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

Oil hits $100 a barrel despite deal to release record amount of reserves

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 121 posts

Re: Oil hits $100 a barrel despite deal to release record amount of reserves

#101

Post by YZF »

ytoawwhra92 wrote: post #100
YZF wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone says there's no historical examples but there is no exact parallel either. I wouldn't argue based on historical precedence here. The challenge is that regime is large and armed and they can hide and weather the storm. They'll hide in hospitals, and mosques, and schools and amongst civilians. Getting them and disrupting their organization to a point where a popular revolt can take over seems ... lessay hard.…

> What needs to happen is that some parts of the military, who are a bit less fanatic, switches sides. Then they need to drive the rest out of the country, and then keep them out forever, regardless of whatever chaos, instability, and misery arise within the country.

Not really. Most people will just switch sides. There aren't that many people for whom fighting to the death with other Iranians is a goal. If the 10% can control the 90% today then the 90% will have no problem controlling the 10%.

Re: Oil hits $100 a barrel despite deal to release record amount of reserves

#102

Post by YZF »

yutyut wrote: post #97
YZF wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wars are hard to predict and the economy is hard to predict. There's easy money in the making for those who are sure the oil price is going to continue way up. The blog you reference has inaccuracies. Drones are generally not shot by THAAD is a glaring one. It's very much not 2-3 million dollars to $50k. Helicopter gunships shoot down drones with bullets these days is very common and there are other economic means of…

> Helicopter gunships shoot down drones with bullets these days is very common and there are other economic means of bringing them down. > Everyone seems to be an expert today. Pot meet kettle? Speaking as a former helicopter gunship weapons and tactics instructor (WTI), this is a VERY broad generalization. Sure, a gunship can shoot down a drone with 20mm or 30mm but you have to get pretty close. And first you have t…

In Israel helicopters are routinely taking down these drones. There are many videos of them chasing them down. There was an incident where some houses were hit by that cannon fire as well. They are finding them (presumably with radar).

You're probably more of an expert than me so educate me on how this works. But it is working.

But yes, some drones are also being taken down with air to air missiles.

[EDIT: at least the videos from Israel] Those drones are typically shot down over your territory so air superiority and MANPADS are less of an issue.

My main point was it's not the $2M THAAD missile taking down a $50k drone.

EDIT: https://www.twz.com/air/ah-64-apache-is-getting-proximity-fu...

https://en.defence-ua.com/news/ukrainian_naval_aviation_heli...

https://kyivindependent.com/ukraine-shot-down-3-200-shahed-t...

https://theaviationist.com/2026/03/10/uae-ah-64-apaches-coun...

https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/us-apache-pilots-dro...

Re: Oil hits $100 a barrel despite deal to release record amount of reserves

#103

Post by YZF »

orwin wrote: post #88
YZF wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone says there's no historical examples but there is no exact parallel either. I wouldn't argue based on historical precedence here. The challenge is that regime is large and armed and they can hide and weather the storm. They'll hide in hospitals, and mosques, and schools and amongst civilians. Getting them and disrupting their organization to a point where a popular revolt can take over seems ... lessay hard.…

The UK population was _very_ weary of Churchill and his decision to involve the UK in WW2. You had the UK nazi party that was lobbying the industrialists, and the moscow-aligned communist party that was putting pressure on the laborers. Churchill would have lasted at most half a year after Dunkerque, and and much more pro-nazi PM could have been named. But the German airstrike campaign radicalised the UK population.…

So 90% of British wanted were being brutally oppressed on the eve of WW2 and called on the Nazis to bomb the UK so they can overthrow the government? Not only that but weeks before the Nazi attacks the UK government mowed down protestors with machine guns on the streets?

Got it.

I'm not seeing any parallels.

There can be some "rally to the flag" effect but the Iranian population by large is not going to suddenly like their government.

But to turn the story around a little. Do you see Americans rallying around Trump if the Iranians attack some high profile US targets?

