Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea • Hacker News Board

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#131

Post by zihotki » Sun, Dec 31, 2023, 5:57 AM UTC

jmyeet wrote: post #94

echelon wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ma…

Yes, it's trench war. No, drones nowadays pay huge role in combat - fpv drones take out majority of fighting vehicles, terrorize and kill humans in trenches by dropping grenades, by striking inside of covers, other drones put mines, etc. It became a big problem for both sides so that most of supply and forces rotation is done at night. But there are also fpv drones with night vision. Drones became a pillar equal to artillery due to their cost and effectivness - single fpv costs $800-$1500, one artillery shot costs more. Plus drones have higher success rate.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#132

Post by wolverine876 » Sun, Dec 31, 2023, 5:57 AM UTC

pkaye wrote: post #89

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…

I'm curious how many cargo ships does the US have?

The US isn't protecting its own ships, in particular. They are protecting international trade, on which they are highly dependant (like almost everyone but North Korea).

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#133

Post by mkii » Sun, Dec 31, 2023, 6:01 AM UTC

screye wrote: post #31

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…

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…

Sibling commenters saying US did not want to provoke a war with Russia are being biased imo. US drew a line in the sand, or kept pushing on the issue for Ukraine to NOT promise it would never join NATO. These are facts. Whether that justifies Russia invading parts of Ukraine is the debatable part.

Hint, when you hear the mainstream media constantly repeating a slogan or phrase nearly unanimously, there's probably something that language is hiding. I'm thinking about how all media called the war "unprovoked". Well, that isn't entirely true, and is some US propaganda/face-saving measure.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#134

Post by bruce511 » Sun, Dec 31, 2023, 6:03 AM UTC

wolverine876 wrote: post #113

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…

I read a lot of professional international relations material (but I'm not an expert in any way). IME what may differ the most between 'popular' takes on IR and professional ones is the response to incidents. Arguably the #1 priority of professional IR is to prevent wars (with occasional exceptions, such as Russia or Hamas recently, but even they want to control when, where, and how). Wars can and do happen whether y…

Well written.

An extreme example of this is WW1. Its somewhat reductionist to ascribe the cause to "The Assassination of Franz Ferdinand", but there's a very clear path from that to the outbreak of war.

Yes, tensions were high, yes the countries were all predicting a war, and yes all were rearming at a furious rate, but ultimately one event was the trigger, and its hard to see how war could have been averted by that point.

So the assassination might not have been the outright cause, but it was certainly the spark struck on a very big pile of very dry tinder.

At the moment in the middle east there seems to be a strong desire by lots of actors not to get sucked in to what us now 3 major conflicts in the region. Lets hope that holds.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#135

Post by snek_case » Sun, Dec 31, 2023, 6:03 AM UTC

pclmulqdq wrote: post #52

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…

It's time to read some Clausewitz. That book outlines the philosophy of how most western states think about war. The short version I would say is that war is a tool of politics, so if there is no political goal, there will be no war, regardless of how bad the supposed Causus Belli is. Shooting down a drone usually doesn't do it partly because of the political implications: it would be deeply unpopular to put "boots o…

Seems to me that trigger events for wars are often about finding a justification for a war that people in power were already wanting to start. America doesn't want to go to war with Russia because we know it could be incredibly destructive, given that they have nukes. So, it would probably take a lot to start a war between the US and Russia. They would have to attack or be clearly planning to attack a NATO ally.

It's possible that even if Russia intentionally downed a US jet, it would not immediately trigger a war. The US would likely add more sanctions, but they would probably show incredible restraint as well.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#136

Post by golergka » Sun, Dec 31, 2023, 6:03 AM UTC

photonbeam wrote: post #104

jmyeet wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ma…

Ukraine is a really cautionary tale to always have nuclear weapons and never give them up. Russia would never have tried this if Ukraine still had the capability to demolish a city with a button press Look at how cautious the rest of the world is in helping Ukraine.

Ukraine had some parts of the nuclear weapon system, but it didn’t have the system as a whole. There’s all kinds of very specialised plants and tech the country has to develop and maintain, and USSR made a point to distribute all industries (not only nuclear or even military) and supply chains among the republics. To be able to demolish a city in 2023, Ukraine would have not only not given the weapons away, but also invest tens (or hundreds) of billions of dollars over the years, developing some components completely from scratch.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#137

Post by wolverine876 » Sun, Dec 31, 2023, 6:05 AM UTC

dboreham wrote: post #48

"anti-ship ballistic missiles" Interesting guidance problem.

IIRC when China developed the first one, it was a game-changer in the western Pacific. Until then, US carriers and other ships could safely go where they wanted, including within range of Taiwan in case of a war. The US Navy had sufficient defenses against 'cruise' anti-ship missiles (that fly parallel to the ground, like planes).

But ballistic missiles are much harder to intercept (and I think have much greater range) and China was able to put the carriers, then the core of US naval power, at risk. Submarines also help, and the US is now shifting away from dependence on its carriers.

I'm surprised the Houthis have them, or even Iran. I thought it was still only a capability of a few countries.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#138

Post by LargeTomato » Sun, Dec 31, 2023, 6:05 AM UTC

screye wrote: post #31

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…

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…

The us doesn't want war with Russia. The US wants Russia to engage in the international world order peacefully. The US didn't invade Russia. Ukraine literally begs the US for help. Ukraine had a popular uprising against their pro Russia government because the people wanted to join the EU.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#139

Post by mikewarot » Sun, Dec 31, 2023, 6:07 AM UTC

givemeethekeys wrote: post #128

mikewarot wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Initially, that was the Bretton Woods agreement. The US at the end of WWII had 2/3 of the world's gold reserves, and it was part of the system set up to help the World's economy recover.

As a result of choices made by Eisenhower, and subsequent administrations, the US began to spend more than it should have, slowly making a fiction of the price of gold being fixed at $35/ounce.

Eventually, after shenanigans by de Gaulle of France, Nixon was forced to close the "gold window" at which nations could convert dollars back to gold reserves. This resulted in the Nixon Shock, and eventually the prime interest rate reached 20% in April of 1980.

Then Nixon made a deal Nixon made with the Saudis, the creation of the Petrodollar. The Saudis would only sell their oil for dollars, then spend those dollars in the US for goods and services, recycling them.

Without the Petrodollar, it possible the dollar would have crashed to zero.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#140

Post by mkii » Sun, Dec 31, 2023, 6:07 AM UTC

screye wrote: post #31

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…

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…

> If China downs one in South China sea, the US might keep it quiet because neither country wants a violent escalation into war just yet.

>> just yet

No, sorry. Neither country wants a war. Full stop. I despise this tendentious reading of normal tension between two major world powers as a claim that war's going to break out. It's dangerous fear-mongering.