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

491–500 of 500 posts

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#491

Post by ffgjgf1 »

photonbeam wrote: post #470
ffgjgf1 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? That’s not particularly relevant

It is, it shows how little a country needs to maintain/develop nukes

They dedicated massive amounts of resources to this over very long periods of time. This wouldn’t be possible at all even in somewhat less restrictive authoritarian states let alone somewhat democratic ones like Ukraine.

There is no way any government in Ukraine during economic turmoil of the 90s that decided to spend billions on developing nukes would’ve stayed in power.

So I still don’t see how is that in anyway relevant?

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#492

Post by johnnyworker »

dang wrote: post #489
johnnyworker wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man, you do have a thick skin, I'll give you that. How could I have been snarkier? Yet you breeze right past that to comment something generous and constructive. That's not something I am any good at, but I do respect it greatly. Okay, I'll try. That is, name-calling and personal attack I can do without, that's obviously more than fair. I'm just not entirely sure what the "flame war" thing is about, what I do to star…

I'll try to come back later and respond more, but one quick point: lengthy discussions aren't necessarily flamewars! I'm talking about posts that break the site guidelines with things like aggressive indignation or provocation or denunciatory rhetoric, especially on divisive topics. You can certainly have a long discussion without doing any of that. Re "long comments with a bunch of quotes and links", there's nothing…

> Edit: But you can't post stuff like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38849625 - that's just too aggressive, and "what part of X don't you understand" is both a swipe and a flamewar trope!

When someone turns what I wrote, that one sentence, into "it seems like you're excusing killing Jews", that's fine? So you saw that, and have no poblem with it? Well, wow.

I honestly do not understand how that sentence could be more concise and clear. If someone reads something as fantastic as me "excusing killing Jews" into that, I have to ask, what in the world gave them that idea.

If I said "I'm under the impression you kept your comment short because you wanted to go back to kicking homeless people", and said that in a very polite way as I just quoted it, would you say "oh, that's a misunderstanding"??

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#493

Post by keefle »

adolph wrote: post #490
r00fus wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My facts were from various Twitter posts - I don't have them on hand but you can search fairly easily. It's pretty clear that wikipedia data doesn't cover this level of detail - but using game theory - it's pretty reasonable that the Houthis have a political goal and being random or scattershot in their attacks would dilute that goal.

Do you have a single fact source that differs from the Wikipedia list? The Houthi org certainly has some motivation. Do the facts match the claimed motivation or not?

Swan Atlantic has Israeli connections as well from the Wikipedia list. Clearly this list is being updated as info unfolds. Also the lack of a link on the Wikipedia page does not mean there is no link, and just as you missed Swan Atlantic (and I didn't even go through the full list), there can be other ships with Israeli connections that you didn't catch (or entries that were updated since the time you checked)

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#494

Post by edanm »

johnnyworker wrote: post #487
dang wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For you it seems I appreciate you saying "seems" because that's not how I feel. I hear what you say and trust that you sincerely feel strongly about this, but it's not ok to channel that into posting abusively. Moreover, since we've had to ask you this before, in an unrelated context, this isn't just about the current topic. Commenters often assume that feeling strongly about being right (as they see it) on an impo…

Man, you do have a thick skin, I'll give you that. How could I have been snarkier? Yet you breeze right past that to comment something generous and constructive. That's not something I am any good at, but I do respect it greatly. Okay, I'll try. That is, name-calling and personal attack I can do without, that's obviously more than fair. I'm just not entirely sure what the "flame war" thing is about, what I do to star…

Look, a lot of this thread was with me and I have some of my own thoughts on your comments, and why they're hard to deal with and/or flamebaight.

But I don't want to impose my thoughts on you - so if you want me to give you my POV, please let me know. Totally optional - no offense intended by offering, and no offense if you don't want me to write anything.

> And we don't even have notifications, so when people keep posting in week old threads back and forth, it's because they're both manually checking to see if the other replied.

One minor technical point - I use a 3rd-party thing that gives me notifications to replies on my threads, which is probably true of some of the people you are talking with. So FYI that your statement isn't always true (and also FYI that this exists, if you're interested).

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#495

Post by adolph »

keefle wrote: post #493
adolph wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a single fact source that differs from the Wikipedia list? The Houthi org certainly has some motivation. Do the facts match the claimed motivation or not?

Swan Atlantic has Israeli connections as well from the Wikipedia list. Clearly this list is being updated as info unfolds. Also the lack of a link on the Wikipedia page does not mean there is no link, and just as you missed Swan Atlantic (and I didn't even go through the full list), there can be other ships with Israeli connections that you didn't catch (or entries that were updated since the time you checked)

Do you have a single fact source that differs from the Wikipedia list?

