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

151–160 of 198 posts

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#151

Post by bulbar »

giardini wrote: post #149
bulbar wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Before Trump, the US was the best option by far. With Trump this needs to change obviously as the US might become an autocratic country similar to Russia soon.

> put our money and resources to better use for us in the USA.

I find it weird that people think that in a globalized world, the world order that evolved around the US was sustained out of altruism.

You don't want to influence what happens in the strait of hormuz? You won't hear complains from Iran. You really think all that hassle about the strait was done out of altruism? Venezuela as well?

Great Britain was once a global super power and now, well today they concentrate much more on themselves, so to say. You can concentrate on yourself, but others will keep playing the global power game and you won't get the better end of deals anymore.

I hope the power/wealth redistribution ends up helping Europe to a significant degree and not China.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#152

Post by giardini »

bulbar wrote: post #69
CerebralCerb wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the US wants to abdicate their position as a global hegemon of every waterway and trade route this seems like a good way to do it. The US is much less dependent on the Strait of Hormuz than its competitors. Ten years down the line it may be the case that India will sail up and enforce toll-free waterways instead. That will never happen as long as the US puts up the resources for it. The American taxpayer will be b…

It's not like the US did massive world wide power projection (capabilities) out of altruism. It's a necessity to project their political and economic demands. If the US citizen think being a super power is to expensive, that's fine for the world. No empire lasts forever. The US can become an important regional power, having its destiny more influenced by the upcoming super powers that fill the vacuum.

The USA has never been an empire.

And there are no "upcoming super powers" that are remotely able to "fill the vacuum".

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#153

Post by bulbar »

vkou wrote: post #106
bulbar wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's ironic that Vance and Co were bragging about "no more stupid rules of engagement" but then they effectively do the very same thing by not allowing boots on the ground for political reason.

Since you're kvetching about stupid political reasons I'm assuming you're volunteering to go first as drone cannon fodder? That 'political reason' is that US is war-weary, and the electorate will flip their shit when their kids get sent into the meatgrinder of a pointless war that none of them wanted, ran by TV stars, where the stated objective changes every 30 minutes.

I volunteer to keep voting for parties that do not start a war that effectively can only be won with boots on the grounds, as I have always been, from Europe, as a citizen of a Europe country.

> That 'political reason' is that US is war-weary, and the electorate will flip their shit when their kids get sent into the meatgrinder of a pointless war that none of them wanted, ran by TV stars, where the stated objective changes every 30 minutes.

I totally agree. It's just that they were bragging regarding restrictions for political reasons and that they wouldn't do that, just 'effective' warfare.

It somehow seems like there were good reasons that the US never went to war against Iran before. Maybe there were reasons for a lot of other stuff as well that people just not fully understand and the US now voted a man into power that doesn't understand it either. That's also why some people celebrate Trump as a genius. "Finally, a man with the same line of thought as me!" might possibly not be the same as being a genius.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#154

Post by esseph »

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…

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2026/05/07/iran-missiles...

CIA report claims 70% available.

There are massive connected and independent tunnel systems that house, protect, and maintain those systems.

Very hard to get all of them.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#155

Post by bulbar »

giardini wrote: post #152
bulbar wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like the US did massive world wide power projection (capabilities) out of altruism. It's a necessity to project their political and economic demands. If the US citizen think being a super power is to expensive, that's fine for the world. No empire lasts forever. The US can become an important regional power, having its destiny more influenced by the upcoming super powers that fill the vacuum.

The USA has never been an empire. And there are no "upcoming super powers" that are remotely able to "fill the vacuum".

Power vacuums get filled, obviously.

Why even maintain such a vast navy to consume money in international waters? Just protect your immediate coast line, why would you care what's going on in the Pacific or Atlantic Ocean or the Arctic, that's just costing money.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#156

Post by dotancohen »

justinator wrote: post #67
dotancohen wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#157

Post by dotancohen »

orwin wrote: post #127
drnick1 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then why is "glass the entire country" not an option? It is an option, but civilians bear most of the cost of it. That being said, I do think more could have been done militarily. The U.S. should have continued combat operations for at least a few more weeks and taken what is left of ballistic missiles, drones and arms facilities, etc. Striking dual-use infrastructure such as bridges and railroads is also fair game…

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.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#158

Post by dotancohen »

thecrash wrote: post #78
dotancohen wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Attacking civilians has always been "controversial". As a civilian myself, I would be pretty worried if this changed.

I never advocated attacking civilians. If you are suggesting that the Iranian military uses civilian human shields, then maybe you should reconsider which side you support.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#159

Post by dotancohen »

cloche wrote: post #71
dotancohen wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It's attacking civilians that's controversial.

I never advocated attacking civilians. If you are suggesting that the Iranian military uses civilian human shields, then maybe you should reconsider which side you support.

Re: Ships keep moving through Hormuz despite strike

#160

Post by slater »

dotancohen wrote: post #159
cloche wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's attacking civilians that's controversial.

I never advocated attacking civilians. If you are suggesting that the Iranian military uses civilian human shields, then maybe you should reconsider which side you support.

> why is "glass the entire country" not an option?

> I never advocated attacking civilians.

Post reply on HN