Maersk ship hit by missile in the Red Sea
gcaptain.com
gcaptain.com
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 other nations go to war, would they retaliate with a similarly sized response, or would they do nothing (as with the Russian downing of the US drone).
Does anyone have some good resources on this topic? As a layperson I find military responses difficult to predict. (I'm familiar with foundational game theory, but not specific to international relations and security)
Shooting down a drone usually doesn't do it partly because of the political implications: it would be deeply unpopular to put "boots on the ground" over a shot-down drone.
> if there is no political goal, there will be no war
In Clausewitz, this is more of a normative statement than a rule about war in reality. One of the things he's trying to caution against is the escalatory dynamic that he views as inherent to purely military logic – that war (in a vacuum, so to speak) will always increase in intensity. But in reality, certain factors can and should ameliorate this inexorable escalation – political goals, "friction," and the "fog of war" are examples. War without the control of a political goal will be ceaselessly increasing destruction to the point of purposelessness. This is one reason why we insist on civilian control of the military, because we do not wish for an independent general staff to be prosecuting a war according solely to war's inner logic.
It's possible that even if Russia intentionally downed a US jet, it would not immediately trigger a war. The US would likely add more sanctions, but they would probably show incredible restraint as well.
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.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/09/21/us-war-crimes-yemen-stop...
https://news.usni.org/2016/10/11/uss-mason-fired-3-missiles-...
https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2020/03/houthis-incr...
This isn't to dispute evidence of US war crimes, to be clear, but claiming the Houthis have just been doing nothing in response does not line up with the overwhelming evidence.
Somehow I doubt a war would start if a NATO ally would be attacked. Perhaps if invaded but not if attacked. And it’s not the US i don’t trust, it’s continental western europe. It lacks the military and the economy to carry out a war against any country with a bit of power. Continental Western Europe has already proven a lack of will and capacity. Wars in eastern europe are cataclismic events and the only country that can survive and potentially win is the US and the countries in the region if well armed and properly motivated.
Therefore, as soon as a NATO country is attacked, west europe will claim tough luck, pull back and appease. The US won’t want to do it alone - and rightfully so. Putin knows this and is marching on. The cost of invasion for him and Russia is negligible - if anything it’s a net positive, as he now knows what his army lacks and it exposed those in his ranks that need replacement.
Worth noting is that Clausewitz lived in a world where wars were events that were declared between states.
Today a major difference is insurgency/counterinsurgency. And our state likes to wage wars without formal declaration. Not to mention its wars against abstract concepts instead of foreign states.
Sort of. Born 1780, died 1831, the main wars in his life were the Napoleonic Wars.
But he would not have been unfamiliar with the Wars of Religion that convulsed Europe for 150 years following Luther's Protestant Reformation and culminated in the Peace of Westphalia. These we not regular state-on-state wars, but were a series of internationalized civil wars, caused by Protestant and Catholic low-level violence, coups, usurpations, overthrows, assassinations, and other civil conflicts. These low-level conflicts caused by non-state actors who were part of a transnational religious/ideological movement were not unlike the religious/ideological insurgencies we see today.
Clausewitz would also have seen wars of colonization/imperialism and decolonization in the New World. These were also wars of states against irregular non-state combatants. Especially after the Napoleonic Wars, when the Concert of Europe was keeping stability in Europe, the main form of warfare Clausewitz would have been observing would have been wars of colonization/decolonization.
This really well fits what Russian gov does (as someone from there).
I actually think every offensive war is explained by concepts because people don't want to just kill people, they need a higher explanation to risk death and sleep at night after some murdering. It is in the name of religion or unification or against Nazism or against rotting capitalism. Only true defence doesn't need explanation.
ok but I am pretty sure the OP was talking about the US's politically-motivated forever wars on nouns, the "War on Some Drugs" and the "War on Terror But Not The Causes Of Or Allies Hosting Terror".
The political goal of a war is one part, which the governments are trying to achieve. But once the bullets start flying, there is also the anger, rage, and passions of the people as their relatives come home dead, maimed, or hurt. And finally there is the interplay of chance and luck, which the military leadership has to leverage through skilled command. To Clausewitz, war is a trinity of these things, not “the continuation of politics by other means.”
He does also go into the “cost of the object.” Whereby not every war goal is necessarily worth mobilizing the entire society and fighting an existential fight. And when the cost of achieving the goal exceeds its worth, nations will come to the table and negotiate peace.
Supposedly there are political implications for not responding to the shooting down the drone too. How are those taken into account I wander?
It seems that there is a deep believe in the US that if they wouldn’t “provoke” then russia would not attack as it would not have a reason to do it.
While I understand the logic it is still a very serious and dangerous miscalculation because “provocation” happens within russian head independently of the reality. russia can simply claim it was provoked/attacked by NATO so I really do not understand how “trying not to escalate to avoid provoking” works as deterrence.
From what I observed it doesn’t and only gives green light message to russian aggression and this could be hardly seen as a desirable political goal for US as I understand.
But yes, Russia seems to use this "poking" tactic quite often, trying to provoke a response.
Are you talking about the drone or NATO adding Ukraine?
The funny thing about reality is there is none except our own observations. Not to get too philosophical, but Russians "reality in their heads" is exactly what everyone experiences.
Claiming "I was provoked" as justification means some arbitrary line was crossed. That line will be different for you and me, and as such it's not an objective measure. Ergo, it is disconnected from the objective reality of the situation, and much more connected to the subjective interpretation of the situation.
Russia has flown Bear nuclear-capable bombers over the UK (actually over land), with no consequences [1].
Russia, Iran, and North Korea all trade arms with each other and supply missiles, drones, and ammunition to the Houthi.
Russia invaded Ukraine and deploy weapons from the above "axis" countries.
I don't think a specific individual trigger event exists for a military response. More typically, the West goes to war when energy security is threatened.
[1] My parents live in Cornwall and witnessed this https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/19/russian-bomb...
I don’t think this is a good example, given that the act is widely considered to be a mistake. The US shot down IR655, Soviets KL007, Ukrainians S7-1812, Iranians PS752 ... it happens. MH17 is egregious (as was KL007) for a refusal to admit blame, but hardly a casus belli, despite the tragedy.
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 that will play out longer term, but at least it now seems to be, for some peculiar reason, easier for South Korea to ship artillery shells abroad, either directly to Ukraine or to back fill allied stocks so they can ship what they have to Ukraine.
Also I don't think Isreal/Russia relations will recover from what Iran linked terrorists did on October 7. While rather busy right now, Isreal produces some rather advanced weapon systems, one really does not want to be on the receiving end of (see the Karabakh war as an example).
Also after it became apparent Russia was behind the Vrbetice ammunition warehouse explosion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Vrb%C4%9Btice_ammunition_...), which killed 2 Czech citizens, the response was quite significant (on a 10 million citizen country scale):
* almost all Russian diplomats expelled (ending one of the bigger Russian embassies in EU)
* Russia was removed from the lucrative Dukovany nuclear power plant tender
* many Czech companies who still had relations from the soviet times with Russian companies stopped providing support and shipping replacement parts
* LOTS of kit: https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/07/bohemian-brotherhood-l...
