12 ms·

Something I'm unsure about is what does and doesn't trigger wars. Russian jets downed a US drone over the black sea in March 2023, I thought for sure there'd b

by nomilk 3y ago

Something I'm unsure about is what does and doesn't trigger wars. Russian jets downed a US drone over the black sea in March 2023, I thought for sure there'd be a commensurate US military response. But there didn't appear to be one. Was it because no human was aboard the drone (so no response was justified), from fear or escalation, or something else? In any case, if a large cargo ship were sunk, would the US or 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)

i67vw3 3y ago
[flagged]
- nomilk 3y ago
  Completely disregarding which president is in office, I always thought the paradoxical way to minimise war is to ensure you have a credible threat of retaliation. That means if you are attacked, you must fight back, otherwise your credibility falls and you become more of a target, thus emboldening adversaries and increasing violence.
  - happytiger 3y ago
    There are a lot of ways to prevent wars. That’s just one. - Promises not to go to war - Reduction of armaments - Machinery for the peaceful settlement of disputes between nations - Economic penalties against aggressors War doctrine is a very complicated subject, as is even the definition of war in modernity. What causes a nation to declare war is unclear and difficult to reliably determine, but there is often a period or circumstances of instability or a immoral act that precipitates them. The US appears to be going into a period of isolation and the world without global shipping protection is going to look radically different.
    - bshipp 3y ago
      Judging by the declaration of war against Ukraine by Russia, it appears an underappreciated aspect of the equation is equal measures of senility and insanity.
  - i67vw3 3y ago
    True. You have put it more succinctly than me. In Geopolitics, 'Might creates deterrence.' https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory
    - defrost 3y ago
      As in "the Might of the USofA deterred Osama Bin Laden from attacking"? There seems to be a flaw or two in that as a truism.
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    The problem with this sort of logic is that it becomes incredibly easy to bait states into disproportionate responses that end up as strategic failures - either due to bad PR or deploying force against decoy attacks and leaving holes in places that matter.
davidw 3y ago
> Something I'm unsure about is what does and doesn't trigger wars. Probably more in the 'emotions' camp than in the 'concrete facts' camp, even if no one wants to admit it.
- __jem 3y ago
  Right, because endless US involvement in ground wars in the middle east has always been firmly on the side of "concrete facts."
  - skygazer 3y ago
    In content and fact you seem to be in agreement with the post you're replying to, but in tone you act as though you're refuting them.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  Many US wars were triggered by dis/misinformation: The Gulf of Tonkin for Vietnam, and the fictitous nuclear weapons program in Iraq come to mind. For Iraq, the government made an argument something like, 'you can't wait for the mushroom cloud'.
  - bawolff 3y ago
    I think there is a difference between how wars are "sold" to voters and why nations actually go to war.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      Yes, good point. But let's not overestimate leaders' deep strategic thinking or rationality; they can be mislead and emotional too.
      - pydry 3y ago
        Let's also not pretend that Iraq was about WMDs rather than empire. They knew it was a lie.
asfarley 3y ago
Honor, Symbols and War touches on the topic of how an event becomes symbolic.
kiba 3y ago
What would a military response look like? I am not an expert in this area, but it seems to me if it got really bad, the US might send commandos to coordinate air strikes.
- redcobra762 3y ago
  Retaliation is easier and less likely to cause war if it’s digital. Lots of “military” response comes in cyber form these days.
- defrost 3y ago
  The Guardian headline is: Missile hits Red Sea container ship, US destroyers shoot down two more https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/31/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.
- ianburrell 3y ago
  The military response would look like air strikes either from carrier or Gulf bases. No commmandos required, drones have replaced them.
  - postsantum 3y ago
    Yemen is backed by Iran and has some tech capable of striking US ships. US is probably eager to start another proxy war but not right now
    - ianburrell 3y ago
      Yemen is backed by Saudi Arabia and UAE. Houthis are backed by Iran.
    - ffgjgf1 3y ago
      The proxy was in Yemen has been going on for almost 10 years. US just doesn’t want to be a direct part of that mess and the Saudis don’t want to damage their rapprochement with Iran. 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).
m4rtink 3y ago
I'm thinking that if the same thing happened in the days of the British Empire, there would be a lot of high velocity response on the way from the fine battleships of of her/his majesty battleships. 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
- anon84873628 3y ago
  No one is going to look at this and think, "wow the US is no longer willing or able to defend naval shipping." In fact the commencement of the operation is pretty clear indication that they are doing exactly that. 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.
- tim333 3y ago
  >The Times reports: “Britain’s military is preparing to launch a wave of air strikes against the Iranian-backed Houthis…Under the plans the UK would join with the US and possibly another European country”
kraig911 3y ago
How do you know there wasn't a response? The fog of war is both ways.
elromulous 3y ago
It's a function of how powerful one's adversary is. Russia is a superpower.
- IAmGraydon 3y ago
  Russia is not a superpower or even remotely close to such a status. No country besides the US is currently considered a superpower.
  - elromulous 3y ago
    Any country with the ability to completely erase entire countries (i.e. has an enormous stockpile of nuclear weapons) is a superpower.
    - Invictus0 3y ago
      North Korea and Pakistan are superpowers?
    - kube-system 3y ago
      There are many other powers that a nation might have other than nuclear ability, and having nukes does not actually grant any of those other powers. North Korea, for example, may have nuclear weapons, but they have little diplomatic power, little economic power, little ability to project power, etc. The word "superpower" is typically used to describe a country that dominates many different types of these powers.
