6 ms·

"The Singapore-flagged, Denmark-owned/operated container ship requested assistance, and the USS GRAVELY (DDG 107) and USS LABOON (DDG 58) have responded to the

"The Singapore-flagged, Denmark-owned/operated container ship requested assistance, and the USS GRAVELY (DDG 107) and USS LABOON (DDG 58) have responded to the ship." Why does a Danish owned and operated container ship fly under the Singapore flag? Why did the US Navy get involved?

kibwen 3y ago
> Why does a Danish owned and operated container ship fly under the Singapore flag? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_convenience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_convenience > Why did the US Navy get involved? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_security#Theoretical_approaches_to_maritime_security https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_security#Theoretical_...
kube-system 3y ago
The US navy guards international shipping lanes all over the world. Gotta keep the economy rollin’.
- mikewarot 3y ago
  That was our bribe to the rest of the "first world" to stand with us as cannon fodder against the USSR (the second world) during the Cold War. Now that it is over, the US public has slowly but persistently pushed back on continuing that arrangement. 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:
  - givemeethekeys 3y ago
    Don't we protect in exchange for them trading in USD?
    - mikewarot 3y ago
      Initially, that was the Bretton Woods agreement. The US at the end of WWII had 2/3 of the world's gold reserves, and it was part of the system set up to help the World's economy recover. 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.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Don't we protect in exchange for them trading in USD? 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.
  - dash2 3y ago
    You may not need trade as much as, say, Holland, but you would be much, much poorer without it. US isolationism is not a rational world view.
    - mikewarot 3y ago
      We in the US may be relied upon to do the right thing, but only after we've tried all available alternatives first. Look at our electoral politics, do we seem rational to you?
  - TMWNN 3y ago
    >I strongly suspect I'm about to learn I'm wrong about part of the above: 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?locations=US 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_trade_as_percentage_of_gdp_for_select/ https://np.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/8q9h8i/canadaus_tra...>
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Ignore people like dash2 who say that the US would be "much, much poorer without it" 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_territories_by_GDP 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_(nominal) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(no...
      - TMWNN 3y ago
        Did you even bother to look at the figures for the rest of the world? During the Great Depression, even if one got a salary cut, that was far better off than losing the job. If the US is "much, much poorer", every other country (developed or not) has been evicted and moving in with the parents if lucky; homeless and on the streets if not.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Did you even bother to look at the figures for the rest of the world? America might be less fucked than everyone else. But it would still get fucked. > During the Great Depression Great analogy. You’re talking about economic catastrophe on par with the Great Depression, which involved a 29% reduction in GDP.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > our bribe to the rest of the "first world" to stand with us as cannon fodder against the USSR (the second world) during the Cold Wa It’s deeper than that. We regularly protect our adversaries’ freedom of navigation.
    - mlrtime 3y ago
      Agreed, wouldn't China be just as interested as us in keeping these lanes open? Why aren't they also engaging? Or do they not have assets here?
      - maxglute 3y ago
        Because US protecting global shipping is overexaggeration. US protects US flagged shipping - non US flagged vessels got hit without US intervention during tanker wars for years without US lifting finger. MENA oil exporters had to reflag under US flag (pay US taxes/protection fees) to be eligible for defense. US didn't step up to end tanker wars until bunch of US sailers killed with USS Stark was hit. Prosperity Guardian is happening right now because Maersk and other civilian shippers that DoD depends on sealift was threatening not to transit through area. Including the ones being paid and contracted by DoD, carrying military hardware. Likely for Israel. Including DoD Maersk ships, who basically "threatened" DoD that no Maersk ships would transit Red Sea unless US protects all Maersk shipping. US is pressured to protect shipping right now because they've offloaded so much sealift to multinational civilian sector, that is now undermining US DoD logistics to leverage US to protect all shipping, not just US flagged shipping. PLANavy has assets in region, busy gathering USN antiship interception data. Entire reason they have Djibouti base for antipiracy deployment is because they know US can't be relied on for protecting shipping. There was UN taskforce for antipiracy in Africa not because US couldn't protect against a few Somali fishing boats but because USN doesn't do global shipping protection by default. Regardless PRC has little incentive to engage, Houthi has been largely discriminary, leaving PRC shipping alone. Unless it spills into broad regional war, PRC gets to quadruple dip. They get data on US antishipping performance. Lost cargo = more purhcases fron PRC factories. Lost ships = more work for PRC ship yards. More redirected maritime traffic around Africa = more work for PRC ship yards since you need more ships for same demand. Meanwhile, PRC shippers gets to go through red sea, on shorter/faster route, and charge premium. All by just not doing anything, because it's profitable, and they get to do nothing and profit because they're not mired in MENA shit show unlike US.
Qem 3y ago
If these shipping companies are going to take advantage of taxpayer-funded militaries, they could at least pay taxes themselves, instead of hiding behind convenience flags. Either this or waiting the Singapore navy to rescue them.
- tim333 3y ago
  The global nature of shipping makes being protected by whatever country you sailed from a bit impractical.

