• ForestGreenGhost@literature.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    Capturing a vessel is very different than performing a boarding action. If the U.S. captured the Iranian vessel then there wouldn’t be any risk of “getting beaten with a pipe” because the Iranian vessel surrendered.

    Deeper Dumber reason: Given the state of technology today and with all of the jamming, electronic warfare tech, and counter drone and missile stuff that the U.S. Navy has, it wouldn’t make a lick of difference whether the Iranian vessel was right next to a U.S. warship or not.

    Edit: lol at getting beaten with a pipe. Jesus fucking Christ. Get off of LLMs, they’re clearly ruining your ability to reason

    • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Putting aside your other bullshit, you answered the question yourself then. They did not capture it because it did not surrender.

      • ForestGreenGhost@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        43 minutes ago

        In a warfighting context, to capture an enemy vessel or position means you coerced them to surrender with overwhelming firepower or threat of force. Also is semantics the only counterargument you have?

        Normally I wouldn’t care this much, but the whole reason for this conversation was that you were defending the murders of unarmed sailors who were not at war. So fuck you, you fucking shitwhistle.