Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

lloydslist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 198 posts

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#31

Post by timmg »

einpoklum wrote: post #21

So, Trump claimed the closure and the attack "was a “foolish violation” of the ceasefire". However - that is not the case. The first and foremost item of the Iran-US MOU is the following: 1 — The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war are signing this MOU to declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon…

As I understand it, this has nothing to do with Lebanon.

It has to do with ships moving through the Oman side of the strait. Iran is unhappy with that, because the want to control all the movement through it.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#32

Post by alkonaut »

SilverElfin wrote: post #3

I think this is really because ship crews are abused and have no choice. The companies don’t have executives on ships. It’s some maritime crew, often from India, that’s told to just take the risk with their own lives. And if they want to keep their jobs they have to comply.

But who insures the ship and its cargo? And what's the premium? No one cared about sailors before either. But if the ship sinks then you cash out from Lloyds. But if the risk premium increases by a lot, then that adds to the cost of the cargo.

And eventually it's just not worth transiting the strait no matter how "open" it's claimed to be, if there are still unacceptable risks.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#33

Post by phildenhoff »

Swizec wrote: post #5
SilverElfin wrote: post #3

I think this is really because ship crews are abused and have no choice. The companies don’t have executives on ships. It’s some maritime crew, often from India, that’s told to just take the risk with their own lives. And if they want to keep their jobs they have to comply.

> And if they want to keep their jobs they have to comply. Worse still, many mariners are effectively prisoners and can become trapped if corporate decides to cut them loose without also providing passage off the vessel Stranded sailor allowed to leave abandoned ship after four years https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-56842506 Stuck at sea for years, a sailor’s plight highlights a surge in shipowner abandonme…

What would have happened, in that first story, if he had left the ship and swam to a passing boat? Or swam to shore? He was apparently able to leave as later in his imprisonment, the boat drift closer to shore and he swam from there. Why not just leave?

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#34

Post by nradov »

dragontamer wrote: post #12
rayiner wrote: post #2

Nobody is talking about how big of a failure this has been on the part of the U.S. Navy. Controlling and securing shipping routes has been a fundamental function of a navy since Roman times. The U.S. Navy was unable to achieve that objective in this war. Ill-advised American wars often end up as losses because we fail to achieve our political objectives. But this may be one of the few times we have been unable to ach…

Ehhhhh, not quite. No matter how much military we put into the strait, Iran was just going to blow up UAE and Qatari refineries. And despite all the madman theory of our current President, there's just too many bribes in those countries who have the attention of the President. So Total War is unacceptable to USA leaders. ------- That being said: I'm still amused that the ship we needed in this fight was the long canc…

Cancelling the LCS construction program was the right move. There are still a number of hulls in commission and they have some utility as minesweepers, but can really only operate when the air threat has been neutralized. They have only limited defenses against drones and cruise missiles, and none at all against ballistic missiles. They're simply no longer survivable.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#35

Post by dgellow »

einpoklum wrote: post #21

So, Trump claimed the closure and the attack "was a “foolish violation” of the ceasefire". However - that is not the case. The first and foremost item of the Iran-US MOU is the following: 1 — The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war are signing this MOU to declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon…

At this point you can take any Trump claim as a lie until proven otherwise, it’s by far the best heuristic

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#36

Post by derwiki »

spiderfarmer wrote: post #15
pohl wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of that traditional naval success has come from having presidents not stepping on their own dicks.

The US will never recover from the reputation damage they sustained by voting in a mindbogglingly stupid buffoon. Twice.

Memories are short. Neither Andrew Jackson nor Nixon improved the reputation of the US.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#37

Post by drnick1 »

rayiner wrote: post #2

Nobody is talking about how big of a failure this has been on the part of the U.S. Navy. Controlling and securing shipping routes has been a fundamental function of a navy since Roman times. The U.S. Navy was unable to achieve that objective in this war. Ill-advised American wars often end up as losses because we fail to achieve our political objectives. But this may be one of the few times we have been unable to ach…

> But this may be one of the few times we have been unable to achieve a purely military objective.

The U.S. has been secretly moving ships for months. And Iran no longer has any significant naval force, it's all been wiped out. What is difficult to completely stop, short of glassing the entire country, is harassment by drones or other forms of "asymmetric warfare."

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#38

Post by JumpinJack_Cash »

It's about time to have a serious talk with the Saudis and redirect all that money that is being stupidly spent on all those vanity projects such as NEOM and The Line towards pipelines running through the Desert , end point the port of Yunbu & Jeddah and make the Strait of Hormuz irrelevant .

This is the quintessential American project, the U.S. has invented and developed the oil industry in Saudi. Saudi Aramco was originally the "California-Arabian Standard Oil Company".

I don't know why this hasn't happened during the last 40 years where Iran has always been an enemy, Saudi Arabia has always been an ally and the U.S. has always had enormous amount of access to the Kingdom for the purpose of building oil infrastructure.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#40

Post by stymaar »

rayiner wrote: post #2

Nobody is talking about how big of a failure this has been on the part of the U.S. Navy. Controlling and securing shipping routes has been a fundamental function of a navy since Roman times. The U.S. Navy was unable to achieve that objective in this war. Ill-advised American wars often end up as losses because we fail to achieve our political objectives. But this may be one of the few times we have been unable to ach…

> But this may be one of the few times we have been unable to achieve a purely military objective.

It has long been clear for any analyst that securing the straight without boots on the ground would be materially impossible. Air power isn't enough to stop the very modest force of the Houthis from closing the Bab-el-mandeb straight, it was clear from the beginning that it wouldn't work better against a much more capable Iran.

Trump launched a war without any plan, and absolutely no willingness to launch an full-scale invasion of Iran (rightly so, because it would have been unlikely to work well with regards to the polical goals), so it's not exactly surprising that it didn't work.

Starting a war is always a bad idea, even when you have bipartisan support for it at home, but starting a war you don't want to fight is absolutely dumb.

Post reply on HN