Re: Oil hits $100 a barrel despite deal to release record amount of reserves

#104

Post by YZF »

cherry_tree wrote: post #91
YZF wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wars are hard to predict and the economy is hard to predict. There's easy money in the making for those who are sure the oil price is going to continue way up. The blog you reference has inaccuracies. Drones are generally not shot by THAAD is a glaring one. It's very much not 2-3 million dollars to $50k. Helicopter gunships shoot down drones with bullets these days is very common and there are other economic means of…

Why type so much with not a single drop of sourced information? > Everyone seems to be an expert today. > I'm not an expert. But Is this post intended as a joke?

It's intended as my informed opinion as a response to the parent less informed opinion with questionable sources.

I'm not the one writing a blog and pretending to be an expert. I have some knowledge and I can write what I want.

I know THAAD is against ballistic missiles and not against drones. I know Israeli helicopters have been bringing down drones. So I write that. It's true and I don't need to "source it". This isn't Wikipedia.

Re: Oil hits $100 a barrel despite deal to release record amount of reserves

#105

Post by YZF »

notepad0x90 wrote: post #89
YZF wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK. So I think your answer is actually a yes? In this case however you can pretty much do the same thing with other financial instruments like future contract on oil. Either way, I agree decision makers shouldn't be allowed to trade (and I think are forbidden in most countries).

You can do the same with proper financial instruments, but there are insider trading laws that prevent those people with insider knowledge from profiting, but these markets have no such restrictions.

Are you sure insider trading laws do not apply? I'd be surprised.

Re: Oil hits $100 a barrel despite deal to release record amount of reserves

#106

Post by _heimdall »

YZF wrote: post #101
ytoawwhra92 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What needs to happen is that some parts of the military, who are a bit less fanatic, switches sides. Then they need to drive the rest out of the country, and then keep them out forever, regardless of whatever chaos, instability, and misery arise within the country.

Not really. Most people will just switch sides. There aren't that many people for whom fighting to the death with other Iranians is a goal. If the 10% can control the 90% today then the 90% will have no problem controlling the 10%.

Do you know many people that live in Iran today? You're making bold claims about their loyalty and aspirations, though if that's first or second hand I'd be very interested to hear more.

Re: Oil hits $100 a barrel despite deal to release record amount of reserves

#107

Post by _heimdall »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #96
roryirvine wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much of that domestic consumption is used in the process of extraction and refining, so actually isn't on the market as such. My understanding is that GP is correct to say that the 20% figure rather understates the potential impact of a prolonged shutdown of the Strait. Pipeline capacity to the west is pretty limited. The connection via Syria is affected by the war aftermath, the Iraq/Turkey route is already at capac…

> Much of that domestic consumption is used in the process of extraction and refining, so actually isn't on the market as such. My understanding is that GP is correct to say that the 20% figure rather understates the potential impact of a prolonged shutdown of the Strait. The original claim was that all of the "domestic" oil was off the market. It's also not clear why oil used for oil production requires special trea…

What experience do you have working directly in the oil industry? You're making very specific and bold claims related to the fungibility of oil, oil infrastructure, transpiration, etc and they simply don't line up with my experience.

You won't replace oil pipelines or sea-based transportation by importing tanker trucks, its completely inpheasible on any reasonable timescale.

Similarly, you will never replace petroleum-based transportation at scale in any near term future with electric or other non-petroleum sources. The power to weight ratio of oil, ease of transport of liquid oil, and scale of petroleum a powered vehicles is simply unmatched. Go ahead and do the math on what it takes to replace a diesel oil tanker at sea to cross from Iran to China or the US to Europe, and don't forget to consider all the materials required to make battery storage equipment for such a trip. It doesn't work today and we aren't near a solution today that can replace oil with a viable, sustainable alternative.

Re: Oil hits $100 a barrel despite deal to release record amount of reserves

#108

Post by YZF »

tpm wrote: post #75
YZF wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The core of the problem is that the US stepped back under Obama from being the guarantor of global order. The world needs policing and deterrence is the sad reality otherwise everything goes to hell. Why did Russia attack Ukraine? Why is China threatening to attack Taiwan? Without the US (and the west more generally) Russia would retake half of Europe and China would have taken Taiwan. If you think there would be wor…

> The core of the problem is that the US stepped back under Obama from being the guarantor of global order. That is not the core of the problem. We can go a bit further: - Obama was a reaction to overstepping under Bush. As a 'guarantor of global order' the US created a lot of disorder with Iraq and Afganistan. That is actually more in line with what historically the US understands under 'the global order': the US do…

You're not wrong but neither am I. Both of these factors are relevant as is the break up of the USSR. And maybe even climate change. And globalization?

