Considering now tankers have become a valid target for boarding and maybe sinking.Do you have under war laws to mark it if you put missiles on it or can you just hide it until the enemy is in range if they try something?
>>64746671You can do whatever you want. The question is what consequences do you invite.
>>64746671Hiding weapons on merchant shipping is a good way to get all your merchant shipping sunk without warning.>but the west didYes, because the west was at war with countries that practiced unrestricted commerce raiding. The first time some shadow fleet tanker launches a 60 year old AShM at a USCG or USN vessel all shadow fleet vessels become "sink on sight, recover any survivors". Same thing happens the first time the Chinese do something stupid like that. In fact with all the "look at our tiny dick" posturing it wouldn't surprise me if the opening moves by the USN isn't deleting the Chinese merchant fleet.
>>64746671It wouldn't have much an effect on whether your ship is seized or not by a 1st world nation, but it would mean the guys with guns would be shooting instead of just capturing you.It would also affect what ports you would be allowed to dock in, which defeats the whole point for the most part.
>>64746734>>64746727But legaly is it allowed or not?
>>64746727>recover any survivorsnot under this administration
>>64746671> Considering now tankers have become a valid target for boarding and maybe sinking if they’re flying a false flag and sanctioned in accordance with international lawFTFYYFR
>>64746745What does that matter, those tankers being boarded are doing plenty of illegal things
>>64746745We're entering a new reality in which legality AKA rules doesn't matter as-is. What matters is the ability and interest to enforce and disobey the said rules. So the question is would they have the ability to enforce them. As for if they would disobey the rules you can assume they would because rules usually exist to limit or otherwise control something and breaking the rules would be beneficial.So yes. To answer the question: yes, it is a brain dead question.
>>64746856>>64746868Im autistic, and i just wanna absorb more information on the matter is all.
>>64746878Yes I get you.But you're asking a non-question. You don't understand where the question stems so you ask a question which doesn't make sense considering the starting point. To make you understand this better I'm going to present a question which would present the absurdity of your question:>Would I get diabetes from eating McDonalds if i ate it too much?It starts with the fallacy which answers the very question you're asking. Okay. I'm going to make it really simple: WW3 soon in theaters. Probably 2030 or so.
>>64746878I'm autistic and want to absorb enough alcohol to perish right here right now (alcohol is a weapon, jannies)
stupid frog poster
>>64746671Full Clive CusslerTorpedoes anti air... Whatevs.
>>64746745If the weapons were openly displayed, sure, it's legal. It does however have serious ramifications regarding docking and transit rights. Turkey for instance would be able to take the stance that armed merchant vessels cannot transit the Bosporous and if one tried to force passage could sink it without ramifications. It would also cause any insurer to charge exorbitant rates (if one could be found), assuming any of these vessels are even carrying insurance. People have been openly arming merchantmen since the dawn of seafaring. It's doing it secretly that's considered illegal under Maritime law because that's shit that pirates do.