- 79 MBTS + 105 more to be restored & shipped to Ukraine
- multiple mi-24 helicopter gunships
- 100+ IFVs
- dozens of self propelled guns
- Anti Shahed technicals (!)
- 10000 RPGs, 1.5+ Million Artillery, Tank And Mortar Shells, a small mountain of small arms, a big mountain of small arms ammunition
Some of this was even crowdfuded - a tank, a Tatra based MLRS system, some of the technicals. There is also an ongoing fundraiser to buy a UH-60 Black Hawk (!): https://www.weaponstoukraine.com/kampane/cestmir
So while in reality evil is often not ended by Gandalf charging in, the same or arguable even worse result for the evildoer is often achieved over a longer time with less glorious, messy but still effective means.
E.g: being occupied for decades by Soviets and seeing the country wither under the Moscov rule.
As I recall, from watching the video and reading news reports, Russian fighters were flying extremely close to the drone, harassing it, and dumping fuel on it, etc. One of them got too close and collided with it while doing this.
It’s not like they attacked the drone with weapons. They presumably easily could have.
No one died. The downing may not have been intentional. Why escalate?
The action itself matters less than the consequence. The typical example is that USA gets away with shit other countries can't because nobody wants to invade usa.
My understanding is that in this particular situation - yemen is a humanitarian disaster after their civil war. Any country that invades is going to be seen as responsible for fixing that mess, and nobody wants responsibility for that.
I think the other factor is that israel is not a popular country in most of the middle east. Even if these ship attacks screw over most of the countries in that region (probably hurting egypt more than anyone else) many of the regimes in the middle east dont have a super solid grip on power and are afraid to do anything that might be seen as helping Israel (even if really they are mostly helping themselves) lest it leads to popular discontent locally. Countries further away are less keen to get involved because middle east is a continual powder-keg that nobody really wants to get sucked into.
[Im definitely not an expert on this, just one uninformed opinion]
You’ve just hit on Clausewitz’s “wonderous yet paradoxical trinity,” which usually gets misquoted as “war is the continuation of politics by other means.”
Unless the invading country is Israel.
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.
Its not a "do this or else" sort of thing, but it definitely has had a major effect on regional politics.
Arguably one of the main causes of the current war is israel-saudi normalisation. So you could say that this yelling is so important to some factions that arab countries backing away from it triggered a major war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incid...
On 9 December 2011, Iran lodged a formal complaint to the United Nations Security Council over the UAV violating its airspace.
Iran's U.N. ambassador stated in the letter that "My government emphasizes that this blatant and unprovoked air violation by the United States government is tantamount to an act of hostility against the Islamic Republic of Iran in clear contravention of international law, in particular, the basic tenets of the United Nations Charter."One issue with cargo ships being attacked is that it is only act of war against the flag nation. The three big flag nations have no navies. I wonder if we’ll see more ships registered in countries with navies.
The other complication is that the attackers are Houti rebels. The US doesn’t want to get involved in that conflict cause they have held off Yemen government and Saudi Arabia for years.
Sure, showing that you can shoot most of the missiles down or ignoring the other party might actually be the right thing in the end. But it still seems wrong when someone just starts shooting on ships on one of the main global shipping lanes. Others might might get an idea & start doing the same for whatever reason. :P
The Houthis in this case are closer to kids throwing rocks at cars than a viable military force. Bringing the SWAT team to rain terror on the whole neighborhood is, as you say, likely not the best course of action.
Probably more in the 'emotions' camp than in the 'concrete facts' camp, even if no one wants to admit it.
For Iraq, the government made an argument something like, 'you can't wait for the mushroom cloud'.
According to Clausewitz, "war is the continuation of politics through other means." A state goes to war when it believes it can achieve a political objective through force that is infeasible through diplomacy, deterrence, soft power, intimidation, etc.
The US and Russia fighting directly would be quite dangerous due to the nuclear capabilities of each, so whatever political objectives America might wish to achieve through a hot war would be (quickly) overshadowed. Thus the US has revived its Cold War stance of supporting Russia's enemies without direct involvement.
Arguably the US and Russia were already in a war (albeit fairly cold) when the drone was hit. They were in the process of maneuvering and prepare the information space.
After the drone strike, civilian support for conflict with Russia increased, and America used that increased support to put increased pressure on Russia in various places.
So I'd expect militaries to asymptotically end up with something similar: we prefer cooperation, but will retaliate individual incidents.
... unless there's a political agenda for war, in which case all reason goes on vacation.
Arguably the #1 priority of professional IR is to prevent wars (with occasional exceptions, such as Russia or Hamas recently, but even they want to control when, where, and how). Wars can and do happen whether you want them or not; if you want to prevent them, good will - even on both sides - is not nearly sufficient. You need to understand the mechanisms and operate them effectively. It's not about game theory, but a very human, emotional mechanism:
The fundamental mechanism is politics. The most fundamental theory of warfare, courtesy of Carl von Clausewitz, is that it is "The continuation of political intercourse, with the addition of other means ...", the other means being violence. Warfare is politics, carried out through violence rather than through elections, negotiation, etc.
Another mechanism is the cycle of escalation. You'll see non-experts say, when threatened or attacked, 'we should strike back harder!': It's emotionally satisfying, it feels safer - anger helps people feel safe in danger, and attacking feels powerful; also it sells well politically for those reasons - the politician looks 'tough' and won't be called 'weak'. And here's that fundamental mechanism, politics: Experts know that a common cause of unwanted warefare is the cycle of escalation. Both sides 'strike back harder' - the other side responds just like you do - and the political machine revs higher and hotter, and, well, war is politcs - at a certain point, you can't stop the war. One diplomat I read said, 'the job of diplomacy is to prevent a B-level problem from turning into an A-level problem'.
IR professionals need to find ways to respond - to deter and at the same time for their leaders to succeed in that political machine - without escalating. For example, years ago North Korea did something threatening regarding their nuclear weapons program. I wondered how the US would respond. The US flew a nuclear-capable (but not nuclear armed) bomber from the US, over South Korea, and back to the US. There was no threat to NK from one bomber, but the message was clear - we can reach you from the US (so destroying SK will not protect you), we have vast capabilities you don't and can't stop, we also have nukes, we have a very close relationship with SK, and we are very serious.
Another mechanism that causes warfare is a lack of flexibility, a lack of options. Popular takes on IR love to urge that a 'line in the sand' or 'redline' should be drawn - another tough, angry way to feel powerful and safe. You don't see professionals say it however. For an example of why, remember early in the Syrian civil war when Assad was dropping chemical weapons on their own population. The US publicly announced a 'redline', saying use of chemical weapons would result in (I forget what). Then Assad did it anyway. Now the US was caught - they had backed themselves in to a corner with their redline, taking away their own options. Assad chose their moment to embarass the US, and in the end, the US effectively backed down and lost credibility.
