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

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#331

Post by weebull » Sun, Dec 31, 2023, 4:24 PM UTC

mlrtime wrote: post #286

lovelyviking wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Not OP, but I read their words as neither of the options you suggest.

Claiming "I was provoked" as justification means some arbitrary line was crossed. That line will be different for you and me, and as such it's not an objective measure. Ergo, it is disconnected from the objective reality of the situation, and much more connected to the subjective interpretation of the situation.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#332

Post by mrtksn » Sun, Dec 31, 2023, 4:30 PM UTC

edanm wrote: post #324

mrtksn wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Half of the people they kill are women and children. That’s lots of regret they will have to go through the upcoming years. They won't be known as the "good guys", even if the Prime minister tries to frame this as a fight between good and evil most of the world isn't buying it.

> Half of the people they kill are women and children. That’s lots of regret they will have to go through the upcoming years. Yes, it is. I think almost all of those deaths are on Hamas, they brought this on their own citizens that they are effectively keeping hostage. But that doesn't make me regret it any less. > They won't be known as the "good guys", even if the Prime minister tries to frame this as a fight betwe…

It doesn't work like that, you can't transfer the blame of a mass murder to another mass murderer. Anyway, I would suggest you to research the anti-American movements all over the world and you will see that Americans(the state) are actually treated as evil by many people who are affected by the American atrocities or sympathetic with those affected. Americans lost most of their credibility even in UK and Europe.

It's really a sad situation because there's a lot to admire about Israel and its people. They were able to build a progressive and prosperous society in a desert but unfortunately turned into genocidal oppressors. Hamas being Hamas doesn't make this right. Unless Israel manage to exterminate every single Palestinian, they will end up with people that remember what Israel did to them. You should be able to draw conclusions from your experience of a single attack that took lives of thousands Israeli and extrapolate to what those people are going through over the years and this latest fight and think about what will want to do to you and what they think about you.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#333

Post by semiquaver » Sun, Dec 31, 2023, 4:31 PM UTC

gnicholas wrote: post #154

semiquaver wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're underestimating how staggeringly cheap ocean freight is. A 40ft container can be shipped from China to NYC for under $3000; it's a very small portion of the retail cost of most goods. Even if cargo vessels all have to travel around the cape of good hope for a year or two, this increases the cost by a small percentage and is not going to kick off major inflation. Futures markets back this up, pricing in very mo…

Does this diversion significantly affect travel time, which would cause some shippers to opt for air instead of ocean?

It adds 7-10 days to a trip that would normally take 30-40 days: https://www.flexport.com/blog/global-ocean-carriers-halt-red...

Air cargo rates are 10-20x ocean, so it’s unlikely an extra week of travel would justify the expense for most cases.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#334

Post by wolverine876 » Sun, Dec 31, 2023, 4:31 PM UTC

Aeolun wrote: post #184

wolverine876 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why do you say that? To me, it just seems like more neo-reactionary rhetoric. It couldn't be that democracy, international institutions (such as the UN), etc. have changed the world - that we built a better world. That would be a threat to reactionaryism.

Those institutions, including the UN and the rules-based international order, were built by the people who fought WWI and WWII, specifically to prevent future war. We can say that they got the outcome they aimed at, an historic acheivement. We live at the most peaceful time in history, including for non-nuclear states.

They built that - at the end of WWII when many despaired of humanity - and we have the institutions, playbook, everything. Why would we throw that away? Why aren't we building on that for the next generation, just like they did? We almost can't be stopped if we choose to do it; only if we inexplicably quit. Who would want us to do that?

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#335

Post by tim333 » Sun, Dec 31, 2023, 4:33 PM UTC

Qem wrote: post #282

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.

