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

Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

gcaptain.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 500 posts

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#91

Post by cjbgkagh »

seo-speedwagon wrote: post #84

The Bab-el-Mandeb has tons of ships in it, and as far as I know the only ones Ansar Allah have attacked are the ones who have ignored their very clear criteria. It’s incredible to watch in near-real-time how hollowed out the US’s ability to project its will has become. They announced Operation Prosperity Guardian, and within days it seemed to collapse. Looks like there aren’t many folks signing up to be vassal states…

It’s such a cringe name, I wonder if that hurt the adoption. I think the real issue is that the Operation gives a bit too much power to the US to direct the participants. There is cooperation and then there is subordination.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#92

Post by kevingadd »

exabrial wrote: post #83

This is gonna seem sort of like an off-topic comment but once we have free, unlimited, clean energy that can’t be weaponized into things like dirty bombs, a lot of these wars will simply disappear. Yes, this is a pie in the sky dream probably another 250 years away at minimum, but think about it: Don’t have carrots? Build a greenhouse and turn the lights on all day/night. Don’t have water? Condense it from the air or…

Israel-Palestine and Russia-Ukraine are not really about power or oil or gas. They're about land*, and no quantity of solar panels and wind turbines will fix that.

* not just land, but ultimately, land

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#93

Post by maxglute »

xwowsersx wrote: post #56

How much longer can this go on? It seems like there are so many parties whose economic interests all align that this would just be dealt with swiftly and decisively. Am I just naive? Is there no reasonably straightforward way to stop the Houthis? Wouldn't much of Europe, Saudi Arabia and others be very interested in ending this as quickly as possible?

Ever since Houthi's with shit tier commodity Iranian hardware started successfully hitting Saudi Refineries (extrapolate to all oil/lng infra in region), they are effectively in position to hold 1/3 of global energy supplies hostage. Hitting a few ships in Bab el-Mandeb that can be redirected around Africa at +2-5% cost to global shipping/inflation is best of bad situation. In the mean time, USN stuck with trading interceptors that cost 100x more than what they're hitting. Which is somewhat sustainble in terms of pure costs, but Houthis tying up 1-2 carriers (when normally only 3-4 are deployed) while running already aging US DDG hulls / sailors ragged on prolonged deployments is more than a little concerning.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#94

Post by jmyeet »

echelon wrote: post #78
jmyeet wrote: post #19

Once again we see "blowback" in action. Here's the cycle: 1. A major power backs a side in an internal struggle for their own end. If necessary, a conflict is manufactured by propping up rebels, a coup, etc; 2. The other side, which tends to be the internally popular side, resists. Because of that popular support, they can survive, thrive and grow; 3. Insurgencies are incredibly effective. Counter-insurgencies are in…

> The US carrier group may even adequately suppress the Houthis but this is attrition and Houthi investment is a drop in the ocean compared to the cost to the US. Between this, Ukraine, and the decades-long misadventures in the Middle East, the US is learning how to handle the next generation of conflicts. (As is everyone else that is paying attention.) The future looks increasingly more drone dependent. Explosives t…

Ukraine is a cautionary tale in that as much as military technology can change, that conflict is being decided by trenches, minefields, artillery, fixed fortifications, the inability of either side to cross a river and manpower attrition.

At this point, it's basically a World War One conflict, mainly because neither side has air superiority.

Russia's strategy now seems to be to wait out the Western will to provide material aid to Ukraine, at which point it will have gained territory, a vital land bridge to Crimea and a Black Sea port.

In this potential outcome, Ukraine is likely to swing far right, politically, and Russia will face their own draining insurgencies in former Ukrainian territory.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#95

Post by photonbeam »

defrost wrote: post #44
monocasa wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Other than the US getting called out in front of Russia and China in front of the UN Security Council: On 9 December 2011, Iran lodged a formal complaint to the United Nations Security Council over the UAV violating its airspace. Iran's U.N. ambassador stated in the letter that "My government emphasizes that this blatant and unprovoked air violation by the United States government is tantamount to an act of hostility…

Thats hardly a meaningful consequence though

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#96

Post by tptacek »

rayiner wrote: post #11
verelo wrote: post #3

I’m fairly concerned this Red Sea thing can turn into what sets off inflation for real. These routes were major efficiency factors to the economy. If we lose them, there’s nothing but added cost coming for us all, and at the worst time for consumer confidence in central banks ability to manage the situation. Can we just keep our shit together? It’s been a rough decade and it’s only 3 years into the 2020s…

The Houthis official slogan is: “God is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, A Curse Upon the Jews, Victory to Islam." I’m petty sure they do not give a shit about making consumerism harder for Americans. In fact it’s probably a bonus.

On the other hand, this is literally the oldest, best established casus belli in the American system.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#98

Post by defrost »

tptacek wrote: post #96
rayiner wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Houthis official slogan is: “God is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, A Curse Upon the Jews, Victory to Islam." I’m petty sure they do not give a shit about making consumerism harder for Americans. In fact it’s probably a bonus.

On the other hand, this is literally the oldest, best established casus belli in the American system.

Blowing up your own ammnition by accident and blaming the Spanish?

ADDENDUM: Clarification for those up|down voting like a yo-yo:

    On February 15, 1898, the American battleship Maine exploded while sitting in the Havana harbor, killing two officers and 250 enlisted men.

    Fourteen of the injured later died, bringing the death toll to 266.

    A naval board of inquiry concluded that the blast was caused by a mine placed outside the ship.

    Release of the board’s report led many to accuse Spain of sabotage, helping to build public support for war.

    Subsequent studies, including one published in 1976 and later reissued in 1995, determined that the ship was destroyed from the inside, when burning coal in a bunker triggered an explosion in an adjacent space that contained ammunition.
Law Library of Congress: https://web.archive.org/web/20210424181239/https://www.loc.g...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Maine_(1889)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#99

Post by petesergeant »

ra wrote: post #42
nomilk wrote: 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…

MH17 was shot down by a Russian anti-aircraft missile, killing all 298 p.o.b. with no consequences for Russia. Russia has flown Bear nuclear-capable bombers over the UK (actually over land), with no consequences [1]. Russia, Iran, and North Korea all trade arms with each other and supply missiles, drones, and ammunition to the Houthi. Russia invaded Ukraine and deploy weapons from the above "axis" countries. I don't…

> MH17 was shot down by a Russian anti-aircraft missile, killing all 298 p.o.b. with no consequences for Russia

I don’t think this is a good example, given that the act is widely considered to be a mistake. The US shot down IR655, Soviets KL007, Ukrainians S7-1812, Iranians PS752 ... it happens. MH17 is egregious (as was KL007) for a refusal to admit blame, but hardly a casus belli, despite the tragedy.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#100

Post by huytersd »

kevingadd wrote: post #92
exabrial wrote: post #83

This is gonna seem sort of like an off-topic comment but once we have free, unlimited, clean energy that can’t be weaponized into things like dirty bombs, a lot of these wars will simply disappear. Yes, this is a pie in the sky dream probably another 250 years away at minimum, but think about it: Don’t have carrots? Build a greenhouse and turn the lights on all day/night. Don’t have water? Condense it from the air or…

Israel-Palestine and Russia-Ukraine are not really about power or oil or gas. They're about land*, and no quantity of solar panels and wind turbines will fix that. * not just land, but ultimately, land

Shoot, with free energy you could build your own land.
Post reply on HN