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

341–350 of 737 posts

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

#341

Post by mooktakim »

kortilla wrote: post #338
mooktakim wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying USA cared about the Chinese? Japan had already surrendered before US nuked them

No, Japan had not surrendered before the bombs. There is no evidence of that in Japanese or western history. Where are you getting that from? > Are you saying USA cared about the Chinese? I’m saying it was not beneath Japan to commit horrific atrocities on civilians. You can’t pretend they were some high moral actor that was only performing a military action to defend themselves.

Did I say the Japanese were good guys? Everything the Japanese did, UK, USA and other European countries have done worse. They're still doing it. Going back to the original reply, US Navy only benefited the US by screwing over the rest of the world

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

#342

Post by Jensson »

adrr wrote: post #297
anigbrowl wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really think the US wouldn't abandon it in a heartbeat if it became a matter of strategic necessity?

Countries that haven't signed do violate it. Israel prevents ships free transit to the Gaza strip. US does naval blockades and blows up boats.

Naval blockades of enemy ports during war are legal, that is what USA and Israel argue they are doing. That is not what Iran is doing, they are blocking fully neutral ships from going in other countries waterways.

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

#343

Post by RobRivera »

bena wrote: post #282
EthanHeilman wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bigger issue is the tankers. The US Navy isn't going to be happy patrolling the strait sure, but even if they did they wouldn't be able to protect the tankers enough for it to make sense for tankers to take the risk. The last time this happened the US opened the strait by accidentally shooting down an Iranian passenger plane after sinking a large chunk of Iranian navy. The Iranians assumed the US shoot the passen…

On a much smaller scale, this is advice I give to just about everyone: If your decisions won't affect how they treat you, then just do what you want. The fact that they won't like it doesn't matter, they didn't like you before.

This is very good career advice to any juniors reading

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

#344

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

Jensson wrote: post #331
HWR_14 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assisting the US with regard to Iran is phenomenally unpopular. The increase in energy prices isn't outweighing people's desire not to have their country assist.

Many countries have said they will help patrol the strait as long as the war stops. Iran wont be able to keep this after the war. Iran wont declare war against the entire world, so they wont shoot down their destroyers.

The attack on Iran was an attack on the globe, causing energy and supply chain issues for everybody, including the attackers.

Other countries are not volunteering to help prosecute more attacks on Iran, because they are already victims of those attacks, and it's bad enough that the USA and israel aren't even apologizing for hurting them, much less paying for the damages.

Thus, the offer to "help patrol the strait" once the USA and israel stop attacking is meant to persuade the USA and israel to stop attacking, not an indication of support for the USA and israel's attacks. Indeed, most countries do not support the USA and israel's attacks on Iran, were totally okay with the status quo, and would have preferred if the USA and israel had not attacked Iran.

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

#345

Post by _DeadFred_ »

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."

The United States formed our Navy because of Islamic Pirate/Slavers causing a lack of open waters.

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

"The Barbary threat led directly to the United States founding the United States Navy in March 1794."

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

#346

Post by tasuki »

stickfigure wrote: post #326
SlinkyOnStairs wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The actual blunder was exposing that weakness to the world. The world already knew. The real strength of the prior admins was in simply not needing the military force. The 2015 Iran nuclear deal is a relevant example here. It didn't cost the US anything .

It did, however, allow the Khomeini regime to murder its own citizens with impunity. So someone paid.

That same regime is still allowed to murder its own citizens, now more so than before. The US attacks have only made the regime stronger.

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

#347

Post by Jensson »

throwaway27448 wrote: post #127
FireBeyond wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Strait may well have some, but the traffic separation scheme for shipping is absolutely in Omani territorial waters, and another part of traversing the Strait includes passing through Iranian territorial waters.

Ok, so just de facto iranian. However, I believe Oman also collects fees. So in practice the distinction wrt shipping is moot

Oman doesn't collect fees...

> Ok, so just de facto iranian.

No, the route is entirely outside of Iranian waters. They attacked ships that were in Oman waters and put mines in Oman waters and now shoot at anyone trying to removing those mines in Oman waters. Nobody, not even the Iranian government, claims that is their water.

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

#348

Post by wongarsu »

doctorpangloss wrote: post #336
EthanHeilman wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bigger issue is the tankers. The US Navy isn't going to be happy patrolling the strait sure, but even if they did they wouldn't be able to protect the tankers enough for it to make sense for tankers to take the risk. The last time this happened the US opened the strait by accidentally shooting down an Iranian passenger plane after sinking a large chunk of Iranian navy. The Iranians assumed the US shoot the passen…

> This is why decapitation strikes are generally not done. They remove options and they undermine deterrence and paint belligerents into a corner. You don't think autocrats have a strong incentive to not die?

The dead leadership can't change their decisions anymore. And the new leadership has no reason to assume that considering a peace deal will keep them alive. The US has already shown that they are happy to break the deal, then a couple years alter kill you anyways. Staying the course at least keeps the internal threats down (which are just as capable of killing any autocrat)

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

#349

Post by mrandish »

dragontamer wrote: post #210
Majromax wrote: post #186

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. It's not the billion-dollar warships that transport oil, it's the much more fragile and unarmed tankers. Even if the US Navy begins full escort duty, it can't remain…

It's not even the strait that's the important geopolitical entity here. It's all the oil pumps and refineries in Saudi Arabia, Qatar or UAE. The US began to patrol the strait with Destroyers and immediately stopped when the scared Saudis immediately realized that Iran was about to attack Saudi oil rigs. -------- Iran has too many targets and the only thing that can stop them is the equivalent to an Israeli Iron Dome…

> Iran has too many targets and the only thing that can stop them is the equivalent to an Israeli Iron Dome across the entirety of the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE, maybe more.

Another key issue is Iran's regional neighbors haven't invested significantly enough becoming credible military threats against Iran. Instead they tried to play an in-between game of being tacit frenemies because Iran and its proxies could be politically useful. But in the last 3 years, Iran lost most of its proxies through a series of catastrophic miscalculations, dramatically shifting regional dynamics. Iran now has less reason to cooperate regionally and its neighbors lack of credible offense is costing them dearly.

A contributing factor is that the direct customers for much of what passes through the strait are Western European countries who've failed to sustain any real naval power beyond ceremonial presence. In recent years, the U.S. Navy had to quietly ask the German navy to stay away from the Western Indian ocean due to the additional burden of guaranteeing the safety of the German "warships" if they were attacked by Somali pirates.

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

#350

Post by mooktakim »

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #345
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." The United States formed our Navy because of Islamic Pirate/Slavers causing a lack of open waters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_corsairs "The Barbary threat led directly to the United States founding the United States Navy in March 1794."

Have you tried reading anything other than Wikipedia
Post reply on HN