The global nature of shipping makes being protected by whatever country you sailed from a bit impractical.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#336

Post by wolverine876 » Sun, Dec 31, 2023, 4:33 PM UTC

ffgjgf1 wrote: post #192

wolverine876 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course they were weak people who'd allowed themselves to be put in that position, so in that sense they perceived no choices. What is the basis for saying it's weakness? The point is, it might have been politically impossible for them to do otherwise. As an extreme example, after Pearl Harbor could FDR have said, 'we're going to let Japan get away with it'? No, he'd be impeached and removed from office, and some…

Except nobody attacked or even threatened Russia and Germany so it’s not really comparable to Pearl Harbor at all. There was really nothing or almost nothing to gain and everything to lose for all the aides involved in WW1. So I’d say it was stupidity rather than weakness. Relatively to its scale it was probably the most pointless war in human history. The things it achieved, end of monarchy in Central/Eastern Europe…

I think it's very easy to sit at a computer in 2023 and type that, dismissing all the forces involved as 'stupidity' (including and especially, the politics). We learn nothing about the reality of such things and doom ourselves to ignorance and then actual stupidity.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#337

Post by throwaway290 » Sun, Dec 31, 2023, 4:40 PM UTC

pydry wrote: post #327

throwaway290 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. You can say I'm wrong, fake news and Ukraine suffered more losses. If we pretend it's true, mobilising the entire country makes Ukraine look even more like USSR in WWII. Gotta fend off fascist invaders at any cost. Which thank…

In WW2 the Nazis were trying to exterminate the slavs. In this war Putin is attracting condemnation for handing out passports. This changes the dynamic and the stakes. The two arent really comparable. It isnt a racism inspired genocide like Israel is committing in Gaza.

> In this war Putin is attracting condemnation for handing out passports.

If you think the condemnation is for handing out passports, you've been well-brainwashed. The war started by Russia against Ukraine has been going for a long time already. Shelling, murder, displacement, all that stuff. They didn't get far in 10 years but they and the militia they financed sure created a lot of hurt. Don't worry, I was like you blissfully unaware but it's never too late to wake up.

Sure, I personally know people from east of Ukraine who moved to Russia. You know why? Because their fucking homes were being bombed.

> It isnt a racism inspired genocide

Sure, it's not a genocide. Hamas will tell you the same, we are not trying to genocide all Jews, it's just Israel oppressing us, yadda yadda. But in reality everyone knows that the moment Israel stops defending there's no Israel but the moment Hamas is disarmed there's peace. It's similar in case of Ukraine and Russia and it should tell you everything you need to know.

> like Israel is committing in Gaza.

It would actually have a lot in common with Hamas terrorism if Hamas controlled a bigger territory with more resources. Fun fact, Russia in fact did/does supply Hamas with arms.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#338

Post by s1artibartfast » Sun, Dec 31, 2023, 4:45 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #230

mkii wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 som…

> Whether that justifies Russia invading parts of Ukraine is the debatable part No it isn’t? When America invaded Vietnam to keep it from going communist, that didn’t make Ho Chi Minh and his backers war mongerers. And it didn’t mean that we were provoked. We went to war to achieve the political objective of containing communism. We were the aggressors. With Ukraine, Russia’s political objectives were unclear. The st…

>The stated ones, about NATO expansion, have backfired. But just because Moscow was stupid doesn’t also mean it was absolutely the aggressor.

I dont think you can stake this claim without understanding the objectives, the resolution of the war, and especially exploring the counterfactual from the Russian perspective.

It is easy to sit and the west and imagine that Russia regrets its actions deep down, but as bad as this outcome is, I think you have to ask if there are even worse outcomes that were considered from inaction.

This is a separate question from those about morality or aggressors, but one of realpolitik incentives.

Conversely, you can ask the same questions about the US failed wars in Vietnam and the middle east. Obviously many or most objectives were not met, but were enough met to better the counterfactual?

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#339

Post by ryanisnan » Sun, Dec 31, 2023, 4:47 PM UTC

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…

> The boots on the ground for the major power backed forces don't tend to want to be there

How do you get here? It would be obvious to me that IDF forces are enthusiastically dismantling Hamas by invading Gaza.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#340

Post by adolph » Sun, Dec 31, 2023, 4:59 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #316

adolph wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see how the slogans of the Houthis make them a less than sympathetic set of missileers. For example, it might be awkward for a person supportive of the Palestinian cause to be in goal alignment with a well funded group stating uncloseted hatred of Jews.

No more awkward than supporters of Israel having to cope with Israeli ministers suggesting nuking Gaza, or having to deal with the ACLU defending Nazis in court. Every cause, even (sometimes especially ) the righteous ones, has shitty people attached to it.

Sure. Do you have a better theory for the downvotes and flag then?