      - ffgjgf1 3y ago
        As far as we know North Korea doesn’t have the capability to hit any target in the world (like US, UK, France and Russia) or enough nukes to blow up half of the world. So hardly comparable
    - mkii 3y ago
      That might be a necessary condition, but definitely not a sufficient one to be considered a superpower. Simple thought experiment, "completely erasing" the US as you suggest would render the Earth unpleasant to live on, for a while, for all inhabitants.
monocasa 3y ago
Intentionally downing drones has typically not been causus belli. Iran downed a US stealth drone intentionally and seemed to have made it out with essentially no consequences. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incid...
- defrost 3y ago
  Other than the US getting called out in front of Russia and China in front of the UN Security Council: 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."
  - photonbeam 3y ago
    Thats hardly a meaningful consequence though
    - smegsicle 3y ago
      did anyone say it was not an act of hostility?
ianburrell 3y ago
An act of war does not obligate country going to war. And an act of war is not required to start a war. Basically, wars start when in nation’s interest and can spin a reason. 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.
anigbrowl 3y ago
It depends; somewhat on the strategic situation, but also the public response. Few would consider a downed drone worth killing over (and those that would tend to be hair-on-fire types). But if something becomes a media circus, public opinion can shift rapidly. Consider for example the absurd freakout over Chinese spy balloons earlier this year - it was a convenient stick to beat the incumbent administration with during a slow news period, so it became The Most Important thing for a week.
screye 3y ago
Because events never cause wars. Countries want war and then they wait for an inciting event to go in. The US wants a war with Russia without putting boots on the ground. Ukraine was a convieinient excuse. 9/11 triggered a war with random middle eastern countries that the US wanted to invade anyway. If Cuba downed a large cargo ship, then the US will have annexed it before midnight. If China downs one in South China 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.
- goalieca 3y ago
  > The US wants a war with Russia without putting boots on the ground. Ukraine was a convieinient 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.
- marshray 3y ago
  So then how did the US trick Putin into invading Ukraine? That's the simple question that nobody who espouses this silly set of beliefs can ever answer.
  - toast0 3y ago
    Just because the US wanted a fight with Russia doesn't mean the US tricked Putin into it. Make hay while the sun shines and all that. And take care of inventory management and get the military industrial complex rolling again.
    - andsoitis 3y ago
      > Just because the US wanted a fight There you are repeating that claim without any evidence.
      - mkii 3y ago
        I had a more charitable reading of GP's comment: supposing, hypothetically, the US wanted a proxy war against Russia, it didn't have to "trick" Russia. This is a perfectly valid rebuttal to GP's parent imo, especially because GP's GP never suggested US "tricked" anything.
ra 3y ago
MH17 was shot down by a Russian anti-aircraft missile, killing all 298 p.o.b. with no consequences for Russia. 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-bomber-flew-inland-cornwall-uk-airspace-witness https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/19/russian-bomb...
- fennecfoxy 3y ago
  Don't forget: Russians enter UK to perform an assassination using a potent nerve agent (with essentially no repercussions). They do this all the time and get away with it. And like a child that doesn't get told off, they'll keep on doing it.
- petesergeant 3y ago
  > MH17 was shot down by a Russian anti-aircraft missile, killing all 298 p.o.b. with no consequences for Russia 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.
  - Aeolun 3y ago
    Eh, we had them refusing access to the investigation and recovery teams for a while. If the shooting of the airliner wasn’t, that would have been one had it persisted (though it let up after a day or so).
- m4rtink 3y ago
  Though I would hope that in a hopefully civilized age such acts and war crimes would be punished prevented from happening again, I would not say there are no consequences of these actions. Many Dutch citizens have been killed on board of MH17 - and the amount of military support to Ukraine provided by the Dutch has been quite significant. As for Iran and North Korea - I would say some lines have been crossed there 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_warehouse_explosions 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-list-of-czech.html 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 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.
Joel_Mckay 3y ago
This book explains when wars serve national policy. For example, authoritarian states who failed to handle the Pandemic would also strongly suggest a tragedy must unfold to retain power. "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-Politics/dp/161039044X https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Po... Not a pleasant read, but a well reasoned model of violent human behavior. =)
- m4rtink 3y ago
  Well, that was basically how the Falkland war happened.
  - Joel_Mckay 3y ago
    It is difficult to reconcile the actions of political movements falling into despotic trajectories. We lived in an age of false kings, great bandits, and imbeciles. =)
pclmulqdq 3y ago
It's time to read some Clausewitz. That book outlines the philosophy of how most western states think about war. The short version I would say is that war is a tool of politics, so if there is no political goal, there will be no war, regardless of how bad the supposed Causus Belli is. Shooting down a drone usually doesn't do it partly because of the political implications: it would be deeply unpopular to put "boots on the ground" over a shot-down drone.
- Kilenaitor 3y ago
  Any specific book of his you recommend? "On War" seems to be the one that popped up on a search but wanted to confirm. Sounds like an interesting topic.
  - pclmulqdq 3y ago
    On War is the book.
- snek_case 3y ago
