Goldman Sachs now reckons that oil could take out the 2008 record of $147
ft.com
ft.com
Source for a consensus from oil? The crack spread shows refiners pricing in higher prices [1].
If the domestic refiners and producers can’t agree, why is the homogenous opinion of the banks a conspiracy?
US is insulated from practical supply concerns but we’re gonna be paying the price.
It strikes me as sensible. DRAM being cheaper over decades doesn’t negate the impact of recent price hikes.
Inflation is a bitch. It’s also been the ruin of republics since at least the Romans, possibly sooner.
At the current geopolitical trajectory, I also doubt $147 is anywhere near the limit of where oil is going.
Long-term measurements of value are kind of weird, as your unit of measurement can gain and lose value relative to the units other people are using.
> Long-term measurements of value are kind of weird
They are worthless. Best case, you’re asking a traveler problem. Does an American tourist rejecting a local Thai delicacy render it worthless? Of course not. They’re different purchasers. Similarly, trying to compare pricing preferences across centuries is borderline voodoo—you’re doing spherical-cow math.
They never needed a navy. And to the degree a navy was helpful, it was in the form of fast-attack craft. We don't seem to have hit those much yet [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Islam...
War crimes every day.
https://asiatimes.com/2026/03/trump-us-navy-sank-unarmed-ira...
The were in allied water, on a regularly scheduled drill, unarmed.
Source? Torpedoing anything with the enemy flag, down to civilian boats and merchant marines, was normalized by centuries of precedent by WWII.
“failing to do everything possible to rescue those aboard is certainly a war crime,” as the Second Geneva Convention requires militaries to take all possible measures to search for and collect the shipwrecked, wounded, and sick.This instance is hardly clear cut .. I put more effort into this peer comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47559796
That ship was involved in naval exercises at the invitation of the host navy, India.
That ship was unarmed. Nothing unusual there - that was the original plan for the joint navy drills. A large complement of the crew was A BRASS BAND!
The Indian's (and this has been formally confirmed since) communicated to the Americans that this was an UNARMED ship which was about to leave Indian territorial waters on its way home.
So the Americans KNEW where the ship was (they were told) and KNEW it was completely unarmed.
And they sunk it anyway, and refused to pick up any survivors.
Thats a crystal clear WAR CRIME. The kind which is writ large in western history books for 80 years, condemning the conduct of the Nazi Germany submarine units.
This is the military analogue of people who thing police have an obligation to "shoot to wound".
The ship posed the only plausible threat, not the sailors.
I think there is absolutey an argument that good decorum would have provided a nearby surface vessel to assist with rescue. But not being nice in a war isn't the same as a war crime. And expanding the notion of war criminality to cover even breaches of decorum fundamentally waters down a term that has already started being seen as meaningless because people want to make it apply to any act of war.
>U-505 [the capture of a German U-boat in the Atlantic Ocean in 1944, written by the captain of the sub that did it]
https://www.amazon.com/U-505-Rear-Admiral-Daniel-Vincent-Gal...
>"AWAY BOARDERS" WWII CAPTURE OF GERMAN SUBMARINE U-505 ON HIGH SEAS U.S. NAVY FILM 20994
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5Z5YOz_8gc
Both excellent
The “shot across the bow” phrase comes from a relevant naval tradition, such as when the U.S. Navy captured ships from far more serious threats like Nazi Germany:
"AND REFUSED TO PICK UP ANY SURVIVORS"
In the absence of any threat (the ship was alone, and unarmed), then refusing to pick up survivors is ABSOLUTELY a TEXTBOOK war crime.
Under the Geneva Convention, and under the US's own legal code.
Thats not an opinion, thats a statement of fact.
Exactly this was one of the charges against Admiral Doenitz at Nuremberg.
Indeed, however despite being convicted of that and other charges, this particular charge was not factored into his sentence, precisely because British and U.S. submarines also engaged in the same practice during the conflict.
And that was with WW2-era submarines which were designed to operate mostly on the surface and could make provision for doing things like picking up downed aviators and engaging in "crash dives" to rapidly submerge.
Modern submarines are designed to operate mostly submerged and have very poor station-keeping while surfaced, and even lack the ability to crash dive (because you're supposed to be submerged long before you get into the danger zone and then stay submerged throughout).
It's not entirely uncommon for submariners on the submarine deck to die from fairly basic operations while on the surface (e.g. USS Minneapolis-St. Paul in 2006 lost 2 sailors this way: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/sir-men-went-overboar...)
