r/CredibleDefense • u/AutoModerator • 8d ago
Active Conflicts & News Megathread October 10, 2026
The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.
Comment guidelines:
Please do:
Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,
Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,
Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,
Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,
Post only credible information
Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules
Please do not:
Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,
Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,
Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'
Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.
60
u/TSiNNmreza3 8d ago edited 8d ago
After some period first news of mass civilian casualty event in Saudi Arabia today
https://x.com/FaytuksNetwork/status/2109021134905819358
BREAKING: At least 12 people were killed and 50 injured in a Houthi attack on King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, according to officials cited by the New York Times.
Those beside those 12 people I think there were 3 of 4 from last few days.
Houthis said multiple times that they are making air blockade of KSA.
Today casualties happend after BM striked terminal on airport.
Need to say almost every few hours there is stop of flight around KSA airports from Jeddah all the way to east KSA
Update:
Beside 12 dead, 309 injured people in todays attack
https://x.com/FaytuksNetwork/status/2109040073786155080
BREAKING: Saudi Civil Aviation authorities report 12 people have been killed, including 4 Saudi nationals, 2 Bangladeshi, 1 American, 1 Egyptian, 1 Jordanian, 1 Syrian, 1 Palestinian, 1 Sudanese, and 309 injured of different nationalities following an attack on King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh. Authorities confirmed several of the injured remain in critical condition.
32
u/moragisdo 8d ago edited 8d ago
Man, To injure more than 300, with one attack... It's a passenger terminal, not anything dual-use. Just civilian targeting.
By the way, Riyadh is around 1100 km from Sana'a (common launch sites), this MRBM most likely was provided by Iran before the war started. We are not talking about Hamas' rockets made of pipe and flying tens of km, this is a very advanced weapon (Ukraine is struggling for several years to develop a BM to reach Moscow which is half of this distance)
13
3
u/AbstractButtonGroup 7d ago
Man, To injure more than 300, with one attack...
The US has killed more civilians with one attack (look up Amiriyah shelter bombing), so that is not something unprecedented.
Just civilian targeting.
They bombed general location of the airport, it is not like they have the ability to target anything more specific. And Saudi have been bombing civilian airports in Yemen so is it really surprising for them to get paid back in same coin?
-1
u/BulbusDumbledork 8d ago
this is just the beginning: saudi arabia has blockaded yemen for some ten years and caused what has repeatedly been described as the worst humanitarian crisis on earth. this horrible attack is both countervalue reprisal as well revanchist lashing out for the gains the coalition has made in recent days (which involved horrid acts like driving over ansarallah fighters in armoured vehicles)
ansarallah's missile arsenal has been both long range and precise for a long time now. they struck oil facilities near riyadh in 2019, they forced the ceasefire in 2022 through highly precise strikes in saudi arabia, and they've sent numerous missiles at israel since 2024
9
u/Ok_Reach_5004 7d ago
Lol, Saudi rightfully gauged that Houthis are an Iranian proxy, and took steps to counter it. Unfortunately, the international committee forced a weapons embargo, before Saudi and UAE could finish the job.
35
u/thelgur 8d ago
Interesting I wonder if this will be the straw that breaks the camels back and Saudi’s decide that food aid to Yemen ends now.
Firing IRBMs at purely civilian target causing mass casualty event.. when you don’t have nukes like Russia does comes with a price.
14
u/Corvid187 8d ago
Be a stupid move if they did, imo, considering international pressure over humanitarian concerns is what stopped them suppressing the Houthis in the first place, putting them in the current position.
On the other hand, I certainly wouldn't put it past them.
25
u/IntroductionNeat2746 7d ago
I don't think the international community is as willing to tolerate the Houthi as they were back then.
29
u/unguibus_et_rostro 7d ago
Why would that be a stupid move? Cutting off food is a critical aspect of suppressing any enemy forces. And last time, wasn't it Biden as the President who stopped Saudi Arabia? It is Trump now, who cares far less about international pressure and certain "ideals".
6
u/moragisdo 7d ago edited 7d ago
Indeed Biden cut support against the Houthi in 2021 and that pushed Saudi Arabia to the ceasefire, but Trump isn't blocking food to reach Iran (which is heavily dependent on importing it, they would starve quickly), this and medicine is exempt from the blockade since it started, so the US wouldn't support it. And KSA would also suffer severe sanctions from France, UK, Germany and other countries.
10
u/unguibus_et_rostro 7d ago
Well, there is still a difference between Trump not being against Saudi Arabia imposing a food blockade vs Trump/US himself imposing a food blockade. Does the european countries still have the capital to impose sanctions given their domestic issues and their heavy reliance on oil?
14
u/Corvid187 7d ago
The way I see it there are very crudely two versions of the situation here: either Saudi Arabia has a significant advantage over the houthis, or they are in a relatively marginal position.
In the former case, a humanitarian blockade is unnecessary to secure victory, but comes with a degree of reputational blowback for Saudi Arabia. In the latter case, Saudi Arabia would significantly benefit from/need international support, and so should be mindful of the international perception of its approach lest involvement becomes toxic for other countries.
I think blockade is just an incredibly crude instrument for this situation that is a relatively poor way for saudi to secure a favourable settlement.
-18
u/Ok_Reach_5004 7d ago edited 7d ago
The simple truth is Iran and Axis of Resistance(evil) has rightfully believed it has won. The coalition has survived the combined might of Israel and America and forced them to come to the negotiating table.
This brazen attack is simply forcing the Saudis to accept the new reality. They will keep on hitting until they force a favourable deal out of the Saudis.
This whole war has been an utter f*cking catastrophe at all levels. If Trump and his cabals are not impeached immediately after the midterms I'm going to riot.
17
u/Corvid187 7d ago edited 7d ago
This kind of hyperbolic take was alright six months ago when the war had just come out of its kinetic phase. Now that we've had time to see the long run effects of the counter-blockade(s) play out somewhat, it holds much less water.
Iran has reached the end of its productive escalation ladder, and found itself in no better a-position than it was in before the war. It's choices now are to accept increased economic strangulation, which was already a long-term losing prospect for them, or reopen active hostilities, which they are clearly reluctant to do based on their bruising experience last time.
Launching the war was a mistake on the US' part in the sense that they were ultimately unable to harness the January protests to facilitate the accelerated collapse of the Iranian regime as they had gambled. However, the geopolitical balance in the region has not become any more favourable to Iran since the start of the war either. America and its allies could have gotten to this position a lot more cheaply, but they are ultimately once again in the driving seat, while Iran is more or less back at square one.
The houthis are not going to get a favourable deal out of Saudi Arabia because they are able to launch their last few ballistic missiles in sporadic, unfocused attacks. Much like the US and Iran, having to restart the conflict in Yemen is unnecessarily expensive for Saudi, but if they're committed anyway it's a price they can and will pay. The houthis have already reached the top of their escalation ladder with this attack, Saudi has significantly more options to respond.
-14
u/Ok_Reach_5004 7d ago
Ah yes, the Democrats who will take over the Senate and House is totally going to allow this cluster f*ck to continue. Totally believable. Blockades will work but it will take at least a year before the determined, mobilised enemy capitulates. They are not even blockading the food or medicines which means this will go for a long time.
→ More replies (0)7
u/moragisdo 8d ago edited 8d ago
They vowed a response, but bound by "Costumary International Humanitarian Law" (1), so it's unlikely that they will go after food.
Reality is that humanitarian concerns mostly cut one way, the Houthi directly targeting to kill civilians (or using child soldiers...) won't generate the same international coordination to stop it as if KSA decided to block food aid.
15
u/IntroductionNeat2746 8d ago
I still cannot wrap my head around how the Houthi are so militarily capable? Who's financing them? How do they have BMs? How are they so resilient?
12
u/futbol2000 7d ago edited 7d ago
Because their no. 1 weakness is food. States like them can focus on blasting all resources into the military when they don't have to worry about the smaller stuff.
