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.

[1] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/san-remo-manu... : The following classes of enemy vessels are exempt from attack: ... and vessels engaged in relief actions and rescue operations;

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.

War is horrible - I wonder if it hadn't been carrying mostly PoWs and it had become more well known what the repercussions would have been.

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.

It's an article that includes coverage of the exposure to supply chain attacks, mainly via directly linking in https://lonelycpp.github.io/react-native-youtube-iframe/ifra.... You seem to be flippantly dismissing this as insignificant given the people who are probably running this app.

> HN isn't supposed to be an especially political website.

Yes but when technology and politics cross paths...

> Legally, there's much here that's hard to pin down, massive grey areas and a lot of jelly to nail to the wall.

Similar to an earlier comment you made to me, what references do you have that say that GCII Article 18 is 100% not applicable to submarines? Or more broadly that support your assertion that "you've departed any recognizable modern law of naval warfare."

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?

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?

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/11/28/...

[2] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gcii-1949/art...

- It mixes two separate issues 1) embedded default API key and 2) unauthenticated token minting

- The bulk of the disclosure focuses on enumeration of sensitive data that is implied could have been exposed via the default API key, but what is actually exposed is unclear: "The 50 "portal:app:access:item" privileges reference private item IDs that cannot be inventoried without actively querying each one which I did not do"

- The default API key was for "development" and there is no assertion that live data existed in that environment (though it wouldn't surprise me)

- The default API key was fixed in June 2025, it is only the token minting that has not been.

- The token minting issue is only asserted to "grant access to the geographic mapping of Flock's camera network locations" which would certainly be useful as a source for unethical updates to https://deflock.me/ but obviously not nearly as sensitive.

(And I've always used bullets/lists in my communications, long before AI did this)