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

Iran starts Bitcoin-backed ship insurance for Hormuz strait

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 737 posts

Re: Iran starts Bitcoin-backed ship insurance for Hormuz strait

#301

Post by ajross »

everdrive wrote: post #20

Much of the post-WW2 American-led world order was founded partially on the United States using its military to keep international waters open. It would be quite stunning Iran defeated the united states in this sense. The military might is there, but this administration clearly had no idea what they were getting themselves into and did not plan accordingly. (and does not have the will or public support to do so) The b…

This spin is such a weird way of thinking about this. Hormuz was open! Hormuz had been open for decades! Iran "closed" it as part of a war that the United States started.

We weren't defeated in a attempt to "keep Hormuz open". Hormuz closed because we we started an entirely unrelated war. And lost. There's a difference!

Re: Iran starts Bitcoin-backed ship insurance for Hormuz strait

#302

Post by QuiEgo »

riffraff wrote: post #288
nradov wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modern US surface warships such as the DDG-52 Arleigh Burke class are pretty survivable. The Iranians (and their Houthi proxies) have made sustained attacks on them and don't seem to have hit anything. And a single hit would be highly unlikely to sink such as vessel: we're not talking about something like the Russian Moskva cruiser that was crewed by drunks and had inoperative defensive systems. The real problem is t…

Is it even worth to escort tankers? The money you spend on countering cheap drones would be massive, and this administration would likely ask the escorted ships to pay for protection. At that point, they might as well just pay Iran.

The rub is the insurance for the tankers. The providers are looking at the risk and saying “hard pass.” Unless the US govt wants to get in the tanker insurance business they are stuck.

Re: Iran starts Bitcoin-backed ship insurance for Hormuz strait

#303

Post by iugtmkbdfil834 »

Now.. and I am speaking just from the perspective of trying to achieve specific goals ( and accepting a level of pain for what those goals can demand ), if there was ever a possibility that US may ban/fully sanction bitcoin use, this actually might be it.

Re: Iran starts Bitcoin-backed ship insurance for Hormuz strait

#304

Post by dpark »

mooktakim wrote: post #299
everdrive wrote: post #20

Much of the post-WW2 American-led world order was founded partially on the United States using its military to keep international waters open. It would be quite stunning Iran defeated the united states in this sense. The military might is there, but this administration clearly had no idea what they were getting themselves into and did not plan accordingly. (and does not have the will or public support to do so) The b…

American navy has blockaded countries all over the world, so it's more true that they closed international waters. Waters were open before America existed. If Americans would actually learn their history they would see that the USA blockade was the reason Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, as the Japanese needed the water to open and thought taking out Pearl Harbour would prevent the US Navy controlling the Pacific. Japan…

> Waters were open before America existed.

A huge part of the reason sovereign nations built navies was to fight piracy. It’s not really true that waters were open historically.

Re: Iran starts Bitcoin-backed ship insurance for Hormuz strait

#305

Post by don_esteban »

DoctorOetker wrote: post #226
mrandish wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know enough about the current state of naval warfare but I've assumed this is related to the asymmetry that's emerged around protecting capital warships, especially in the scenario of a very narrow strait and a long enemy-controlled coastline. They can shoot relatively low-cost, short-range guided missiles from anywhere along the coast. Even if a warship stops the vast majority of them, only one has to get th…

suppose one has N independently developed interception systems (from detection till physical interception attempt), each with an intercept success rate of 90%. a rudimentary calculation then gives the probability of hitting (not sinking) the ship as 0.1^N per launched missile; so it seems that given enough budget to spend on independently developed missile interception systems allows to drive down the penetration suc…

You have abstracted things a bit too far.

Unless your interceptor system is unobtainium laser system with unobtainium cooling system, backed-up by unobtainium power source, you are going to run out of interceptor missiles (or even Phalanx bullets) way sooner than 'million missile attempts'.

Quite possibly 100-200 Shaheds + half a dozen proper anti-ship missiles will cause you to turn tail.

Re: Iran starts Bitcoin-backed ship insurance for Hormuz strait

#306

Post by runako »

gpm wrote: post #293
runako wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Separate discussion. I'm addressing the comment that the US Navy of today is a shadow of its former self.

No, the same discussion. It's fair to say the British navy is a shadow of the former British navy that more or less conquered the world. It's also obvious the current one with an aircraft carrier would beat the former one with wooden ships and cannons. The same applies to the US navy even when the difference is the quality and quantity of integrated circuits and not the difference between a telescope and radar.

You're not making a cogent argument.

From most perspectives (civilian, political, financial), the "better" military is the one that wins. Your'e arguing that a navy can be a shadow of its former glory and still also be what is understood as "better" by most people. This doesn't make sense.

phil21 makes a relevant point that navies are used for different purposes, and the current US Navy is tuned for a different task than that which it currently faces in the Gulf.

Re: Iran starts Bitcoin-backed ship insurance for Hormuz strait

#307

Post by [deleted] »

dpark wrote: post #304
mooktakim wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

American navy has blockaded countries all over the world, so it's more true that they closed international waters. Waters were open before America existed. If Americans would actually learn their history they would see that the USA blockade was the reason Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, as the Japanese needed the water to open and thought taking out Pearl Harbour would prevent the US Navy controlling the Pacific. Japan…

> Waters were open before America existed. A huge part of the reason sovereign nations built navies was to fight piracy. It’s not really true that waters were open historically.

[deleted]

Re: Iran starts Bitcoin-backed ship insurance for Hormuz strait

#308

Post by mooktakim »

dpark wrote: post #304
mooktakim wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

American navy has blockaded countries all over the world, so it's more true that they closed international waters. Waters were open before America existed. If Americans would actually learn their history they would see that the USA blockade was the reason Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, as the Japanese needed the water to open and thought taking out Pearl Harbour would prevent the US Navy controlling the Pacific. Japan…

> Waters were open before America existed. A huge part of the reason sovereign nations built navies was to fight piracy. It’s not really true that waters were open historically.

Are you saying there are no pirates now? US navy has solved all the world's problems? The blockades have killed millions of people, even in the last 30 years. When US sanctioned Iraq after the first war, they killed 500k people every year, and then US invaded Iraq on lies. The world would be safer without the US Navy.

Re: Iran starts Bitcoin-backed ship insurance for Hormuz strait

#310

Post by nradov »

QuiEgo wrote: post #302
riffraff wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it even worth to escort tankers? The money you spend on countering cheap drones would be massive, and this administration would likely ask the escorted ships to pay for protection. At that point, they might as well just pay Iran.

The rub is the insurance for the tankers. The providers are looking at the risk and saying “hard pass.” Unless the US govt wants to get in the tanker insurance business they are stuck.

The US government is already in the shipping insurance business. That hasn't helped. War risk insurance is also still available from other carriers.

https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/news/breaking-news/w...

Post reply on HN