Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

seymourhersh.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

721–730 of 1001 posts

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#721

Post by yencabulator »

hef19898 wrote: post #140
vanviegen wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What I find particularly odd is that this entire thing appears to be based on a single, unnamed source "with direct knowledge of the operational planning". Why is that weird? Assuming this is true, there would be rather many people with such knowledge. One of them may feel the need to talk. Would you expect such a source to be named? Also, I find it a lot easier to imagine why the US would want to do this, than why…

You can easily imagine any of the Baltic states, Poland, Ukraine (with some local help) or even Finland, Swede or Norway doing the deed. Or, since the pipelines are well known and not difficult to reach, basically everyone with access to explosives, a boat a divers with explosives skills. None of which is particularly hard to come by.

> even Finland, Swede[n]

No, one cannot easily imagine long-term neutral countries interfering in a foreign war like this.

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#722

Post by enkid »

weatherlight wrote: post #611
rainsford wrote: post #606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SOCOM does actually get a brief mention, but in a way that makes the whole story even less plausible. At the beginning, Hersh claims that the divers used were chosen because they were just "Navy only" and not part of SOCOM, which is allegedly a legal loophole to avoid having to report the activity to the Gang of Eight in Congress, apparently done because of concerns about leaks. Setting aside how legally questionable…

Here's the rub, SOCOM via JSOC is the only command that POTUS has any sway over (Thanks Obama.). The more you read the less plausible any of this is. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joint_Special_Ope... . > Operations so secret you can't tell 8 Congressional leaders (as required by law) but you can tell Norway, Denmark, and Sweden about do not sound like a thing. Exactly!

The President sets the strategy for all of the combatant commands through the National Security Strategy and ultimately every military action has a line drawn to the President through the SecDef. Saying POTUS doesn't have away over the other COCOMs is misleading at best. (To be clear, this article is still bs, having "Navy only" divers doesn't make any sense in the way operations are done in the US military.)

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#724

Post by f5ve »

tikwidd wrote: post #577

My thoughts on the incident, organised as a series of nested propositions. 0. The Nord Stream pipeline incident was not an accident. 1. The pipeline was sabotaged by a state actor. a. Only a state had the capability to carry it out undetected. b. The sabotage was in violation of international law. c. Evidence of the sabotage would cause a diplomatic scandal. d? Either Russia or the United States sabotaged the pipelin…

Yea this pretty much sums it up. Although it seems clear to me that the nordic states were either in the loop or involved in the operation. As for the rest of NATO and the media, it took them a few days to assess the situation and shut up.

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#725

Post by [deleted] »

rainsford wrote: post #606
weatherlight wrote: post #261

Not a few hours later, 17 hours apart. No military is going to arrange for two pipes in the same general area to be destroyed 17 hours apart. 17 hours to find the second floating sonar device. 17 hours to get caught with your pants down. I'm saying this as former US military here. the Idea that in the middle of a OPORD, of any kind, POTUS would come in last minute and change a detail, like an explosive on a timer (fa…

SOCOM does actually get a brief mention, but in a way that makes the whole story even less plausible. At the beginning, Hersh claims that the divers used were chosen because they were just "Navy only" and not part of SOCOM, which is allegedly a legal loophole to avoid having to report the activity to the Gang of Eight in Congress, apparently done because of concerns about leaks. Setting aside how legally questionable…

[deleted]

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#726

Post by bandyaboot »

htrgh wrote: post #717
boplicity wrote: post #694

I think I would be very skeptical that this was actually written by Seymour Hersh. This Substack was created today. There's no previous history on it. I can't find any credible evidence that this is actually Seymour Hersh. If it's not Seymour, it sure is very effective propoganda. Does anyone see any proof that this is indeed written by the claimed author?

Taibbi, who is active on Substack, confirms using his verified Twitter account: https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1623352901111517185 Reuters reported on it, the White House bothered to refute the story. It is Hersh.

Have you seen the White House refutation somewhere other than in the piece which is the subject of the questioning you’re responding to? If not, that’s a null point.

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#727

Post by lmm »

mint2 wrote: post #669
RobotToaster wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's fine to buy gas from the USA, the butchers of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Yugoslavia though?

It’s telling that this post includes stopping a genocide as a bad thing, I.e. the UN stopping the Bosnian genocide in the fracturing Yugoslavia as a bad thing. Coincidentally, the Russian sphere is one of the groups mad about the UN involvement in Bosnia and Serbia

No-one opposes stopping the genocide. The argument is generally that bombing Belgrade was unnecessary (and if anything, a distraction from the UN's failure to prevent the genocide).

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#728

Post by r3trohack3r »

keithwhor wrote: post #310
atdrummond wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate having the honesty to publicly share your desire to unilaterally restrict content, not just for yourself, but for all of HN’s audience. Sadly I don’t think your request is the morally good action you presume it to be.

No moral objection to the content, only ethical. I don’t care what beliefs you have, I simply think it’s irresponsible to parrot — or provide a platform for parroting — unsubstantiated claims. The beauty of Hacker News, and my enjoyment of it, is that it’s moderated and I don’t often see content like this. I honestly panicked reading this! At first I was under the impression that this was breaking news. And if true i…

A different take:

Given who authored this, and who is referencing it, this is now a “thing.”

This being published is for sure going to have an impact on diplomatic relations. Removing it from HN doesn’t stop anyone of relevance in this from seeing it. Presidents, ministers, ambassadors, senators, etc. are probably being briefed on this. The White House is going to have to deal with this regardless of its truthiness.

I suspect countries are going to want answers. The U.S. saying “this is not true” probably isn’t going to cut it for the countries involved.

This story has relevance regardless of its truthiness.

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#729

Post by mlindner »

officehero wrote: post #473
Laaas wrote: post #328

It is bewildering how many here are against this post staying up; no matter whether it's true or not, it's an interesting article! If you feel it is not true, why take it down rather than simply state your opinion in the comments? Do we not have the freedom to discuss and form our own opinions about it?

As a former resident in Russia I'm shocked at how all state controlled media from Russia has been completely censored in the west. I understand why it's done (bcs it breeds conspiracies etc) but it's not for free because now people don't get any 'alternative' view on the matter. Censorship is a tricky thing

There are plenty of "alternatives" that are not censored. There's media all over the middle east and asia that's not friendly to the US that isn't censored. It makes perfect sense to censor the aggressor in a war because of course they're only going to say things that benefit themselves, especially in a country that's passed laws against the criticism of the war.

All you're really arguing for here is that the west should openly allow Russian propaganda to infiltrate minds of the general public.

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#730

Post by mempko »

mint2 wrote: post #669
RobotToaster wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's fine to buy gas from the USA, the butchers of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Yugoslavia though?

It’s telling that this post includes stopping a genocide as a bad thing, I.e. the UN stopping the Bosnian genocide in the fracturing Yugoslavia as a bad thing. Coincidentally, the Russian sphere is one of the groups mad about the UN involvement in Bosnia and Serbia

I think the point is that there is no ethical supplier of natural gas.
Post reply on HN