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

Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

gcaptain.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 500 posts

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#151

Post by kingofpandora »

readthenotes1 wrote: post #72
TerrifiedMouse wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And now the Houthi rebels have become battle-hardened guerillas and insurgents, capable of projecting force into the vital shipping lanes of the Red Sea. Their ability to attack the red sea has nothing to do with being "battle-hardened". They can only do so because Iran decides to supply them with missiles.

They only exist as catspaws for Iran in the first place...

They have their own origins, motivations and agency; it's a mistake to assume there's someone pulling all the strings (and this goes for all sides).

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#152

Post by wolverine876 »

Cupertino95014 wrote: post #148
bruce511 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well written. An extreme example of this is WW1. Its somewhat reductionist to ascribe the cause to "The Assassination of Franz Ferdinand", but there's a very clear path from that to the outbreak of war. Yes, tensions were high, yes the countries were all predicting a war, and yes all were rearming at a furious rate, but ultimately one event was the trigger, and its hard to see how war could have been averted by that…

I agree with most of that, except for: > it's hard to see how war could have been averted by that point when you read the day-by-day activity leading up to the war, you see plenty of missed opportunities. Czar Nicholas, especially, could have NOT mobilized. Wilhelm could have told Austria NOT to declare on Serbia. And Wilhelm could have said to his generals, "You know what? We're not attacking Belgium" in which case…

> Of course they were weak people who'd allowed themselves to be put in that position, so in that sense they perceived no choices.

What is the basis for saying it's weakness? The point is, it might have been politically impossible for them to do otherwise.

As an extreme example, after Pearl Harbor could FDR have said, 'we're going to let Japan get away with it'? No, he'd be impeached and removed from office, and someone else would have taken the US into the war. Politics is the ultimate power, not Nicholas, not Wilhelm.

Political power is often intangible, so it's easy to deny it from the sideline, but there's no doubt about its force.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#153

Post by exabrial »

huytersd wrote: post #100
kevingadd wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Israel-Palestine and Russia-Ukraine are not really about power or oil or gas. They're about land*, and no quantity of solar panels and wind turbines will fix that. * not just land, but ultimately, land

Shoot, with free energy you could build your own land.

precisely my point and what the downvoters are missing. ultimately all wars are energy wars... just maybe 2-3 times removed.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#154

Post by gnicholas »

semiquaver wrote: post #69
verelo wrote: post #3

I’m fairly concerned this Red Sea thing can turn into what sets off inflation for real. These routes were major efficiency factors to the economy. If we lose them, there’s nothing but added cost coming for us all, and at the worst time for consumer confidence in central banks ability to manage the situation. Can we just keep our shit together? It’s been a rough decade and it’s only 3 years into the 2020s…

You're underestimating how staggeringly cheap ocean freight is. A 40ft container can be shipped from China to NYC for under $3000; it's a very small portion of the retail cost of most goods. Even if cargo vessels all have to travel around the cape of good hope for a year or two, this increases the cost by a small percentage and is not going to kick off major inflation. Futures markets back this up, pricing in very mo…

Does this diversion significantly affect travel time, which would cause some shippers to opt for air instead of ocean?

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#155

Post by onthecanposting »

nomilk wrote: post #4

Something I'm unsure about is what does and doesn't trigger wars. Russian jets downed a US drone over the black sea in March 2023, I thought for sure there'd be a commensurate US military response. But there didn't appear to be one. Was it because no human was aboard the drone (so no response was justified), from fear or escalation, or something else? In any case, if a large cargo ship were sunk, would the US or othe…

There aren't rules. Casus Belli will be manufactured if war is desired and if not then these acts are ignored and the respectable media will dutifully keep it suppressed.

Right now the US security apparatus is trying its damnedest to maintain the illusion of invincibility by avoiding serious humiliation. Civilian leadership has prioritized ideological orientation over lethality for at least two decades. This is good if you're scared of a coup that would kick out all the ideologues who've made their long march through the institutions since Wilson, but a disaster if you want to win an armed conflict.

That said civilian leadership behaves like a mafia that protects good-fellas and keeps the competent out of leadership shows in how The State Department has miscalculated and mismanaged delicate situations with disappointing consistency from Benghazi to Venezuela to the completely laughable strategy of trying to overcome the Russian Federation with social shaming and loss of access to financial institutions as if Vladimir Putin was some naughty YouTuber they could cancel for an off-color joke.

