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

231–240 of 500 posts

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#231

Post by JumpCrisscross »

pydry wrote: post #210
Aeolun wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

We were promised a victory many times thanks to the overwhelming power and sophistication western weapons repeatedly. Not "hold off Russia for 2-3 years, not fight to a standstill". Victory and a return to 1991 borders after first severing the land bridge to Crimea. It was a very specific prediction. To say that they havent lived up to their promise is an understatement given how abysmally they performed in the summe…

> We were promised a victory many times thanks to the overwhelming power and sophistication western weapons

By whom?! The American establishment has been repeatedly forecasting doom and gloom for Ukraine.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#232

Post by number6 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #226
keefle wrote: post #196

I'm really confused as to why no where in the article do they mention the intent of attacking the ships. As if the houthis in yemen are attacking ships because they like it or just because they "hate developed societies". Their declared reason is to put pressure on Israel to allow humanitarian aid to Gaza at once. They target ships that have Israeli links or heading to Israeli ports. It can be seen as a form of treat…

> confused as to why no where in the article do they mention the intent of attacking the ships This appears to be a maritime news service. Why rockets are flying isn’t practically relevant. You’ll see similar parsimoniousness in aviation reporting around war zones (and humanitarian reports around natural disasters). There is almost always a market for concise commercial communications. > target ships that have Israel…

> This appears to be a maritime news service. Why rockets are flying isn’t practically relevant.

Once a rocket goes up who cares where it comes down, that's not my department, says Werner von Braun

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#233

Post by JumpCrisscross »

whatwhaaaaat wrote: post #167
pxeger1 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

You have to understand the US position and the assistance the US provided first and then this question makes less sense. We ran their airborne refueling ops used in many of the strikes for years for a start. No opinion of this being good or bad is made with this comment

> have to understand the US position

America didn’t want the war in Yemen. We’re trying to pivot to Asia. We can’t tell Riyadh what to do because they still influence oil prices and have been cozying up to China.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#234

Post by [deleted] »

echelon wrote: post #105
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…

The tactics are an artifact of the players attempting to avoid a broader-scale conflict. Moreover, direct conflict between two nuclear-armed states isn't something we've ever done before. Nobody wants to go down that road. If the US and/or NATO were directly involved, it wouldn't look anything like trench warfare, and we wouldn't be using 30+ year old military tech. We really want to avoid this, though.

[deleted]

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#235

Post by JumpCrisscross »

number6 wrote: post #232
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> confused as to why no where in the article do they mention the intent of attacking the ships This appears to be a maritime news service. Why rockets are flying isn’t practically relevant. You’ll see similar parsimoniousness in aviation reporting around war zones (and humanitarian reports around natural disasters). There is almost always a market for concise commercial communications. > target ships that have Israel…

> This appears to be a maritime news service. Why rockets are flying isn’t practically relevant. Once a rocket goes up who cares where it comes down, that's not my department, says Werner von Braun

> that's not my department, says Werner von Braun

You’re seriously comparing sailors and shipping insurers to a Nazi weapons specialist?

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#236

Post by JumpCrisscross »

petesergeant wrote: post #107
pophenat wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that the Saudi do not participate also because they do not want to be seen as Israel supporters.

> the Saudis do not participate In fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi-led_intervention_in_the_...

Yes, and it was a disaster. The Houthis could aim their missiles at Saudi oil infrastructure again. Much simpler to let America handle both finding a solution and taking the fire.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#237

Post by JumpCrisscross »

nozzlegear wrote: post #64
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?

From what I understand, and I could be very wrong, the fear is that directly attacking the Houthis will be seen as an escalation by Iran. The west doesn't want to get mired in yet another war in the Middle East, so instead they've adopted a defensive posture around their shipping lanes with Prosperity Guardian. This is also why Saudi Arabia's own navy vessels are conspicuously absent from the operation, despite the H…

> fear is that directly attacking the Houthis will be seen as an escalation by Iran

It would, but that’s not really a constraint. Iran is in no position to risk direct strikes on its territory. It’s more simply that nobody wants to get bogged down in Yemen. So there is an element of hoping someone else will start bombing or Tehran getting their proxies under control.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#238

Post by [deleted] »

empath75 wrote: post #169
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?

An "easy" response against the houthis would not be particularly effective -- lob a bunch of cruise missiles at them, which would be more annoying than anything else. An "effective" response would be the full shock-and-awe treatment -- wiping out their air defense, followed by a massive bombing campaign that destroys their ability to fight. Then -- what next? Yemen's in the middle of a civil war as it is... does the…

[deleted]

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#239

Post by JumpCrisscross »

4gotunameagain wrote: post #225
andsoitis wrote: post #71

> The US set up a multinational naval taskforce to protect the Red Sea transit route, which carries up to 12% of global trade. Reminder that might is needed to create a peaceful space within which peoples can trade.

Is this irony ? That the US is creating a "peaceful space" ?

> the US is creating a "peaceful space" ?

On freedom of navigation, absolutely.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#240

Post by hulitu »

keefle wrote: post #196

I'm really confused as to why no where in the article do they mention the intent of attacking the ships. As if the houthis in yemen are attacking ships because they like it or just because they "hate developed societies". Their declared reason is to put pressure on Israel to allow humanitarian aid to Gaza at once. They target ships that have Israeli links or heading to Israeli ports. It can be seen as a form of treat…

> I'm really confused as to why no where in the article do they mention the intent of attacking the ships

Because that is how propaganda works. Telling half the truth and adding something else to contruct a "true story".

Post reply on HN