| ▲ | seydor 14 hours ago |
| Hormuz is not a minefield though. According to sources, ships are moving near the coast of Iran, according to other sources they are being charged $2M per passage. According to other sources only Yuan paid oil is allowed. |
|
| ▲ | donalhunt 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Iran has indicated they will only target ships tied to countries that are involved in the conflict. That likely means US and Israel. Unclear if countries like the UK that are facilitating the US through use of their bases would be considered legitimate targets (likely yes). |
| |
| ▲ | Pay08 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That's not how mines work. They don't only explode on people you want them to explode on. | | |
| ▲ | torginus 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm not a military guy, but I would think you can make mines nowadays that do exactly that. | | |
| ▲ | dzhiurgis an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Yep. IIRC Norway and Sweden has actually have a network of smart mines deployed. | |
| ▲ | Pay08 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | With what communication protocol? Does high-frequency radio have the range for that? | | |
| ▲ | torginus 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I was thinking you could run a fiber optic cable. Those have proven themselves to work over 10s of miles in Ukraine with drones. | | |
| ▲ | beedeebeedee 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | That’s an interesting idea. I think the fiber optics for drones works because it is only used once over a short period of time. It seems like a cable connected to a mine could be easily disrupted by dragging an anchor with a small robot boat. And as another commenter noted, mines get moved by currents, so the cable could get tangled and snap. | | |
| ▲ | mikkupikku 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | In the modern era, the difference between sea mine and drone or torpedo can be a lot fuzzier than you may expect. People think of spikey balls, but some sea mines today can do stuff like use passive sonar to match targets against an internal database before firing a homing torpedo. I doubt Iran has these, but they certainly have the proficiency to think creatively about the problem. | | | |
| ▲ | torginus 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I mean you could have some slack in the cable easily, and have the mine become intert should its cable snap. You have to be mindful of enemy tampering, but overal I would say the idea's worth investigating. On an unrelated note, I was also thinking of using fiber optic drones to rapidly set up an unjammable communications network on the battlefield. Surely that would be useful for something? |
|
| |
| ▲ | dzhiurgis an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sonar can work over 100km. Mines obvs need to maintain radio silence so passive mode only. |
|
| |
| ▲ | catlifeonmars 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That’s not fundamental to how mines work. You could arm/disarm them remotely, either manually or via transponder. But I assume most mines are not like this. | | |
| ▲ | Pay08 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | The problem is that it's to my knowledge very difficult to know where maritime mines are, since they get swept around by currents. | | |
| |
| ▲ | littlestymaar 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Easy: you mine the straight except the water immediately near your shores, where you can control the boat. We don't know about the mining part (the straight may or may not be mined yet) but the second part is what the Iranians are doing right now (the tankers which cross are doing to between Qeshm Island and mainland Iran, not in the straight proper) |
| |
| ▲ | lukan 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Unfortunately Iran's leadership is in a bit of distress and communication disrupted, and "involved in the conflict" is a very broad term - so they do make some effort to get chinese oil out, but any ship not asking for explicit permission from Iran - will have some great risk of being targeted. Remember, the strait is not Iranian property, but International waters. So no one would have to ask them for permission, but that is the way it is and most do not risk it (insurance won't cover). | | |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > the strait is not Iranian property, but International waters That seems to depend on who you ask. Iran has expressed a differing opinion on the matter and appears to be capable of striking the area in practice. | |
| ▲ | Kwpolska 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Nah, the narrowest points are below 24 nautical miles, so all ships need to pass through Iran and/or Oman's territorial waters (12 nmi each). | |
| ▲ | imadierich 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
|
| ▲ | diath 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You can see for yourself if anything is passing: https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:57.7/cente... |
| |
| ▲ | oxfeed65261 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | A small number of ships are crossing with AIS off (and without the benefit of GPS, because it is jammed) by coordinating with Iran. For example: https://gcaptain.com/iranian-navy-guided-indian-tanker-throu.... These will not show up on Marine Traffic as they are transiting the strait. | | |
| ▲ | dzhiurgis an hour ago | parent [-] | | Wonder why US doesn’t spam the strait with fake AIS signals. Do Iranians have capability to spot ships in dark at night? If they employ radar - why not geolocate radar stations? Is there other techniques Iranians have for spotting ships (EW, SAR, etc)? If Shaheds use Starlink - how come SpaceX can’t geolocate the launch sites? |
| |