It was proven in court that even the Nazi German submarines made good faith efforts to rescue drowning sailors, and they only stopped when one u-boat was sunk (or damaged?) by a US plane while it was rescuing US sailors (after which, the German navy gave out orders forbiding the practice).
Everything I said in my previous 2 posts stands.
The first is a blanket order to ignore all survivors all the time,
the second is a specific case of not picking up survivors under a general umbrella of picking up survivors save for when there are other factors.
In this specific instance they can argue, should it ever go before an international tribunal, that they lacked room and that more applicable search and rescue was already en route.
I'm not arguing in defence of Hegseth et al. but I am pointing out that things are not nearly as clear cut and straighforward as you claim.
It was wrong before and still wrong though.
For example, you haven't explained why you feel that a torpedo for an Iranian warship in international waters is a war crime, but sinking Iranian warships at the pier in Iranian waters is not.
The U.S. did even less for shipwrecked survivors in the latter case than in the former. Why are bombs and cruise missiles to sink ships from destroyers 800 nm away not also war crimes in your mind?
Is it also a war crime when Ukraine sinks Russian navy ships at their piers with USVs or cruise missiles with no ability to recover survivors? (Hint: no, it's not)
The sub knew it was clear of any Iranian guns, for over 100 miles in every direction, once it had sunk the only (unarmed) Iranian asset within 100 miles of it. Thats not the same as being within (or close to) Iranian territory.
Hence, the lack of threat, as per the established laws of naval warfare, neccesitate some attempt at helping survivors. The sub was in the immediate vicinity of the ship. Not 800 miles away firing a cruise missile.
To still maintain that, even in that situation, there's still some theoretical threat means that you're effectively trying to say that in NO conceivable situation do the established laws of naval warfare apply, in practical terms. For anyone, anywhere, ever.
In any case, this is all an academic exercise. In this world order, no laws - international, military, or common decency - apply to the US or its chosen allies.
Justice will have to be served the old fashioned way.
That was a cowardly act (unarmed vessel), but not strictly a war crime.
The ACTUAL war crime was the immediate refusal to render any aid to the sunken sailors. How many times do I have to repeat that line? Shall I bold it for you? And the fact that the ship was ALONE and UNARMED removed any pretence that the US sub would have been in danger by doing so.
I repeatedly mention the Geneva Convention & the fact that the same principle is written into the official US naval doctrines (so its US law as well), and yet you're still barking up the wrong branch.
If you're going to refute my argument, then please refute my ACTUAL argument, and not the strawman version you've concocted.
It's fine to just have a rooting interest!
Where possible. That restriction doesn't seem to have applied to submarines since WWII.
Repetition doesn't make right.
> ALONE and UNARMED
Doesn't change that it's a warship. Like, should warships from now on just say they aren't armed, then go off an engage in military operations and complain about war crimes afterwards?
I'll add this: the way you've argued this has taken me from being sceptical about this being a war crime to feeling confident it is not.
You could ague they had an obligation to notify search and rescue ... at a time when the nearest search and rescue was already alerted and en route.
See: https://www.justsecurity.org/133397/sinking-iran-frigate-den...
and scroll down to Failure to Rescue IRIS Dena’s Shipwrecked Crew
> Exactly this was one of the charges against Admiral Doenitz at Nuremberg.
A charge that didn't stick, a practice engaged in by both the British and U.S. submarines
In the aftermath of World War II, the issue of rescuing survivors following submarine attacks took center stage during the trial of Admiral Karl Dönitz before the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg.
After Allied attacks on a U-boat attempting to rescue survivors of an ocean liner, the RMS Laconia, Dönitz issued the Laconia Order, which instructed: “All attempts at rescuing members of ships that have been sunk, including attempts to pick up persons swimming, or to place them in lifeboats, or attempts to upright capsized boats, or to supply provisions or water are to cease.”
The court held that the order violated the 1936 London Protocol on submarine warfare, which required that the passengers and crew of merchant vessels be placed in safety before a warship could sink them.
Yet, because British and U.S. submarines engaged in the same practice during the conflict, it did not factor the breaches of the law of submarine warfare into Dönitz’s sentence.
Ethically - the US forces under Hegeseth are behaving like arseholes and absolutely skating a line, the same objective (taking out the ship) could have been achieved in a number of less odious ways.
Trump loves rolling in this kind of mud.
