lanka and then back without refueling on the way (Iran, unlike the US, doesn’t have military bases in half the planet). This is bullshit speculation, and the “possibility of air strikes from half an ocean away” argument would render this law of rescue entirely useless forever. Tell me, which risk of retaliation was the US facing when striking and murdering fishermen off the coast of Venezuela and leaving them to die?
The article notes that Sri Lankan rescue ships were quick to arrive at the scene. Possibly due to the US sending a message
Again entirely speculation. Let’s see the country of origin of the author. Oh, it’s an Aussie defense analyst, I’m sure this is totally unbiased and not a propaganda piece to defend western attacks to Iranians!
I don’t know all risks they may or may not face while surfacing outside of Sri Lankan waters. I’m not privy to any of those details. I doubt you are either.
But where exactly do you think they would keep the rescued sailors? Submarines are not known for their abundance of space for captives.
There is no good reason for a submarine to linger around after sinking a ship. You go away and hide.
What they did do was notify Sri Lanka, which launched a rescue operation. Which does satisfy the “all possible measures” of conducting rescue.
You seemingly also read the same article I did. i thought it was explained quite well.
And why are you bringing up Venezuela? What do they have to do with Iran?
I assume it’s some little aha but what do you think of this!? And this!? Bet you liked that! Bla bla bla.
I’ll make it short. US strikes on Venezuelan boats is not ok, it’s state sponsored murder. Any other country would be sanctioned if they did it.
Trump is an idiot. The US is unreliable. Israel is committing genocide. Nazis are bad. Gestapo is bad.
Anything else I didn’t cover that you need to know about?
We have literally no source for this other than a western analyst speculating about it, what are you talking about?
And why are you bringing up Venezuela?
Because a country not showing any kind of problem carrying out repeated war crimes will continue to carry them out?
I don’t know all risks they may or may not face while surfacing outside of Sri Lankan waters
Yet you’re quick to speculate about airstrike capabilities of Iranian air forces as an excuse for US submarines leaving Iranian navy personnel to die in the water, using a western analyst’s speculations in a clearly US-biased article.
Considering the US lost 3 bomb planes to a “friendly” aircraft. It’s hardly surprising they don’t want to take any unnecessary risk. Surfacing a Submarine is an unnecessary risk.
The Sri Lankan rescuers seemingly arrived at the scene very quickly. It is not unreasonable to believe the US might have sent them a message. Is it a fact. No. But it looks very plausible given the circumstances.
I’m sure the US will continue to commit war crimes. But sinking this ship isn’t one of them.
So I ask you again. Where on the submarine do you think they can accommodate the entire crew of a ship they just sank? Where can they keep them prisoners in a manner that is safe for the crew and ship? The answer is nowhere.
Submarines are not equipped to conduct rescue operations as sea.
You have so many options of situations where you can accuse the US of actual war crimes. Why don’t you use them instead of hyper-fixating on the one incident that isnt?
From the linked article:
“Surfacing […] may expose them to significant risk”. Tell me which risk the submarine was facing in Sri fucking Lanka after sinking an Iranian boat.
Tell me which strike aircraft model Iran possesses that can travel the thousands of kilometers from Iran to Sri Lanka and then back without refueling on the way (Iran, unlike the US, doesn’t have military bases in half the planet). This is bullshit speculation, and the “possibility of air strikes from half an ocean away” argument would render this law of rescue entirely useless forever. Tell me, which risk of retaliation was the US facing when striking and murdering fishermen off the coast of Venezuela and leaving them to die?
Again entirely speculation. Let’s see the country of origin of the author. Oh, it’s an Aussie defense analyst, I’m sure this is totally unbiased and not a propaganda piece to defend western attacks to Iranians!
I don’t know all risks they may or may not face while surfacing outside of Sri Lankan waters. I’m not privy to any of those details. I doubt you are either.
But where exactly do you think they would keep the rescued sailors? Submarines are not known for their abundance of space for captives.
There is no good reason for a submarine to linger around after sinking a ship. You go away and hide.
What they did do was notify Sri Lanka, which launched a rescue operation. Which does satisfy the “all possible measures” of conducting rescue.
You seemingly also read the same article I did. i thought it was explained quite well.
And why are you bringing up Venezuela? What do they have to do with Iran?
I assume it’s some little aha but what do you think of this!? And this!? Bet you liked that! Bla bla bla.
I’ll make it short. US strikes on Venezuelan boats is not ok, it’s state sponsored murder. Any other country would be sanctioned if they did it.
Trump is an idiot. The US is unreliable. Israel is committing genocide. Nazis are bad. Gestapo is bad.
Anything else I didn’t cover that you need to know about?
We have literally no source for this other than a western analyst speculating about it, what are you talking about?
Because a country not showing any kind of problem carrying out repeated war crimes will continue to carry them out?
Yet you’re quick to speculate about airstrike capabilities of Iranian air forces as an excuse for US submarines leaving Iranian navy personnel to die in the water, using a western analyst’s speculations in a clearly US-biased article.
Considering the US lost 3 bomb planes to a “friendly” aircraft. It’s hardly surprising they don’t want to take any unnecessary risk. Surfacing a Submarine is an unnecessary risk.
The Sri Lankan rescuers seemingly arrived at the scene very quickly. It is not unreasonable to believe the US might have sent them a message. Is it a fact. No. But it looks very plausible given the circumstances.
I’m sure the US will continue to commit war crimes. But sinking this ship isn’t one of them.
So I ask you again. Where on the submarine do you think they can accommodate the entire crew of a ship they just sank? Where can they keep them prisoners in a manner that is safe for the crew and ship? The answer is nowhere.
Submarines are not equipped to conduct rescue operations as sea.
You have so many options of situations where you can accuse the US of actual war crimes. Why don’t you use them instead of hyper-fixating on the one incident that isnt?