The Federal Reserve can't print artillery shells. Ukraine has made it clear that combined arms doctrine and NATO weapon systems 10× the cost of their competitors' is a paper tiger. Empires have a shelf life.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#156

Post by bruce511 »

wolverine876 wrote: post #152
Cupertino95014 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with most of that, except for: > it's hard to see how war could have been averted by that point when you read the day-by-day activity leading up to the war, you see plenty of missed opportunities. Czar Nicholas, especially, could have NOT mobilized. Wilhelm could have told Austria NOT to declare on Serbia. And Wilhelm could have said to his generals, "You know what? We're not attacking Belgium" in which case…

> Of course they were weak people who'd allowed themselves to be put in that position, so in that sense they perceived no choices. What is the basis for saying it's weakness? The point is, it might have been politically impossible for them to do otherwise. As an extreme example, after Pearl Harbor could FDR have said, 'we're going to let Japan get away with it'? No, he'd be impeached and removed from office, and some…

Yes, j guess that's my point. Certainly individuals "could" have said or done anything. But politically, either personally or nationally, the outcomes were going in one direction.

Russia has an alliance with Serbia. Not mobilising would have had significant international repercussions.

Perhaps Germany could have removed the blank-cheque support for Austria. That may have de-escalated things, but may have left Germany unaligned, and thus vulnerable.

Occasionally a domino doesn't fall, but all too often, if you set them up right, they do what they do best.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#157

Post by wolverine876 »

bawolff wrote: post #147
wolverine876 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many US wars were triggered by dis/misinformation: The Gulf of Tonkin for Vietnam, and the fictitous nuclear weapons program in Iraq come to mind. For Iraq, the government made an argument something like, 'you can't wait for the mushroom cloud'.

I think there is a difference between how wars are "sold" to voters and why nations actually go to war.

Yes, good point. But let's not overestimate leaders' deep strategic thinking or rationality; they can be mislead and emotional too.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#158

Post by throwup238 »

nomilk wrote: post #4

Something I'm unsure about is what does and doesn't trigger wars. Russian jets downed a US drone over the black sea in March 2023, I thought for sure there'd be a commensurate US military response. But there didn't appear to be one. Was it because no human was aboard the drone (so no response was justified), from fear or escalation, or something else? In any case, if a large cargo ship were sunk, would the US or othe…

Remember the Maine!

The military responses are difficult to predict because most of the time the headlining events only provide casus belli for plans that are already in motion but kept secret for strategic reasons. They're the sparks that politicians use to justify their actions abroad and at home because few people want to die for unrighteous causes but they're a sideshow to the planning and logistics that goes on to prepare for war. Predicting when war begins requires being in tune with the internal realpolitik of both sides which is unrealistic for most people.

Game theory is useless if you don't understand the interests of all the relevant players in a polity and even in an authoritarian regime like Russia or Saudi Arabia there are a LOT of them.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#159

Post by dragonwriter »

throwup238 wrote: post #158
nomilk wrote: post #4

Something I'm unsure about is what does and doesn't trigger wars. Russian jets downed a US drone over the black sea in March 2023, I thought for sure there'd be a commensurate US military response. But there didn't appear to be one. Was it because no human was aboard the drone (so no response was justified), from fear or escalation, or something else? In any case, if a large cargo ship were sunk, would the US or othe…

Remember the Maine! The military responses are difficult to predict because most of the time the headlining events only provide casus belli for plans that are already in motion but kept secret for strategic reasons. They're the sparks that politicians use to justify their actions abroad and at home because few people want to die for unrighteous causes but they're a sideshow to the planning and logistics that goes on…

> Game theory is useless if you don't understand the interests of all the relevant players in a polity and even in an authoritarian regime like Russia or Saudi Arabia there are a LOT of them.

Game theory can be applied to infer interests when behavior and context are known as well as to predict behavior when interests and context are known (it can also be used to infer hidden elements of context when interests and behavior are known.)

So, no, its not strictly useless when interests are unknown.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#160

Post by Joel_Mckay »

m4rtink wrote: post #114
Joel_Mckay wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This book explains when wars serve national policy. For example, authoritarian states who failed to handle the Pandemic would also strongly suggest a tragedy must unfold to retain power. "The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics" ( 2011, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, Alastair Smith ) https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Po... Not a pleasant read, but a well reasoned mod…

Well, that was basically how the Falkland war happened.

It is difficult to reconcile the actions of political movements falling into despotic trajectories.

We lived in an age of false kings, great bandits, and imbeciles.

=)

Post reply on HN