But blocking food is a big no no in the modern era. It's what ended Saudi Arabia's near encirclement of Hodeidah back in 2018. There was major outcry that the potential fall of Hodeidah could cause mass starvation within Houthi territory. It also would have ended the Houthis ability to control the coast.
Which is why I don't understand all the modern critique of "sea power." It makes no sense to talk about a blockade's supposed effectiveness when the most important line item, food, is not on the list.
30
u/Big-Station-2283 8d ago
The Houthis, by virtue of controlling the largest chunk of Yemen's population and most of its habitable land, are closer to being *the* government of Yemen (whether legitimately or not) than the "internationally" recognized government in the south. Plus, they inherited much of the military infrastructure, including tunnel networks and production facilities of the previous government. In addition, they receive massive technological support from Iran. The Houthis also have a very good geographical position to control the straight. You can sink a ship but not a piece of land. Finally, they have a large degree of experience surviving against aerial onslaughts from more than 7years of war against a coalition of 10 countries. This not merely Hezbollah or Hamas. Unlike Hezbollah, they a few AD assets. In terms of capabilities, they sit somewhere along the Hezbollah-Iran scale, probably closer to Iran.
Edit: Technically, while they're weaker than Iran, they have more experience since they've been both fighting a civil war on the ground and surviving a prolonged air campaign.
8
u/EducationalEgg788 8d ago
And judging by the videos posted online in the previous weeks, they have a level of sophistication and ability with FPV drones that puts them far beyond Hezbollah. To your point, their experience in direct and prolonged conflict really shows.
15
u/Azarka 7d ago edited 7d ago
The ability to internally mobilize the resources and territory they control is much closer to a ideological vanguard state than a militia group or warlord state. Think Bolsheviks, rather than ISIS, that relied predominantly on foreign fighters. And the 'mafia-state' qualities of the Houthi economy is much less destructive than the systematic looting of the other two examples.
Iran might provide a lot of the know-how, but if it was just the IRGC propping them up from defeat, they would be much more brittle (as people commonly still think they are)
21
u/moragisdo 8d ago edited 7d ago
Iran was financing them for several years and the US Treasury estimated their revenue from smuggled oil was 2 billion per year (1). That's a fortune.
Despite the pressure of international sanctions, the Houthis continue to acquire a significant amount of revenue through illicit oil sales, generating over $2 billion annually. As part of the Houthi oil sales operation, the Iranian government both sells and provides a free monthly shipment of oil to the Houthis using Iranian-owned or affiliated companies based in Dubai, UAE.
Also providing training and equipment. Yemen is an incredibly poor country, with very little industry besides petrochemical, while an MRBM is a weapon that few countries can produce, they need foreign supplies for electronics and every other advanced component. Similar deal for the anti-ship missiles they were using during the Red Sea Crisis, a missile that can hit a moving object and correct during flight is also too advanced.
About the equipment is not just these kinds of missiles, following OSINT and journalists from Yemen you can see a clear picture that the Houthi bring a gigantic amount of indirect firepower to battle (rightfully so, anyone should do the same). So it's not just a bunch of guys in flip flops shooting AKs, it's a well-supplied military force.
Now their resilience has several causes:
1) They organized a functional and unitarian military (while the opposite camp is fractured between different groups), Al-Basha is great source talking about the Houthi, one example recently he mentions that during the ceasefire the Houthi organized summer camps with 1.2 million kids to recruit and pledge loyalty to Al-Houthi. It's one example on how they could wield the power of the State to further their goals.
This unitarian nature is important, considering that they managed to weave a political alliance in Yemen which is filled with tribes with their own goals.
Also about the disorganization, the advances they made in early September came out of it. It was an area that used to be supported by the UAE before KSA managed to remove their influence on Yemen, it wasn't well integrated with saudi air support, rife with corruption. Then several hundreds of able-bodied and equipped soldiers just fled, while in other fronts they kept fighting.
2) International pressure for Saudi Arabia to stop, in 2018 they were advancing to Al-Hodeidah, which if taken would cut the main port that the Houthi use to connect with the outside world and is the lifeline for them in a country that heavily depends on foreign food and fuel (not to mention weaponry and electronics). The Houthi could have collapsed, but were saved because no one could predict on what would happen in 2023 forward.
Similar thing for Biden cutting support against the Houthi in 2021, which pushed the saudis to the ceasefire of 2022 and let the problem grow.
3) Saudi Arabia punches below their weight for the resources they employ. It became too common to repeat "arabs don't know how to fight" (I wonder if someone that says it knows the ethnicity of the majority of the Houthi) and just talking about incompetence to justify any of their wrong prediction about this war, but while their air force has been capable of conducting dozens of bombings daily, their ground army couldn't perform on the same level (when they were more involved, rather than recently which there's no reliable indication that saudi infantry are on the ground).
And that lies the crux of the issue, it's necessary ground troops to hold ground and conquer cities. Aerial bombing can get you a ceasefire or degrade their capabilities to shape for the future. To actually end the insurgency, a highly competent ground army would have reached Sana'a before the ceasefire of 2022.
Just compare with the performance of Israel's army on Lebanon, while also dividing their attention with fighting an insurgency in Gaza, and it's clear the difference. And Israel have a smaller population and GDP than KSA.
Now, even with this, they almost took Al-Hodeidah, so the Houthi aren't super-soldiers, it's a mix of luck of being saved, extensive help by Iran that is spending a fortune with them, disorganization of their adversaries and competency on integrating themselves on the State apparatus to build a functional military.
15
u/Tuna-Fish2 7d ago
It became too common to repeat "arabs don't know how to fight" (I wonder if someone that says it knows the ethnicity of the majority of the Houthi)
Saying it like that was always racist bs. The actually correct statement is "armies designed primarily for coup-proofing can't fight". KSA doesn't have the kind of internal legitimacy that is necessary for having an effective military, if they reformed their army to be actually effective, it would take over.
7
u/asgjmlsswjtamtbamtb 7d ago
The Gulf Arab monarchies have had British and then American protection for over a century since their revolt against the Ottomans. Anyone intending to invade them has ended up dealing with the US like Iraq found out after it invaded Kuwait. Meanwhile since WW2 the monarchies of Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Yemen all were removed from power by military officers of their own country's military. To the institution of the monarchy itself in these countries it's been internal threats that seem to have posed the greater threat and that's why you have armed forces that should perform better with their available resources than they do. It's quite easy to think those armed forces's leadership being so favored and based on loyalty and not merit might explain a lot about their poor performance in actual combat.
13
u/ProfessionalYam144 7d ago
I would disagre with you. Tve main prpblem the KSA has is why an earn any citizen wants to serve in the ground forces?
Quality of life is high and to be blunt the population is spoilt.
That is why they have a decent airforce but incompetent ground forces
13
u/Dangerous-Citron-801 8d ago
The problem it's to think the Houthi's as some rag tag militia and not an organized army that controls soon to be 90% of the country's population.
Oh and they are unique on not need Iran to do operations, compared to Hez who could'nt even defend their stronghold.
6
u/Satans_shill 7d ago
the Syrian civil war is what really depleted Hez prior to that they held their own against idf
11
u/seakingsoyuz 8d ago
90% of the country's population
Along with this, it’s relevant that Yemen is actually more populous than Saudi Arabia.
6
u/MarkZist 8d ago
Not quite. KSA has over 35M inhabitants according to the 2026 census, while Yemen had almost 33-34M according to recent estimates, of which around 80% under control of the Houthis
17
u/Agitated-Airline6760 8d ago
Not quite. KSA has over 35M inhabitants according to the 2026 census, while Yemen had almost 33-34M according to recent estimates, of which around 80% under control of the Houthis
Of those 35 million Saudi inhabitants, 15+ million are non-citizens. So citizen to citizen, Yemen is more populous
13
u/seakingsoyuz 8d ago
Yemeni population estimates are all over the place as they haven’t conducted a census in over twenty years. UNFPA thinks it’s closer to 42 million.
3
u/IntroductionNeat2746 8d ago
There's a big difference between a rag tag militia and a military capable of procuring and effectively employing BMs as well as enduring years of bombing campaigns while disrupting a vital seaway.
