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

161–170 of 198 posts

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#161

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

nradov wrote: post #56
alkonaut wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The premiums went from 0.5% to 7.5% during the war. That's not a small difference, particularly for large amounts of expensive cargo.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#162

Post by dotancohen »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #70
dotancohen wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Because all the american assets in countries around iran will be "glassed" too, like american bases are already. And then special forces deep in US will start "glassing" US infrastructure, power, water, logistics, etc. (It's not terrorism if you're in war, it's just special units behind enemy lines). Looking at eg. texas, it doesn't take a lot to bring the whole power grid down, especially if properly planned. If you…

  > Or just bomb a random school in retaliation for the one you guys bombed in iran?
Yes, Iran likely has assets in the US who would attack US civilian targets. There is a big difference between deliberately attacking civilians and accepting that some civilians may be unintentional casualties.

  > Flying half the planet away to attack someone who in no way endangers you is controversial...
You could either argue that Iranian assets in the US could attack American civilians, or you could argue that Iran does not endanger the US. But not both.

I'll remind you that Iran's whole problem with Israel is due to Israel being allied with the US - not the other way around. They call you The Big Satan and chant for your death regularly, while developing long range missiles, nuclear weapons, and arming proxy armies that the regularly engage in armed conflict with the US and other Western assets. By no reasonable measure are they "not a threat" to the US.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#163

Post by justinator »

dotancohen wrote: post #156
justinator wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you will remember from a few months ago, many of our actions was apparrently to cause a revolution from within. That didn't happen. We can't just change our strategy to "nvrmd: kill 'em all" and think we'll have any allies after this. Iran would once again not just attack us, but practically every country near it, causing even more causalities and infrastructure damage. And this doesn't get into the problem that t…

> There is a "Sunk Cost Fallacy" There is also the future cost of demonstrating that the US will not carry out on her threats. That is a higher cost than actually finishing the job - the whole purpose of the US having a huge navy is to project power. If the navy is deliberately powerless, than all the money put into that navy was wasted.

I can't but agree. Either the Gerald Ford was not in shape for a conflict, or it was taken out. Our navy kept a good distance from the conflict and it seems pretty obvious why: these ships are expensive and the drones that could come in en-mass are cheap. Iran never showed the medium range ballistic missiles that were one of the given excuses to start a war.

I would point the finger at the head of the DOD, who does not seem to be qualified for the job. After his massive gathering of the top brass and the messaging shared therein, I'm seeing a dissonance of action promised and action shown. Piss Poor Planning.

I am under the opinion that this war should never have started, just to be clear. This is a mis-use of all our military resources, and insulting to our service men and women.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#164

Post by orwin »

dotancohen wrote: post #157
orwin wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US kept hitting civilian targets and blasting about it, so they already did that. When Arab hit civilian targets, it's terrorism, when the US does, it's freedom. I personally fail to understand the difference, but I'm an europoor

The difference is that Arab doctrine is to deliberately target civilians, whereas Western doctrine attack military targets but accept that there may be unintended civilian casualties along the way.

Schools, hospitals, desalination plants, museums and churches, those well know dual use infrastructure. So sad they were unlucky civilians there.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#165

Post by einpoklum »

drnick1 wrote: post #108
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…

> But Israel has continued to attack intensively in Lebanon Israel is not part of the deal, wasn't directly involved in discussions, and did not sign anything.

Israel and the USA attacked Iran jointly; and the obligation for ensuring Israel ceases fire was undertaken by the US. If the US were to adopt your position, then there never was any cease fire, because the basic tenant of the MOU is everyone ceasing fire, including Israel.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#166

Post by einpoklum »

nradov wrote: post #44
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…

Iran never had the right to close the strait or attack neutral merchant ships exercising their right of innocent passage in the first place, regardless of anything that Israel or Lebanon does. The MOU doesn't change that.

That is likely indeed the case (although it's more complicated, because even the "closure" has had the exception in the form of transit in coordination with Iran etc.) - but how does that have any bearing on what I wrote?

