Joshua Rislinger

[planefag @planefag]

Regarding the increasingly demented “debate” over the naroterrorist strike:

One thing most people – on both sides of the argument – are missing about the current slanders being hurled at SECWAR Hesgeth is that it revolves entirely on the claim Hesgeth issued a “no quarter” order – not the “you shot the shipwrecked!” argument most of the usual suspects are bloviating over. That’s why the former's the headline of the WaPo article and reiterated in the lede. The reason is that “no quarters” orders are explicitly against the laws of war, but the accusations most people on X are making – that the attack itself violated the laws of war – is flat out BS.

They allege that men “hors de combat” or “shipwrecked” were attacked, whereas the Pentagon’s argument (as related in the WaPo article) was that they targeted the narco vessel itself to effect its destruction, not the men “in the water” clinging to its sides, who constituted collateral damage.

The US’s “The Commander’s Handbook On The Law Of Naval Operations” defines “shipwrecked” as “those in peril at sea or in other waters as a result of the sinking, grounding, or other damage to a vessel in which they are embarked, or of the downing or distress of an aircraft. It is immaterial whether the peril was the result of enemy action or nonmilitary causes” and states “following each naval engagement at sea, the belligerents are obligated to take all possible measures, consistent with the security of their forces, to search for and rescue the shipwrecked” (11.7) The Handbook states that both enemy military vessels and merchant vessels may be attacked and destroyed (8.6) and specifically says “Enemy merchant vessels and civil aircraft may be captured wherever located beyond neutral territory. Prior exercise of visit and search is not required provided positive determination of enemy status can be made by other means” (8.6.2.1) and “With or without prior warning, surface warships may attack and destroy enemy merchant vessels as military objectives by their nature, purpose, use, war-sustaining, or war-supporting roles, unless such vessels are innocently employed. See 8.2.5” (8.6.2.2) 8.2.5 elaborates: “Military objectives include objects which, by their nature, location, purpose, or use, make an effective contribution to military action (including warfighting, war-supporting, or war-sustaining capabilities) and whose total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization, in the circumstances at the time, offers a definite military advantage. Part of the analysis is whether the object, by its nature, location, purpose, or use makes an effective contribution to the enemy’s military action. The issue is whether an effective contribution is made.” In short, merchantmen transporting relevant cargo are fair game. (This accords with the San Remo manual, graf 40, 59, 60.)

Crucially, however, while it’s re-iterated in 8.61 that “As far as military exigencies permit, after each engagement all possible measures should be taken without delay to search for and collect the shipwrecked, wounded, and sick and recover the dead,” it also fails to define what an “engagement” consists of. I have searched for, and failed to find, any literature detailing precisely when an “engagement” ends. This is problematic as by the definition of “shipwrecked” in 11.7 a vessel may well be considered in “peril” well before its guaranteed destruction has been effected – but, as demonstrated by countless engagements in many wars, this has never stopped surface nor subsurface commanders from pressing the attack on ships, armed or unarmed, military or merchantmen, until they were conclusively and obviously finished. Nor is this status always obvious; e.g. the tanker SS Kentucky, which took the combined efforts of Allied gunfire and depth charges and two Italian torpedoes to scuttle, and its sister ship Ohio which manged to reach Malta despite being blown nearly in half by a torpedo and being abandoned twice. Hence the prevalence of follow-on attacks to effect elimination of their “war-sustaining, or war-supporting roles” and “effective contribution to the enemy’s military action.”

This is also consistent with the Handbook’s section 5.3, “General Principles Of The Law Of Armed Conflict,” which states in 5.31. “Military necessity is the principle that justifies the use of all measures not prohibited by the law of armed conflict needed to defeat the enemy quickly and efficiently. The law of armed conflict is not intended to impede the waging of hostilities. An object is a valid military objective if its nature (e.g., combat ships and military aircraft), location (e.g., bridge on an enemy supply route), purpose (e.g., a civilian airport that is built with a longer than required runway so it can be used for military airlift in time of emergency), or use (e.g., school building being used as an enemy headquarters) makes it an effective contribution to the enemy’s warfighting or war-sustaining effort and its total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization, in the circumstance ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.” It also states bluntly that “The principle of military necessity does not prohibit the application of overwhelming force against enemy combatants, units, and materiel consistent with the principles of distinction and proportionality. Military necessity may justify the use of overwhelming force to defeat enemy forces because the object of war is not simply to prevail, but to prevail as quickly and efficiently as possible. Military necessity does not require commanders to use the minimum force possible in a given situation. Such an interpretation of military necessity would prolong the fighting and increase suffering.”

From the above it seems incontestable that an “engagement” against vessels that are valid enemy targets can be prosecuted until the destruction of said vessel is self-evident or guaranteed in the immediate future (at which point it ceases to be a valid target in general, which is the only standard available given the general dearth of more specific delineation by any LOAC literature I've seen.) Duty to rescue shipwrecked persons does not begin until after that point.