It was by no means "KNOWN" that there was no threat. A modern submarine is inherently in a much more unsafe posture when surfaced, which is precisely why they never do that, especially when it's possible to encounter an enemy.
> tossed out a few inflatable life rafts.
Why do you think submarines randomly carry inflatable life rafts? If they had enough space for those they'd toss them overboard and load additional food stores instead.
Moreover, a surfaced submarine close enough to a floating group of survivors is actually dangerous to those survivors. It has a rotating screw at the back which can seriously injure or kill people and it's not like there's a deck trebuchet equipped to lob life rafts at a distance, even if it carried them.
> 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."
Channel your indignation and anger into a more productive avenue, there's hardly a shortage of actual war crimes occuring these days to be pissed about.
Warships of nations involved in armed conflict are always valid targets for the adversary.
Otherwise it would also have been a bunch of war crimes for the Iranian ships destroyed at the pier by cruise missile or bombs.
India was not a party to the conflict so they can't vouch for the unarmedness of a warship on either side one way or another. But even if they could, unarmed warships are valid targets for the reason the other commenter pointed out (they can quickly become armed).
Nor does international law necessarily require a warship to personally pick up all survivors, and in fact gives warships a fair amount of leeway to consider their own security along with their own ability to execute a successful rescue and successfully berth the shipwrecked.
Modern submarines, while not exempt, tend to fall into that proviso more than other classes because they are not equipped to conduct surface rescue (unlike WWII-era submarines they don't even have a keel for surfaced stationkeeping), have no brig facilities, have no sickbay and very little other medical facilities.
Once it was clear that the Sri Lankan navy (the closest ships to the Dena's survivors) was responding, the responsibility of the U.S. to see to rescue had been accomplished.
Edit: Actual legal experts go into this more at https://www.justsecurity.org/133397/sinking-iran-frigate-den... but this is basically a slam dunk.
Whether it was a good idea is a whole different question, but warships sinking warships is what is supposed to happen in war.
That said, I will still help any distressed boat, whatever their nationality, because I'm better than them. Just, expect me to be rude and avoid talking to them.
Honest question, is this required of belligerents? How is a submarine even meant to provide such aid?
It was a mean attack. But we seek to be continuing the trend of turning highly precedented and obvious tactics into war crimes, thereby making the term equate to war in general.
> Honest question, is this required of belligerents? How is a submarine even meant to provide such aid?
No, it is not. Otherwise the U.S. committed several more war crimes for each of the other Iranian navy ships that were sunk by bombs or cruise missiles rather than by submarine-launched torpedoes.
International law (including treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory) require belligerents to attempt to rescue survivors if possible without putting the rescuing ship at undue risk. ‘[a]fter each engagement, Parties to the conflict shall, without delay, take all possible measures to search for and collect the shipwrecked, wounded and sick, to protect them against pillage and ill-treatment, to ensure their adequate care, and to search for the dead and prevent their being despoiled’. (emphasis added for clarity)
https://seapower.navy.gov.au/analysis/fire-and-forget-search... is a good writeup (written before the current hostilities) and specifically notes the difficulty involved for submarines in particular of directly engaging in rescue after an engagement.
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?
> 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.
Indeed. And modern submarines have nil ability to search for and safely collect the shipwrecked. Multiple submarines from at least 3 countries have fired torpedoes to sink enemy ships since WW2. None have ever stuck around to look for survivors, let alone surfaced to try to rescue them.
> 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.
No, I'm pointing out the opposite: the U.S. does have assets that could have been sent from the Persian Gulf to execute a rescue operation for the Iranian sailors shipwrecked by their warship being attacked by bombs or cruise missiles.
If nothing else, a helo could "drop a life raft", as some of the other comments seem to think is easy for a submarine to do.
But no such attempt at this was made, and no one seems to have any issue with that (for obvious reasons... my point is that the same obvious reasons extend to the submarine attack).
> the treatment seems cursory and more germane to conflicts where there is more parity
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. The requirement to take all possible measures applies whether its two peers fighting or David and Goliath.
The fact that you think it's cursory just tells me you don't understand submarine operations, but that's OK, most don't.
> In this situation what was the risk to the submarine?
Conducting a surfaced rescue is inherently risky to the crew of a modern submarine. Unlike surface ships, there is no keel to improve station-keeping while surfaces. The hull is shaped for hydrodynamics, not for the ability to be navigated on foot by the crew. There are no davits to launch or recover boats or life rafts. There is no hanger deck or brig or sickbay or really any empty space to hold survivors. There are not extra crew onboard to guard survivors and thereby keep the submarine (and its nuclear reactor) safe.