  Seems to me that trigger events for wars are often about finding a justification for a war that people in power were already wanting to start. America doesn't want to go to war with Russia because we know it could be incredibly destructive, given that they have nukes. So, it would probably take a lot to start a war between the US and Russia. They would have to attack or be clearly planning to attack a NATO ally. It's 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.
  - pydry 3y ago
    In this case the Houthis have been the ones not reacting for many years: https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/09/21/us-war-crimes-yemen-stop-looking-other-way https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/09/21/us-war-crimes-yemen-stop...
    - 3y ago
baryphonic 3y ago
> Something I'm unsure about is what does and doesn't trigger wars. 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.
hiddencost 3y ago
Wars tend to happen slowly, then all at once. 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.
ethagknight 3y ago
US was provoked to continue sending massive amounts of weapons to Ukraine. The drone was just part of a much bigger equation.
pkaye 3y ago
I'm curious how many cargo ships does the US have?
- defrost 3y ago
  What's the question? 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?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - pkaye 3y ago
    Majority owned by US companies.
- maxglute 3y ago
  Not enough, hence a lot of DoD logistics is now done on civilian shipping via Maritime Partners program. Including Maersk who was dropping DoD contracts in September, the few ships on contract by DoD in region was refusing to go a couple weeks ago even with US escorts. The big revelation is Houthis has demonstrated US Transportation Command / US military's sealift ability is being challenged by small time Iranian proxy, so good luck on an IndoPac campaign against PRC. At least in terms of optics, feasibility of US DoD maritime logistics especially in protracted war looks to be in atrocious state. Regardless, the problem isn't really how many ships US owns, irrespective of flag - US can buy all the ships if they have to. Issue is US doesn't maintain enough dedicated personel for bulk of military transport (primarily due to working conditions despite being paid well), so they rely on civilian shipping, and it's start to look like civilian shipping increasingly uncertain of US ability to protect in SLOC choke points against TBF not particularly modern weapons.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    > The big revelation is Houthis has demonstrated US Transportation Command / US military's sealift ability is being challenged by small time Iranian proxy, so good luck on an IndoPac campaign against PRC. This is a very odd takeaway from this incident.
wolverine876 3y ago
I read a lot of professional international relations material (but I'm not an expert in any way). IME what may differ the most between 'popular' takes on IR and professional ones is the response to incidents. 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.
jcrites 3y ago
It’s not clear that Russia intended to down the drone. They were certainly harassing it, but they didn’t attack it. 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?
brightball 3y ago
Wars are triggered by some combination of money and fear. Pretty much every one.
bawolff 3y ago
Like all things - wars are a combination of rational self-interest, emotions and random chance. 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]
- Aeolun 3y ago
  > Any country that invades is going to be seen as responsible for fixing that mess Unless the invading country is Israel.
  - bawolff 3y ago
    Israel gets yelled at by the UN pretty constantly. If anything that statement applies to Israel more than most countries.
    - Aeolun 3y ago
      I guess I read it more as ‘actually holding them responsible’ than occasionally (or constantly) yelling at them, since that is kinda pointless.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > read it more as ‘actually holding them responsible’ What about recent events suggests Israel isn’t held, and does not hold itself, responsible for Gaza’s affairs? The principal complaint is that they’re holding themselves too responsible.
onthecanposting 3y ago
There aren't rules. Casus Belli will be manufactured if war is desired and if not then these acts are ignored and the respectable media will dutifully keep it suppressed. 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.
throwup238 3y ago
Remember the Maine! 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.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > 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.
  - throwup238 3y ago
    That's just ivory tower wishful thinking.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      Its no more ivory tower wishful thinking for the other applications than for predicting behavior; they are all idealized in that one never has certain knowledge in any of everything relevant in any of the dimensions.
      - throwup238 3y ago
        > they are all idealized in that one never has certain knowledge in any of everything relevant in any of the dimensions. Which is why it's particularly useless for geopolitics. It's literally the furthest you can get from "idealized" anything - far more so than plain sociology, economics, or psychology. It's the global sum of all of the most unpredictable traits of humanity. It's one of the messiest human pursuits and always has been. It's a nice "cows are spherical" approximation to write papers about but game theory really ain't that great at predicting basic human behavior either. Except like with evolutionary biology you can always come up with a "just-so" game theoretic story that sounds right but has no real predictive ability.
Exoristos 3y ago
Your reasoning seems to assume the U.S. has near-infinite power to wage war. Rather, right now the U.S. is stretched thin in Middle Eastern waters. They can't move their ships far from where they have them already without major strategic sacrifices.
tommiegannert 3y ago
I don't know war, but IIUC the game-theoretical response favored by biology is tit-for-tat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat 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.
throwaway2037 3y ago
Read more about the incident here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Black_Sea_drone_incident https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Black_Sea_drone_inciden...
flohofwoe 3y ago
That drone was most likely downed because of plain incompetence by the Russian pilot. In such a case there's no point in "rewarding" the Russian propagandists with a similar response.
yetanother12345 3y ago
> the US or other nations 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.

