Live data from Hacker News

Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

gcaptain.com

21–30 of 500 posts

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#21
post #4

Something I'm unsure about is what does and doesn't trigger wars. Russian jets downed a US drone over the black sea in March 2023, I thought for sure there'd be a commensurate US military response. But there didn't appear to be one. Was it because no human was aboard the drone (so no response was justified), from fear or escalation, or something else? In any case, if a large cargo ship were sunk, would the US or othe…

How do you know there wasn't a response? The fog of war is both ways.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#22
post #12
post #4

Something I'm unsure about is what does and doesn't trigger wars. Russian jets downed a US drone over the black sea in March 2023, I thought for sure there'd be a commensurate US military response. But there didn't appear to be one. Was it because no human was aboard the drone (so no response was justified), from fear or escalation, or something else? In any case, if a large cargo ship were sunk, would the US or othe…

What would a military response look like? I am not an expert in this area, but it seems to me if it got really bad, the US might send commandos to coordinate air strikes.

The Guardian headline is:

Missile hits Red Sea container ship, US destroyers shoot down two more

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/31/missile-hits-r...

The US (and other nations) are already there.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#23
post #4

Something I'm unsure about is what does and doesn't trigger wars. Russian jets downed a US drone over the black sea in March 2023, I thought for sure there'd be a commensurate US military response. But there didn't appear to be one. Was it because no human was aboard the drone (so no response was justified), from fear or escalation, or something else? In any case, if a large cargo ship were sunk, would the US or othe…

It's a function of how powerful one's adversary is. Russia is a superpower.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#24
post #4

Something I'm unsure about is what does and doesn't trigger wars. Russian jets downed a US drone over the black sea in March 2023, I thought for sure there'd be a commensurate US military response. But there didn't appear to be one. Was it because no human was aboard the drone (so no response was justified), from fear or escalation, or something else? In any case, if a large cargo ship were sunk, would the US or othe…

Intentionally downing drones has typically not been causus belli. Iran downed a US stealth drone intentionally and seemed to have made it out with essentially no consequences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incid...

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#25
post #9
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Completely disregarding which president is in office, I always thought the paradoxical way to minimise war is to ensure you have a credible threat of retaliation. That means if you are attacked, you must fight back, otherwise your credibility falls and you become more of a target, thus emboldening adversaries and increasing violence.

True.

You have put it more succinctly than me. In Geopolitics, 'Might creates deterrence.'

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#26
post #4

Something I'm unsure about is what does and doesn't trigger wars. Russian jets downed a US drone over the black sea in March 2023, I thought for sure there'd be a commensurate US military response. But there didn't appear to be one. Was it because no human was aboard the drone (so no response was justified), from fear or escalation, or something else? In any case, if a large cargo ship were sunk, would the US or othe…

An act of war does not obligate country going to war. And an act of war is not required to start a war. Basically, wars start when in nation’s interest and can spin a reason.

One issue with cargo ships being attacked is that it is only act of war against the flag nation. The three big flag nations have no navies. I wonder if we’ll see more ships registered in countries with navies.

The other complication is that the attackers are Houti rebels. The US doesn’t want to get involved in that conflict cause they have held off Yemen government and Saudi Arabia for years.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#27
post #4

Something I'm unsure about is what does and doesn't trigger wars. Russian jets downed a US drone over the black sea in March 2023, I thought for sure there'd be a commensurate US military response. But there didn't appear to be one. Was it because no human was aboard the drone (so no response was justified), from fear or escalation, or something else? In any case, if a large cargo ship were sunk, would the US or othe…

It depends; somewhat on the strategic situation, but also the public response. Few would consider a downed drone worth killing over (and those that would tend to be hair-on-fire types). But if something becomes a media circus, public opinion can shift rapidly. Consider for example the absurd freakout over Chinese spy balloons earlier this year - it was a convenient stick to beat the incumbent administration with during a slow news period, so it became The Most Important thing for a week.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#28
post #4

Something I'm unsure about is what does and doesn't trigger wars. Russian jets downed a US drone over the black sea in March 2023, I thought for sure there'd be a commensurate US military response. But there didn't appear to be one. Was it because no human was aboard the drone (so no response was justified), from fear or escalation, or something else? In any case, if a large cargo ship were sunk, would the US or othe…

It's a function of how powerful one's adversary is. Russia is a superpower.

> Russia is a superpower.

Russia shares some of the land of a previous superpower, and has inherited some of their geriatric weapons of power.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#29
post #4

Something I'm unsure about is what does and doesn't trigger wars. Russian jets downed a US drone over the black sea in March 2023, I thought for sure there'd be a commensurate US military response. But there didn't appear to be one. Was it because no human was aboard the drone (so no response was justified), from fear or escalation, or something else? In any case, if a large cargo ship were sunk, would the US or othe…

It's a function of how powerful one's adversary is. Russia is a superpower.

You can read this the other way. Russia is so inferior to the US that something like the downing of a drone does not necessitate a response. If it's clear that you can and will act when and where you want, then responding to the bellicose actions of a lesser advisary is ... beneath you.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#30
post #9
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Completely disregarding which president is in office, I always thought the paradoxical way to minimise war is to ensure you have a credible threat of retaliation. That means if you are attacked, you must fight back, otherwise your credibility falls and you become more of a target, thus emboldening adversaries and increasing violence.

The problem with this sort of logic is that it becomes incredibly easy to bait states into disproportionate responses that end up as strategic failures - either due to bad PR or deploying force against decoy attacks and leaving holes in places that matter.
Post reply on HN