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

221–230 of 500 posts

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#221

Post by nec4b »

keefle wrote: post #196

I'm really confused as to why no where in the article do they mention the intent of attacking the ships. As if the houthis in yemen are attacking ships because they like it or just because they "hate developed societies". Their declared reason is to put pressure on Israel to allow humanitarian aid to Gaza at once. They target ships that have Israeli links or heading to Israeli ports. It can be seen as a form of treat…

>>As if the houthis in yemen are attacking ships because they like it or just because they "hate developed societies".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slogan_of_the_Houthi_movement

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#222

Post by saiya-jin »

tifik wrote: post #126
m4rtink wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Though I would hope that in a hopefully civilized age such acts and war crimes would be punished prevented from happening again, I would not say there are no consequences of these actions. Many Dutch citizens have been killed on board of MH17 - and the amount of military support to Ukraine provided by the Dutch has been quite significant. As for Iran and North Korea - I would say some lines have been crossed there th…

While Vrbetice is one of them, there is a million reasons why Czechs support a defensive war effort against Russia. E.g: being occupied for decades by Soviets and seeing the country wither under the Moscov rule.

Neighboring countries like Slovakia or Hungary could also state similar historical stuff (I lived through it myself) yet look at their current governments. Hungarians also had 1956 yet look at Orban

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#223

Post by justinclift »

ffgjgf1 wrote: post #199
mkii wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, what? Do Russians not live on Earth or something?

They seems to have some highly suicidal tendencies and really don’t mind massive casualties these days (e.g. 5x more Russian died in Ukraine in just 2 years than during the entire 10 year long Soviet war in Afghanistan). So one has to double whether they live in the same reality as most people in the west which makes them pretty scary and unpredictable

Bear in mind that the population of Russia is ~140-150M people:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia

Whereas Ukraine's is ~35M people:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine

So the approach of just overwhelming Ukraine with relentless numbers could be effective, even if callous/unsophisticated.

Kind of like that old saying "if it's dumb, but works... it's not dumb". As unfortunate as that is.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#224

Post by snird »

keefle wrote: post #196

I'm really confused as to why no where in the article do they mention the intent of attacking the ships. As if the houthis in yemen are attacking ships because they like it or just because they "hate developed societies". Their declared reason is to put pressure on Israel to allow humanitarian aid to Gaza at once. They target ships that have Israeli links or heading to Israeli ports. It can be seen as a form of treat…

[flagged]

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#225

Post by 4gotunameagain »

andsoitis wrote: post #71

> The US set up a multinational naval taskforce to protect the Red Sea transit route, which carries up to 12% of global trade. Reminder that might is needed to create a peaceful space within which peoples can trade.

Is this irony ? That the US is creating a "peaceful space" ?

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#226

Post by JumpCrisscross »

keefle wrote: post #196

I'm really confused as to why no where in the article do they mention the intent of attacking the ships. As if the houthis in yemen are attacking ships because they like it or just because they "hate developed societies". Their declared reason is to put pressure on Israel to allow humanitarian aid to Gaza at once. They target ships that have Israeli links or heading to Israeli ports. It can be seen as a form of treat…

> confused as to why no where in the article do they mention the intent of attacking the ships

This appears to be a maritime news service. Why rockets are flying isn’t practically relevant. You’ll see similar parsimoniousness in aviation reporting around war zones (and humanitarian reports around natural disasters).

There is almost always a market for concise commercial communications.

> target ships that have Israeli links or heading to Israeli ports

Ships in international waters have been targeted for not responding to hails. There is also no evidence anyone is coordinating the various militias that have fire control.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#227

Post by JumpCrisscross »

snek_case wrote: post #135
pclmulqdq wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's time to read some Clausewitz. That book outlines the philosophy of how most western states think about war. The short version I would say is that war is a tool of politics, so if there is no political goal, there will be no war, regardless of how bad the supposed Causus Belli is. Shooting down a drone usually doesn't do it partly because of the political implications: it would be deeply unpopular to put "boots o…

Seems to me that trigger events for wars are often about finding a justification for a war that people in power were already wanting to start. America doesn't want to go to war with Russia because we know it could be incredibly destructive, given that they have nukes. So, it would probably take a lot to start a war between the US and Russia. They would have to attack or be clearly planning to attack a NATO ally. It's…

> a war that people in power were already wanting to start

This is synonymous with a political goal. War is politics by other means. The dirty secret under that being most wars democracies engage in are publicly supported, at least at the outset.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#228

Post by flohofwoe »

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…

That drone was most likely downed because of plain incompetence by the Russian pilot. In such a case there's no point in "rewarding" the Russian propagandists with a similar response.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#229

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Aeolun wrote: post #217
bawolff wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Israel gets yelled at by the UN pretty constantly. If anything that statement applies to Israel more than most countries.

I guess I read it more as ‘actually holding them responsible’ than occasionally (or constantly) yelling at them, since that is kinda pointless.

> read it more as ‘actually holding them responsible’

What about recent events suggests Israel isn’t held, and does not hold itself, responsible for Gaza’s affairs? The principal complaint is that they’re holding themselves too responsible.

Re: Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea

#230

Post by JumpCrisscross »

mkii wrote: post #133
screye wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because events never cause wars. Countries want war and then they wait for an inciting event to go in. The US wants a war with Russia without putting boots on the ground. Ukraine was a convieinient excuse. 9/11 triggered a war with random middle eastern countries that the US wanted to invade anyway. If Cuba downed a large cargo ship, then the US will have annexed it before midnight. If China downs one in South China…

Sibling commenters saying US did not want to provoke a war with Russia are being biased imo. US drew a line in the sand, or kept pushing on the issue for Ukraine to NOT promise it would never join NATO. These are facts. Whether that justifies Russia invading parts of Ukraine is the debatable part. Hint, when you hear the mainstream media constantly repeating a slogan or phrase nearly unanimously, there's probably som…

> Whether that justifies Russia invading parts of Ukraine is the debatable part

No it isn’t? When America invaded Vietnam to keep it from going communist, that didn’t make Ho Chi Minh and his backers war mongerers. And it didn’t mean that we were provoked. We went to war to achieve the political objective of containing communism. We were the aggressors.

With Ukraine, Russia’s political objectives were unclear. The stated ones, about NATO expansion, have backfired. But just because Moscow was stupid doesn’t also mean it was absolutely the aggressor.

Post reply on HN