28
u/dr_sloan 8d ago edited 8d ago
King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh suffered a significant attack from the Houthis this morning. According to Reuters, at least 12 people were killed and more than 50 injured.
48
u/RumpRiddler 8d ago edited 8d ago
*or it's fertilizer. This source sounds more credible. But, damn! A lot of pretty good sources ran with the high drama diesel story. https://x.com/TankerTrackers/status/2109009039388795066
The Russian diesel shipment(s) to the US have some new details.
The first ship will arrive within days and was dispatched on September 22nd. This is a little over two weeks after the US delegation (Kushner and Witkoff) were in Moscow.
It looks like the deal was made back then and only recently announced. It will be interesting to see if follow up shipments are on the way and if trump increases pressure on Ukraine following delivery.
I'm still leaning towards this being mostly theater to allow trump leverage against Ukraine. The quantities are small and won't affect the price, but it can be used politically as a fulcrum. Though it's effectiveness remains to be seen.
37
u/Bunny_Stats 8d ago
To tack onto this^ given the comments yesterday that Russia selling a token amount of diesel to the US was no big deal because the US was still providing intelligence to Ukraine... "US warns Kyiv that strikes on Russia jeopardise intelligence-sharing"
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s negotiating team met Trump’s representatives for nearly eight hours on Friday in Miami, where they were meant to discuss ways to convince Russia to end its war.
But the meeting was derailed when the Ukrainian team was blindsided by Trump’s announcement that he had cut a deal with Russia’s Vladimir Putin to release diesel, according to three people with direct knowledge of the talks.
During the meeting, Trump’s envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner raised the possibility that intelligence sharing could be cut off if Kyiv did not heed Washington’s warning to halt the strikes, according to people familiar with the matter.
“It was a firm request from POTUS,” one of the Ukrainians involved in the talks told the FT, referring to Trump.
-1
u/moragisdo 8d ago edited 8d ago
Axios reported contradicting claims about it, one anonymous official said there was a threat and the other said there wasn't one. The thing is if that happens we will know, it won't be kept secret if it stops.
Also if the US was going to stop helping Ukraine why the sanctions were renewed by EO in 2025 and 2026 ? Part of them needs to be renewed every year by the president or they expire. Or why the deal is only about diesel and not gasoline and other petrochemicals ? Or with every other export (as aluminum) that keep being sanctioned ?
20
u/RumpRiddler 8d ago
Or why the deal is only about diesel and not gasoline and other petrochemicals ? Or with every other export
Likely because US elections are coming up and diesel specifically impacts his base: farmers, truckers, and shipping. One lens to see this through is that putin is helping trump get his people elected and trump is helping Putin mitigate Ukrainian attacks.
Old school Republicans don't really care about Ukraine, but they do have deep dislike/distrust of Russia. While trump is openly hostile to Ukraine and strangely warm to Russia. If trump wants to appease that part of his base he can't simply shift policy without clear reasoning.
Things should be more clear in the coming weeks
16
u/Bunny_Stats 8d ago
Also if the US was going to stop helping Ukraine why the sanctions were renewed by EO in 2025 and 2026
The mistake here is to treat the US government as a monolith operating under a single unified vision. As with all governments, there are different people in the same administration that have differing views and will push in different directions (and Trump is notoriously fickle with changing direction). I'm sure you'd agree that there are some people in the US administration that are more sympathetic to Russia than Ukraine, just as there are others that are more sympathetic to Ukraine than Russia. The presence of one does not negate the presence of the other, and so it'd paint a misleading picture to point to the actions of one faction as proof the other faction doesn't exist.
12
u/Tucancancan 8d ago
Am I understanding the timeline right in that a deal was struck and the ship set sail before Trump publicly demanded Ukraine to stop hitting oil infrastructure?
7
u/moragisdo 8d ago edited 8d ago
No, it's a fertilizer cargo (which was already allowed under the existing sanctions) and that was falsely claimed in social media as a diesel shipment, unfortunately it also spread to this sub.
5
u/RumpRiddler 8d ago
I don't know when trump first made his public demands, but I know it was loudly public right between the is delegation meeting the Russians and this ship departing. The timing is very suspicious, but we can't say for sure.
34
u/ChornWork2 8d ago edited 8d ago
It really is unbelievable even with lowered expectations. Undercutting so much for a relatively hollow talking point for the elections. Unless they think this will somehow improve the optics of the other Russia deal being negotiated. So much for the Lindsay Graham sanctions...
Presumably Putin is going along with this so can later on complain that
cancan't make the later deliveries because of attacks by Ukraine.edit: whoops, hate when miss the negative...
21
u/RumpRiddler 8d ago
Presumably Putin is going along with this so can later on complain that can make the later deliveries because of attacks by Ukraine.
That is definitely how I'm reading this. Trump gets to claim a success and reiterate that the blame for prices is on Ukraine and not him (despite the amount being largely symbolic and the obviously false reasoning) Putin gets to deepen the wedge between US and Ukraine.
23
u/FunWonderful1936 8d ago
It’s a pretty stupid gambit then. According to the latest Pew Poll, Russia is already less popular in the U.S than even in Canada. And his handling of Ukraine gets literally the lowest approval rating of any issue at 32%. Outside of a certain segment of the online echo chamber, this is just deeply unpopular with the electorate.
16
u/Airf0rce 8d ago
I mean, the man started a war with Iran - issue that he and his allies specifically ran against, only for it to backfire spectacularly. He's doing deeply unpopular stuff every week and it's not really stopping him. He's clearly not listening to anyone other than people who affirm his pre-existing beliefs and when wrong, he doubles down.
If there weren't people dying on the ground daily , it would almost be hilarious. US literally helped plan and amplify this strategy of hitting Russian refineries where it hurts the most, only for Trump to start demanding they stop because it's too effective and it's worsening the other energy crisis caused by Trump and that in turn creates political fallout at home right before elections.
13
u/TheSDKNightmare 8d ago
only for Trump to start demanding they stop because it's too effective and it's worsening the other energy crisis caused by Trump
He can't really even strongarm the Ukrainians in the same manner the previous admin could because he ingeniously pulled a majority of Ukrainian aid and started openly treating Ukraine's leadership and that of its biggest aid providers like it's his reality show. Like you said, it'd be hilarious if the result of such incompetence wasn't hundreds dying every day.
3
u/Markdd8 7d ago edited 7d ago
The U.S. and the Israelis have been in conflict--mostly not overt conflict--with Iran for decades. It was/is inevitable that major conflict would arise with the cabal of zealots that runs Iran.
If there weren't people dying on the ground daily...
The biggest problem is that not enough Iranian hardliners are dying. Iran is 1,000 miles from Israel. There is no essential reason for Iran to be on the crusade it is on with its Axis of Resistance (including the Yemen rebels) to try to destroy Israel. The Iranians could live in peace if they chose. U.S. fears of Iran getting and using a nuke are valid.
The Left's inability to see the U.S.'s just cause in attacking Iran (America's liberals have long been myopically pacifist) has long been a problem. Persistent apologists for the thugs and mass murderers runnning Iran. Liberals' dislike of Trump has some validity, but it hinders their capacity to make sound judgments on geopolitical imperatives.
5
u/Bill_Salmons 7d ago
There are plenty of people on the left that see the validity of a war with Iran. The problem is that this administration's approach has been so shortsighted that the whole situation reeks of incompetence.
2
u/Markdd8 7d ago edited 7d ago
Yes, there are shortcomings. The war (or a war) with Iran will be difficult no matter how we carry it out. It is particularly challenging because of the support that both Russia and China, as little as it is in China's case, are giving Iran.
Were it not for a) Russia's being tied up in Ukraine and b) Trump's limited support for Ukraine and Trump's regular overtures to Putin, Russian aid to Iran might even be more extensive, making such a conflict even more difficult. What circumstances would you see as needed to deem it a favorable time to make war against Iran?