Naturally this invites the question: “wouldn’t a fiberglass speedboat be obliterated entirely by a missile?” The answer is a resounding no – one typically doesn’t employ massive weapons against small speedboats, and it wasn’t done here, as the already released video of the Sept. 2nd strike shows (see next tweet for links.) The boat is engulfed in flames as the fuel tanks are hit, but it’s still clearly in one piece (this matches the WaPo article description.) This is roughly in-line with what I’d expect from a Hellfire-M’s 20 pound blast-frag warhead, or a Hydra-70’s 10 pound blast-frag warhead (with APKWS laser guidance kit) Moreover as the NYT reported on Oct. 18th (“U.S. Is Repatriating Survivors of Its Strike on Suspected Drug Vessel,”) at least two enemy combatants have survived one of these strikes, and not only been rescued by the US, but were healthy enough to be repatriated to their country of origin. Clearly the weapons being used in these strikes fall far short of what’d be needed to effect total obliteration.

“Isn’t a little boat different?” Nowhere in LOAC literature I’ve seen, much less the Commander’s Handbook that details American policy, is that distinction made – moreover, there’s vast historical precedent for attacking small, shallow-draft cargo ships. American PT boats and fleet submarines frequently destroyed barges, sampans, schooners, junks and other tiny vessels during the Pacific War as the Japanese were using them for coastal cargo transport (supplanting their heavy losses in merchant ships.) There’s an entire book about it (“Surface and Destroy: The Submarine Gun War in the Pacific” by Michael Sturma.) I know of not a single US commander who was accused of war crimes on that basis alone. If we can't consider speedboats vessels, under what category are they considered?

“But surely it would sink!” Also not a given. That a blast-frag warhead was used is obvious from the video (fragment impacts visible in the water all around) but there’s a dizzying array of fragmentation sizes and patterns even before you account for attack geometry (relative angles of weapon and target.) More recent weapons usually favor pre-formed fragments (usually ball-bearings) of tungsten (e.g. M31 rocket used by the HIMARs.) The AGM-114M blast-frag Hellfire generates an unspecified number of diamond-shaped fragments (approx 5x7cm) out to each side, but not to the rear (blocked by motor) or front (blocked by penetrator cap), whereas the Hydra 70 with WDU-4A/A fuze delivers 2,205 flechettes of only 1.3 grams apiece (i.e. quite small) in a forward cone pattern/w airburst. Either of these would eventually sink a fiberglass-hulled go-fast boat, but buoyancy is determined as much by cargo as by the ship’s own integrity (see above anecdotes about oil tankers in WWII for instance; oil is less dense than water and floats.) As seen in several videos of struck narco-boats the cargo is typically carried in drums of some sort; it’d make good sense to load these light enough to maintain positive buoyancy (so men wading could simply float the drugs to shore; smugglers don’t always have the luxury of pulling up to a pier). Moreover, cocaine wrapped in plastic packages will float on its own, as evidenced by at least one incident last year where 100 pounds of cocaine in wrapped packages (large package around individually wrapped ones) washed up on Islamorada island, Florida (“More than $1.6M worth of cocaine washed up on Florida beaches during Hurricane Debby: Authorities,” by Ashley R. Williams and Denise Royal, CNN Wire.) Cocaine is apparently not terribly dense. This kind of packaging also preserves buoyancy even if the large storage drum is penetrated; (internal compartmentalization/w trapped air, effectively.) Depending on fragment size, number and pattern, barrels/bodies nearer the blast may well shield cargo behind it (again, the survival of at least two narcoterrorists healthy enough to be promptly repatriated demonstrates whatever weapon’s being employed isn’t comprehensively shredding the targets.) If wrapped cocaine floats on its own, it’ll certainly float in a leaky boat – long enough to allow for its recovery, which would necessitate a follow-on strike to ensure its destruction. (I’d argue that a few million dollars of cocaine is absolutely “war-sustaining” once it hits the market and turns to greenbacks, but those demurring are challenging the legality of these strikes in general, not the incident in question, and are thus out of scope here.) Those arguing this is speculation are invited to demonstrate why their own speculation vis a vis cargoes and passengers should be any more privileged than mine, if they can muster arguments past rank partisanship and following bad-faith assumptions.

Speaking of rank partisanship – the timing of the WaPo’s article only days after six Democratic US legislators released the now-infamous video exhorting servicemen to “refuse illegal orders-” is a transparently partisan information operation. No serious person denies the Washington Post’s ideological bent and the idea they’re not in contact with luminaries of the Democratic Party is laughable. Reject that conclusion if you wish, but bear in mind that I’ve laid out the law as it’s written and as I’ve read it, backed it up with cites, and explained my reasoning at length – while all the rest I’ve seen have offered nothing but overwrought emotion, reference to LOAC without any explanation (and often with allegories that demonstrate their ignorance of it,) or simply appeal to their own credentials.