Even aside from Mother Nature, there was an Iranian sister ship nearby who could have attacked the submarine had she surfaced (she wasn't attacked because she opted to stay behind in a neutral port rather than put to sea but it was the same port Dena had sailed from before her attack). And again, unlike during World War 2 there's no real provision to do a "crash dive" to quickly submerge (and that's even assuming the submarine captain is willing to kill the members of his crew that are topside in order to quickly submerge). A surfaced submarine is a sitting duck, militarily.
I know it may feel to you like Iran has no military assets but even a single helicopter with a lightweight torpedo (and Iran operates at least 8) would be enough to have put the submarine at serious risk of hull loss with the deaths of all crew. The Chinese have anti-ship ballistic missiles. Iran has ballistic missiles that can reach to Diego Garcia.
Iran also has submarines which may have been deployed to the area (even one of their "midget" submarines had deployed to India in 2014) and if present could easily have conducted a counterattack which the American submarine would have had difficulty detecting ahead of time, since sonar is fairly useless while surfaced.
No sane submarine captain from any country's navy operating nuclear-propelled attack submarines would have done anything different regarding survivors. A modern nuclear submarine is a glass cannon, avoiding counter-detection is basically its only means of defense, and even if that weren't the case they are not equipped to take on passengers, they have enough trouble handling their own crew, who have to share bunks because of the lack of space onboard.
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.
u/tptacek pointed us to the San Remo Manual [1][2].
> could argue there is risk to any vessel, not just submarines
True. The facts and circumstances can vary case to case. But submarines have been de facto excempted from these rules since Laconia.
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...
Also not an expert. But my understanding is "all possible measures" and "whenever circumstances permit" have historically been taken to not apply to submarines. Largely because in WWII, we "ordered" a B-24 to attack a German U-boat who had "broadcast her position on open radio channels to all Allied powers nearby, and was joined by several other U-boats in the vicinity" following its "sinking of a British passenger ship" [1].
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.
Because it isn't "possible" for modern submarines to assist with rescue. They're pathetically unstable on the surface. Vulnerable as hell to even drones. Don't have a deck to speak of where rescues could be held. And have a nuclear reactor inside–you can't take randos through the airlock.
The only "circumstances permit" place where a submarine might be able to help is if it's operating in friendly waters, with air support and naval support close by to ensure no e.g. drones make a run for it while it's on the surface. And even then, it would be a risky operation.
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.
He invaded a foreign country because he wanted to. The whole thing is a crime too to bottom
A win isn’t diminished because the enemy fucked up. Neutralizing a massive national investment is a military win. Why Tehran didn’t scatter its boats is a chapter for a future manual.
Probably. Same as us to the Gulf and Israel. Beijing has proven itself a non-terrorist actor. I’d be fine with Tehran as its suzerainty alongside Russia.
Oh, they do just fine terrorizing their own populace, and chinese citizens & chinese origin folks living abroad, and neighbors; those that they can currently reach.
So Oil barons getting rich, at the expense of everyone else.
“Make America Feel Poor Again”
That being said, unleashing this blow on Asia is insanely risky whether it is intentional or no. The Trump administration has a well-earned reputation for not being direct in their warmaking and the Asian's might decide not to go down without a fight. And the US is likely to get nothing but ill-will from the continent for the next generation. And I doubt Trump will politically survive the blows the US economy will take in the process of shredding the global oil market.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_proven_oi...
His thinking did not even change. Just read this 2021 article about preventing Trump from starting a war with Iran: https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-bidens-washington... Trump is predictable. What he thought in 2021 was similar to what he thought in February 2026.
> Trump did not want a war, the chairman believed, but he kept pushing for a missile strike in response to various provocations against U.S. interests in the region. Milley, by statute the senior military adviser to the President, was worried that Trump might set in motion a full-scale conflict that was not justified. Trump had a circle of Iran hawks around him and was close with the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who was also urging the Administration to act against Iran after it was clear that Trump had lost the election. “If you do this, you’re gonna have a fucking war,” Milley would say.
Being in his pocket means they owe him something. They don't. They make their own decisions, meant to be representative of the constiutents that did and did not vote for them. If they go against their consitutents wishes, that was their own decision to make. They are to blame.
What makes you think that?
The US will be harmed far more than China by consistently high oil prices.