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

181–190 of 500 posts

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#181

Post by Aeolun »

bawolff wrote: post #143
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…

Like all things - wars are a combination of rational self-interest, emotions and random chance. The action itself matters less than the consequence. The typical example is that USA gets away with shit other countries can't because nobody wants to invade usa. My understanding is that in this particular situation - yemen is a humanitarian disaster after their civil war. Any country that invades is going to be seen as r…

> Any country that invades is going to be seen as responsible for fixing that mess

Unless the invading country is Israel.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#182

Post by TMWNN »

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…

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

No, you are correct. The US is the developed country that is by far the least-dependent on foreign trade. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.TRD.GNFS.ZS?location...>

Ignore people like dash2 who say that the US would be "much, much poorer without it"; they're like the Canadians and their American sympathizers who, when the Trump administration in 2017 threatened to impose tariffs, came up with all sorts of clever schemes to stop this by threatening/lobbying Congressmen from the US states most dependent on trade across the 49th parallel. The problem is that the US state most dependent on Canadian trade, Michigan, depends on its as much as the Canadian province that is the next to least dependent on US trade, PEI. https://np.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/8q9h8i/canadaus_tra...>

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#183

Post by pydry »

snek_case wrote: post #135
pclmulqdq wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In this case the Houthis have been the ones not reacting for many years:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/09/21/us-war-crimes-yemen-stop...

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#184

Post by Aeolun »

wolverine876 wrote: post #149
maeil wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Another mechanism that causes warfare is a lack of flexibility, a lack of options. Popular takes on IR love to urge that a 'line in the sand' or 'redline' should be drawn - another tough, angry way to feel powerful and safe. You don't see professionals say it however. One of the two biggest global superpowers, the PRC, bombastically announces a dozen or so redlines per year.

Yes, it's troubling. Also, nationalism might be the leading political mechanism that results in warfare; many blamed it for WWII. China was, at least for years, fanning its flames. It makes me wonder what they are up to, or who is making decisions. Other countries world-wide, especially right-wing movements in them, have also been fanning nationalist flames. We know well what the outcome often is.

> We know well what the outcome often is.

Well, we are about 50 years overdue for a large scale conflict?

Thanks nukes. There’s something to be said for nobody wanting to open pandora’s box.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#185

Post by bawolff »

Aeolun wrote: post #181
bawolff wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like all things - wars are a combination of rational self-interest, emotions and random chance. The action itself matters less than the consequence. The typical example is that USA gets away with shit other countries can't because nobody wants to invade usa. My understanding is that in this particular situation - yemen is a humanitarian disaster after their civil war. Any country that invades is going to be seen as r…

> Any country that invades is going to be seen as responsible for fixing that mess Unless the invading country is Israel.

Israel gets yelled at by the UN pretty constantly. If anything that statement applies to Israel more than most countries.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#186

Post by pydry »

empath75 wrote: post #165
reso wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless where they get their weapons, Ansar Allah is a battle-hardened, professional fighting force. They have fought the powerful Saudi military to a stalemate. Not a group we should be underestimating.

the saudi military is kind of a joke. They have a bunch of expensive gear, but their soldiers aren't particularly well trained or motivated.

[flagged]

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#187

Post by jemmyw »

lovelyviking wrote: post #178
pclmulqdq wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Shooting down a drone usually doesn't do it partly because of the political implications: it would be deeply unpopular to put "boots on the ground" over a shot-down drone. Supposedly there are political implications for not responding to the shooting down the drone too. How are those taken into account I wander? It seems that there is a deep believe in the US that if they wouldn’t “provoke” then russia would not att…

I don't think the downing of that drone increased Russian aggression. Russia doesn't want a war with the US but seems to want to push boundaries as far as possible and win it's war in Ukraine. The US response of giving weapons to Ukraine and putting Russia under sanctions is pretty aggressive, it's about as far as the US can go without actually fighting in Ukraine. It's probably serving the west well politically to ignore Russian probing as much as possible. Russia wants to provoke some kind of instability to wedge between western allies.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#188

Post by Aeolun »

pydry wrote: post #186
empath75 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the saudi military is kind of a joke. They have a bunch of expensive gear, but their soldiers aren't particularly well trained or motivated.

[flagged]

You mean, them fighting a country 3 times the size, with about 10 times the manpower to a standstill is to be considered a loss?

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#189

Post by Aeolun »

golergka wrote: post #136
photonbeam wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think the point is that Russia would have been worried Ukraine had done exactly that.

Publicly giving up all your nuclear stockpile is the complete opposite.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#190

Post by mikewarot »

sbierwagen wrote: post #119
tptacek wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It would be a refreshing throwback to actually declare war, something the US hasn't done since 1942.

Would you then have us nuke Yemen?

That couldn't possibly backfire. It's not like any promenant families are from there, right?[1]

Wouldn't it be easier to just drop Israel like a hot potato?

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Laden_family

Post reply on HN