| ▲ | mmmwww 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I've seen reports of ship turning off their AIS before attempting the strait, not sure if this is still valid but Marine Traffic only shows AIS signals that are turned on, which is as simple as flipping a switch. Also something Chinese fishing ships do around the galapagos and other regions to fish illegally. | |
| ▲ | sbuttgereit 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | As others have mentioned, that's simply not going to tell you anything. AIS can and is often times turned off in such situations and it ships can spoof their location by sending false AIS... something that situations like could encourage, at least one could well imagine. I find Sal Mercogliano's "What's Going on With Shipping?" to be a better source to understanding what's happening in the Strait. Here's a link to yesterday's episode "Strait of Hormuz 3-Week Recap | What is the Status of the Ships, Transits and Escort Mission?": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q64cOs7GN_4 | |
| ▲ | raincole 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4geg0eeyjeo > Before the war, about 138 ships passed through the strait each day according to the Joint Maritime Information Centre, carrying one fifth of the global oil supply. > The data provided by shipping analysts Kpler shows 99 vessels passing the narrow strait so far this month, an average of just 5-6 vessels a day. I mean, it's bad, but it's factually not a minefield. The threat isn't coming from mines anyway. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | beloch 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It might not be. It might be. Uncertainty is the point of what Iran is doing. There might be mines in the straight that are sophisticated enough to be armed, disarmed, or moved on command, or there might not. There might be artillery emplacements* hidden and not found, ready to pop up... or there might not. There are probably still plenty of drones and missiles all over the country that can be called down on Hormuz at will. Iran might choose to save them for something else... or they might not. If a few oil tankers get through without Iran's permission, one might conclude everything Iran has in place has been found and that the straight is safe. Then again, it might not be. The Iranians might save a few choice surprises for the first aircraft carrier that gets too close. They might also choose to actually sink a large ship**, blocking the straight long-term. The Iranian regime has been planning specifically for a U.S. invasion since it's inception*** and they probably have some very well hidden and nasty surprises as well as plans to use them to maximum effect. Merchant vessels can't get insurance to go through because of all this uncertainty. The U.S. Navy has completely refused to go in there because losing a multi-billion dollar military vessel along with hundreds or thousands of sailors for a war that's already unpopular would likely knock the U.S. out of it completely. This is why Trump is desperate for other nations to come in and clear the straight. He doesn't care if they lose ships, but he can't afford to lose even one American ship for a "Wag the Dog" war that's already exploded the budget. ------------------- *The straight is narrow enough that artillery can actually cover it. Even the most sophisticated anti-missile defence systems aren't meant to deal with artillery shells fired from nearly point blank range. **The straight has only a couple of channels deep enough for large vessels to transit. One or two well positioned wrecks could block the works. *** They rebelled against a Shah installed by a CIA backed coup after all. |
| |
| ▲ | donalhunt 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Lloyds who are one of the biggest players have indicated cover is available. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/mar/20/risk-london... | | |
| ▲ | andyjohnson0 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | At what cost, I wonder? And even then: "after you" ... "no, I insist, after you" ... | |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | So Lloyds is willing to reimburse the first crash test dummy if things go wrong while testing the waters. But unless they've figured out how to bring people back to life I don't think I'd want to be on the crew. |
| |
| ▲ | noduerme 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | So what's left of the Iranian regime is basically like the Houthis now, reduced to getting world attention by committing random acts of piracy and firing at random ships off their coast. To make whatever point they were trying to make. Seems like a win to me. Declare victory, say the straight is open, just like the Red Sea is open. If anything moves at shipping, destroy its source. They don't have a right to attack merchant vessels, and there's no reason to negotiate with them either. | | |
| ▲ | none2585 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > They don't have a right to attack merchant vessels This is a sovereign nation that is being attacked by a waning superpower. It's war and they are retaliating in really the only way that they can force America to back off - which is make the war really expensive and even more unpopular domestically. | |
| ▲ | samus 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Declare victory, say the straight is open, just like the Red Sea is open. If anything moves at shipping, destroy its source. Do you understand the concept of asymmetrical warfare? Hiding hundreds of launchers, firing them, and losing them is already accounted for by Iran, while a decent chance of losing any asset going through is prohibitively expensive. The strait is closed. | |
| ▲ | zyx321 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That sounds a lot like "do the thing you've been trying and failing for the past few weeks, but this time succeed instead of failing" |
|
|
|
| ▲ | jonplackett 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I’m not sure this is intended to be factually accurate |
| |
|
| ▲ | 0dayman 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| correct |
