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

281–290 of 500 posts

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#281

Post by edanm »

mrtksn wrote: post #275
edanm wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the reasons about killing each other were openly discussed in a logical way without the emotional overload, People wouldn’t bother to kill each other. That’s something undesirable in the context of war. That's incredibly wrong. People are killing each other over disagreements, either about land, or about values, or about feeling of safety, etc. Everyone basically understands everyone else's position on most thin…

That's true when you are directly going to gain something. People dying and killing on the front lines - the practitioners of taking lives - are not the same people who were going to gain something. That's why they need the "greater cause" to do it, even when they are directly paid mercenaries they still are called hero of this liberator of that and not just murderers or contract killers.

If you're referring to the current Israel-Gaza conflict - this is basically not true.

Israeli soldiers are fighting because they think that, if they don't, their friends and families will be killed. They might be right or wrong - but that's why they are fighting.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#282

Post by Qem »

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?

If these shipping companies are going to take advantage of taxpayer-funded militaries, they could at least pay taxes themselves, instead of hiding behind convenience flags. Either this or waiting the Singapore navy to rescue them.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#283

Post by tzs »

johnnyworker wrote: post #242
mrtksn wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same reason why when civilians in Gaza die it’s because a rocket explodes in a refugee camp or something. Damn rockets why do they do that? Unfortunately, propaganda is part of the war and I can’t really blame them for trying. You can be sure that the other side of the conflict is also not impartial. If the reasons about killing each other were openly discussed in a logical way without the emotional overload, Peo…

> I can’t really blame them for trying. You can be sure that the other side of the conflict is also not impartial. Oh, I can for the both of us, and I do. Everyone is responsible for what they do, or tacitly consent to. War is not something that just "is" like rain or snow, it's specific actions of people specific people. And when you say "other side of the conflict" does that include the 1+ million of children, or a…

> The world is full of murderers and genocidal racist assholes

The problem with your approach is that if a country actually implemented it the first neighboring country that fell under the control of a genocidal racist asshole would just have to hold a "take you daughter to work" day in their military and on that day invade your country.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#284

Post by mrtksn »

edanm wrote: post #281
mrtksn wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true when you are directly going to gain something. People dying and killing on the front lines - the practitioners of taking lives - are not the same people who were going to gain something. That's why they need the "greater cause" to do it, even when they are directly paid mercenaries they still are called hero of this liberator of that and not just murderers or contract killers.

If you're referring to the current Israel-Gaza conflict - this is basically not true. Israeli soldiers are fighting because they think that, if they don't, their friends and families will be killed. They might be right or wrong - but that's why they are fighting.

That one is a particularly complex conflict that didn't start on 7th of October and I'm sure they have more complex thoughts that include the illegal settlements and their religious rights to take that land and their political positions on these issues. They are conscripts, so I would imagine there's a range of positions when they are killing thousand of women and children alongside with combatants. I don't believe the premise that Israeli soldiers were concerned for the lives of their loved ones and killed that many civilians and ar OK with it.

Unarmed women and children are not that dangerous, they must have range of thoughts when killing those. Some regret, some glee, some disgust, some joy I would imagine. I wouldn't put the relief of saving their own in the top 10 though.

As for the Palestinian side of things, I'm sure its not simple too. Some would do it for revenge, some would do it for some ideological BS, some would do it for religious reasons. The terror attack they initiated on the 7th of October has quite a bit of footage and its very clear that they did not intend to survive the action. They were obviously doing it for "greater good", so to speak, without an expectation to personally gain anything by killing civilian Israelis.

Very few will see direct gain from this conflict.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#285

Post by rightbyte »

pydry wrote: post #212
throwaway290 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is like WWII. Hitler also seemed winning at first. He even took the capital. Eventually thanks to allies though Hitler was defeated. In the end USSR lost twice as many millions of its people so in terms of human cost the win was dubious. The difference is that right now Putler already lost 2x+ as many people as Zelensky, and could not manage to capture the capital. Which was promised how many times? I vaguely re…

One side is raising conscription from 40-43. One side is asking women to register for conscription. One side is saying that they need to conscript half a million citizens to replenish losses. The other side as yet has only called up reservists and recruited volunteers. Which side would you say is which based upon the losses you have counted?

There was some stats released by one side which admitting like a 1:20 disadvantage in artillery shells fired. It should roughly translate to the ratio of losses too ...

The situation is ... strange to say the least. Because no one seems the understand what is happening and those who do pretend not to.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#286

Post by mlrtime »

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…

>happens within russian head independently of the reality.

Are you talking about the drone or NATO adding Ukraine?

The funny thing about reality is there is none except our own observations. Not to get too philosophical, but Russians "reality in their heads" is exactly what everyone experiences.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#287

Post by mlrtime »

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…

This is why The Abraham Accords were so important for some resemblance of "peace".

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#288

Post by figassis »

bawolff wrote: post #268
johnnyworker wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't want to go into the "who's to blame because" arguments since to do this you need to pick a cut-off date No, why would you have to? As I said: > Everyone is responsible for what they do There is no giant blob called "war" and you now weigh the responsibility of one of two "sides" for that blob. That is precisely my point. The crimes of Hamas do not take one iota away from the crimes of Israel, and vice versa…

> Israel is committing genocide. You state these things like they are objective facts that have been proven. I suspect that most of the pro-israel side would be against israel comitting genocide (of course there are probably some extremists out there, but one hopes they are a small minority). The difference of opinion is not about whether genocide is wrong, but whether that is what Israel is doing. And hey, with the…

[flagged]

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#289

Post by rdtsc »

nec4b wrote: post #221
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…

>>As if the houthis in yemen are attacking ships because they like it or just because they "hate developed societies". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slogan_of_the_Houthi_movement

It looks like they adopted the slogan in the early 2000s, so wonder why attack Maersk ships now…
Post reply on HN