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

141–150 of 198 posts

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#141

Post by pohl »

rayiner wrote: post #110
msabalau wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is fundamentally a failure of political leadership. You don't try to achieve a goal when you don't have the military means to achieve at a cost you are willing to bear. There are endless numbers of military objectives that the US military that could have been sent on where they would have had no chance to succeed. That they generally weren't is a function other administrations, however bad, not being so embarras…

> You don't try to achieve a goal when you don't have the military means to achieve at a cost you are willing to bear. Did the military advise the administration it would take a lengthy ground war to control the strait? Or was it pitched as something the Navy could do without a ground occupation?

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.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#142

Post by Gud »

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.

That would not be sufficient because Iran can send drones from deeper within its territory.

There is no way to keep the straight open without cooperation from Iran, or a near destruction of all their military assets.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#143

Post by giardini »

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…

This isn't a failure by the US Navy. It was a political decision to stop short.

The US could open the strait and eliminate all opponents but we don't have the political stomach for it. It would be a longer and more destructive process than people are prepared for right now. Nonetheless, what occurs next will enlighten us as to how to proceed.

Time will tell.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#144

Post by rayiner »

giardini wrote: post #143
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…

This isn't a failure by the US Navy. It was a political decision to stop short. The US could open the strait and eliminate all opponents but we don't have the political stomach for it. It would be a longer and more destructive process than people are prepared for right now. Nonetheless, what occurs next will enlighten us as to how to proceed. Time will tell.

> This isn't a failure by the US Navy. It was a political decision to stop short. The US could open the strait and eliminate all opponents but we don't have the political stomach for it.

Stop short of what? A land invasion? I think it’s highly unlikely that was ever on the table. Much more likely, the plan was to attack key Iranian targets with air power while the Navy kept the strait of hormuz clear.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#145

Post by 40four »

simonh wrote: post #103
40four wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Controlling the straight was never one of their objectives. Decapitating the regime and degrading their military capabilities was the primary objective. As others have said, the US can “reopen” the straight at any time they want. It’s not an issue of capabilities. But it’s very resource intensive and very expensive. The logistics of escorting ships in and out of the straight isn’t trivial. I forget the name of the op…

The US navy escorted ships through the strait back in the Iran Iraq war, but the situation has changed. There are naval drones and aerial drones now, the Iranians have access to Russian satellite data, and the US doesn’t have the volume and mix of ship types it had back then. The US navy has been over optimised for deep water peer fleet conflict. Bear in mind, the Red Sea has been functionally closed by the Houthis f…

Yeah exactly. Drones have changed everything. What might have used to be routine is now no longer the case. Iran just has to project power in the media, and shoot some drones out at some boats every now and then and they effectively “control“ the straight. The shipping insurance markets skyrocketed as a result, so ships literally couldn’t afford to take the risk and stayed put.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#146

Post by rayiner »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #140
rayiner wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, his point is that being unable to do that was (or at least should have been) a forgone conclusion. No, not at all. As I said, controlling straits and keeping them open for shipping is a fundamental function of a navy going back to Roman times: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_navy (“By far, the navy's most vital task was to ensure Roman grain imports were shipped and delivered to the capital unimpeded across…

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 bankrupt us. And even then they would only manage because (I assume) iran either can't or won't employ hypersonic missiles against tankers.

I think this is the part they overlooked. The military has been planning to attack Iran for 50 years. I can totally believe that they underestimated Iran’s drone capabilities and hypersonic missiles.

Either way, there’s a real military lesson here. Iran has enormous leverage over the world through its control of the strait of hormuz. Even the most powerful navy in the world can’t protect the world’s oil shipments without a land war against Iran (which I expect would be a trillion dollar effort). The Iranians are much more powerful than we thought.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#147

Post by rayiner »

pohl wrote: post #141
rayiner wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don't try to achieve a goal when you don't have the military means to achieve at a cost you are willing to bear. Did the military advise the administration it would take a lengthy ground war to control the strait? Or was it pitched as something the Navy could do without a ground occupation?

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.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#149

Post by giardini »

bulbar wrote: post #54
derwiki wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And should any "new world order" have the US in its center now?

We've paid for the entire world order outside the Soviet Union/Russia and China for decades. Time to present a bill, close the relationships (e.g., NATO, UN) and put our money and resources to better use for us in the USA.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#150

Post by swat535 »

drnick1 wrote: post #124
esseph wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because it's not true. CENTCOM can reopen the strait whenever they want This is not true. There is too much coastline to guard to protect from coastal drone launches. There are too many cheap drones and not enough cheap drone counters. There are still a LOT of working ballistic missile launchers. There are still a lot of anti-air threats, including medium and short range anti air, and combination infared+electro-op…

> There are still a LOT of working ballistic missile launchers. About half or so have been destroyed if one averages various estimates. The continuation of combat operations was the sensible option: not finishing off a wounded but aggressive animal is always a mistake. Iran will put whatever sanctions relief they get out of a "deal" towards rearming and rebuilding their nuclear facilities, and we will be back to squa…

> About half or so have been destroyed if one averages various estimates

This is a pretty bold claim. What's your source for this?

Post reply on HN