by nomilk 3y ago

i67vw3 3y ago

[flagged]

nomilk 3y ago
Completely disregarding which president is in office, I always thought the paradoxical way to minimise war is to ensure you have a credible threat of retaliation. That means if you are attacked, you must fight back, otherwise your credibility falls and you become more of a target, thus emboldening adversaries and increasing violence.
- happytiger 3y ago
  There are a lot of ways to prevent wars. That’s just one. - Promises not to go to war - Reduction of armaments - Machinery for the peaceful settlement of disputes between nations - Economic penalties against aggressors War doctrine is a very complicated subject, as is even the definition of war in modernity. What causes a nation to declare war is unclear and difficult to reliably determine, but there is often a period or circumstances of instability or a immoral act that precipitates them. The US appears to be going into a period of isolation and the world without global shipping protection is going to look radically different.
  - bshipp 3y ago
    Judging by the declaration of war against Ukraine by Russia, it appears an underappreciated aspect of the equation is equal measures of senility and insanity.
- i67vw3 3y ago
  True. You have put it more succinctly than me. In Geopolitics, 'Might creates deterrence.' https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory
  - defrost 3y ago
    As in "the Might of the USofA deterred Osama Bin Laden from attacking"? There seems to be a flaw or two in that as a truism.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  The problem with this sort of logic is that it becomes incredibly easy to bait states into disproportionate responses that end up as strategic failures - either due to bad PR or deploying force against decoy attacks and leaving holes in places that matter.

davidw 3y ago

> Something I'm unsure about is what does and doesn't trigger wars. Probably more in the 'emotions' camp than in the 'concrete facts' camp, even if no one wants to admit it.