If you have no options, then the other side pulls the strings; they can force you to act when, where, and how they want - and you can assume they will chose the worst possible situation for you. You'll hear professionals say that leaders want options - lots of options. That's why. If you fight or do anything, you want to do at the time, place, and with the means of your own choosing - another phrase you'll hear.
Finally, know that these very sensitive, complex mechanims tend to produce unintended consequences, and there are no take-backs. IR professionals craft responses very carefully and try to anticipate all contingencies, and then hold their breath. If your single bomb accidentally ignites the natural gas distribution network and blows up half the city, nothing will undo that. Even if they don't want to, the enemy will be compelled - by that political mechanism - to respond as if you intentionally burned down the city and killed tens of thousands of civilians, and now you have a possible war and an enemy for generations.
Hope that helps. I wish HN had some professionals in that field to chime in here.
One of the two biggest global superpowers, the PRC, bombastically announces a dozen or so redlines per year.
The actual diplomatic language for war is “勿谓言之不预” (from official diplomatic channels) and they use “core interests” for a vaguely defined redlines: https://www.strategictranslation.org/glossary/core-interests
So yes, cross “redlines” won’t trigger a war with PRC. And ignoring final warning is also fine.
Other countries world-wide, especially right-wing movements in them, have also been fanning nationalist flames. We know well what the outcome often is.
Well, we are about 50 years overdue for a large scale conflict?
Thanks nukes. There’s something to be said for nobody wanting to open pandora’s box.
Those institutions, including the UN and the rules-based international order, were built by the people who fought WWI and WWII, specifically to prevent future war. We can say that they got the outcome they aimed at, an historic acheivement. We live at the most peaceful time in history, including for non-nuclear states.
They built that - at the end of WWII when many despaired of humanity - and we have the institutions, playbook, everything. Why would we throw that away? Why aren't we building on that for the next generation, just like they did? We almost can't be stopped if we choose to do it; only if we inexplicably quit. Who would want us to do that?
What actions do you consider productive contributions to peace and preventing war? What aren't we doing, that was done before. What does quitting look like?
> it just seems like more neo-reactionary rhetoric. It couldn't be that democracy, international institutions (such as the UN), etc. have changed the world - that we built a better world.
Maybe you are right and it is the institutions that changed the world, but I find it odd that you attribute causality to actions following the war, and not the war itself.
What if the rebalancing of national power and massive loss of life is what actually lead to peace, and all this discussion of institutions is just noise and fluff.
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 point.
So the assassination might not have been the outright cause, but it was certainly the spark struck on a very big pile of very dry tinder.
At the moment in the middle east there seems to be a strong desire by lots of actors not to get sucked in to what us now 3 major conflicts in the region. Lets hope that holds.
> 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 England stays out. At least for a while.
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.
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.
There was really nothing or almost nothing to gain and everything to lose for all the aides involved in WW1. So I’d say it was stupidity rather than weakness. Relatively to its scale it was probably the most pointless war in human history.
The things it achieved, end of monarchy in Central/Eastern Europe and the eventual collapse of global European empires are not something the people who started it ever wanted.
That is very true but my conclusion is the opposite. US diplomacy did everything to not create options for Russia. Everything the US did deepened the impression that the invasion would be a walk in the part for Russia and US will do nothing. Russia had just one option left - to attack.
If US had rapidly moved a division into Ukraine for joint exercises when Russia started to threaten at the end of 2021 then it would have created options for Russia.
Sometimes you have to escalate to de-escalate.
Sorry, but trying to blame other for the Russian invasion is total bullshit
Look, the situation was not like don't go down this alley, it's dangerous, it was like you are surrounded by Russian crooks who want to kill you, only a miracle could save you.
It was clear in December 2021 that Russia WILL attack Ukraine - multiple countries started preparations based on this. Preparations that ended up being crucial for Ukrainian survival but US (or NATO) decisive action could have averted the war as it was also clear that Russia is not willing to fight with US or NATO - this could have been the saving miracle.
The Russian plan was a Blitzkrieg to overtake Ukraine in weeks and then threaten US and NATO with nuclear war when they plan to react.
This plan would have fallen apart when they should have attacked US or NATO forces to begin with.
Like I told, Russia had only one option left at the end of 2021 - attack Ukraine. There was no go home option on the table because they had talked themselves out of it. Now if option to attack Ukraine would have switched to attack US and NATO then most likely they would have reconsidered the go home option more seriously and chosen that instead.
As with every field, you will discover a different plane of existence for knowledge, like people from an arid continent discovering another with far richer, deeper, more productive soil, with more vivid and interesting flora. You can't even describe it to people who haven't been there, who have never left their arid land (most of the Internet) and can't imagine a better world; they don't understand. (An example is going from newspaper science journalism to reading the journals Nature and Science.) It's sad - one of the great boons of the Internet is that now, all that wonderful knowledge is at humanity's fingertips, and instead they stay in their arid world (with floods of mis/disinformation added to it).
The general rule (with anything) is that the greater the latency, the better the information: Continuously updated (eg social media, cable news) publications aren't as rich in knowledge (or as accurate) as daily ones, which aren't as good as weekly, ..., which aren't as good as books. Don't get caught up in the daily cycle; get ahead of it - far ahead of it - by first reading the 'high-latency' publications and fitting in low-latency where you can.
---- Journals
* A good place to start is Foreign Affairs, written for professionals and what I'll call the serious public, and written by leading experts and practitioners, from US presidents and cabinet secretaries to leading diplomats to academic experts. Published quarterly.
* Another good one is Political Science Quarterly, with serious papers written by political scientists for the public. It has much more than IR, but that material is also fantastic. Stop reading everything else and pick up PSQ.
* You can find lists of the leading academic IR journals by impact. Just like in the natural sciences, there are journals where the big discoveries are published, specialised ones, etc. Look them up and see what fits your interests.
* The most valuable use of time, IME, is to read the book reviews in the journals: You learn about the leading books and ideas in IR, and from the expert reviewer you get another point of view, context, and they will talk about yet more perspectives. Also, what experts say in passing, the knowledge they've internatlized, can be the most valuable to the amatuer.
---- Think tanks
Anyone can call themselves a 'think tank', so you need to be careful. Some have tremendous expertise and seriously pursue creating and disseminating valuable knowledge. Some are the pet project of someone with some cash to spend. Some are holding tanks for experts whose party is out of power - they rotate between political office and think tanks, depending on who wins the election. Some are created to cynically provide intellectual cover for political and ideological groups - conclusions are predetermined by political leaders, the 'think tank' just finds ways to give it intellectual legitimacy (Heritage comes to mind). Many are bought and paid for by donors, including foreign powers (e.g. the Saudis), or by relationships with a particular government.
