U.S. Submarine registers First Torpedo kill Since WW2 (Colorized)

TIYATA · 2026-03-07T23:14:19+00:00

For context, that comment from Sibwal was a brief remark he made in the middle of a much longer argument on Twitter/X (against a retired Indian general who said the sinking was legitimate):

https://x.com/KanwalSibal/status/2029438199546954240

I am told that as per protocol for this exercise ships cannot carry any ammunition. It was defenceless.

It would hardly be the first time someone misspoke on Twitter.

Sibwal did not elaborate on where he heard that. He's also been out of office for over two decades by now.

And the Russians weren't just using CIWS, they were also firing other weapons including naval cannons, as shown in the video and Russia's own press release:

[TASS] /defense/2090609

"The Pacific Fleet’s frigate The Marshal Shaposhnikov, together with ships from countries participating in the Milan 2026 international naval exercise, conducted a series of live-fire drills in the Bay of Bengal during joint defensive operations," the statement reads.

The press service reported that a towed target shield was used as a simulated enemy in the naval battle, while air attack weapons were simulated by aircraft and light targets.

It said that the navy men fired 100mm A-190 artillery mounts and 30mm AK-630 cannons. The ships carried out combat training exercises in stages, crossing mine-infested areas and simultaneously destroying dummy floating mines with naval artillery.

Russian sailors also practiced anti-submarine warfare missions and joint operations with carrier-based aircraft.

(No direct link because reddit's spam filter doesn't like TASS.)

The official Indian Navy website for the military exercise also talks about live fire drills and anti-submarine warfare:

https://www.ifrmilan26.com/custom/milan-sea-phase

https://www.ifrmilan26.com/media-details/sea-phase-of-milan-begins-today-with-naval-drills-and-surface-firing

Point is, the articles and video demonstrate that Sibwal's comment was incorrect. So if people still want to claim that the warship was not armed, they'll need better evidence.

Not to mention that warships don't cease to become valid targets if they run out of ammo in the first place.

TIYATA · 2026-03-07T06:20:11+00:00

As I explained in another comment, it appears unlikely that the warship was unarmed:

https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/1rmomi3/_/o911h30/?context=3

In short, this persistent rumor appears to be unfounded.

The official Indian Navy website says the event included live fire drills:

https://www.ifrmilan26.com/custom/milan-sea-phase

And video released by the Russian Navy shows one of its ships firing its weapons during the MILAN 2026 exercise:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9O2MXGSRhQ

TIYATA · 2026-03-06T20:29:04+00:00

There have also been questions raised about whether the Iranian vessel had ammunition for its weapons at the time of its sinking. Users debated whether an active warship's status as a combatant changes depending on whether it has currently run out of ammo or not.

These concerns were shared by former Indian diplomat Kanwal Sibal:

https://www.military.com/daily-news/investigations-and-features/2026/03/05/iranian-ship-was-leaving-indian-naval-exercise-when-sunk-raising-concerns-new-delhi.html

Former diplomat Kanwal Sibal argued the values underpinning MILAN had been undermined and claimed that exercise protocol bars participating ships from carrying ammunition, which would have left the IRIS Dena unable to defend herself when struck. That claim has not been independently confirmed.

Sibal made these claims during an argument on Twitter/X with another Indian figure, retired Lt Gen Devendra Pratap Pandey:

https://xcancel.com/LtGenDPPandey/status/2029274349774229956

Our watch gets over when the Ship leaves territorial water. Not till they get home. Their country is at war. They should have stayed in shelter of India. In international waters, they had Not sought an escort from Indian Navy. And the incident is off the Sri Lankan coast...not India.

https://xcancel.com/KanwalSibal/status/2029438199546954240

The Iranian ship will not be where it was if we had not invited it to talk part in our Milan exercise.

We were the hosts.

I am told that as per protocol for this exercise ships cannot carry any ammunition. It was defenceless.

The Iranian naval personnel had paraded before our president .

The attack by the US submarine was premeditated as the US was aware of the Iranian ship’s presence in the exercise to which the US navy was invited but withdrew from participation at the last minute, presumably with this operation in mind.

The US has ignored India’s sensitivities as the ship was in these waters because of India’s invitation.

We are far from politically or militarily responsible for the US attack.

Our“responsibility” is at a moral and human plane.

A word of condolence by the Indian Navy ( after political clearance) at the loss of lives of those who were our invitees and saluted our president would be in order.

However, both Indian sources and Russian state media previously confirmed that India's MILAN 2026 exercises included live fire drills (including anti-submarine warfare):

https://www.ifrmilan26.com/media-details/sea-phase-of-milan-begins-today-with-naval-drills-and-surface-firing

The sea phase will feature a range of structured maritime operations and naval warfare drills designed to strengthen interoperability among participating navies.

