I may have found a way to spot U.S. at-sea strikes before they're announced

Using FIRMS/OSINT to spot strikes

• Commenters explain that NASA’s FIRMS fire-detection data (thermal anomalies) has long been used to confirm large strikes, including bunker-buster strikes in Iran, often within ~15–30 minutes, depending on satellite cycles and database latency.
• Several note this technique has been standard OSINT practice since at least the Ukraine war, making the Reddit post more of a popularization than a discovery.
• Some expect these data feeds to be restricted or degraded because of their intelligence value.

US awareness and counter-OSINT

• Multiple posts assert the US military actively studies how its activities can be detected via OSINT and even pays teams to red‑team and manipulate open data.
• One example cited: distracting attention with highly visible stealth-bomber deployments while the real strike launched from elsewhere; others mention suppression/scrubbing of ADS‑B and scientific sensor feeds.

Timing: “before announcement” vs “before strike”

• Several clarify the Reddit claim is about detecting a strike after it happens but before official acknowledgment, not predicting it beforehand.
• Discussion touches on approval chains, rules of engagement, and JAG involvement; ad‑hoc strikes still require authorization, though some authority can be pre‑delegated.

Nature of the Venezuela/Caribbean boat strikes

• Large part of the thread debates recent US at‑sea strikes on alleged narco‑trafficking boats.
• Defenders argue the vessels clearly match drug‑runner profiles (unflagged go‑fast boats or semi‑submersibles with multiple large outboards, no fishing gear, running known routes) and note broad popular support in polls.
• Critics emphasize there is no publicly presented proof of drugs, and at least one case involves a fisherman whose government says he was innocent.

Legality, war powers, and “summary execution”

• Many frame the strikes as extrajudicial killings or war crimes: no declaration of war, no congressional authorization comparable to the 2001 AUMF, no due process, and nonviolent offenses that wouldn’t merit the death penalty domestically.
• Others counter with arguments about “unlawful combatants,” high‑seas jurisdiction, unflagged vessels, and analogies to anti‑piracy operations, though even supporters admit the legal justification is opaque and partly secret.
• There is extended back‑and‑forth on whether this constitutes an “armed conflict,” what counts as a war crime, and how US doctrines have evolved around drones and the War Powers Act (including precedents under previous administrations).

Morality and effectiveness

• Many condemn the normalization of remote killing: linguistic sanitization (“we bombed a boat” vs “we killed people”), algorithmic targeting, and the inevitability of mistakes.
• Several with maritime/drug-interdiction experience argue interdiction and boarding are feasible and historically used; bombing is characterized as “cowardly theater” that won’t meaningfully affect supply.
• Others support harsh measures, even death for traffickers, citing fentanyl and broader drug harms, though opponents say this ignores root causes and US demand.

Precedent and double standards

• Some worry the precedent lets any power justify sinking civilian boats as “smugglers” or “terrorists,” asking how the US would react if China or Russia did the same.
• Others reply that great powers already flout international law (citing Chinese ramming incidents and Russian proxy atrocities) and that geopolitical realpolitik, not legal principle, drives toleration of such actions.

Meta and platform notes

• Minor side discussions cover HN title editing (“summary executions” vs the original), Reddit’s “old” interface, and network blocking/NSFW gating of the linked subreddit.