Material from good think tanks can be invaluable, making the analysis you read in even the best newspapers (even the NYT, etc.) obsolete. For the 'intellectual cover' ones, you can see their effectiveness when their talking points are repeated in newspaper op-eds, and then by your friends and neighbors (and HN commenters), and then become common 'wisdom'.
IIRC the University of Pennsylvania publishes a guide to think tanks, which might be a good starting point. Among the leading think tanks in IR are Brookings, CSIS, Chatham House (UK), Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Washington Institute (for the Mideast - biased, but great info).
Finally, be sure to find think tanks in other countries, for completely different perspectives. Australia, for example, is English-speaking, has sophisticated IR, but is so geopolitically far from other English-speaking countries (almost all in NATO) that you can get a very different and eye-opening perspective, especially about China.
---- Daily analysis
Foreign Policy, which seems to cater to the Washington diplomatic community, can be pretty good. But again, beware the low-latency trap - it's not nearly as rich in knowledge as the journals and think tanks, IMHO.
There's also Defense One and Breaking Defense, which aim at professionals and the industry. Beyond newsy items, they have essays from leading experts, and analysis on a different level than even the NYT, etc. The defense industry is enormous, and my impression is that you can much more easily find material aimed at it than the tiny diplomatic 'industry'. But miltiary is just a means of IR, and there is much overlap - including in trying to prevent warfare.
"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 model of violent human behavior. =)
We lived in an age of false kings, great bandits, and imbeciles.
=)
These vehicles do typically not "belong" to a traditional nation state. They are typically operating from (= registered in) some tax haven (Bahamas, Caymans, etc). This particular ship, I don't know.
It can be argued that the owner in this case is Danish (the Maersk Company has it's HQ in Denmark), but then again they are a publicly traded company and as such the ownership has multiple nationalities.
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.
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.
Missile hits Red Sea container ship, US destroyers shoot down two more
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/31/missile-hits-r...
The US (and other nations) are already there.
I’m not sure though if a Saudi-Iran-Russia axis would be in anyone’s interest. So maybe bombing the Houthis and trying to drag SA back into the war wouldn’t be the worst idea ever (if everyone just ignores the civilian suffering which is generally quite easy).
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 sea, the US might keep it quiet because neither country wants a violent escalation into war just yet.
War is premeditated. The inciting event is just the excuse.
If that was true, the us wouldn’t be still dragging their feet two years into the war on arming the Ukrainians with air and long range strike capabilities. It took long enough for Bradley’s and artillery to be delivered.
This is a complete fiction. The defense apparatus was in the process of shifting its focus from the middle east to China when this broke out. It is making the preparations for a pacific war much harder.
Hint, when you hear the mainstream media constantly repeating a slogan or phrase nearly unanimously, there's probably something that language is hiding. I'm thinking about how all media called the war "unprovoked". Well, that isn't entirely true, and is some US propaganda/face-saving measure.
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.
I dont think you can stake this claim without understanding the objectives, the resolution of the war, and especially exploring the counterfactual from the Russian perspective.
It is easy to sit and the west and imagine that Russia regrets its actions deep down, but as bad as this outcome is, I think you have to ask if there are even worse outcomes that were considered from inaction.
This is a separate question from those about morality or aggressors, but one of realpolitik incentives.
Conversely, you can ask the same questions about the US failed wars in Vietnam and the middle east. Obviously many or most objectives were not met, but were enough met to better the counterfactual?
That's the simple question that nobody who espouses this silly set of beliefs can ever answer.
And take care of inventory management and get the military industrial complex rolling again.
There you are repeating that claim without any evidence.
>> just yet
No, sorry. Neither country wants a war. Full stop. I despise this tendentious reading of normal tension between two major world powers as a claim that war's going to break out. It's dangerous fear-mongering.
That claim seems delusional. US was doing it’s best over the last 20 years to appease Putin so that they could ignore Europe and focus on the Pacific.
Hardly anyone in the west wanted to be dragged into this pointless war..
Total appeasement would have been taking an isolationist position, ignoring the situation entirely, and not being dragged into the war.
It is indisputable that the US didn't choose either of those options because it has incentives and interests that favor the current war over those outcomes. Reasonable people can discuss and debate what exactly those interests are (geoploticial, moral, economic, ect), and if they agree.
Why?
There was no genuine independence movement in eastern Ukraine. It was a Russian military operation right from the start, led by their security services. Russians have a long history of establishing such fake countries on the territory of other countries through special operations, and then invade to "support" them. And then those happy "liberated" people hold another referendum at gunpoint and choose to join Russia. And Russia gladly annexes those territories, exterminates local population and replaces with Russians.
Ignoring the increasing hostility from Russia since mid-1990s and downplaying Eastern European security concerns was already appeasement. Russia invaded Georgia and half a year later Clinton was offering Russians a symbolic restart button like a lapdog: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_reset
It was an open invitation to continue down the path and invade Ukraine in 2014, as was Obama's refusal to provide lethal aid, and Biden's declaration that he would not put boots on the ground in Ukraine. Each step decreased uncertainties and risks for Russians.
This is a very odd takeaway from this incident.
If you mean, not many countries ship directly to the US via the Suez Canal, I can imagine that. Europeans sail west across the Atlantic, East Asians sail east across the Pacific. India, perhaps, might go west through the Canal, but I don't know that the US imports much material goods from India (lots of services, of course).
Directly majority owned by US companies (regardless of flag of convenience)?
Cargo ships flying a US flag?
Any ships with any percentage of US ownership?
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.
Russia shares some of the land of a previous superpower, and has inherited some of their geriatric weapons of power.
1. A major power backs a side in an internal struggle for their own end. If necessary, a conflict is manufactured by propping up rebels, a coup, etc;
2. The other side, which tends to be the internally popular side, resists. Because of that popular support, they can survive, thrive and grow;
3. Insurgencies are incredibly effective. Counter-insurgencies are incredibly difficult. The insurgents are fighting for their lives. The boots on the ground for the major power backed forces don't tend to want to be there;
4. Reactionary forces are seen by the besieged populace as emancipatory forces;
5. When the resolve of the major power breaks or there is simply a policy shift, the unpopular government crumbles and is replaced by those reactionary forces. Classic example: the fundamentalist Iranian revolution of 1979. Go and look at what Iran was like before the 1953 coup.
6. Those former insurgents become a regional thorn in the side for that major power for decades to come;
7. The major power, unwilling to commit militarily, responds with economic sanctions. This does little more than starve people and kill people due to lack of medicine. But th eregime survives. It can even be strengthened as the citizens blame the major power for their plight.
The Saudis committed genocide in Yemen. For years. And the world ignored it. They used US-supplied weapons to do it. At any time, the US could've ended Saudi atrocities in Yemen with a phone call.
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. Drones have become incredibly cheap, to the point that a ragtag group will tie up a US carrier group who will try to enforce security, much like they have done with, say, Somali pirates.