I'm not sure I would use the term "empire" to refer to the USA. It was for some time the world's only "super power" and it is still by far the strongest and most able to project power conventional military.

Whether or not it's "on its way out" - history will tell. Maybe? If it is I would claim this is more about internal forces than geopolitical ones (or internal forces influenced by geopolitics). Maybe that's also typical.

I would still say that when there is no policing the world goes to hell and there's not going to magically be "peace" by the USA not intervening. And yes, Iraq and Afghanistan were not great examples of how interventions can be followed by political gains. But- those interventions may have acted as deterrence anyways. Iraq took Kuwait by force. With no intervention why wouldn't they take all the Gulf states? It's easy to critique what happened but we also don't know what alternatives existed.

Keeping the world a peaceful place seems to require at least the threat of violence. Definitely given the composition of the world today. A threat that's never acted upon loses credibility. Too many Putins in this world who would invade and murder others at the blink of an eye if they feel that can gain them something.

Re: Oil hits $100 a barrel despite deal to release record amount of reserves

#109

Post by tpm »

YZF wrote: post #108
tpm wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The core of the problem is that the US stepped back under Obama from being the guarantor of global order. That is not the core of the problem. We can go a bit further: - Obama was a reaction to overstepping under Bush. As a 'guarantor of global order' the US created a lot of disorder with Iraq and Afganistan. That is actually more in line with what historically the US understands under 'the global order': the US do…

You're not wrong but neither am I. Both of these factors are relevant as is the break up of the USSR. And maybe even climate change. And globalization? I'm not sure I would use the term "empire" to refer to the USA. It was for some time the world's only "super power" and it is still by far the strongest and most able to project power conventional military. Whether or not it's "on its way out" - history will tell. May…

> I'm not sure I would use the term "empire" to refer to the USA.

the UN was created in New York mostly by the US, the dollar is the world's reserve and international trade currency, the main distinguishing point of other countries foreign politics is their relationship with the US, there are US army bases all over the world, english is the lingua franca (yes, partly carried over from the British empire, but still) etc.

> I would still say that when there is no policing the world goes to hell

and with the current policing it's going to hell too.

> there's not going to magically be "peace" by the USA not intervening

yes of course

> Iraq took Kuwait by force.

That was in 1991 and it was indeed the right reaction at the time but as the realists say it is quite doubtful we would see the same reaction in an oilless region.

> But- those interventions may have acted as deterrence anyways.

No. By the US ignoring the rules they helped to establish (2nd Iraq war) they helped to codify 'might makes right' as the only real rule and as a consequence both Israel and Russia knew they won't be stopped by the international rule based order. So we got Russia bombing and annexing parts of Georgia in 2008 (no reaction), annexing parts of Ukraine in 2014 (no reaction) and starting an all-out war in 2022 (finally some reaction but too little too late and now the US is more a friend of Russia anyway), and Israel genociding and expanding their lebensraum without any consequences whatsoever.

Re: Oil hits $100 a barrel despite deal to release record amount of reserves

#110

Post by Sabinus »

tpm wrote: post #75
YZF wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The core of the problem is that the US stepped back under Obama from being the guarantor of global order. The world needs policing and deterrence is the sad reality otherwise everything goes to hell. Why did Russia attack Ukraine? Why is China threatening to attack Taiwan? Without the US (and the west more generally) Russia would retake half of Europe and China would have taken Taiwan. If you think there would be wor…

> The core of the problem is that the US stepped back under Obama from being the guarantor of global order. That is not the core of the problem. We can go a bit further: - Obama was a reaction to overstepping under Bush. As a 'guarantor of global order' the US created a lot of disorder with Iraq and Afganistan. That is actually more in line with what historically the US understands under 'the global order': the US do…

>Obama was a reaction to overstepping under Bush

A great example of this was Obama asking Congress permission to bomb Syria after Assad used chemical weapons. A permission they delayed voting on until Russia ended up resolving the issue.

Quite the difference to how Trump's foreign adventures occur.

Post reply on HN