__jem 3y ago
Right, because endless US involvement in ground wars in the middle east has always been firmly on the side of "concrete facts."
- skygazer 3y ago
  In content and fact you seem to be in agreement with the post you're replying to, but in tone you act as though you're refuting them.
wolverine876 3y ago
Many US wars were triggered by dis/misinformation: The Gulf of Tonkin for Vietnam, and the fictitous nuclear weapons program in Iraq come to mind. For Iraq, the government made an argument something like, 'you can't wait for the mushroom cloud'.
- bawolff 3y ago
  I think there is a difference between how wars are "sold" to voters and why nations actually go to war.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    Yes, good point. But let's not overestimate leaders' deep strategic thinking or rationality; they can be mislead and emotional too.
    - pydry 3y ago
      Let's also not pretend that Iraq was about WMDs rather than empire. They knew it was a lie.

asfarley 3y ago

Honor, Symbols and War touches on the topic of how an event becomes symbolic.

kiba 3y ago

What would a military response look like? I am not an expert in this area, but it seems to me if it got really bad, the US might send commandos to coordinate air strikes.

redcobra762 3y ago
Retaliation is easier and less likely to cause war if it’s digital. Lots of “military” response comes in cyber form these days.
defrost 3y ago
The Guardian headline is: Missile hits Red Sea container ship, US destroyers shoot down two more https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/31/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.
ianburrell 3y ago
The military response would look like air strikes either from carrier or Gulf bases. No commmandos required, drones have replaced them.
- postsantum 3y ago
  Yemen is backed by Iran and has some tech capable of striking US ships. US is probably eager to start another proxy war but not right now
  - ianburrell 3y ago
    Yemen is backed by Saudi Arabia and UAE. Houthis are backed by Iran.
  - ffgjgf1 3y ago
    The proxy was in Yemen has been going on for almost 10 years. US just doesn’t want to be a direct part of that mess and the Saudis don’t want to damage their rapprochement with Iran. 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).

m4rtink 3y ago

I'm thinking that if the same thing happened in the days of the British Empire, there would be a lot of high velocity response on the way from the fine battleships of of her/his majesty battleships. 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

anon84873628 3y ago
No one is going to look at this and think, "wow the US is no longer willing or able to defend naval shipping." In fact the commencement of the operation is pretty clear indication that they are doing exactly that. 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.
tim333 3y ago
>The Times reports: “Britain’s military is preparing to launch a wave of air strikes against the Iranian-backed Houthis…Under the plans the UK would join with the US and possibly another European country”

kraig911 3y ago

How do you know there wasn't a response? The fog of war is both ways.

elromulous 3y ago

It's a function of how powerful one's adversary is. Russia is a superpower.

IAmGraydon 3y ago
Russia is not a superpower or even remotely close to such a status. No country besides the US is currently considered a superpower.
- elromulous 3y ago
  Any country with the ability to completely erase entire countries (i.e. has an enormous stockpile of nuclear weapons) is a superpower.
  - Invictus0 3y ago
    North Korea and Pakistan are superpowers?
  - kube-system 3y ago
    There are many other powers that a nation might have other than nuclear ability, and having nukes does not actually grant any of those other powers. North Korea, for example, may have nuclear weapons, but they have little diplomatic power, little economic power, little ability to project power, etc. The word "superpower" is typically used to describe a country that dominates many different types of these powers.
    - ffgjgf1 3y ago
      As far as we know North Korea doesn’t have the capability to hit any target in the world (like US, UK, France and Russia) or enough nukes to blow up half of the world. So hardly comparable
  - mkii 3y ago
    That might be a necessary condition, but definitely not a sufficient one to be considered a superpower. Simple thought experiment, "completely erasing" the US as you suggest would render the Earth unpleasant to live on, for a while, for all inhabitants.

monocasa 3y ago

Intentionally downing drones has typically not been causus belli. Iran downed a US stealth drone intentionally and seemed to have made it out with essentially no consequences. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incid...