The US carrier group may even adequately suppress the Houthis but this is attrition and Houthi investment is a drop in the ocean compared to the cost to the US.
The last two decades saw a massive change in drone use by the military. It was always just a matter of time before that military technology filtered down to insurgents and it's going to have a massive effect.
We saw this in Afghanistan in the 1970s when US-supplied Stinger missiles completely changed the battlefield as they rendered Soviet gunships ineffective at an incredibly low cost.
This isn't a statement supporting the Houthis (or even denoucning them). It's simply an analysis of the pattern that has played out many times, particularly since WW2.
This is what I mean by "blowback".
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.
Between this, Ukraine, and the decades-long misadventures in the Middle East, the US is learning how to handle the next generation of conflicts. (As is everyone else that is paying attention.)
The future looks increasingly more drone dependent. Explosives tied to cheap and plentiful delivery systems. Startups like Anduril are going to take over.
Submarine drones, jet-powered drones, assassin drones. Signals intelligence and radio algorithms...
This is old, and a bit too Black Mirror, but seems to be tracking the future of conflict correctly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-2tpwW0kmU
At this point, it's basically a World War One conflict, mainly because neither side has air superiority.
Russia's strategy now seems to be to wait out the Western will to provide material aid to Ukraine, at which point it will have gained territory, a vital land bridge to Crimea and a Black Sea port.
In this potential outcome, Ukraine is likely to swing far right, politically, and Russia will face their own draining insurgencies in former Ukrainian territory.
Look at how cautious the rest of the world is in helping Ukraine.
If the US and/or NATO were directly involved, it wouldn't look anything like trench warfare, and we wouldn't be using 30+ year old military tech. We really want to avoid this, though.
Of course the current balance of power and military doctrines etc. wouldn’t really exist without nukes
Could you elaborate a bit more on this? What would the US have to say, and what would the other consequences be?
No opinion of this being good or bad is made with this comment
America didn’t want the war in Yemen. We’re trying to pivot to Asia. We can’t tell Riyadh what to do because they still influence oil prices and have been cozying up to China.
The US props up the Saudi regime with economic and military aid. Of course, it does this for its own foreign policy reasons. But basically the Saudi regime cannot survive without US support. The US protects the Persian Gulf, the Straits of Hormuz and the Gulf of Oman. That's why the US could've ended the war with Yemen with a phone call.
All it takes is the threat of ending sanctions on Iran (which should end anyway). Same with Venezuela.
This isn't the 1970s. The US is now a net oil exporter [1] and the largest single oil-producing country by far [2].
[1]: https://www.ogj.com/general-interest/economics-markets/artic...
Let me guess - You also don’t consider the current government “Yemen” but rather a rebel group fighting the true government of Yemen that just happens to control only uninhabitable mountains.
How do you get here? It would be obvious to me that IDF forces are enthusiastically dismantling Hamas by invading Gaza.
It would, but that’s not really a constraint. Iran is in no position to risk direct strikes on its territory. It’s more simply that nobody wants to get bogged down in Yemen. So there is an element of hoping someone else will start bombing or Tehran getting their proxies under control.
In fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi-led_intervention_in_the_...
If there is anything the wars in Afghanistan, against Isis and especially against Ukraine has thought me, it is that the answer to that question is always a lot longer than we like.
Reminder that might is needed to create a peaceful space within which peoples can trade.
Front page on the BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67851897
It is worth educating yourself on the role of the US Navy in peace, safety, and stability around the world, including:
- freedom of navigation (which underpins global trade, 70% of which requires sea transport)
- security of global communication networks
- deterrent to intimidation of countries, particularly in South East Asia
- coordinating and supporting disaster relief efforts around the world
- etc.
US Navy and Foreign Policy: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/sea-power-us-navy-and-forei...
History: https://www.fpri.org/article/2010/09/defending-u-s-maritime-...
On freedom of navigation, absolutely.
Why does a Danish owned and operated container ship fly under the Singapore flag?
Why did the US Navy get involved?
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_convenience
> Why did the US Navy get involved?
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_security#Theoretical_...
We don't really need trade anywhere near as much as our trading partners overseas so. So we've scaled our fleet down.
:I strongly suspect I'm about to learn I'm wrong about part of the above:
It’s deeper than that. We regularly protect our adversaries’ freedom of navigation.
Or do they not have assets here?
Look at our electoral politics, do we seem rational to you?
No. Freedom of navigation evolved separately from Bretton Woods and dollarisation. We’ve never tied the two. And from the start, we’ve defended even our adversaries’ rights.
As a result of choices made by Eisenhower, and subsequent administrations, the US began to spend more than it should have, slowly making a fiction of the price of gold being fixed at $35/ounce.
Eventually, after shenanigans by de Gaulle of France, Nixon was forced to close the "gold window" at which nations could convert dollars back to gold reserves. This resulted in the Nixon Shock, and eventually the prime interest rate reached 20% in April of 1980.
Then Nixon made a deal Nixon made with the Saudis, the creation of the Petrodollar. The Saudis would only sell their oil for dollars, then spend those dollars in the US for goods and services, recycling them.
Without the Petrodollar, it possible the dollar would have crashed to zero.
No, you are correct. The US is the developed country that is by far the least-dependent on foreign trade. <https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.TRD.GNFS.ZS?location...>
Ignore people like dash2 who say that the US would be "much, much poorer without it"; they're like the Canadians and their American sympathizers who, when the Trump administration in 2017 threatened to impose tariffs, came up with all sorts of clever schemes to stop this by threatening/lobbying Congressmen from the US states most dependent on trade across the 49th parallel. The problem is that the US state most dependent on Canadian trade, Michigan, depends on its as much as the Canadian province that is the next to least dependent on US trade, PEI. <https://np.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/8q9h8i/canadaus_tra...>
On what planet is losing a quarter of one’s GDP not “much, much poorer”? That’s the GDP of 33 U.S. states and territories [1], through Indiana. It’s more than the GDP of Germany, the world’s third-largest economy [2].
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_terr...
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(no...
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 treating Israel the way it's treating Gaza (as in Gaza is blockaded, so the houthis are trying to create a sea blockade from their region of control)
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.
Once a rocket goes up who cares where it comes down, that's not my department, says Werner von Braun
You’re seriously comparing sailors and shipping insurers to a Nazi weapons specialist?
And when a software build fails because of some very minor thing everything depends on, and someone quips "for want of a nail..." would you then say they "compared shitlib version 0.53 with a physical nail made out of iron for a horse shoe"? What's more, things that are the exact same are the only things that cannot be compared. You can compared an apple to an orange, or another apple, but not itself. It amazes me how often people in the internet draw this card.
And it was not in regards to the sailors but in regards of your attitude shown in your comment.
Unfortunately, propaganda is part of the war and I can’t really blame them for trying. You can be sure that the other side of the conflict is also not impartial.