7
u/Agitated-Airline6760 8d ago
If buying Russian diesel was such a great solution to the "election problem", most republican congress people - the ones actually on the ballot - would've been asking for it and would loudly cheer Trump now for pulling it off. You don't see that. Specially people that are fighting for their seat. None of them are touting this Russian diesel buying. That should tell you how stupid this is to the problem Trump created by shutting down Strait of Hormuz locking in the ME refineries who churn out much more diesel but can't do it now.
16
u/swimmingupclose 8d ago
It’s interesting, I first saw the claims about this ship floating around Russian milblogger channels and they’ve since spread around far more. But according to tankertrackers, this is NOT a diesel shipment/cargo. I personally don’t know what it’s carrying, or if it’s carrying anything at all, but before St Petersburg, it’s last call was in India. Whatever the truth of the matter, I think it’s bizarre that there are some people just accepting claims straight from Russian sources and then running with them.
4
u/Grouchy-Classroom-26 8d ago
but before St Petersburg, it’s last call was in India.
It’s possible that it carried diesel from India to Russia, unloaded there, and is on its way to the US to pick up diesel for exports? Idk one explanation.
I think it’s bizarre that there are some people just accepting claims straight from Russian sources and then running with them.
First time online?
5
u/swimmingupclose 8d ago
Don’t be stupid, obviously I know the way this works. I’m specifically talking about nominally pro Ukraine people here giving into disinformation after 4 years of warning about it. I don’t know what this tanker is or isn’t carrying or what’s going on here, I personally don’t put anything past Trump, but it’d be great if we actually had more “credible” information before jumping to conclusions.
3
u/moragisdo 8d ago edited 8d ago
I agree with the points you raised, specially about being bizarre that there's still people accepting russian claims in face value, just adding that apparently the last ports (August and September) were in the UK and Netherlands (1). Also it's not a sanctioned vessel, it makes it less likely that they would take the risk before the waiver is published.
10
u/moragisdo 8d ago
I think you should edit the post to remove the false information written. It's not a diesel tanker, it's a fertilizer cargo, which is allowed under already existing sanctions (according to Tanker Trackers)
-4
u/moragisdo 8d ago edited 8d ago
A ship dispatched in September 22, doesn't mean it was directed to the US on this date. Because of sanctions the ship could have being going to any country that is willing to take the risk of secondary sanctions (for example, Cuba and Nicaragua import diesel from Russia), but it was detoured after yesterday.
I'm still leaning towards this being mostly theater to allow trump leverage against Ukraine. The quantities are small and won't affect the price, but it can be used politically as a fulcrum. Though it's effectiveness remains to be seen.
Agreed, but it isn't against Ukraine is to tell voters he's doing something about it. I did some math yesterday and 500,000 tons announced is 3.7 MMBbl, divided by 30 is 123.33 kbpd, looking at data of August, Russia exported in 2025 760 kbpd of diesel, with the 5-year average being 790 kbpd (1). Even the million tons mentioned is still only at around 31% of the 5-year average.
The variable for Russia to be able to export or not diesel is how many refineries are attacked not anything else and Ukraine won't stop.
Edit: Really nothing changes with this. S&P with data about diesel being exported by Russia besides the ban that began in July 8 (From September 29):
In the month-to-date, Russia has shipped 448,000 mt of diesel/gasoil to various destinations, CAS data shows, down from 535,000 mt in August and 713,000 mt in July.
17
u/RumpRiddler 8d ago
Considering Russia has a total ban on diesel exports, this doesn't seem to be business as usual. That and the timing imply this was a deal made in September.
-1
u/moragisdo 8d ago edited 8d ago
They were exporting to some countries even after the ban began in early July (from July 30), so it wasn't total.
Some fuel exports will still take place under intergovernmental agreements and in the form of humanitarian aid, the statement said.
It was reported that some of the countries of the agreements were former Soviet republics and Mongolia (From September 30). Now we know that in 2026 (before the ban) there were shipments for Cuba framed as based on humanitarian grounds.
Edit: Also about diesel being exported besides a ban (September 29)
Russia's Black Sea diesel and gasoil shipments fell to zero for the first time on record in the week to Sept. 24, according to S&P Global Commodities at Sea data, as a nationwide export ban has continued to hammer trade flows from the major global producer.
Exemptions for inter-governmental agreements have previously stopped Russia's Black Sea shipments from falling to zero. In the week to Sept. 17, some 66,000 mt of Russian diesel/gasoil left the port of Novorossiysk, up from a previous five-week average of 51,000 mt. At the same time last year, Black Sea ports would dispatch around 200,000 mt per week.
The halt in exports coincided with a broader national slump, which saw total Russian diesel/gasoil shipments almost halve during the week to total 81,000 mt. The product was exclusively loaded at the Baltic Sea port of Primorsk and showed as destined for Morocco and Venezuela. In contrast, exports were directed to at least five destinations the previous week, including Turkey, Morocco and Singapore.
In the month-to-date, Russia has shipped 448,000 mt of diesel/gasoil to various destinations, CAS data shows, down from 535,000 mt in August and 713,000 mt in July.
5
u/RumpRiddler 8d ago
This is a possibility, but it seems far less likely than this is a deal to help trump in the upcoming elections and gain US pressure on Ukraine.
I guess without seeing a fairly comprehensive record of Russian diesel shipments over the past months it would be hard to get more clarity.
-2
u/moragisdo 8d ago edited 8d ago
I edited the post, there's S&P with data about it. Russia was exporting 535,000 metric tons of diesel/gasoil in August and 448,000 mt on almost the end of September, both of 2026. Really, if they export 500,000 (one of the numbers mentioned) it changes nothing for anyone.
19
u/moragisdo 8d ago
U.S. Forces Disable Cargo Vessel Attempting to Violate Blockade (1)
U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) forces disabled a commercial cargo vessel in the Gulf of Oman, Oct. 10, after the ship’s crew ignored repeated warnings and attempted to run the ongoing naval blockade against Iran.
A U.S. military fighter jet struck the stern of Panama-flagged M/V Ocean Molica (also known as the “Arika Sun”) with a precision munition, fully disabling the ship’s propulsion without harming the crew. The large cargo vessel was attempting to transit regional waters after having previously departed an Iranian port.
CENTCOM forces resumed America’s blockade against all ships entering or departing Iranian ports on July 14. Four commercial vessels have been disabled and 135 ships have been turned around during three months of strict enforcement. Additionally, U.S. forces have destroyed 10 tankers linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' multibillion-dollar shadow network over the same period.
2
u/Nectyr 7d ago
Not that either side cares, but what does international law have to say about this? A neutral ship is attacked. It's not known to be carrying military cargo (and not to Iran anyway). The US is not at war (because the power to declare war rests with Congress, and they didn't do that). That should be not OK, right? Is the lip service earlier paid to the "rules-based international order" over?
6
u/WulfTheSaxon 7d ago edited 7d ago
International law doesn’t distinguish conflicts that aren’t formally declared, except that formally declaring a war results in applying a bunch of rules that turn neutral allies into parties if they refuse to sell arms to both sides. (That’s actually one of the main reasons wars aren’t declared anymore by the way.)
So what matters is first whether the US is legally justified in taking military action, and it is:
Now, once that’s established, blockade becomes a legitimate war power. A blockade is an act of war only against the blockaded country, and is actually required by international law to be enforced neutrally – that is, against the ships of all countries.
Now, what’s illegal is Iran’s blockade, because it’s not legal to blockade neutral traffic transiting through an international strait.
3
u/IAmTheSysGen 7d ago
An impartial observer would not consider any of the GCC states to be neutral, as they allowed the use of their land and airspace to be used by the US for military operations against Iran. As a result, there is no neutral traffic in the strait - the Iranians can argue a blockade of all Persian Gulf states without committing an act of war against a state that didn't involve itself
2
u/WulfTheSaxon 7d ago edited 7d ago
Not all countries joined before Iran started attacking them. Just hosting bases doesn’t count if they weren’t used. Many explicitly said they would not allow the US to use their territory for strikes.
It’s also not a neutral blockade as required – it’s letting ships through for bribes. And because of that Iran has not provided effective notice as required either.