They may think the follow-up strike was illegal. But the Washington Post – an obvious co-conspirator in an even more obvious premeditated political attack – clearly felt it wasn’t; enough so that they made the alleged “no quarters” order the centerpiece of their attack… a claim who’s only “evidence” are quotes from the omnipresent oracle of modern journalists, the ethereal “official(s).”

Maybe I’m wrong. But if I am, it shouldn’t be hard for one of these sainted “experts” to descend from Olympus and prove me wrong.

(Source links below for convenience.)

[W.E.B. DaBoi @Tyre_94]

Chicago Pope uses hometown mob tactics to convert believers, circa 2025.

[Latinx Adjacent Doctor PhD @TonerousHyus]

Timeline

-Germany elects woman
-Woman thinks earthquakes and tsunamis will hit Germany
-closes all nuclear without any plans
-Putin takes in tens of billions for gas
-Ukraine invaded
-Trump doesn’t consult you because clearly are retarded

[wanye @xwanyex]

I feel like I have a pretty solid grasp on what motivates the average liberal or about the psychology of the typical leftist, but there are a number of these things that have not historically been very much discussed, because they were censored and reflexively labeled, “racist,” that are now shared around quite a lot on this new more right wing X and for which I really have no idea what the liberal response is.

I suppose if I were a liberal I would just say something like, “I agree that this is bad and we should encourage norms against it.“ But can anybody do any better than that? What if, despite your best efforts, this kind of thing persists for the next few decades. What is your plan to address it? How do you incorporate it into your worldview? How do you square the desire for more multiculturalism with findings like this one?

[wanye @xwanyex]

We don’t owe “fairness” to foreign nationals in the sense meant here. We can just do whatever we want to.

[Nikolaj🇺🇦🇵🇸 @nikicaga]

Fish oil... is made of fish...

[doomer @uncledoomer]

i love this "gentle parenting" tiktok trend where smug affluent white liberals talk down to their chud relatives and pretend its a form of de-escalation, but in reality, its the conversation equivalent of a rookie cop turning an easy traffic stop into an officer involved shooting

[Mads @europemaxxed]

"Once you've learned about nuclear you'll never stop wanting to beat baby boomers to death with your bare hands."

[Bad Hombre @Badhombre]

Oh no. A restaurant worker? Suspend the constitution and our laws, I guess.

[osaka pond dweller @SPCMNandHOBBES]

little girls walk the city streets at night with no fear, there is no greater barometer of a successful society

[Thales of Florida @FloridaThales]

An iron law of Thales: you can make fun of the fat guy at the buffet, but not at the gym.

[chairmanwon @chairmanwon]

We could just stick all the nuclear waste ever in a parking lot in the desert and it would be fine.

Long term storage is a boogyman parroted by fucking nerds who would be against nuke for any reason.

[Scott Barber @thescottbarber]

They literally go around saying “gobble gobble”

[tawny @tawnniee]

american military
>we trained an 18 y.o. to run a nuclear sub
corporate america
>we imported 500,000 indians for junior software jobs

[Andrew McCarthy @AJamesMcCarthy]

Immense planning and technical precision was required for this absolutely preposterous (but real) view: I captured my friend @BlackGryph0n transiting the sun during a skydive.

This might be the first photo of it's kind in existence. See a video of this moment in the reply 👇

[Curtis LeMay Stan 🇺🇲 @TheBigCigar1906]

Happy 250th, Devil Dogs.

[JK Johnny @_JohnnyJones]

Moon's haunted --

[Anthony DiGiorgio, DO, MHA @DrDiGiorgio]

Insurance, by definition, protects against uncertain future events.

In actuarial terms, the price of insurance = (probability of the event) × (cost of the event) + admin costs + opportunity cost of capital.

If there’s a 1% chance of a $1,000,000 loss, premiums are around $10,000.
But if there’s a 100% chance of the event, the cost of “insurance” equals the full cost of the event plus overhead.

That’s why car insurance doesn’t cover oil changes and homeowner’s insurance doesn’t cover new roofs.

What The Left wants isn’t “true insurance.” It’s a prepaid health plan paired with wealth transfers to certain groups.

Maybe we should just come up with a new name for that product, instead of trying to call it "insurance."

[AnechoicMedia @AnechoicMedia_]

I believe the data that crime rates have fallen by half since my childhood; At the same time my subjective experience in my life of moving from suburb to city has been an extreme increase in crime; going from no concern whatsoever to constant vigilance, from making sure things are locked, to avoiding eye contact with insane people who go into a violent rage unprovoked.

And regardless of what the property crime rate is, that has to be viewed in the context of public spaces being transformed by a siege mentality, locking up the bathrooms, removing seating and other inducements to loiter, and putting all the deodorant sticks behind a cage. This was done in reaction to *something* and it's a cost of disorder we all pay and experience mentally.

Until that story changes I'm going to have a "conservative" view of crime.