If the reasons about killing each other were openly discussed in a logical way without the emotional overload, People wouldn’t bother to kill each other. That’s something undesirable in the context of war.
I also think this is not necessarily bad, because when you start thinking in cold blooded strategic way you may find out that exterminating certain people is beneficial for you. Therefore, you should do it.
That level of thinking can be beneficial when you’re in the higher ranks, but a society shouldn’t be willing to destroy another society for material or political gains. You can see that among Russians, and how they think about conquering Ukraine and Europe. Scary stuff, it might lead to a war where one of the nations gets decimated.
That's incredibly wrong. People are killing each other over disagreements, either about land, or about values, or about feeling of safety, etc. Everyone basically understands everyone else's position on most things - they just honestly want different things and are sometimes willing to use violence to get it.
Israeli soldiers are fighting because they think that, if they don't, their friends and families will be killed. They might be right or wrong - but that's why they are fighting.
I mentioned the above scenario to my wife and she said she thinks the majority of people would take the $100.
I don't know if she's right but I think in any country a large percentage of the population is apathetic about people they don't know (especially foreigners) and can be easily prodded to support genocide.
I would of course decline, both on general morality grounds and also because I saw the episode "Button, Button" from the '80s revival of "The Twilight Zone".
Summary: a couple in a low-rent apartment who are having serious financial trouble receive a delivery of a locked box with a button on top. That night a man arrives and gives the wife the key to the box, and tells them that if she presses the button someone she does not know will die, and she will receive $200 000. The man leaves.
The couple debate whether or not the offer is real or just some weird joke, and weather or not press the button. They unlock the box and lock inside and find that it is empty. The button is not connected to any machinery or electronics, and they toss the box in the trash but later the wife retrieves it.
The next day the husband sees the wife just staring at the button. He tells her to push it just to get it off her mind. She does so.
The next day the man from the first day returns, hands them $200 000 cash, and takes the box. He tells them that the box will be reprogrammed and offered to some other person with the same conditions, and tells the wife that the person it will be offered to will be someone the wife does not know.
Perhaps if the choice were more drastic: you can get a life saving treatment for free, but someone else dies at random, then my choice would be different.
How much do you have in mind then?
Ukrainians call Russians "meat" and Russians portray Ukrainians as less than humans or Nazis. Russians will also not name Ukrainians but call them just "opponents" and they wouldn't kill them but neutralise them so that people can easily think in terms of reaching an objective in war and not in terms of loss of human life.
On Twitter, popular accounts would Tweet things like "name 10 Israeli and 10 Palestinian inventions" to dehumanise Palestinians by showing that Israeli lives are more valuable than Palestinian ones and if you support the "civilised world" you should support those who are contributing to it(unlike the "subhumans who don't").
In Turkey, Turks used to believe that Kurds have tails like monkeys(not a popular belief anymore but it was up until 10 years ago), therefore they are less than human.
It's just something its always done. War isn't fair or brave or dignifying endeavour. It's actually quite disgusting.
Not trying to single-out a particular country but
"Post-9/11 wars have contributed to some 4.5 million deaths, report suggests"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/05/15/war-on-terro...
Doesn't get talked about much nowadays despite being close to the Holocaust, people just move on and focus on the next bad guy like Putin
Oh, I can for the both of us, and I do. Everyone is responsible for what they do, or tacitly consent to. War is not something that just "is" like rain or snow, it's specific actions of people specific people.
And when you say "other side of the conflict" does that include the 1+ million of children, or are they just not relevant at all here? Because as Bill Hicks said, a war is when two armies fight. This is genocide, reducing Gaza to rubble, taking smug selfies in homes and mosques all along the way.
Yes, Hamas is no better. That is, if they had the means, they wouldn't be. But Hamas is Hamas; not Gaza, not the West Bank. And Hamas isn't using police force in Western Democracies to prohibit demonstrations, it doesn't have vast media support to both silence discussion of what is going on and smear those who still have a conscience.
https://www.ipcinfo.org/ipcinfo-website/alerts-archive/issue...
> Between 8 December 2023 and 7 February 2024, the entire population in the Gaza Strip (about 2.2 million people) is classified in IPC Phase 3 or above (Crisis or worse). This is the highest share of people facing high levels of acute food insecurity that the IPC initiative has ever classified for any given area or country.
We don't even hear about this. The little facts that are brought up are all all couched between bringing up Hamas 50 times. No, we're expected to be content, admiring and grateful even, when Israel stops bombing little kids in a barrel -- and that the genocide will, predictably, continue without bombs via the inflicted wounds will barely get a mention, just like nobody really cared the last few decades.
But there was a "flash" and no injuries on board of some ship, oh noes.
Someone put it very well on this site 4 years ago:
> And it is not a state of things, it is a process. It is going on now, it inches a bit further every day and every year.
> You say you don't have an opinion, but in fact you repeat exactly the things that those who don't want this process to stop would like to hear from you: that the question has two sides, that it's impossible to say who's right or wrong, that there are many opinions. It's a form of denialism (let's hear the other side, some say this but some say that, etc.).
-- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22649104
But even more importantly IMO, even assuming "both sides are exactly equal" -- and they're not -- then my primary concern would still be what I am responsible for, and what the corporations and governments I am directly or indirectly supporting are doing. Hamas is on the polar opposite of that, they don't brag about sharing my values or any of the sort. You might even say it's more or less expected for islamist terrorists to behave like islamist terrorists. Doesn't make it okay, it's something I stand against; but getting upset at it is a weird sort of performance IMO. However, a nation that pink-washes genocide says "hi fellow human rights enjoyer" to me and gives me all that horse crap about even knowing what a nation recognizing human rights would look like, much less being one, they need to either a.) stop what they're doing b.) or be told in no uncertain terms they are deluding themselves.
The world is full of murderers and genocidal racist assholes. It's the actually having one hand in my pocket and the other oscillating between rubbing my shoulder and covering my mouth that makes this something I am obliged to respond to, and have to respond to mercilessly. I felt the exact same way about the war of aggression in Iraq. To use me in that way for something I would never do, something so abominable, is not something I stand for or forgive.
You also need to pick definitions, and you can pick definitions anyway you like. Define civilians in a certain way and you are blameless. Both Hamas and Isreal overdo this, one claim is that they didn't kill civilians at the party because those served in the IDF for example.
I find this a useless exercise and an attempt to justify killing people for political or material gains. I don't like it, I don't accept any justification and I don't take sides on institutionalised or makeshift extermination of humans.
No, why would you have to? As I said:
> Everyone is responsible for what they do
There is no giant blob called "war" and you now weigh the responsibility of one of two "sides" for that blob. That is precisely my point. The crimes of Hamas do not take one iota away from the crimes of Israel, and vice versa. They each commit them against innocents.
Our opinion as "judges" or "referees" is not so relevant as what we are directly or indirectly responsible for, and what we aren't. Hamas has nothing to do with me, the US and Israel use me, so I need to speak out in clear terms or be responsible.