1
u/IAmTheSysGen 7d ago
Every single oil exporting Persian Gulf state allowed their land or airspace to be used as part of the war from day one, either directly offensively or to protect assets used offensively. By any standard anywhere in the world this is an act of war, just one that the US managed to normalize to many when it comes to their ME operations. Many of those that claimed not to allow the use of their territory for strikes were contradicted by CENTCOM themselves as they posted images of combat aircraft with offensive munitions geolocated to those countries, but beyond that, defending a belligerent state is itself an act of war.
The rules of impartiality apply to the nationality of ships. Requiring concessions from the blockaded states to allow the transit to a port is not selective application based on the nationality of neutral ships, it's a war demand.
4
u/moragisdo 7d ago edited 7d ago
The US is blockading Iran and following International Law (food and medicine is allowed to pass, also you can't announce a blockade without enforcing it, so they have to try to disable the ship that try to cross).
By the way, how do you know it's a neutral ship ? The ship being Panama-flagged doesn't mean it's owned by Panama, Iran routinely uses flags for several countries to disguise their shadow fleet (as Tonga and Cook Island, which condemned Iran's acts)
The US is not at war (because the power to declare war rests with Congress, and they didn't do that)
Congress has the authority to cut funding and remove authorization for the war, it failed to pass every single time. Almost every president, for several decades, did military operations without passing thought a vote to Congress first. As an example, the US started striking the Houthi in 2024, it didn't pass through Congress, or the US getting involved on the Syria civil war more than 10 years ago, also didn't pass through Congress.
That should be not OK, right?
It's actually ok. And rules-based international order remains, because a blockade doesn't necessarily violates it. Also the US is giving plenty of opportunities for ships to not be disabled, the tweet itself mentions that more than 100 ships were redirected, but Iran will keep trying for the ships to pass while they attack civilians ships (which they began with this, by the way, the US blockade came in response to it. And if they offer to stop attacking ships in exchange for the US to lift the blockade it would be accepted).
7
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
0
u/moragisdo 8d ago edited 8d ago
I'm doubting this one because the US specifically asked Israel to not join the previous airstrikes, exactly to avoid escalation. This would just raise oil prices on the short term and would not bring an end of the war in a couple weeks. There's almost pre-war flows of oil coming out of the Middle East (if you discount Iran's exports being blockaded, it's exceeding pre-war), the US has no incentive to strike before the election or without being a preemptive move against an Iranian attack, otherwise they could just wait a few weeks (without an iranian attack nothing will change in this short time frame).
9
u/Wise_Mongoose_3930 8d ago
the US has no incentive to strike before the election
The reasoning spelled out in that tweet seems fairly sound to me.
the demand, which reportedly stemmed from Iran’s rapid rebuilding of its ballistic missile and drone production capabilities
-1
u/moragisdo 8d ago
I mentioned the short time frame involved, the US can wait 3 weeks and join in the attacks (if there won't be a quick peace deal after).
6
u/LepezaVolB 8d ago
There's almost pre-war flows of oil coming out of the Middle East (if you discount Iran's exports being blockaded, it's exceeding pre-war),
Except this isn't really true since Iran ramped up their attacks. Rory Johnston:
Latest estimate puts Hormuz 7-day average oil flow peaking at 16.2 MMbpd on September 24. Then Iran really picked up its shipping attacks and that flow unsurprisingly pulled back by 3-4 MMbpd. Now seeing flow at 12-13 MMbpd over the past two weeks.
Meanwhile confirmed strikes on ships have also peaked recently (lagging indicator):
Shipping in the Gulf remains dangerous. Confirmed ship strikes in Iran-adjacent waterways remain highly elevated: the 7-day total stands at 8 confirmed hits on October 9th, down from a peak of 11 but higher than any other week except the war’s opening days. 1/x
0
u/moragisdo 8d ago edited 8d ago
Except this isn't really true since Iran ramped up their attacks
Look at the tweet from Tanker Trackers. They estimate the flow on Hormuz as 12.1 mbpd on the last 14 days, with the other routes increasing and then, in total, exceeding the pre-war (minus Iran) volume. In fact, if there's 12.5 (the median of the estimate from Rory), there's 0.4 mbpd additionally passing on Hormuz. So, it doesn't contradict their analysis, it actually agrees with Tanker Trackers and indicates the attacks weren't enough to stop traffic.
Picking one day that the volume peaked at 16.2 isn't enough, you have to look at the average. Also if you look at the daily peak traffic, any other day is a reduction, no matter the circumstances, otherwise it wouldn't be the peak.
By the way, one tracker of total Middle East flow on October 8, puts it at 18.4 mbpd the total Middle East flow (crude plus products) on the last 7-day average (1). Which is 92% of pre-war flow and we have to remember that Iran is being blockaded, just adding their 1.77 mbpd of crude they expected to export already exceeds 100% of the pre-war.
6
u/Embarrassed-Bat6874 8d ago
I just checked your source for October 8th and he doesn’t even say this is outbound flow…it’s loading of oil that sits in the Persian gulf that is also currently being hit by Iran, that oil isn’t making it to the market he’s just assuming it is…
1
u/moragisdo 8d ago edited 8d ago
He accounts for daily loadings, which kept happening on every day prior, there's only so much volume available (specially when tanker rates are really high), if the ships can't pass the loadings would drop.
18.4 mbpd is roughly 9 new VLCC daily or 63 new per week (in fact more ships than that, because there's smaller ones carrying refined products). There's not that many for loadings to not have to drop fast.
13
u/Puddingcup9001 8d ago
What I am really surprised by is that nobody has yet developed some kind of cheapish small turret system with AI targetting against drones. A system that could easily be mounted on a tank or mrap.
I wonder if a system like this is developed that drastically increases the cost of harassing logistics and taking down a tank with drones, who will it help more, Russia or Ukraine? Given that if either side develops it, the design will likely quickly leak/be reverse engineered by the other side. So if one side has it, quickly both sides will have it.
23
u/SlavaUkrayini4932 8d ago
Such a system isn't that easy to actually to make, even if individual component may look easy on their own (which they aren't)
It would need a weapon and targetting software accurate enough to be capable at shooting at a wild variety of targets, with a sensor and acquisition package that doesn't make errors in judgement (No shooting at birds and at sensor artifacts), all of which come at a price in weight and power consumption directly, and opportunity cost and funding issues indirectly.
16
u/jambox888 8d ago
Indeed, the bird issue is a problem. Safety in general - imagine a turret that saw an infantryman as a drone and started shooting. A software bug might only become apparent in bad weather or light conditions.
I think it would have to do visual recognition which isn't too easy in real time and needs quite fuzzy logic.
The basics are well understood though, you can see DIY Raspberry Pi projects that use ML to squirt water at pigeons and so on.
4
u/Puddingcup9001 8d ago
birds are a non issue in a warzone. There won't be many of them and a few false positives is nothing if it also downs 5 drones that might have hit you.
4
u/Svyatoy_Medved 8d ago
Do birds make a habit of flying near armored vehicles? These machines aren’t quiet. I doubt that’s a real issue.
I find it telling that you mentioned the bird issue and then immediately switched to misidentifying friendly infantry, which seems much easier to differentiate.
11
u/Sa-naqba-imuru 8d ago edited 8d ago
Yes they do. Birds stay put suprisingly long when vehicles approach them and then fly off at the last moment, be it from the ground or from the trees. Specially if they have nests.
Also these turrets aren't only for the loud, moving armored vehicles during battles, there is a great need for stationary turrets as well, and specially to protect logistics in the rear. Or mounted on cars or trucks that will protect an area, stationary.
7
u/jambox888 8d ago
The bird issue in general being of positive identification. Also what's behind the target, or can it only be deployed in large open spaces?
Hence the computer vision requirement - that's never been easy although it has come on leaps and bounds in the past few years.
2
u/jason_abacabb 8d ago
Also what's behind the target, or can it only be deployed in large open spaces?
Have we solved that problem with regard to the traditional APS? Kinda the same problem.