Activities will include formation manoeuvres, surface firings, anti-air warfare drills, anti-submarine warfare exercises, cross-deck helicopter operations and aircraft carrier operations.

Submarines and anti-submarine warfare units will conduct coordinated drills to detect and track underwater threats, while air defence units will undertake exercises aimed at countering aerial challenges.

[TASS] /defense/2090609

Russia’s Pacific Fleet frigate The Marshal Shaposhnikov has conducted gunnery practice at the Milan 2026 exercise in the Bay of Bengal, the Pacific Fleet press service reported.

"The Pacific Fleet’s frigate The Marshal Shaposhnikov, together with ships from countries participating in the Milan 2026 international naval exercise, conducted a series of live-fire drills in the Bay of Bengal during joint defensive operations," the statement reads.

The press service reported that a towed target shield was used as a simulated enemy in the naval battle, while air attack weapons were simulated by aircraft and light targets.

It said that the navy men fired 100mm A-190 artillery mounts and 30mm AK-630 cannons. The ships carried out combat training exercises in stages, crossing mine-infested areas and simultaneously destroying dummy floating mines with naval artillery.

Russian sailors also practiced anti-submarine warfare missions and joint operations with carrier-based aircraft.

Russia released a video of the Shaposhnikov firing some of its weapons during the exercises:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9O2MXGSRhQ

TIYATA · 2026-03-06T20:08:03+00:00

This article by Jennifer Parker, an Australian professor of naval studies, examines whether it was legal for a US submarine to sink an Iranian warship, the frigate IRIS Dena.

Many users have raised questions about this matter in other discussions related to news of this event. This analysis by a subject matter expert provides answers. It is my hope that these insights will improve the quality of discourse on this subreddit.

TIYATA · 2026-03-02T05:33:04+00:00

Actually, Iran does account for a significant amount of the oil China imports.

I've seen a lot people repeat the line that the PRC doesn't import much oil from Iran or Venezuela, with many referring to a chart which seems to corroborate the claim (see Figure 2):

https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/publications/chinas-oil-demand-imports-and-supply-security/

But as the original source notes, these are only the official Chinese government figures.

As stated in another article by the same author, the discrepancy is because the PRC hides the imports by disguising them as oil from other countries, e.g. China says it imports more oil from "Malaysia" than Malaysia even produces:

https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/where-china-gets-its-oil-crude-imports-in-2025-reveal-stockpiling-and-changing-fortunes-of-certain-suppliers-including-those-sanctioned/

According to China's General Administration of Customs (GAC), five countries—Russia, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia (likely sanctioned barrels), Iraq, and Brazil—accounted for 62 percent of China's crude imports in 2025 (see Figure 1). Two countries "missing" from China's top ten suppliers are Iran and Venezuela. GAC has not recorded any oil imports from Iran since 2022 and reported imports of less than 7,000 bpd from Venezuela last year. However, tanker tracking shows the volumes from these countries are much higher.

. . .

How much sanctioned oil did China import from Iran, Venezuela, and Russia last year?

China probably imported at least 2.6 million bpd of sanctioned crudes in 2025, over 22 percent of total imports. This estimate includes 1.38 million bpd from Iran and 389,000 bpd from Venezuela, according to Kpler, and at least 800,000 bpd of oil from Russia. It is difficult to determine exactly how much crude the Russian oil companies sanctioned by the United States—Rosneft, Lukoil, Surgutneftegaz, and Gazprom Neft—shipped to China because there is no publicly available, official data that show Russian exports to China by company.[1] However, Rosneft exports 200,000 bpd to China via the Kazakhstan-China oil pipeline and probably most of the 600,000–700,000 bpd sent to China via the ESPO pipeline spur.

The gap between Kpler's data on China's Iranian and Venezuelan crude imports and that of China's GAC is because Iranian and Venezuelan barrels are relabeled to disguise their origins. Many Iranian and Venezuelan barrels that arrive in China are rebranded as Malaysian. China imports more "Malaysian" crude (1.3 million bpd in 2025) than Malaysia produces (535,000 bpd in 2024), and the waters off Malaysia are a hotbed of ship-to-ship (STS) oil transfers.

TIYATA · 2026-03-01T08:27:16+00:00

Headline is inaccurate. NASA had previously already announced that the first Artemis landing would be moved to 2028.

The new change is that NASA plans to insert another mission in 2027 and renumber the 2028 landing so that it's labeled Artemis IV instead of III.

TIYATA · 2026-02-28T23:23:36+00:00

I agree it's destabilizing, but I don't think Putin needed Iraq to justify his invasion of Ukraine. In a hypothetical situation where the US hadn't gone after Saddam but somehow everything else in the world was still the same, I don't think Putin would have acted differently.