It's not a complex situation where both sides are kinda bad and we just can't figure out who gets the blame and who gets to get away scot-free. Israel is committing genocide. Hamas is a terrorist organization, that didn't change, and people who support it should be cut off. The same with the right-wing extremists in the Israeli government and those supporting the genocide committed by them. It's just a principle, applied to all comers without respecting the person. As it should be.
The problem with your approach is that if a country actually implemented it the first neighboring country that fell under the control of a genocidal racist asshole would just have to hold a "take you daughter to work" day in their military and on that day invade your country.
> And when you say "other side of the conflict" does that include the 1+ million of children, or are they just not relevant at all here?
They're incredibly relevant as human beings. They're far less relevant in the context of what the discussion is - they're not out there making propaganda, or fighting Israelis, or whatever. They are, simply, civilians of a country that's currently at war.
And to be clear, any death is tragic - far more so when it's civilians that only want to live peacefully.
> Because as Bill Hicks said, a war is when two armies fight. This is genocide, reducing Gaza to rubble, taking smug selfies in homes and mosques all along the way.
First, this is two armies. I don't agree this is genocide, but let's put that aside for a minute - this really really is two armies. They're mismatched, Israel obviously is stronger - but the day to day fighting that is happening now (as opposed to the initial bombing) is militants with weapons attacking soldiers, and soldier attacking militants, mostly. It's a ground operation between a state military and a quasi-governmental insurgent force.
Just look at the videos put out every single day from Hamas themselves, showing their militants attacking the IDF. If you want a good non-Israeli source for this, you can watch Preston Steward on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@PrestonStewart.
> We don't even hear about this [referring to classifying Gaza as food insecure]. The little facts that are brought up are all all couched between bringing up Hamas 50 times. No, we're expected to be content, admiring and grateful even, when Israel stops bombing little kids in a barrel -- and that the genocide will, predictably, continue without bombs via the inflicted wounds will barely get a mention, just like nobody really cared the last few decades.
Firstly, Hamas is brought up 50 times because they are the government, as well as one of the active participants in the war.
Secondly, this is not a genocide, by any definition of that word (I normally go by the official UN definition here). Israel is not trying to kill all of the Gazans - the reason civilians die is because this is war. And it's horrible, and regrettable, and every civilian death is a tragedy - but it just isn't proof of genocide.
Third, you imply that this genocide has been going on for the last few decades - which even further underlines my point that this is not a genocide. There have been several tragic genocides in the 20th and 21st centuries - and in all of them, the populations decreased, because that is the point.
Israel has the means to kill far more people, if it wanted to - it just doesn't.
If you have another definition of genocide that you're thinking of here, or some reason I'm wrong - please tell me what it is, so we can at least know we're talking about the same thing.
--
I don't think you're wrong about most of your last two paragraphs - of course you (assuming you're from the US) have more control over Israel (via US government policy) than over Hamas, and of course you have moral complicity in whatever Israel does.
But, I think you're getting something wrong here:
> However, a nation that pink-washes genocide says "hi fellow human rights enjoyer" to me and gives me all that horse crap about even knowing what a nation recognizing human rights would look like, much less being one, they need to either a.) stop what they're doing b.) or be told in no uncertain terms they are deluding themselves.
The thing is, this isn't about a nation "pink washing" or claiming they are fellow human rights enjoyer. First, it is a nation that really is closer in values to the US - which implies a lot of things, some of them making Israel's position harder (e.g. the fact that Israel has free press, as opposed to Gaza, means that far more Israelis are openly critical of Israel - there's a reason you don't hear more Gazan voices speaking out against Hamas!)
But more importantly, Israel isn't just a nation - it's full of people, who do share your values. I personally share Western values. So do most Israelis.
We are not saying "we share your values, so let us do a genocide". We're saying "we share your values, and we know more about what's happening than you do - our lived experience is much richer about this - therefore you should trust us more than you do".
I would never condone a genocide, and for the record I am highly critical of a lot of Israel's actions. But a genocide is just not happening, nor anythign clsoe to it.
What is happening is a war that Israel never wanted, but that most Israelis feel must be fought, because there is just no alternative that anyone has offered.
So I'll leave you with this question - what would you do in Israel's shoes? How would you guarantee that an invading force intent on killing as many of your citizens as possible, isn't able to do this again? Or would you just accept that your friends and family dying is OK?
I'm looking for a a realistic answer btw of what to do on October 7th, not how you would've changed Israeli policy in the past. Like I said - I'm also highly critical of Israeli policy for the last fifteen years at least - but I still agree this war is necessary (regrettably).
That you say this and still come on to me with that "I share your values" stuff is just gold.
that sure sounds like what you're supporting is literal terrorism
"it can be seen as a form of treating israel" - thats the most feeble of excuses for terrorism
what is the intent?
Because that is how propaganda works. Telling half the truth and adding something else to contruct a "true story".
Interesting guidance problem.
But ballistic missiles are much harder to intercept (and I think have much greater range) and China was able to put the carriers, then the core of US naval power, at risk. Submarines also help, and the US is now shifting away from dependence on its carriers.
I'm surprised the Houthis have them, or even Iran. I thought it was still only a capability of a few countries.
Knowing where a ship is in a straight that's 30 miles wide? That's a lot easier.
So I suspect that the Houthis can't do what the Chinese can.
Was scratching my head over the same thing.
Most wars are fought over borders. Land ownership is 0 sum game. Especially land blessed with natural resources. (Middle East is great example of oil wars)
In the 90s imperialism was popular - if you had the manpower and weapons, you’d take land from the weak.
Russia is playing land grab card against Ukraine.
Hamas is playing the land grab card against Israel. Although Israel being backed by US will inflict a lot more damage.
Africa is full of border conflicts for centuries. We don’t hear much about it since it’s a poor continent.
The US has the world’s largest military and a big part of what they do is to ensure their allies have their borders intact (NATO, Australia, Japan, S Korea etc).
So sinking some ships is likely gonna be met with some bombs on their military production facilities where missiles are made (if they figure it out).
For the world’s largest military, US holds much restraint not invading other countries borders, and helping democratic countries keep their borders intact.
If US unleashed colonialism card, we could be much larger than British empire. However the bitter lesson is that conquering is easy, maintaining power is way harder.
Seems China is holding restraint invading Taiwan until they see a clear win with a blitz, or another peaceful avenue.
What do you mean by that? Comparing Russia with Hamas seems like a massive distortion of reality, not sure you meant to do that.
Israel is occupying internationally recognized Palestinian lands of West Bank and a blockade on Gaza. Just yesterday the Israeli foreign minister suggested sending Israeli settlers into Gaza illegally and drive Palestinians out for good. Hamas is a terrorist organization, who kills civilians, but let's not pretend that the IDF is any better.
