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

121–130 of 500 posts

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#121

Post by brightball »

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…

Wars are triggered by some combination of money and fear. Pretty much every one.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#122

Post by wolverine876 »

SEJeff wrote: post #15
29athrowaway wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like something taken from Team America: World Police or Command & Conquer: Generals.

Except this is real life and not a movie. They’re not cartoon villains. They’re actual real life villains.

Because we're talking about real life, what exactly do you mean, and what does it matter?

The concept is almost never true - and a strong signal of subjectibe bias - and also not useful for international relations or for any conflict. They are acting according to their interests, using the means they have.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#123

Post by macmac »

haltist wrote: post #86
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…

Who is supplying them? Where do they get the money to buy all the weapons?

Iran

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#124

Post by mikewarot »

kube-system wrote: post #103
AH4oFVbPT4f8 wrote: post #60

"The Singapore-flagged, Denmark-owned/operated container ship requested assistance, and the USS GRAVELY (DDG 107) and USS LABOON (DDG 58) have responded to the ship." Why does a Danish owned and operated container ship fly under the Singapore flag? Why did the US Navy get involved?

The US navy guards international shipping lanes all over the world. Gotta keep the economy rollin’.

That was our bribe to the rest of the "first world" to stand with us as cannon fodder against the USSR (the second world) during the Cold War. Now that it is over, the US public has slowly but persistently pushed back on continuing that arrangement.

We don't really need trade anywhere near as much as our trading partners overseas so. So we've scaled our fleet down.

:I strongly suspect I'm about to learn I'm wrong about part of the above:

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#125

Post by pxeger1 »

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…

> At any time, the US could've ended Saudi atrocities in Yemen with a phone call.

Could you elaborate a bit more on this? What would the US have to say, and what would the other consequences be?

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#126

Post by tifik »

m4rtink wrote: post #112
ra wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Though I would hope that in a hopefully civilized age such acts and war crimes would be punished prevented from happening again, I would not say there are no consequences of these actions. Many Dutch citizens have been killed on board of MH17 - and the amount of military support to Ukraine provided by the Dutch has been quite significant. As for Iran and North Korea - I would say some lines have been crossed there th…

While Vrbetice is one of them, there is a million reasons why Czechs support a defensive war effort against Russia.

E.g: being occupied for decades by Soviets and seeing the country wither under the Moscov rule.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#127

Post by toast0 »

marshray wrote: post #62
screye wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because events never cause wars. Countries want war and then they wait for an inciting event to go in. The US wants a war with Russia without putting boots on the ground. Ukraine was a convieinient excuse. 9/11 triggered a war with random middle eastern countries that the US wanted to invade anyway. If Cuba downed a large cargo ship, then the US will have annexed it before midnight. If China downs one in South China…

So then how did the US trick Putin into invading Ukraine? That's the simple question that nobody who espouses this silly set of beliefs can ever answer.

Just because the US wanted a fight with Russia doesn't mean the US tricked Putin into it. Make hay while the sun shines and all that.

And take care of inventory management and get the military industrial complex rolling again.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#128

Post by givemeethekeys »

mikewarot wrote: post #124
kube-system wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US navy guards international shipping lanes all over the world. Gotta keep the economy rollin’.

That was our bribe to the rest of the "first world" to stand with us as cannon fodder against the USSR (the second world) during the Cold War. Now that it is over, the US public has slowly but persistently pushed back on continuing that arrangement. We don't really need trade anywhere near as much as our trading partners overseas so. So we've scaled our fleet down. :I strongly suspect I'm about to learn I'm wrong abo…

Don't we protect in exchange for them trading in USD?

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#129

Post by wolverine876 »

davidw wrote: post #6
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…

> Something I'm unsure about is what does and doesn't trigger wars. Probably more in the 'emotions' camp than in the 'concrete facts' camp, even if no one wants to admit it.

Many US wars were triggered by dis/misinformation: The Gulf of Tonkin for Vietnam, and the fictitous nuclear weapons program in Iraq come to mind.

For Iraq, the government made an argument something like, 'you can't wait for the mushroom cloud'.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#130

Post by mkii »

elromulous wrote: post #59
IAmGraydon wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia is not a superpower or even remotely close to such a status. No country besides the US is currently considered a superpower.

Any country with the ability to completely erase entire countries (i.e. has an enormous stockpile of nuclear weapons) is a superpower.

That might be a necessary condition, but definitely not a sufficient one to be considered a superpower. Simple thought experiment, "completely erasing" the US as you suggest would render the Earth unpleasant to live on, for a while, for all inhabitants.
Post reply on HN