4 ms·

If the price of the blockade is as high as you outline, the price to secure the strait military might look comparatively lower. And, looking at the scenario yo

by baxtr 7mo ago

If the price of the blockade is as high as you outline, the price to secure the strait military might look comparatively lower. And, looking at the scenario you’re describing, it could be the most sane thing to do at this point.

0cf8612b2e1e 7mo ago
It is asymmetrical warfare. A hundred plus ships went through the straight daily. Attackers only need to occasionally damage a ship to make the crossing look deeply unappealing. No military intervention can promise 100% defense to passing vessels.
- toomuchtodo 7mo ago
  Whatever Iran wants is the cheapest course to resolution.
  - nickff 7mo ago
    We could achieve "peace for our time"... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time
    - toomuchtodo 7mo ago
      All peace is transient, the question is for how long per unit of investment of blood, treasure, and time. Invest efficiently.
    - vkou 7mo ago
      If you don't like making those kinds bargains in the future, maybe next time don't upset the status quo[1] by starting a war that you then go on to lose[2], which forces you to bargain from a position of weakness. Everyone in the DoD with triple-digit IQ knew that this would be the most likely outcome of starting a war with Iran, but all of those people got purged by Trump last year. --- [1] The status quo was that Iran was not in control of the strait, and all shipping traffic could pass through it. [2] Iran has so far accomplished it's objectives in the war, the US and Israel did not. It didn't get regime-changed, and its in now in control of the strait.
- cucumber3732842 7mo ago
  As the value of the oil goes up it becomes worth it to risk the ship. Even if you're paying to insure it there's an equilibrium point between odds and value. Obviously 50-50 doesn't pencil out at $100 or even $200 a barrel. But 1:50 might at $2xx. IDK I'm not a shipping expert.
  - 0cf8612b2e1e 7mo ago
    Technically true, but ship + cargo are going to be worth over a billion dollars. Any ship carrying petroleum products is going up be a juicy target for the Iranians looking to flex their muscles. Someone could say the risk is financially worth it, but you are not going to have many takers. Also might find few crew who want to sign onto your vessels.
  - steve_adams_86 7mo ago
    > becomes worth it to risk the ship There are a lot of human beings on those ships. It strikes me as awful that their lives would be risked under these circumstances, and that happening wouldn't really be a proper solution to the overarching problem. It would be something of a tragedy if things got so severe that the risk was assumed worthwhile and presumably, people on board were exposed to it outside of their will or control. I suspect many of them don't have a lot of options.
    - throwawaytea 7mo ago
      100 people will die on American roads today, and another tomorrow. Most of them die because they commute to work because a lower paying job closer, or a smaller dwelling near their job, isn't that appealing. Another portion will die because driving aggressively and fast seemed fun. Another portion will die because they like alcohol more than safety.
      - steve_adams_86 7mo ago
        Yes, but I don't think we should accept these deaths either, and I see them as worth preventing and avoiding as well. I also see false equivalence here in that the risk of death doesn't seem fungible. You're taking an aggregate death toll distributed across hundreds of millions of people, involving totally different voluntariness and causal structures.
SirensOfTitan 7mo ago
The problem is that Iran can defend the strait against the world's most advanced military with drones built with commercial hardware for 30-50K per drone. And that doesn't even take into account escalation, as if the US escalates then Iran will likely start targeting critical infrastructure in the region, making the crisis worse. The US and Israel are rapidly running out of munitions, while Iran is being resupplied by Russia (https://www.ft.com/content/d5d7291b-8a53-42cd-b10a-4e02fbcf9047 https://www.ft.com/content/d5d7291b-8a53-42cd-b10a-4e02fbcf9...) which is much more tooled out for munition production compared to NATO. The US also relies on both rare earths and Chinese supply chain for a lot of its munitions (which it is running low on). IMO the best option is for Trump to TACO, take the major L, and cede Iran its demands, but this would partially mean an alignment shift from Israel which still feels unthinkable based on the US political realities.
- spwa4 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  - pixelpoet 7mo ago
    So let's just fully descend to barbarism too, because petrol is a touch on the pricey side and I wanted to go on vacation to Spain this year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
vkou 7mo ago
> the price to secure the straight military might look comparatively lower. The price to secure the straight militarily is a full ground invasion of Iran. This would be done against a country four times bigger (in population and size) than Iraq, with the kind of terrain that makes Afghanistan look easily accessible, done without the help of a coalition of fools, because this isn't 2003, and nobody in Europe is very eager to send their kids to die for a war that Trump's ego started. His 2025 attempts to 'ingrate' himself with Europe are paying dividends now. Also, if you think the war is unpopular now (nobody but the 40% of the country that's MAGA-brained supports it - and those guys will support anything), imagine what the popularity would be like with a full mobilization and invasion. The GOPniks aren't that eager to become a 31-seat party this November.
- spwa4 7mo ago
  ... and if Iran keeps raising it will eventually become the only choice available, at which point we'll do it (and can I just say the truly horrible part: ... which was going to happen at some point anyway with the islamists in power)
  - oblio 7mo ago
    How did you read the previous comment and decide that "insanity is the only option"? The sane option would be to back down. And no, not every adversarial regime can be taken down. The Soviet Union had to fall, nobody was going to invade it.

