Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike • Hacker News Board

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#51

Post by kadoban » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 8:23 PM UTC

energy123 wrote: post #26

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…

Because it's not true. CENTCOM can reopen the strait whenever they want, but doing it is slow and expensive, so there is insufficient political will to do it. It's still a strategic defeat, but for different reasons than what you are saying. Recommend studying the public comments of General MacKenzie who was the previous CENTCOM commander, comments from Admiral Cooper before he was appointed to current CENTCOM comman…

I assume you're talking about "slow and expensive" like sending tens of thousand of troops to occupy at _least_ the ~entire shore around the narrow part of the Strait, indefinitely?

Yeah, shocking there's no political will for that.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#52

Post by dragontamer » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 8:23 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #34

dragontamer wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think Iran has homing ballistic missiles. Only maybe China has those. As such, the best defense vs ballistic threats is simply moving around, if they can't home then who cares?

I mean, buildings and hardened targets do care. But ships can just move and the missile will miss.

But yes, defenses vs Drones and Cruise missiles is more than sufficient vs Iran. And navigating narrow waters with higher degrees of mobility is better than our other ships.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#53

Post by scheme271 » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 8:23 PM UTC

derwiki wrote: post #36

spiderfarmer wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Andrew Jackson was around 150+ years ago. Nixon was fairly competent diplomatically even if he was horrible domestically. Trump is a whole different breed that seems to switch his actions based on whim and who he spoke with last.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#54

Post by bulbar » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 8:24 PM UTC

derwiki wrote: post #36

spiderfarmer wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not only about reputation. Trump has been so obvious in his doing that the western world has started to define a new world order without the US in its center.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#55

Post by ozim » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 8:24 PM UTC

dragontamer wrote: post #22

echelon wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drone warfare is new. Now you can use a drone that costs a few thousand dollars to take out a hundred million dollar ship. It's a pricing issue. Whereas before, you had to use expensive guided missiles or your own naval or air force assets, now you can send a bunch of cheap drones. Everything we know about war is going to change.

Not new. These drones were in production in Iran since 2016 after the capture of the downed Reaper Drone in 2011. What is new is Irans willingness to use them. Which skyrocketed after a few missiles assassinated their supreme leader.

The part where you are wrong is not that reaper or other highly sophisticated drones were available in 2011.

In 2026 we have swarms of cheap drones that are fire and forget and they are cheap for mass production.

That’s totally different game.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#56

Post by nradov » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 8:25 PM UTC

alkonaut wrote: post #32

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.

All of the major maritime insurers will issue war risk policies at a small premium over the usual rates. This isn't anything new. Back during the Iran-Iraq war both sides were hitting tankers occasionally but insurers wrote policies and the oil continued to flow.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#57

Post by energy123 » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 8:25 PM UTC

kadoban wrote: post #51

energy123 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's not true. CENTCOM can reopen the strait whenever they want, but doing it is slow and expensive, so there is insufficient political will to do it. It's still a strategic defeat, but for different reasons than what you are saying. Recommend studying the public comments of General MacKenzie who was the previous CENTCOM commander, comments from Admiral Cooper before he was appointed to current CENTCOM comman…

I assume you're talking about "slow and expensive" like sending tens of thousand of troops to occupy at _least_ the ~entire shore around the narrow part of the Strait, indefinitely? Yeah, shocking there's no political will for that.

You assumed wrong. Maybe listen to the interviews before responding with aggressive sarcasm.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#58

Post by cloche » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 8:26 PM UTC

energy123 wrote: post #26

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…

Because it's not true. CENTCOM can reopen the strait whenever they want, but doing it is slow and expensive, so there is insufficient political will to do it. It's still a strategic defeat, but for different reasons than what you are saying. Recommend studying the public comments of General MacKenzie who was the previous CENTCOM commander, comments from Admiral Cooper before he was appointed to current CENTCOM comman…

This sounds a lot like what some lazy people will say "I could be a doctor/astronaut/millionaire/movie star. I just don't want to"

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#59

Post by kadoban » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 8:26 PM UTC

dotancohen wrote: post #47

drnick1 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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."

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#60

Post by throwaway3748g » Sat, Jun 27, 2026, 8:26 PM UTC

dotancohen wrote: post #47

drnick1 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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."

[flagged]

[flagged]