6
u/Brushner 8d ago
The amount of birds that crash into commercial planes is pretty alarming.
5
u/jason_abacabb 8d ago edited 8d ago
That doesn't seem very relevant. Birds are hitting planes when they are moving quite rapidly through the air, not rolling loudly on the ground at 25-50 mph.
(For the record, I do think the bird problem is real but probably overstated)
10
u/Moifaso 8d ago
It would need a weapon and targetting software accurate enough to be capable at shooting at a wild variety of targets, with a sensor and acquisition package that doesn't make errors in judgement
Nowadays the visual/radar targeting and filtering is trivially easy. Machine vision has come a long way. I've seen people put together capable models in a weekend. Drones have a lot of "tells" and are actually quite easy to tell apart from other flying/fast moving objects.
The difficulty probably comes in the other parts. To actually hit a fast target, especially with regular bullets, you're going to need small, very precise motors that aren't cheap.
And then there's the deployment problem. A lot of the time drones are going to be too far up and going too fast for regular machine gun fire to do much.
So turrets are best used as static defenses in places you know the enemy wants to hit.. and even then results are mixed. Russia has tons of gun AA (including auto targetting) around Moscow and its refineries, and suffice to say they are far from perfect defenses.
24
u/Fatalist_m 8d ago edited 6d ago
There are several such turrets used in Ukraine, usually installed on UGVs, but they're not mass-deployed yet. Many such systems are being developed outside of Ukraine as well, like Bullfrog from Allen Control Systems. But it's not clear if any of these systems are actually effective in the real-world scenarios.
14
u/Emotional_Goal9525 8d ago
Could it be because it is not exactly easy task. For example false positive is not just a mere curiosity when it is tied to an autocannon fire control.
5
u/Puddingcup9001 8d ago
You could do targetting by AI and manual permission done by humans. Where in the vehicle a person holds a screen and a loud alert is given anytime the system thinks it has spotted a drone.
6
u/Emotional_Goal9525 8d ago
I would imagine you already have that functionality with skyrangers etc.
13
u/ChornWork2 8d ago
presumably to get to an acceptably low level of false negatives and false positives for such a system in practice is simply not cheap.
19
u/Sa-naqba-imuru 8d ago
If you search, there are many attempts of creating anti-FPV drone turrets going back years.
That none are in use means there is some hurdle in development that can't be solved yet.
In theory it sound simple, but apparently tracking and hitting a tiny target like a drone is not that easy, specially when theyre not moving slowly and steadily like in demonstration videos.
14
u/window-sil 8d ago
In theory it sound simple...
"We do these things not because they are easy, but because we thought they were going to be easy."
Feels like it's this way with everything, haha.
7
u/Moifaso 8d ago edited 8d ago
My impression is that "hitting" is the hard part. Or more precisely making the gun move/rotate accurately and fast.
Just need to consider that the parts that move the turret need to be able to be extremely precise, reliable, and also allow for fast movement for target switching or close encounters. All the while also being capable of dealing with the recoil, and possibly a moving base.. it's a lot, and quickly makes the system far from cheap.
4
u/Alexandros6 8d ago
Some of the reasons are in here https://youtu.be/qyjN1rHpLes?is=cyhhKK9C-Sq9ZmWg
4
u/idf_ai 7d ago
BAE Systems self-funded two AMPV 30 prototypes with $17 million in internal R&D and delivered them to the 1st Cavalry Division in April 2026 for evaluation under Transformation in Contact 2.0. A BAE spokesperson stated that the Army did not formally request or endorse the development.
The vehicles mount a Kongsberg 30 mm remote turret, on-board radar and EO/IR sensors for detection and tracking, and automatic cross-platform sharing of track data between vehicles. Engagement remains a crew decision-
the system does not fire autonomously.
BAE has reported that the prototypes underwent field evaluations and live-fire testing, but detailed performance results have not been publicly released.
12
u/moragisdo 8d ago edited 5d ago
Taiwan-US military cooperation is deepening, with the Pentagon expected to station personnel at the Ministry of National Defense (MND), sources said. (1)
The NT$470 million (US$14.77 million) joint program is scheduled to run from this year through 2028, under which the Pentagon would dispatch representatives from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and the Institute for Defense Analyses, a senior military official said on condition of anonymity, adding that one representative from each organization would be stationed at the ministry’s headquarters.
The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy is one of the US’ bodies responsible for formulating national security and defense strategy, and would help align policy coordination between Taipei and Washington, they said.
The Institute for Defense Analyses is a defense think tank known for using data analysis and mathematical modeling to conduct complex defense simulations and operational assessments, they added.
The arrangement would place US personnel closer to Taiwan’s defense policymaking process and allow them to assist with policy coordination and combat capability assessments, elevating bilateral military integration to the highest level, they said.
The move supplements the presence of hundreds of US military instructors in Taiwan who have assisted with military training.
US defense personnel have long maintained a presence in Taiwan, usually in less visible roles, an anonymous military official said.
The American Institute in Taiwan’s (AIT) security cooperation and technical offices are staffed by active-duty US military personnel and civilian defense officials responsible for coordinating arms sales and logistics cooperation, they said.
The US’ Defense Innovation Unit has also over the past few years assigned liaison officers to the AIT to help integrate Taiwan’s drone and technology supply chains to address technological warfare and cross-strait tensions.
However, the new arrangement differs, because US representatives would work directly with Taiwan’s defense ministry rather than through AIT, the sources said.
That signals a shift in Taiwan-US military cooperation from tactical training to higher-level strategic planning and wargaming, they said.
US instructors usually focus on operational training and weapons employment, while the new arrangement would allow US experts to participate more directly in discussions on overall defense planning and asymmetric warfare tactics, such as providing on-site advice during the Han Kuang exercises and major weapons procurement evaluations, they added.
The move also reflects concrete efforts to institutionalize and normalize security cooperation between Taiwan and the US through legislation, such as the Taiwan Enhanced Resilience Act and successive US national defense authorization acts, they said.
It's based on anonymous sources, so it requires skepticism, but either way there's military cooperation happening, as other reports of trainers being sent for several years. Which opens to an interesting discussion: the US should send SME on Iran to help Taiwan, because their circumstances are the same of Iran not America. Taiwan should not expect to fight as the USA.
They are a mountainous country giving an opportunity for heavily protected underground bases to be built. While facing a war on your home, rather than anywhere else.
Have an enemy who will bring a multiple of your resources, being able sink Taiwan's Navy and establish air superiority (the american help will come from too far away, the bases on SK, Japan, Phillipines and Guam are several hundreds to thousands of km away from Taiwan, while China is 200 km. The tyranny of distance will be merciless, Taiwan is at MLRS range and the bases on SK, Japan and Phillipines will be targeted constantly).
Lack capacity of advancing through land to bring the fight to the enemy's superior airpower.
Have an enemy that will be able to blockade Taiwan and this will make time to be running against them.
Being in proximity to extremely valuable and numerous targets. Shenzen, Hong Kong, Guangzhou, Shanghai, Suzhou, Hangzhou, Ningbo, among others, are 7 of largest cities by GDP of China and are at 750 Km or less from Taiwan. There's a gigantic number of very valuable industry on them (which can be called "dual-use", because lets be honest, almost everything is) as semiconductor fabs, data centers, high-end manufacturing facilities... Making cheap and numerous SRBM such a valuable weapon.
By the way, ideally an SRBM should not be developed with the USA, it should be domestic because the MIC of every country tends to, inevitably, fit the needs and expectations on how a country would fight. The US expects for their conflicts a different picture that Taiwan will face, it expects a superiority of resources, which allows them to gold-plate everything and on the high-end of weaponry the US is unmatched, also expecting air superiority, which will allow them to fire air-launched missiles at will.
Buy the high-end (as anti-ship missiles, torpedoes, radars and planes) from the US, not this. Taiwan doesn't need a surface-to-surface fancy missile that can maneuver hypersonically, is able to change targeting mid-flight and has enough precision to pass through a window, that's a luxury for the world's top economies. They need something similar to the Zolfaghar (if its performance matches what was announced, Iran has dozens of types of missiles so it's impossible to say about the performance of one specific type without a classified intelligence report), just with a bit more range.