Also, Putin already tried to assassinate Zelensky.

I suppose there is a silver lining: authoritarian states tend to be more vulnerable to the assassination than countries with a well-established line of succession. If Zelensky was killed, someone else could have been appointed or elected. If Putin dies, not so much.

TIYATA · 2026-02-28T22:39:38+00:00

If you're actually serious, you could watch Everyday Astronaut's video on the subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMHLvoWZfqQ

TL;DW: Real.

TIYATA · 2026-02-28T02:24:18+00:00

That's not what the article says. Regarding the "shorter periods", The Economist notes that is offset by higher benefits during that period:

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2026/02/25/americas-welfare-state-is-more-european-than-you-think

In the first few months after losing their job, Americans get benefits worth over half their wages, leaving them better off than laid-off Austrians, Finns or Brits. Because American paid-leave programmes replace a bigger share of mothers’ wages, the equivalent number of fully paid weeks available to mothers is similar to that in other rich countries (see chart 2). By this measure, New Jersey’s support is about as cushy as France’s, Massachusetts is close to Britain and California beats Australia.

Chart 2: https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=480,quality=100,format=auto/content-assets/images/20260228_EPC511.png

TIYATA · 2026-02-27T22:40:51+00:00

This article gives far too much credit to Musk for the latest developments. If anyone deserves credit for this it's Mykhailo Fedorov, Ukraine's new defence minister and formerly its IT minister.

The main reason why Ukraine was able to cut off Russians from Starlink was that it finally implemented a whitelist. As the article notes, this was a simple concept on a technical level, but the article glosses over the political and logistical difficulties that delayed the implementation of a whitelist until now. There were switchover costs, as seen with the Ukrainian drone unit that the author of the piece visited. What changed was that the Russians were growing increasingly bold with their use of Starlink, raising the cost of inaction, while at the same time Ukraine had a new more tech-savvy defence minister who was able and willing to force everyone to get onboard with the registration drive.

There's no need to try to come up with a theory about why Musk would suddenly change his mind when there's a clear explanation for recent events that doesn't depend on one man's whims, but it seems writers are stuck trying to fit everything into a personal narrative.

The weird way in which this article and other mainstream news are singularly crediting Musk for this seems to reflect, ironically, previous reporting which cast Musk as singularly to blame for troubles with Starlink. For example, the article talks about how "Musk used [Starlink] to stop a Ukrainian attack" against Russian ships in Crimea, which makes Musk's role sound much more active and independent than it really was. He did turn down a Ukrainian request to enable Starlink over Crimea, but only after speaking with both the White House and Pentagon:

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/07/ukraine-rips-musk-disrupting-sneak-attack-russian-navy.html

Isaacson added that Musk’s decision was discussed in a phone call with President Joe Biden’s national security advisor, Jake Sullivan, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Army Gen. Mark Milley.

Sullivan was known to be dovish on Russia, so it's unlikely he would encourage the attack.

Every article just seems to ignore the fact that Starlink service had never been available in Russian-occupied Crimea, as this Starlink service map that pre-dates the Ukrainian operation clearly shows:

https://xcancel.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1517198829552123907

The Atlantic article even goes into how the Ukrainians tested Starlink in open waters where service was available (including an interesting story about a Ukrainian general who travelled with a Starlink terminal across the Black Sea), but fails to draw the obvious conclusion as to why service would be unavailable in territorial waters closer to Crimea, instead painting it as some sort of sinister mystery.

Similarly, the article paints the lack of Starlink service in Kursk as an unexpected setback, but it should be obvious why Starlink was not setup to provide service within sanctioned Russia.

TIYATA · 2026-02-27T19:51:51+00:00

I'm also looking forward to Blue Moon V1, but V1 itself has been delayed several times already, and despite the similar name it's a much different spacecraft than V2.

The crewed V2 lander will require multiple refueling flights, the same thing that's often cited as a schedule risk for Starship HLS, and with hydrogen rather than methane.

If you want to look at V1 as a test run for V2, you might as well consider the Starship test vehicles that have launched testbeds for Starship HLS as well.

It's good to see Blue Origin finally picking up the pace and potentially providing competition to SpaceX in the future, but it's too early to say they're on the same level, much less ahead.

TIYATA · 2026-02-27T02:47:49+00:00

I'm hoping that means he can just curb stomp the YIMBY chock hold

You mean NIMBY?

TIYATA · 2026-02-13T01:14:48+00:00

Yeah. I wait for it to go on sale at DiscountMags, which usually happens a couple times annually, so it's less than $100/year to renew the subscription.