defrost 3y ago
Other than the US getting called out in front of Russia and China in front of the UN Security Council: 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."
- photonbeam 3y ago
  Thats hardly a meaningful consequence though
  - smegsicle 3y ago
    did anyone say it was not an act of hostility?

ianburrell 3y ago

An act of war does not obligate country going to war. And an act of war is not required to start a war. Basically, wars start when in nation’s interest and can spin a reason. 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.

anigbrowl 3y ago

It depends; somewhat on the strategic situation, but also the public response. Few would consider a downed drone worth killing over (and those that would tend to be hair-on-fire types). But if something becomes a media circus, public opinion can shift rapidly. Consider for example the absurd freakout over Chinese spy balloons earlier this year - it was a convenient stick to beat the incumbent administration with during a slow news period, so it became The Most Important thing for a week.

screye 3y ago

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

goalieca 3y ago
> The US wants a war with Russia without putting boots on the ground. Ukraine was a convieinient 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.
marshray 3y ago
So then how did the US trick Putin into invading Ukraine? That's the simple question that nobody who espouses this silly set of beliefs can ever answer.
- toast0 3y ago
  Just because the US wanted a fight with Russia doesn't mean the US tricked Putin into it. Make hay while the sun shines and all that. And take care of inventory management and get the military industrial complex rolling again.
  - andsoitis 3y ago
    > Just because the US wanted a fight There you are repeating that claim without any evidence.
    - mkii 3y ago
      I had a more charitable reading of GP's comment: supposing, hypothetically, the US wanted a proxy war against Russia, it didn't have to "trick" Russia. This is a perfectly valid rebuttal to GP's parent imo, especially because GP's GP never suggested US "tricked" anything.

ra 3y ago

MH17 was shot down by a Russian anti-aircraft missile, killing all 298 p.o.b. with no consequences for Russia. 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-bomber-flew-inland-cornwall-uk-airspace-witness https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/19/russian-bomb...

fennecfoxy 3y ago
Don't forget: Russians enter UK to perform an assassination using a potent nerve agent (with essentially no repercussions). They do this all the time and get away with it. And like a child that doesn't get told off, they'll keep on doing it.
petesergeant 3y ago
> MH17 was shot down by a Russian anti-aircraft missile, killing all 298 p.o.b. with no consequences for Russia 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.
- Aeolun 3y ago
  Eh, we had them refusing access to the investigation and recovery teams for a while. If the shooting of the airliner wasn’t, that would have been one had it persisted (though it let up after a day or so).
m4rtink 3y ago
Though I would hope that in a hopefully civilized age such acts and war crimes would be punished prevented from happening again, I would not say there are no consequences of these actions. Many Dutch citizens have been killed on board of MH17 - and the amount of military support to Ukraine provided by the Dutch has been quite significant. As for Iran and North Korea - I would say some lines have been crossed there 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_warehouse_explosions 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-list-of-czech.html 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 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.

Joel_Mckay 3y ago

This book explains when wars serve national policy. For example, authoritarian states who failed to handle the Pandemic would also strongly suggest a tragedy must unfold to retain power. "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-Politics/dp/161039044X https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Po... Not a pleasant read, but a well reasoned model of violent human behavior. =)

m4rtink 3y ago
Well, that was basically how the Falkland war happened.
- Joel_Mckay 3y ago
  It is difficult to reconcile the actions of political movements falling into despotic trajectories. We lived in an age of false kings, great bandits, and imbeciles. =)

pclmulqdq 3y ago

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

Kilenaitor 3y ago
Any specific book of his you recommend? "On War" seems to be the one that popped up on a search but wanted to confirm. Sounds like an interesting topic.
- pclmulqdq 3y ago
  On War is the book.
snek_case 3y ago
Seems to me that trigger events for wars are often about finding a justification for a war that people in power were already wanting to start. America doesn't want to go to war with Russia because we know it could be incredibly destructive, given that they have nukes. So, it would probably take a lot to start a war between the US and Russia. They would have to attack or be clearly planning to attack a NATO ally. It's 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.
- pydry 3y ago
  In this case the Houthis have been the ones not reacting for many years: https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/09/21/us-war-crimes-yemen-stop-looking-other-way https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/09/21/us-war-crimes-yemen-stop...
  - 3y ago

baryphonic 3y ago

> Something I'm unsure about is what does and doesn't trigger wars. 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.