And the US is a colonial power of the 20th and 21st century. It just hasn't done it the same way as the Europeans of 17,18th,19th century, mostly because there are different tools available now: culture export, dependence on oil, dollar as reserve currency, global free trade, and the rise of corporations.
Noan Chomsky says the issue of Palestine is resistance against colonialism. [1] [2]
[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lUQ_0MubbcM&pp=QAFIAQ%3D%3D
[2] https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-12-02/israel-gaza...
Behshad's transponder's last update: https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:65...
Surely this is a defensive measure against the next incident, rather than a response to this one?
Generally, I've found @TankerTrackers on twitter is good.
"The ship did call on Israel's Haifa port in October and several other ports after that in Egypt, Italy, Slovenia, Croatia, Saudi Arabia, China, and others, based on shipping data. "
It sounds like the ship itself is still intact, which is not too surprising given how absolutely huge they are.
Most of the ships they target are either own fully or partially by Israeli companies, or are headed to Israeli ports
As I understand it, this is not true. If you have a citation listing strikes with manifests, I’d appreciate being able to update my priors.
Wikipedia lists 17 strikes. I see that 3 have some Israeli ownership or port of call: Galaxy Leader, Symi, and Strinda.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houthi_involvement_in_the_Isra...
From source Wikipedia, this is not true. Only 3 of 17 have Israeli ownership or ports of call. Do you have a source for Israeli ownership or ports of call for 6 more ships?
Also, your stated class of "owned by Israel-supporting billionaires" is moving the goalposts. That is not the announced Houthi criteria.
Can we just keep our shit together? It’s been a rough decade and it’s only 3 years into the 2020s…
I’m petty sure they do not give a shit about making consumerism harder for Americans. In fact it’s probably a bonus.
ADDENDUM: Clarification for those up|down voting like a yo-yo:
On February 15, 1898, the American battleship Maine exploded while sitting in the Havana harbor, killing two officers and 250 enlisted men.
Fourteen of the injured later died, bringing the death toll to 266.
A naval board of inquiry concluded that the blast was caused by a mine placed outside the ship.
Release of the board’s report led many to accuse Spain of sabotage, helping to build public support for war.
Subsequent studies, including one published in 1976 and later reissued in 1995, determined that the ship was destroyed from the inside, when burning coal in a bunker triggered an explosion in an adjacent space that contained ammunition.
That couldn't possibly backfire. It's not like any promenant families are from there, right?[1]
Wouldn't it be easier to just drop Israel like a hot potato?
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 modest increases in ocean freight shipping costs for the next several years involving this route, e.g. https://www.cmegroup.com/markets/energy/freight/container-fr...
Air cargo rates are 10-20x ocean, so it’s unlikely an extra week of travel would justify the expense for most cases.
TLDR: it’s more than 2%, the average value of a shipping container is 50k, it costs 3k to mover. This is an issue, let’s resolve it.
https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/mari...
Consequenses for Maersk are hardly as dire as that.
* not just land, but ultimately, land
even in this nuclear free fantasy world, medical and industrial sources will still be around and far easier to steal than fission fuel ever was. we've had the tech to make (virtually) free unlimited energy for 70 years and there is no good reason why it hasn't become ubiquitous
> War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent.
-- George Orwell
And with many conflicts, I'd say it's about one class of war mongers and war profiteers distributed onto both sides, and one class of average people -- and the average person doesn't want war period, they have to be coaxed into it with great effort -- distributed onto both sides. Then the lunatics on each side use the lunatics on the other side as a reason to tighten their grip over their own population, and for sending their "own" people off to become murderers and/or die. Then they build statues for themselves.
Yeah, that's a simplification, and snarky. But it sure is closer to the truth than the narrative of countries struggling as against each other, where the politicians, generals, grunts and civilians of one nation are on one side, and the politicians, generals, grunts and civilians of the other nation on the other.
> If I have one message to give to the secular American people, it's that the world is not divided into countries. The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk together and we understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.
-- Marjane Satrapi
Yeah, the Iranian and the US government aren't "the same". But I trust the point is obvious anyway.
> [Q: Isn't there a certain calculus that someone who is sitting in the shoes of a Condoleezza Rice can make, that they're responsible for the best outcome for American citizens, and there's an upside of going into Iraq which is we get one of the greatest material possessions in world's history, and there're downsides which are: we upset the international community, and maybe there's more terrorism. Couldn't you envision a calculus where they say, sure, that's the reason, and it's a good reason, let's do it. What's the flaw in the calculus?]
> Oh, I think that's exactly their calculus. But then we ought to just be honest and say, "Look, we're a bunch of Nazis." So fine, let's just drop all the discussion, we save a lot of trees, we can throw out the newspapers and most of the scholarly literature, and just come out, state it straight, and tell the truth: we'll do whatever we want because we think we're gonna gain by it. And incidently, it's not American citizens who'll gain. They don't gain by this. It's narrow sectors of domestic power that the administration is serving with quite unusual dedication...
-- Noam Chomsky, "Why Iraq?" at Harvard University, November 4, 2002
Those "narrow sectors of domestic power" use those under their thumb to against narrow sectors of other power centers, and vice versa. And there was never a "need" for it. Not 100 years ago, not 10000 years ago. War is good for "absolutely nothing". That's why you have all the ceremonies and uniforms and somber faces. It's like royalty that way. Or religion.
If we think adding infinite energy, "infinitely" fast and free computation, "infinite" memory, "free" sensors attached to every pebble in the solar system to the mix will lead to more freedom just like that seems.. unlikely. As in, the parties who right now aren't showing any signs of stopping their consolidation of power, their efforts to atomize and disenfranchise people, when they are still only struggling for limited power, will just... step aside once there is "infinite" power to be had, instead of using it to tighten their grip, and also stab each other in the back and consolidate as much as they can? Why would they? Who would make them? With what?
Instead of removing a "need" for war, which I'd say never existed in the first place, infinite resources could just as well allow for an infinite amount of it. A boot on a human face, forever. Ran out of enemies? Clone some. Ran out of traitors? Entrap some. Think Starship Troopers.
Awkardly translated from the German version back to English via DeepL:
> Suddenly it turns out that what the human imagination has banished for millennia to a realm beyond human competence can actually be created. Hell and purgatory, and even a reflection of their eternal duration, can be constructed by allowing people to die indefinitely using the most modern means of destruction and the art of healing. What these types, of whom there are many more in every big city than we would like to admit, realize when watching these films or reading these reports is that the power of man is greater than they dare to admit, and that hellish fantasies can be realized without the sky falling and the earth opening up.
-- Hannah Arendt, "Origins of Totalitarianism"
It’s incredible to watch in near-real-time how hollowed out the US’s ability to project its will has become. They announced Operation Prosperity Guardian, and within days it seemed to collapse. Looks like there aren’t many folks signing up to be vassal states these days.
Yeah, because governments make critical decisions about their economic and security interests based on how cringe the name a given operation has.