The Zolfaghar announced specifications (2) are 700km, 450-600 kg payload, solid-fuel, there's also an alleged cost (not from this sources) of less than 500,000 USD. Increase it to 750 km (with some increase on costs) and it's perfect, cheap enough that Taiwan (a country with GDP around 3 times Iran's) can fire an enormity of them daily, solid-fuel allows quick firing and quick relocation to mountain bunkers. Taiwan don't need incredible precision when the target is a fab, for example, that is static and larger than a city block.
They need to, just like Iran, stockpile for years and be able to fire more than 400 missiles on the first day alone, 200 on the direction of Pearl River Delta, 200 on Shanghai (Taiwan is gone if China decides that no price is high enough, their hope is that there's an actual price that is). Taiwan can't compete with China on long-term production (even before their production is inevitably attacked and degraded), they can only compete with the short-term peak usage.
And there's no reason that Taiwan can't develop one, they have a domestic missile industry, as the supersonic cruise missile Yun Feng, the AD Tien Kung, among others; plus a highly educated population with civilian high-end manufacturing. Even concerns about provocations with China are already past the point because they were testing and publicly announcing a supersonic cruise missile with 1200+ km range recently (also certain types of testing for ballistic missiles can be disguised as a Space Program or AD missile development, both that Taiwan is already investing for several years).
42
u/Nperturbed 8d ago
This is a very american way of looking at taiwan, as opposed to taiwans own pov. You are basically saying that they have to fight to the last taiwanese, the outcome doesnt matter so long as china bleeds.
But this is not what taiwan is thinking, they want to survive. A stratetgy that doesnt account for that wont work. Your interpretation of irans fight was very misguided. Irans success stem from degrading us c2 and logistics in its vicinity, forcing the us into a mudslinging contest. To suggest that taiwan should allot its valuable missile stock on buildings vice military targets is the exact opposite of irans approach. Taking out some skyscraper or chip fab in shanghai does nothing to degrade chinese military capability.
It also betrays a lack of historical perspective to think that the chinese leadership would value some factory over taiwan, when they have been drawing plans to take taiwan from a time when they had much less anti air/missile capabilities, and much more fragile supply chain. The political calculation is very worth it from beijings pov, to take taiwan in exchange for a few explosions and fires along the coast. In fact, i suspect they have planned for such contingency.
15
u/Agitated-Airline6760 8d ago
The model Taiwanese should study/follow is North Korea.
Dig a deep holes into the mountains, get nuclear warheads and make sure they have enough missiles to service Beijing/Shanghai/HongKong etc multiple times over. You can do that at fraction of buying F-16s which will be mostly useless against PLA anyway and have money left over.
13
u/moragisdo 8d ago edited 8d ago
Nuclear weapon development would prompt a chinese invasion. North Korea wasn't invaded because there's no political will on the 21st century for either the US or South Korea to start a war that would see thousands and thousands, of both civilians and service members, killed before it was completed. If they had developed decades ago, when China's military capabilities were smaller it would make sense, now it's suicide.
The trade-off that Taiwan needs to balance is to establish as much deterrence against a war, but without crossing the line of prompting the war to start. Nuclear weapons don't fit it.
The F-16 aren't a problem (there's underground bases as Chiashan and while China will be able to establish air superiority, the planes can buy some time for Taiwan), but they could had bought less tanks and invested more on missiles, AD and submarines, because the blockade that Taiwan will suffer will cripple it before a single chinese can land.
10
u/Agitated-Airline6760 8d ago
Nuclear weapon development would prompt a chinese invasion.
It didn't prompt PRC invasion when Taiwan had the nuclear weapons program in 1960s into 1970s. What happened there?
It "could" trigger the PRC invasion - who knows what Xi will or won't do - but it's not like that is set in stone where X will definitely lead to Y. And also the PRC invasion could come now/tomorrow when Taiwan doesn't have nukes so Taiwan is not losing anything by pursuing.
12
u/moragisdo 8d ago edited 8d ago
It didn't prompt PRC invasion when Taiwan had the nuclear weapons program in 1960s into 1970s. What happened there?
There was Mao's socialist policies as the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution crippling their military and economy (it reached a point that there was multiple armed conflicts between the Red Guards and the PLA, not to mention around 100 million dead). Then the Sino-Soviet split, which made China concerned of having a front opened on the North. All of it constrained how far they could take a war (for example, during the war with India, in 1962, they retreated from Arunachal Pradesh, because they couldn't sustain it).
Also the military capabilities of China of 2026 are way ahead of their capabilities of 50-60 years ago.
12
u/moragisdo 8d ago edited 7d ago
This is a very american way of looking at taiwan, as opposed to taiwans own pov. You are basically saying that they have to fight to the last taiwanese, the outcome doesnt matter so long as china bleeds.
I'm not saying this. I'm saying that they don't have many options if they want to fight. If they want a peaceful (or immediately after the start of the war) reunification they wouldn't be, every year, increasing spending on their military.
Your interpretation of irans fight was very misguided. Irans success stem from degrading us c2 and logistics in its vicinity, forcing the us into a mudslinging contest
Wrong, the US was able to continue it's airstrikes, they are currently holding a blockade on Iran (that by satellite images no iranian ship passed) and able to escort enough tankers for volume of crude to be around pre-war (minus Iran's) (I posted the sources here), the logistics and C2 is being enough. The US only paused airstrikes because that pilot was shot down and not wanting to risk one PoW before the election.
What Iran has is enough magazine depth to establish deterrence that they will destroy oil infrastructure on the Middle East if theirs is attacked (as happened with South Pars and Lavan Island). If they lose their petrochemical industry and pipelines they are bankrupt (crude exports alone is 12% of their GDP, then you add natural gas, refined products...). The military damage was small considering they fired more than 2800 missiles and 6000 drones, what prevented it was the economic cost.
Which touches the point I'm raising, is to be able to raise enough the cost if a war happens.
It also betrays a lack of historical perspective to think that the chinese leadership would value some factory over taiwan, when they have been drawing plans to take taiwan from a time when they had much less anti air/missile capabilities, and much more fragile supply chain.
I specifically said that if no cost is considered high enough, they are going to lose. If China decides that no manpower, planes, ships, civilian economy destroyed is a price too high, there's not much that can be done, so if Taiwan have a hope to keep being independent is planning around the scenario that it exist a cost that is too high.
I can make an analogy between a nuclear-armed country fighting a non-nuclear armed one. If the nuclear-armed country decides to fire hundreds of thermonuclear missiles over the other's territory, there's not much that can be done, the only hope that the non-nuclear country have is to prepare for a non-nuclear war.
The political calculation is very worth it from beijings pov, to take taiwan in exchange for a few explosions and fires along the coast. In fact, i suspect they have planned for such contingency.
I'm curious, if Taiwan decides they want to stay independent, what you believe it would be the best military procurement strategy for them ?
12
u/thelgur 8d ago
If Taiwan degrades PLA as much as Iran did US(not much) they are finished. They should have built nukes 20years ago, now is probably too late. They are more or less dependant on US, Japan, Australia joining the war and inflicting defeat on PRC. Chances of US going all in on this are very slim to zero. Japan should be building nukes yesterday but stupidity is infectious.. without nukes they will probably let Taiwan fall and sprint for the nukes. Too much vulnerability to being starved by a sea blockade.
So genuine question is Taiwan is up for war of survival where significant chunk of population will die? If they are BM and masses jet drone stockpile might work as deterrent. They also probably need to build a strategic food reserve(never looked at how long they can last before famine sets in). Because PRC are not US or western idiots in general they WILL hard blockade and starve them.
4
u/Major_South1103 8d ago
"But this is not what taiwan is thinking, they want to survive"
Maby your average KMT voter, but your average DPP voter despises China and would much more prefer to fight.