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#167

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

rayiner wrote: post #146
fc417fc802 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a fundamental function in the general sense, yes. But I don't think anyone was expecting that the US could do so in hormuz in this instance (at least without committing far more assets of a non-naval variety). I also think there are plenty of examples that take the form (strong navy, narrow body of water) where failure would be expected but that doesn't mean the navy in question isn't capable or that it fails t…

> But I don't think anyone was expecting that the US could do so in hormuz in this instance (at least without committing far more assets of a non-naval variety). I think that’s exactly what they thought. I think this was supposed to be a quick and dirty campaign like Venezuela. > I'm sure they could if cost was of no consequence but depending on the size of iran's drone stockpiles the interceptor costs might well ban…

> I think that (the US could keep Hormuz open) was exactly what they thought. I think this was supposed to be a quick and dirty campaign like Venezuela.

It depends on who "they" is. The accounts seem to be that Mrs Trump and Hegseth and co thought like this.

But everyone else (including the professional strategists let go in the DOGE purges, and the remaining ones in the room) thought that this was an incredibly stupid idea that was bound to fail for obvious reasons.

They were overruled. Another case of "they said it couldn't be done. But we tried anyway, and what do you know, they were right." Hubris, incompetence and idiocy.

> The military has been planning to attack Iran for 50 years.

And Iran has been preparing for attack for a long time too. Hence the drone stockpiles.

The Iranian regime might be deeply unpleasant, but they do not appear to be stupid or incompetent at this.

> there’s a real military lesson here

Agreed, but I think the lesson is more about listening to the professional strategists who are stating the obvious.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#168

Post by spiderfarmer »

ngai_aku wrote: post #82
derwiki wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The same Nixon whom JD Vance praised yesterday and called a victim of a deep state witch hunt?

JD Vance is a consequence of voting in the buffoon, yes.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#169

Post by ajsnigrutin »

dotancohen wrote: post #162
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because all the american assets in countries around iran will be "glassed" too, like american bases are already. And then special forces deep in US will start "glassing" US infrastructure, power, water, logistics, etc. (It's not terrorism if you're in war, it's just special units behind enemy lines). Looking at eg. texas, it doesn't take a lot to bring the whole power grid down, especially if properly planned. If you…

> Or just bomb a random school in retaliation for the one you guys bombed in iran? Yes, Iran likely has assets in the US who would attack US civilian targets. There is a big difference between deliberately attacking civilians and accepting that some civilians may be unintentional casualties. > Flying half the planet away to attack someone who in no way endangers you is controversial... You could either argue that Ira…

Luxembourg has assets in US that could endanger the US, but Luxembourg as a country is not endangering US. But if US attacked Luxembourg, all those people seeing their family being killed by the US might behave differently.

> I'll remind you that Iran's whole problem with Israel is due to Israel being allied with the US - not the other way around. They call you The Big Satan and chant for your death regularly, while developing long range missiles, nuclear weapons, and arming proxy armies that the regularly engage in armed conflict with the US and other Western assets. By no reasonable measure are they "not a threat" to the US.

Yes, what used to be my country (yugoslavia), did the same during the first half of the 1940s, including what the germans called terrorist attacks, attacks on infrastructure, "death to fascism" chants, mining roads, etc. Once the germans were pushed back to germany and taught a lesson, and when the bad guys in charge dealth with, we stopped.

And yes, looking at all the attacks against Iran, of course they need a nuke, they wouldn't be attacked now if they had one, they'd be safe. Since they don't have one, they've been attacked one way or another for the last 70+ years. That's what US and israel are afraid of, they want to attack iran again and not get nuked.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#170

Post by pohl »

rayiner wrote: post #147
pohl wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wouldn’t matter if they had. He’s doesn’t listen to anything he doesn’t want to hear. At this point one can safely assume that he was told exactly how this strategic defeat would play out, and it went in one ear and out the other.

I don’t think we can assume that. Maybe Trump ignored warnings (though if that happened I would have expected it to be leaked). But there’s also a possibility the Navy fucked up. And that’s important to consider, because that’s something that needs to be fixed.

We already know that he doesn’t read the PDB, and that they even tried sprinkling his own name throughout the text to hold his interest.
Post reply on HN