by baxtr 7mo ago

0cf8612b2e1e 7mo ago

It is asymmetrical warfare. A hundred plus ships went through the straight daily. Attackers only need to occasionally damage a ship to make the crossing look deeply unappealing. No military intervention can promise 100% defense to passing vessels.

toomuchtodo 7mo ago
Whatever Iran wants is the cheapest course to resolution.
- nickff 7mo ago
  We could achieve "peace for our time"... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time
  - toomuchtodo 7mo ago
    All peace is transient, the question is for how long per unit of investment of blood, treasure, and time. Invest efficiently.
  - vkou 7mo ago
    If you don't like making those kinds bargains in the future, maybe next time don't upset the status quo[1] by starting a war that you then go on to lose[2], which forces you to bargain from a position of weakness. Everyone in the DoD with triple-digit IQ knew that this would be the most likely outcome of starting a war with Iran, but all of those people got purged by Trump last year. --- [1] The status quo was that Iran was not in control of the strait, and all shipping traffic could pass through it. [2] Iran has so far accomplished it's objectives in the war, the US and Israel did not. It didn't get regime-changed, and its in now in control of the strait.
cucumber3732842 7mo ago
As the value of the oil goes up it becomes worth it to risk the ship. Even if you're paying to insure it there's an equilibrium point between odds and value. Obviously 50-50 doesn't pencil out at $100 or even $200 a barrel. But 1:50 might at $2xx. IDK I'm not a shipping expert.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 7mo ago
  Technically true, but ship + cargo are going to be worth over a billion dollars. Any ship carrying petroleum products is going up be a juicy target for the Iranians looking to flex their muscles. Someone could say the risk is financially worth it, but you are not going to have many takers. Also might find few crew who want to sign onto your vessels.
- steve_adams_86 7mo ago
  > becomes worth it to risk the ship There are a lot of human beings on those ships. It strikes me as awful that their lives would be risked under these circumstances, and that happening wouldn't really be a proper solution to the overarching problem. It would be something of a tragedy if things got so severe that the risk was assumed worthwhile and presumably, people on board were exposed to it outside of their will or control. I suspect many of them don't have a lot of options.
  - throwawaytea 7mo ago
    100 people will die on American roads today, and another tomorrow. Most of them die because they commute to work because a lower paying job closer, or a smaller dwelling near their job, isn't that appealing. Another portion will die because driving aggressively and fast seemed fun. Another portion will die because they like alcohol more than safety.
    - steve_adams_86 7mo ago
      Yes, but I don't think we should accept these deaths either, and I see them as worth preventing and avoiding as well. I also see false equivalence here in that the risk of death doesn't seem fungible. You're taking an aggregate death toll distributed across hundreds of millions of people, involving totally different voluntariness and causal structures.

SirensOfTitan 7mo ago

The problem is that Iran can defend the strait against the world's most advanced military with drones built with commercial hardware for 30-50K per drone. And that doesn't even take into account escalation, as if the US escalates then Iran will likely start targeting critical infrastructure in the region, making the crisis worse. The US and Israel are rapidly running out of munitions, while Iran is being resupplied by Russia (https://www.ft.com/content/d5d7291b-8a53-42cd-b10a-4e02fbcf9047 https://www.ft.com/content/d5d7291b-8a53-42cd-b10a-4e02fbcf9...) which is much more tooled out for munition production compared to NATO. The US also relies on both rare earths and Chinese supply chain for a lot of its munitions (which it is running low on). IMO the best option is for Trump to TACO, take the major L, and cede Iran its demands, but this would partially mean an alignment shift from Israel which still feels unthinkable based on the US political realities.

spwa4 7mo ago
[flagged]
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- pixelpoet 7mo ago
  So let's just fully descend to barbarism too, because petrol is a touch on the pricey side and I wanted to go on vacation to Spain this year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

vkou 7mo ago

> the price to secure the straight military might look comparatively lower. The price to secure the straight militarily is a full ground invasion of Iran. This would be done against a country four times bigger (in population and size) than Iraq, with the kind of terrain that makes Afghanistan look easily accessible, done without the help of a coalition of fools, because this isn't 2003, and nobody in Europe is very eager to send their kids to die for a war that Trump's ego started. His 2025 attempts to 'ingrate' himself with Europe are paying dividends now. Also, if you think the war is unpopular now (nobody but the 40% of the country that's MAGA-brained supports it - and those guys will support anything), imagine what the popularity would be like with a full mobilization and invasion. The GOPniks aren't that eager to become a 31-seat party this November.

spwa4 7mo ago
... and if Iran keeps raising it will eventually become the only choice available, at which point we'll do it (and can I just say the truly horrible part: ... which was going to happen at some point anyway with the islamists in power)
- oblio 7mo ago
  How did you read the previous comment and decide that "insanity is the only option"? The sane option would be to back down. And no, not every adversarial regime can be taken down. The Soviet Union had to fall, nobody was going to invade it.