Uh no. I am saying and have been saying all along that the Filipino crew had no reason (such as getting blasted) not to approach the destroyer if they saw an tactical advantage to do so. We both already agreed that they wouldn't get blasted, and we both agreed that the Filipino crew most likely came to the same conclusion. The end.
You asked about "real consequences". If you are rating "use of lethal force" as the only means of fuilfilling that criteria, then I don't think we have any basis to continue this element of discussion.
Let's us do a little recap. In the beginning, you pin the blame entirely on the destroyer's CO stating you were "not going to rule out the possibility of a CO being gung-ho".
I did not "pin the blame entirely on the destroyer's CO" -- I said that we cannot rule out the possibility that the CO was at fault.
Afterward, you claimed the destroyer should have "extradited itself" which is basically the same as running away. Now you expected the destroyer should not have shown up or at least stay at the horizon. Forgive me for being blunt but this is sign of poor reasoning and we are wasting our time.
On the contrary I don't think we are wasting our time -- you seem to be trying to come up with any number of scenarios in which the destroyer could have justified its presence in this fray.
Instead, the safest and most logical way for a proper naval destroyer to be utilized in this setting to be at standoff distances and avoid physical engagement to begin with. Their job isn't to play bumper boats in these situations, it is to provide overwatch and to keep a safe distance, and yes that means to run away if needed.
At least you seem to have gave up that ridiculous "gung-ho" CO scenario, so progress I guess?
No, that scenario very much remains viable.
I am saying that the destroyer should not have been in that situation in the first place, and the fact that it was in that situation is either the fault of bad rules of engagement, or the CO's poor judgement or outright disobeying rules of engagement (aka CO being gung-ho).
Between the options of "bad rules of engagement" versus "CO poor judgement/disobeying rules of engagement" (aka CO being gung-ho), the more concerning option would be the "bad rules of engagement" possibility.
If it was a CO making a poor judgement then that is not necessarily a huge issue, as the CO can simply be replaced. If it is bad rules of engagement, then it means the high level commanders and even politicians are at fault.
So, no. While I agree that the destroyer shouldn't be in that situation, the responsibility of the destroyer is to carry out its orders, whatever they may be. Nothing more, nothing less.
Your argument seems to be the "bad rules of engagement" possibility then, in which case you've opted to choose for the far more concerning option which is that systemically the PLAN command have poor judgement in the manner with which to utilize their primary high end surface combatants in context of these grey zone bumper boat maritime disputes.
