this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2026
93 points (96.0% liked)

World News

54494 readers
3051 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

An Iranian warship destroyed in a US torpedo strike on Wednesday was "defenceless" and participating in an international naval exercise as a guest of the Indian navy, according to reports.

Former Indian Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal said “the Iranian ship will not be where it was if we had not invited it to talk [sic] part in our Milan exercise”. Sibal added that because it was taking part in an exercise “it was defenceless”.

Indian politician Supriya Shrinate said on social media: "These Iranian navy men parading at an event in India, were our guests. Invited by us.

"US submarine targeted their ship and killed them while they were returning home." Shrinate also criticised Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi for his failure to make a statement on the attack.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Wow that's fucked up on multiple levels.

  1. to attack a literally defenseless warship ... Could you not have, you know, boarded it instead? Forced it to surrender? Feels like at that point you can just threaten to do what you did and they would have to comply.

  2. if you've seen the released periscope footage of the attack, and realize that that explosion was fully from the torpedo and not from an ammo store blowing, it makes it look that much more like an intentional massacre. Is there really no smaller munition on board that sub that can be used to disable a defenseless target?

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If they had no intelligence of the ammunition situation (doubt) it could be risky to try to board a warship. Not that it justifies anything, just aside from piracy boarding enemy warships isn't really a thing anymore as far as I'm aware.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 day ago (3 children)

If they had no intelligence of the ammunition situation (doubt) it could be risky to try to board a warship.

I mean, there's literally no way the US didn't know it was on the way back from an ammo-less exercise. The Indian naval exercises were very public, with 74 countries participating.

[–] berg@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago

The US frequently attends these exercises, and left this one on Feb 26, 2026.

They knew, because they were there.

[–] Mk23simp@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Profound incompetence seems like a possibility tbh. They absolutely should have known about it but it sure seems like they're basically just fucking around, not taking things seriously. So I'd definitely believe that they saw an Iranian warship pull up and were like "WTF is that doing there? Kill it!".

I don't think that should excuse their actions, but it does seem like a believable chain of events.

[–] P00ptart@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

Like a bunch of drunk rednecks driving around in their truck shooting at road signs.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world -4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Whos to say they didn't pack some munitions with them anyway? Without another nation checking the ship you just have to take their word for it.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I mean fair point, I can't find any info on whether or not anyone verifies that the ships are unloaded or if it's self reported. And it does seem unlikely that a nation would let another country inspect it's warship.

[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

More unlikey than letting dozens of armed warships into your seas, without any controls?

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

Also a fair point

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago (2 children)
  1. Frankly I straight up do not believe it was unarmed. Why the hell would you sail a warship around without any munitions…?
  2. I’m guessing they didn’t want to use an antiship missile because there was other civilian traffic in the area, and you cannot control a missile from a sub once it’s fired. Mk.48 torpedoes have wire-guided capability, so you can literally steer it into your target. And no, afaik US subs do not carry any other variety of torpedo - that’s it. And they have a pretty fucking big warhead. Yes, overkill, but if they received orders to sink an enemy combatant… they’re gonna use what they got.

Please note: in no way am I attempting to be an apologist here. I’m just trying to point out that some parts of this story are not terribly believable, and that attack subs have very particular capabilities and constraints that they operate with. The order was shitty. But at the end of the day, it was an enemy vessel, and the sub’s CO got an order to sink it.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 day ago

Why the hell would you sail a warship around without any munitions…?

Because they were invited to an international naval exercise that required them to be unarmed...

[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

It would said without munitions because that's what it was asked to do as a GUEST in a third-party country.

Just because Americans act like children, doesn't mean adults don't exists.