kibwen 3y ago

> Why does a Danish owned and operated container ship fly under the Singapore flag? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_convenience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_convenience > Why did the US Navy get involved? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_security#Theoretical_approaches_to_maritime_security https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_security#Theoretical_...

kube-system 3y ago

The US navy guards international shipping lanes all over the world. Gotta keep the economy rollin’.

mikewarot 3y ago
That was our bribe to the rest of the "first world" to stand with us as cannon fodder against the USSR (the second world) during the Cold War. Now that it is over, the US public has slowly but persistently pushed back on continuing that arrangement. 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:
- givemeethekeys 3y ago
  Don't we protect in exchange for them trading in USD?
  - mikewarot 3y ago
    Initially, that was the Bretton Woods agreement. The US at the end of WWII had 2/3 of the world's gold reserves, and it was part of the system set up to help the World's economy recover. 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.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Don't we protect in exchange for them trading in USD? 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.
- dash2 3y ago
  You may not need trade as much as, say, Holland, but you would be much, much poorer without it. US isolationism is not a rational world view.
  - mikewarot 3y ago
    We in the US may be relied upon to do the right thing, but only after we've tried all available alternatives first. Look at our electoral politics, do we seem rational to you?
- TMWNN 3y ago
  >I strongly suspect I'm about to learn I'm wrong about part of the above: 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?locations=US 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_trade_as_percentage_of_gdp_for_select/ https://np.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/8q9h8i/canadaus_tra...>
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Ignore people like dash2 who say that the US would be "much, much poorer without it" 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_territories_by_GDP 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_(nominal) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(no...
    - TMWNN 3y ago
      Did you even bother to look at the figures for the rest of the world? During the Great Depression, even if one got a salary cut, that was far better off than losing the job. If the US is "much, much poorer", every other country (developed or not) has been evicted and moving in with the parents if lucky; homeless and on the streets if not.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Did you even bother to look at the figures for the rest of the world? America might be less fucked than everyone else. But it would still get fucked. > During the Great Depression Great analogy. You’re talking about economic catastrophe on par with the Great Depression, which involved a 29% reduction in GDP.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > our bribe to the rest of the "first world" to stand with us as cannon fodder against the USSR (the second world) during the Cold Wa It’s deeper than that. We regularly protect our adversaries’ freedom of navigation.
  - mlrtime 3y ago
    Agreed, wouldn't China be just as interested as us in keeping these lanes open? Why aren't they also engaging? Or do they not have assets here?
    - maxglute 3y ago
      Because US protecting global shipping is overexaggeration. US protects US flagged shipping - non US flagged vessels got hit without US intervention during tanker wars for years without US lifting finger. MENA oil exporters had to reflag under US flag (pay US taxes/protection fees) to be eligible for defense. US didn't step up to end tanker wars until bunch of US sailers killed with USS Stark was hit. Prosperity Guardian is happening right now because Maersk and other civilian shippers that DoD depends on sealift was threatening not to transit through area. Including the ones being paid and contracted by DoD, carrying military hardware. Likely for Israel. Including DoD Maersk ships, who basically "threatened" DoD that no Maersk ships would transit Red Sea unless US protects all Maersk shipping. US is pressured to protect shipping right now because they've offloaded so much sealift to multinational civilian sector, that is now undermining US DoD logistics to leverage US to protect all shipping, not just US flagged shipping. PLANavy has assets in region, busy gathering USN antiship interception data. Entire reason they have Djibouti base for antipiracy deployment is because they know US can't be relied on for protecting shipping. There was UN taskforce for antipiracy in Africa not because US couldn't protect against a few Somali fishing boats but because USN doesn't do global shipping protection by default. Regardless PRC has little incentive to engage, Houthi has been largely discriminary, leaving PRC shipping alone. Unless it spills into broad regional war, PRC gets to quadruple dip. They get data on US antishipping performance. Lost cargo = more purhcases fron PRC factories. Lost ships = more work for PRC ship yards. More redirected maritime traffic around Africa = more work for PRC ship yards since you need more ships for same demand. Meanwhile, PRC shippers gets to go through red sea, on shorter/faster route, and charge premium. All by just not doing anything, because it's profitable, and they get to do nothing and profit because they're not mired in MENA shit show unlike US.

Qem 3y ago

If these shipping companies are going to take advantage of taxpayer-funded militaries, they could at least pay taxes themselves, instead of hiding behind convenience flags. Either this or waiting the Singapore navy to rescue them.

tim333 3y ago
The global nature of shipping makes being protected by whatever country you sailed from a bit impractical.