As far as I can tell Swan Atlantic is owned by a Norwegian company without Israeli ties and had no Israeli ports of call. That means the observed Houthi behavior is still 14/17 (82%) not-Israeli-related.

The Houthi behavior is significantly different from Houthi claims of motivation.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#496

Post by dang »

johnnyworker wrote: post #492
dang wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll try to come back later and respond more, but one quick point: lengthy discussions aren't necessarily flamewars! I'm talking about posts that break the site guidelines with things like aggressive indignation or provocation or denunciatory rhetoric, especially on divisive topics. You can certainly have a long discussion without doing any of that. Re "long comments with a bunch of quotes and links", there's nothing…

> Edit: But you can't post stuff like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38849625 - that's just too aggressive, and "what part of X don't you understand" is both a swipe and a flamewar trope! When someone turns what I wrote, that one sentence, into "it seems like you're excusing killing Jews", that's fine? So you saw that, and have no poblem with it? Well, wow . I honestly do not understand how that sentence could…

Of course that's not fine, and no I didn't see it. We don't come close to reading everything, and I often don't look at the threads in linear order.

If you see a post that ought to have been moderated but hasn't been, this by no means implies that the mods secretly agree with it. I understand the temptation everyone has to leap to that conclusion, but overwhelmingly the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it. You can help by flagging it or emailing us at hn@ycombinator.com. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

Still, users here need to follow the rules regardless of what other users do, and that applies to you the same as to me and anyone else. Changing the focus to someone else's misbehavior doesn't help. Everyone always feels like the other person started it and/or did worse, so that's just a recipe for a downward spiral.

What we need you (i.e. everyone) to do instead is absorb HN's guidelines, take them to heart, and then make your substantive points within that intended spirit, whether other people are doing this or not. If you're willing to do that, you can continue to post here and make your points. But we need you to stop breaking the site guidelines, which you've unfortunately been continuing to do. (And yes, I know other users are breaking the site guidelines too. If I could change that, I would.)

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#497

Post by AlexAndScripts »

wolverine876 wrote: post #343
AlexAndScripts wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you recommend places to read professional IR material?

Read the journals and think tank publications - people get intimidated by the idea, but it's actually not difficult, especially after you become accustomed to it. If you read HN, these publications fit right in, in terms of complexity. As with every field, you will discover a different plane of existence for knowledge, like people from an arid continent discovering another with far richer, deeper, more productive soi…

Thank you - really - for such an in-depth reply. I was aware of Foreign Affairs, but I didn't know of any of the other publications you mentioned. This is invaluable.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#498

Post by johnnyworker »

dang wrote: post #496
johnnyworker wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Edit: But you can't post stuff like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38849625 - that's just too aggressive, and "what part of X don't you understand" is both a swipe and a flamewar trope! When someone turns what I wrote, that one sentence, into "it seems like you're excusing killing Jews", that's fine? So you saw that, and have no poblem with it? Well, wow . I honestly do not understand how that sentence could…

Of course that's not fine, and no I didn't see it. We don't come close to reading everything, and I often don't look at the threads in linear order. If you see a post that ought to have been moderated but hasn't been, this by no means implies that the mods secretly agree with it. I understand the temptation everyone has to leap to that conclusion, but overwhelmingly the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it.…

Thanks. I really just needed that acknowledgement to restore a sense of fairness, because I did assume if a response is called out, the context would at least be looked at. I am fine with adhering the guidelines though it's not always fair, or even when the other kids started it, etc. -- but using flags against a comment that is a reply to me, in a debate type situation, is just not something I can bring myself to do. Even in debates I am involved in maybe. Knowing that I if I called it out, I'd get a fair hearing, as I just did, is really all I needed.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#499

Post by fennecfoxy »

jemmyw wrote: post #187
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…

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 i…

America can help Ukraine (I'm not from either place) with their side of the war all they want, imo. If Russia wants to treat gay men like me as second class citizens/animals, along with all of the other atrocities they perpetuate then I fully support whoever is on the other side of that mess.

But yes, Russia seems to use this "poking" tactic quite often, trying to provoke a response.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#500

Post by fennecfoxy »

ra wrote: post #42
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…

MH17 was shot down by a Russian anti-aircraft missile, killing all 298 p.o.b. with no consequences for Russia. Russia has flown Bear nuclear-capable bombers over the UK (actually over land), with no consequences [1]. Russia, Iran, and North Korea all trade arms with each other and supply missiles, drones, and ammunition to the Houthi. Russia invaded Ukraine and deploy weapons from the above "axis" countries. I don't…

Don't forget: Russians enter UK to perform an assassination using a potent nerve agent (with essentially no repercussions). They do this all the time and get away with it. And like a child that doesn't get told off, they'll keep on doing it.
Post reply on HN