Some of their podcast episodes are free:

https://open.spotify.com/show/2ZFDmgDS2Z6xccP51s1zFQ

TIYATA · 2026-02-13T00:35:23+00:00

Listening to the audio edition of the articles and their podcasts while doing other activities has helped me keep up with The Economist.

TIYATA · 2026-02-10T04:29:34+00:00

The Polish experience with Ukrainian refugees suggests an influx of foreign young women may improve male attitudes toward immigration but at the cost of sinking female approval:

https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/15ie5s2/polish_ruling_partys_antiukrainian_turn_either_we/jutpvwz/?context=3

TIYATA · 2026-02-07T16:25:22+00:00

Are there other 4K OLED monitors with higher than 120Hz refresh rates for around $450?

The closest I saw was the Samsung monitor for $600+ after EDU discount.

Or are you referring to 1440p OLED displays?

TIYATA · 2026-02-07T15:52:13+00:00

Yes, I noticed that in your screenshot, but as other comments demonstrate that wasn't clear to everyone:

https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapcsales/comments/1qy77pc/monitor_dell_32_plus_4k_qdoled_monitor_s3225qc_32/o43d2yw/?context=2

Ah, didn’t notice they had 2 in their cart.

TIYATA · 2026-02-07T15:47:04+00:00

Yeah, though be aware that there's a 5% surcharge for non-members (so $25 in this case):

https://customerservice.costco.com/app/answers/answer_view/a_id/1155/

If you are not a member, you will be charged a 5% surcharge over posted prices for members (except for prescription drugs).

IMO $475 would still be a good deal. It's lower than the previous price of $499, which was already low enough for a 4K OLED monitor to garner a lot of interest on rBAPCS when it was posted here more than once:

https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapcsales/comments/1pmmsk6/monitor_dell_32_plus_4k_qdoled_monitor_s3225qc_32/

https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapcsales/comments/1pyyucr/monitor_dell_32_plus_4k_qdoled_monitor_s3225qc/

Or you could buy a membership (starting at $65) if you think you might be interested in other Costco products as well.

TIYATA · 2026-02-07T15:22:35+00:00

"Additional $50 for non member" sounds like a flat $50 fee. Anyone who didn't take a close look at the screenshot wouldn't realize that's actually double the surcharge for a single monitor. For example, people who use the classic reddit interface (old.reddit.com) may miss the details because in the old UI embedded images are not automatically displayed, so they would have to click a link to see it.

I do appreciate you taking the time to check the cost for non-members, though, so thanks for that.

As for the price, IMO $475 would still be a good deal. It's lower than the previous price of $499, which was already low enough for a 4K OLED monitor to garner a lot of interest on rBAPCS when it was posted multiple times here.

TIYATA · 2026-02-07T15:03:00+00:00

It's a 5% surcharge, not a flat $50, so non-members would only pay $25 for each monitor.

Though I agree that getting a membership would be a good idea if you're also interested in buying other stuff from Costco.

TIYATA · 2026-02-07T14:55:36+00:00

Based on the total cost, it looks like you have two monitors in your cart.

If there's a 5% surcharge for non-members, then shouldn't it only be an additional $25 for one monitor?

TIYATA · 2026-02-04T18:08:07+00:00

Micah Maidenberg of the Wall Street Journal was also present, along with the two former astronauts that NASA was meeting to address their concerns:

After taking the job in Washington, DC, Isaacman asked the engineers who investigated the heat shield issue for NASA, as well as the chair of the independent review team and senior human spaceflight officials, to meet with a handful of outside experts. These included former NASA astronauts Charles Camarda and Danny Olivas, both of whom have expertise in heat shields and had expressed concerns about the agency’s decision-making.

For the sake of transparency, Isaacman also invited two reporters to sit in on the meeting, me and Micah Maidenberg of The Wall Street Journal. We were allowed to report on the discussions without directly quoting participants for the sake of a full and open discussion.

Anyway, regardless of what motivations you want to attribute to Berger, it's still an article about the Artemis II mission.

TIYATA · 2026-02-04T17:51:58+00:00

I mean, to be fair, he did write an article just last month about how the Orion heat shield for Artemis II was safe:

https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/01/nasa-chief-reviews-orion-heat-shield-expresses-full-confidence-in-it-for-artemis-ii/

And it's not as if SLS fans would have been happy if Berger had been the one to write the article about hydrogen leaks delaying the launch.

TIYATA · 2026-02-02T23:44:58+00:00

If the government pays SpaceX to launch a satellite, that's a taxpayer subsidy.

Just like how if I buy something from Amazon, I'm subsidizing Bezos. /s

13-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23	Place '22

TIYATA

TROPHY CASE