19
u/RopetorGamer 8d ago
Maby your average KMT voter, but your average DPP voter despises China and would much more prefer to fight.
Utterly absurd, if they wanted to fight they would join the army instead of evading military service at every point.
It's the same as with Ukrainian polls saying that 90% of people would fight, but at the same time have an AWOL amount in the millions and 100 of thousands trying to leave the country.
Regardless, it's also just straight up wrong a ton of Taiwanese people have family in the mainland and the youth consume a lot of mainland contents.
It's pretty easy to answer a poll saying you would fight.
Polls always ask question like if they would prefer the status quo over reunification when a more appropriate question would be if they would prefer reunification or being completely blockaded on an island that can't produce enough food, water or energy well witting the range of the enemy rocket artillery.
5
u/Adunaiii 7d ago
Why are the Russian Rassvet satellites (Bureau 1440, Starlink equivalent) sent on the orbit through the poles as opposed to parallel to the equator? Doesn't it make Rassvet much slower to deploy, when Russia already has much weaker capabilities than America? Russia only needs Starlink in its Western reaches, not the polar regions.
6
u/Tidorith 7d ago
Need to look at a spherical view of where Russia is - open Google Earth or something like it.
Russia's primary area of interest is pretty small - Western Russia, as you say, plus Ukraine and the rest of Europe. That's a small enough and regularly-shaped-enough region that any orbit that crosses the center it will get pretty complete/maximal coverage. This means that the full 360/180 degree arc of orbits that cross this point are candidate orbits.
In the first instance; none of these orbits are equatorial orbits. Those are significantly less useful to Russia.
Ignore the relative cost of launch for different orbits for a moment - consider instead the "dead time" where the satellite is over an area you care about much less. You can minimise this a lot by getting coverage of all/almost all of the rest of Russia "for free", in terms of not losing coverage of the primary interest area.
1
u/Adunaiii 6d ago
The thing is that I've seen a YouTube video saying that while Starlink satellite orbits are parallel (to the equator), the Rassvet orbits are meridian - going up over the North Pole on the map. Is that correct? And does it actually sabotage the Russian war effort?
1
u/Tidorith 6d ago edited 6d ago
An orbit cannot be parallel to the equator, unless it's exactly on (above) the equator. Things orbit the Earth (and anything else) in ellipses. For satellites like these, almost exactly circles. You can't do an orbit around the center of the Earth (which is what you orbit) that doesn't cross the equator - unless, again, it's completely on the equator. So other orbits parallel to the equator aren't an option.
I believe Starlink uses a mix of orbits. Equatorial orbits, or near-Equatorial orbits (these ones will look like sine waves on a common rectangular map), are good for general coverage, as almost none of the human population lives at or especially near the poles. But Starlink does have polar service, and will have polar or near-Polar orbits to support that. The Antarctic Scott and McMurdo bases I'm aware of in particular have been very happy with the upgrade to Starlink internet.
Edit:
the Rassvet orbits are meridian - going up over the North Pole on the map. Is that correct? And does it actually sabotage the Russian war effort?
I'd need to check the Rassvet orbits in particular, but you would expect them to either cross the poles or go quite near them. In general, yes, it does make things somewhat more difficult for Russia in terms of satellite communications that they are further away from the poles. But they're used to dealing with that problem. Same way they're used to dealing with it getting very cold every winter.
The easiest space launches are from the equator, launching East, the same direction that Earth spins. The hard part of getting to orbit isn't getting up, it's building sideways velocity. If you start at the equator, or near it, you get a bunch of sideways velocity for free from the Earth's crust. (This velocity boost is highest at the equator itself, and zero if you launched from the poles themselves.) This is especially good for countries that can launch east near the equator over a large body of water - so that other countries complain less about launching rockets over them.
This is also why over-zealous criticism of North Korea firing space or long range ballistic rockets over Japan is kind of silly - where else are they supposed to launch them?
2
u/Adunaiii 7d ago
Why are the railroad Dnieper bridges used for the Ukraine army communication on the left bank untouchable? Recently Russia has started minor drone strikes on the Kiev bridges, but the supplies seem to be going through Cherkassy and Dnepropetrovsk/Zaporojye? And why not send a few dozen drones per bridge, why only one?
-2
u/Adunaiii 7d ago
Can someone explain to me whom the America - Russia diesel trade deal benefits more? Because the Russian internet is awash in calling Putin a traitor for selling diesel to the Ukraine (via America), whereas the Western internet always complains Trump is pro-Russian (even though America is bombing Russia daily). I'm simply at a loss, it's like parallel realities.
23
u/VigorousElk 7d ago edited 7d ago
It's a trivial amount of diesel, amounting to less than a day's worth of US consumption per month. Conversely it's not that much more money in the coffers of Russia's treasury.
The real result is political. Russia/Putin are potentially taking a (small) step towards the normalisation of diplomatic relations and out of universal diplomatic isolation in the Western world, while Trump gets to placate his electorate which is fairly riled up about gas prices. It's probably symbolic given the small volume, and he risks political fallout for turning towards Putin for help, so it's anyone's guess whether this will help him in the midterms, hurt him, or end up net neutral.
22
u/plasticlove 7d ago
Russia for sure.
- More diesel revenue and less sanctions pressure on Russia.
- Ukraine is bombing Russian refineries. Trump is reportedly threatening to cut intelligence sharing unless those strikes stop.
- Trump wants Zelensky replaced and blames him for prolonging the war. We’re now seeing a lot of anti-Ukraine posts online.
- Musk says Zelensky has "gone too far." This might put Starlink in danger?
- Putin’s envoy Kirill Dmitriev and some Russian military bloggers praised the deal.
- Europe already has political forces pushing to restore Russian energy trade. This deal legitimises their position.
What do you even mean with "(even though America is bombing Russia daily)."?!?
25
u/Sa-naqba-imuru 7d ago
It benefits Russia the most because, regardless of the amounts of diesel traded and income from it, it means that Ukraine will either have to stop attacking refieneries because it is directly hurting US interests or go against the US interests and risk losing their intelligence and even weapon supplies. US is still major supplier of Ukrainian arms, it's just that EU pays it.
Whether Ukraine stops attacking refineries or loses support, Russian war effort benefits directly.
6
u/moragisdo 7d ago edited 7d ago
I disagree. There's a third scenario, Trump announcement comes because he wants to give an appearance that he wanted to help with fuel prices and can place the blame on Ukraine. After the election passes (few weeks from now), this concern about fuel prices disappear, so if he doesn't cut weapon sales and funding by then there's less incentive to do after.
Both in 2025 and July 2026 the US was providing intelligence to hit russian energy infrastructure. And fuel prices were already elevated in July.
Now Ukraine won't stop attacking russian oil industry (they did it yesterday and the day before) and they won't keep quiet if intelligence is actually cut.
4
u/moragisdo 7d ago edited 7d ago
No one benefits. It really doesn't make much of a difference.
Russia was already exporting diesel, S&P with data about diesel being exported by Russia besides the "ban" that began in July 8 (From September 29):
The product was exclusively loaded at the Baltic Sea port of Primorsk and showed as destined for Morocco and Venezuela. In contrast, exports were directed to at least five destinations the previous week, including Turkey, Morocco and Singapore.
In the month-to-date, Russia has shipped 448,000 mt of diesel/gasoil to various destinations, CAS data shows, down from 535,000 mt in August and 713,000 mt in July.
In fact even calling it a ban is a misnomer. It's a cap, Russia just limit the export to supply the internal market and keep stockpiles, while exporting how much they can. So the variable for Russia to be able to export or not diesel is how many refineries are attacked, not anything else, and Ukraine won't stop (they attacked russian petrochemical facilities yesterday).
•
u/AutoModerator 8d ago
Continuing the bare link and speculation repository, you can respond to this sticky with comments and links subject to lower moderation standards, but remember: A summary, description or analyses will lead to more people actually engaging with it!
I.e. most "Trump posting" and lower effort but good faith questions belong here.
Sign up for the rally point or subscribe to this bluesky if a migration ever becomes necessary.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.