hiddencost 3y ago

Wars tend to happen slowly, then all at once. 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.

ethagknight 3y ago

US was provoked to continue sending massive amounts of weapons to Ukraine. The drone was just part of a much bigger equation.

pkaye 3y ago

I'm curious how many cargo ships does the US have?

defrost 3y ago
What's the question? 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?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- pkaye 3y ago
  Majority owned by US companies.
maxglute 3y ago
Not enough, hence a lot of DoD logistics is now done on civilian shipping via Maritime Partners program. Including Maersk who was dropping DoD contracts in September, the few ships on contract by DoD in region was refusing to go a couple weeks ago even with US escorts. The big revelation is Houthis has demonstrated US Transportation Command / US military's sealift ability is being challenged by small time Iranian proxy, so good luck on an IndoPac campaign against PRC. At least in terms of optics, feasibility of US DoD maritime logistics especially in protracted war looks to be in atrocious state. Regardless, the problem isn't really how many ships US owns, irrespective of flag - US can buy all the ships if they have to. Issue is US doesn't maintain enough dedicated personel for bulk of military transport (primarily due to working conditions despite being paid well), so they rely on civilian shipping, and it's start to look like civilian shipping increasingly uncertain of US ability to protect in SLOC choke points against TBF not particularly modern weapons.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  > The big revelation is Houthis has demonstrated US Transportation Command / US military's sealift ability is being challenged by small time Iranian proxy, so good luck on an IndoPac campaign against PRC. This is a very odd takeaway from this incident.

wolverine876 3y ago

I read a lot of professional international relations material (but I'm not an expert in any way). IME what may differ the most between 'popular' takes on IR and professional ones is the response to incidents. 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.

jcrites 3y ago

It’s not clear that Russia intended to down the drone. They were certainly harassing it, but they didn’t attack it. 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?

brightball 3y ago

Wars are triggered by some combination of money and fear. Pretty much every one.

bawolff 3y ago

Like all things - wars are a combination of rational self-interest, emotions and random chance. 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]

Aeolun 3y ago
> Any country that invades is going to be seen as responsible for fixing that mess Unless the invading country is Israel.
- bawolff 3y ago
  Israel gets yelled at by the UN pretty constantly. If anything that statement applies to Israel more than most countries.
  - Aeolun 3y ago
    I guess I read it more as ‘actually holding them responsible’ than occasionally (or constantly) yelling at them, since that is kinda pointless.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > read it more as ‘actually holding them responsible’ What about recent events suggests Israel isn’t held, and does not hold itself, responsible for Gaza’s affairs? The principal complaint is that they’re holding themselves too responsible.

onthecanposting 3y ago

There aren't rules. Casus Belli will be manufactured if war is desired and if not then these acts are ignored and the respectable media will dutifully keep it suppressed. 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.

throwup238 3y ago

Remember the Maine! 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.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> 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.
- throwup238 3y ago
  That's just ivory tower wishful thinking.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    Its no more ivory tower wishful thinking for the other applications than for predicting behavior; they are all idealized in that one never has certain knowledge in any of everything relevant in any of the dimensions.
    - throwup238 3y ago
      > they are all idealized in that one never has certain knowledge in any of everything relevant in any of the dimensions. Which is why it's particularly useless for geopolitics. It's literally the furthest you can get from "idealized" anything - far more so than plain sociology, economics, or psychology. It's the global sum of all of the most unpredictable traits of humanity. It's one of the messiest human pursuits and always has been. It's a nice "cows are spherical" approximation to write papers about but game theory really ain't that great at predicting basic human behavior either. Except like with evolutionary biology you can always come up with a "just-so" game theoretic story that sounds right but has no real predictive ability.

Exoristos 3y ago

Your reasoning seems to assume the U.S. has near-infinite power to wage war. Rather, right now the U.S. is stretched thin in Middle Eastern waters. They can't move their ships far from where they have them already without major strategic sacrifices.

tommiegannert 3y ago

I don't know war, but IIUC the game-theoretical response favored by biology is tit-for-tat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat 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.

throwaway2037 3y ago

Read more about the incident here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Black_Sea_drone_incident https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Black_Sea_drone_inciden...

flohofwoe 3y ago

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

yetanother12345 3y ago

> the US or other nations 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.