5

I'd like to ask about the limpet mines supposedly used on the oil tankers, but I think this might run afoul of the 'no current events' rule.

So my question here: Is there a way to phrase my disbelief that the small green round object photographed on the tanker was indeed a part of a known design of limpet mine, or that the holes punched are in any way similar to those punched by portable limpet mines, in such a way as to steer clear of the actual 'current event' that is the US/Iran brouhaha?

The 'event' of those mines being deployed, exploded, recovered and photographed is done, after all. I am not after a whodunit, the answers to which might change, but rather I am after facts about existing designs for limpet mines, as opposed to the photographic evidence from the tankers.

Bonus question: If there is no way around it here, what do you think would be the most appropriate SE site to ask about this?

| |
1

There is no hard-and-fast rule like "2 weeks after the event".

If we look at the original post that proposed this close reason, we can get an idea of what qualifies: Handling news questions about current events

  • Our current policy is to only allow better sources to confirm or dispute a claim. You can't dispute a news item with another news item. You need a better source, like a primary source.

    We do not allow questions based on original research. The reason that we are experts in evaluating the quality of studies and of reference, not at actually producing studies or investigative journalism.

    So, waiting until the results of decent investigations have been performed. These might be by the justice system, this might be by journalists doing in-depth pieces (rather than initial reports), this might be by scientists, or other investigative bodies.

    Such investigations might be completed in a week, or might take many years.

  • We only want conclusive answers, not answers which are predictably going to be obsolete in weeks if not days.

    So, the rule is closer to "when the dust settles", and we have some evidence we can trust will very likely (definitively?) be correct.

| |
0

I am not after a whodunit, the answers to which might change, but rather I am after facts about existing designs for limpet mines, as opposed to the photographic evidence from the tankers.

Then you want experts on those things. I don't know of an SE site that covers that. There's no Military Explosives SE.

On this site, that question is a proxy for "whodunit", ipso facto off-topic due to the no current events rule.

So how long should you wait? Hard to say with this kind of thing. At least until the media buzz ends.

| |
0

While it may be off-topic here, the geopolitical angle to this is probably in scope on Politics SE.

If you know (now) that it's off-topic here, I think it's safe to ask on Politics SE provided that you don't ask in a way to verify the claim but instead focus the question on what evidence is out there. Also, include a link to this meta question in your question there so users won't push you to ask here instead.

If you include whatever research you have, I don't it will be poorly received by down votes. At worst, it will be closed as speculation (which is a close reason on Politics.SE), and at best you get a well-researched (but probably non-conclusive) answer.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .