Strait of Hormuz shipping traffic is effectively at a standstill despite ceasefire- Iran says ships wanting to transit need Iranian permission

[QP!]

​

He's locked into an idea like his Orange Daddy. He can't compromise, see the two sides of a problem nor admit he could be wrong. Some people are like that their entire lives, but in Terry's case, it's clearly a worsening condition. An ignominious end for a military retiree. Sad

It is worsening. He somehow thinks the world technology wise has not improved since the early 1900's or WW2 when it comes to EV's or drones with AI.

his arguments are so laughably stupid i guess we should not even engage them as if serious and should just point and laugh at them.

The US and Russia and all major countries are reacting to the effectiveness of this new era of drone warfare and here Terry is saying 'they are all wrong and do not need to as drones have not changed since WW2 and were never effective'. I mean 'what the fuck'??

 

[T. A. Gardner]

And here we go where once again Terry thinks technology does not change and that all the military experts and generals speaking about how this NEW drone age, driven by AI is changing warfare and Terry says 'nope they are all wrong as they tried drones back in ww2 and they were not effective'.

On every topic like that i point out the same thing which is you are the most ignorant person possible when it comes to improving and changing technology. You state EV use has not improved since the early 1900's and now drones have not improved since ww2.

You truly are stuck on stupid like the 90 year old senile man who thinks the world stop improving when he was in his prime and young and nothing better has come along since.

YOu are truly laughable stupid that you have no comprehension of how drones and AI are changing warfare, in each battle we now see across the world.

The technology got better but so did technology to counter drones. You have what on military history boards is usually referred to as "Nazi fanboi syndrome." This is a general label given those that think that some unilateral single change to something in a war would turn the tide and let the losing side win. This is most often done with WW 2 and the Germans, hence the label.

If only the Germans had jet fighters earlier...

If only the Germans had the Tiger tank in 1940...

Your position is the laughable one. You'd get eaten alive on any decent military history board bringing up that sort of bullshit as a 'What if' topic.

Those cheap Iranian drones using what amounts to large RC airplane engines are little more than skeet when you really think about it. The more they use them the more the other side will build and deploy systems that shoot them down in droves.

 

[QP!]

The technology got better but so did technology to counter drones. You have what on military history boards is usually referred to as "Nazi fanboi syndrome." This is a general label given those that think that some unilateral single change to something in a war would turn the tide and let the losing side win. This is most often done with WW 2 and the Germans, hence the label.

If only the Germans had jet fighters earlier...

If only the Germans had the Tiger tank in 1940...

Your position is the laughable one. You'd get eaten alive on any decent military history board bringing up that sort of bullshit as a 'What if' topic.

Those cheap Iranian drones using what amounts to large RC airplane engines are little more than skeet when you really think about it. The more they use them the more the other side will build and deploy systems that shoot them down in droves.

And you have what is called stupid syndrom on this forum.

We are not diminishing conventional weapons. They are great and effective but they also cost WAY more than drones and you usually have to fire 2 or sometimes more at each incoming drone heading towards a city to ensure a kill shot.

the point is drones give "shit hole" countries a very effective way to fight now, whereas prior they had no real way to counter conventional weapons other than digging in at home and trying to make the fight personal and dirty.

Now if Iran and its allies in the region build masses of drones and focus on the two straits and pipelines transporting oil they pose a massive threat as an offensive threat to the worlds economy.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

​

It is worsening. He somehow thinks the world technology wise has not improved since the early 1900's or WW2 when it comes to EV's or drones with AI.

his arguments are so laughably stupid i guess we should not even engage them as if serious and should just point and laugh at them.

The US and Russia and all major countries are reacting to the effectiveness of this new era of drone warfare and here Terry is saying 'they are all wrong and do not need to as drones have not changed since WW2 and were never effective'. I mean 'what the fuck'??

He rambles. He used to be a student of history and can provide historical facts but strays from staying on point.

An example being that he can't see why using a $3M Patriot missile to shoot down a $40K drone is not a sustainable strategy. He's irrational. Many MAGAts are but what is different about Terry is that he used to be rational but has deteriorated over the past couple years. Dementia or some form of cognitive decline is at work.

https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/us-patriot-interceptors-five-days-iran

The U.S. Has Burned Through Over $2.4 Billion Worth of Patriot Missile Interceptors in Just Five Days of War with Iran​

 

[T. A. Gardner]

And you have what is called stupid syndrom on this forum.

We are not diminishing conventional weapons. They are great and effective but they also cost WAY more than drones and you usually have to fire 2 or sometimes more at each incoming drone heading towards a city to ensure a kill shot.

the point is drones give "shit hole" countries a very effective way to fight now, whereas prior they had no real way to counter conventional weapons other than digging in at home and trying to make the fight personal and dirty.

Now if Iran and its allies in the region build masses of drones and focus on the two straits and pipelines transporting oil they pose a massive threat as an offensive threat to the worlds economy.

The US military already has effective countermeasures in place and in development:

REPORT: US Army Demonstrates Epirus Leonidas Electromagnetic Weapon to Neutralize 49 Drones Simultaneously

REPORT: US Army Demonstrates Epirus Leonidas Electromagnetic Weapon to Neutralize 49 Drones Simultaneously

www.armyrecognition.com

Watch US Army knock down drone swarms with Coyote UAV in test

Raytheon’s reusable Coyote Block 3 drone disables swarms with an invisible electromagnetic strike during US Army tests.

interestingengineering.com

US Military Just Tested a Microwave Weapon That Instantly Zapped an Entire Swarm of Drones Out of the Sky

The U.S. military tests a powerful new defense against drone swarms.

www.zmescience.com

 

[T. A. Gardner]

He rambles. He used to be a student of history and can provide historical facts but strays from staying on point.

An example being that he can't see why using a $3M Patriot missile to shoot down a $40K drone is not a sustainable strategy. He's irrational. Many MAGAts are but what is different about Terry is that he used to be rational but has deteriorated over the past couple years. Dementia or some form of cognitive decline is at work.

https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/us-patriot-interceptors-five-days-iran

The U.S. Has Burned Through Over $2.4 Billion Worth of Patriot Missile Interceptors in Just Five Days of War with Iran​

Those aren't used against drones. They're used against ballistic missiles.

 

[LurchAddams]

Those aren't used against drones. They're used against ballistic missiles.

The Straight is still under Iranian control and "negotiations" have failed. But negotiations were doomed from the start because trump's "negotiators" are just trump's corrupt son-in-law and trump's golf buddy.

trump is a fool for getting us dragged into another mid-East dumpster fire. No amount of "bombing the Iranian people" is going to change that. The IRGC could give 2 shits about the Iranian people, they're religious zealots with a death-wish.

Republicans are idiots and so are you.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The Straight is still under Iranian control and "negotiations" have failed. But negotiations were doomed from the start because trump's "negotiators" are just trump's corrupt son-in-law and trump's golf buddy.

trump is a fool for getting us dragged into another mid-East dumpster fire. No amount of "bombing the Iranian people" is going to change that. The IRGC could give 2 shits about the Iranian people, they're religious zealots with a death-wish.

Republicans are idiots and so are you.

Agreed on all points.

Worse, the US intelligence operations inside Iran have been destroyed by Trump's war with a result of leaving the Iranians more united than ever.

 

[Crepitus]

He's gotten worse in the past two years; angry, hateful, disrespectful to others, clearly unhappy. He was more experienced and better educated than the average MAGAts but in the past couple years he's sunk to their level.

The most logical conclusion is early onset dementia. He was an electrician's mate on older Navy ships and may be been exposed to some nasty chemicals for years including asbestos. Asbestos doesn't cause dementia, but it can certainly cause other health problems.

Noticing behavioral changes was been part of my job description for 40 years. Dealing with dementia victims came from family experience. It's no secret that most JPP MAGAts are elderly Euro-American males. All of them are both racist and misogynistic. Older men hating women is a good indicator they are divorced and alone. Their anger and hatred drives people away which only makes them angrier and more hateful. It's a vicious cycle.

Well that's not good.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Well that's not good.

True. He needs help but isn't getting it by spreading hate and lies on the Internet. All it does is work him up like other JPP MAGAts.

 

[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Letting merchant vessels be armed would stop that nonsense in a nanosecond.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Letting merchant vessels be armed would stop that nonsense in a nanosecond.

They are armed, Terry, but only against pirates. They don't have the money for a multimillion dollar Phalanx CIWS system.

 

[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]

Letting merchant vessels be armed would stop that nonsense in a nanosecond.

No, arming merchant vessels would not allow unimpeded access through the Strait of Hormuz. It would fail to overcome Iran’s de facto control, expose ships to disproportionate state-level threats they cannot counter, and create insurmountable legal, insurance, operational, and escalation risks. This holds true even in the current post-ceasefire environment (as of April 12, 2026), where only a handful of vessels transit daily, and only with explicit Iranian coordination or toll payments.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

They are armed, Terry, but only against pirates. They don't have the money for a multimillion dollar Phalanx CIWS system.

No, they're not. Current international law and maritime law prohibits it.

Why are merchant ships not armed?

It's based upon laws and norms that were set up over the past few decades when piracy wasn't really a concern. Most countries don't want foreign controlled

www.studycountry.com

Fighting Fire With Fire: The Debate Over Arming Merchant Vessels

As pirate attacks mount, armed security teams can protect you in more ways than one. By Darren Friedman, Esq. and Lauren Smith, Esq. For

maritime-executive.com

Given the rise in piracy and the threat of radical Islamic nutjob countries like Iran and Yemen, there's a debate about whether to change those laws, but that hasn't happened as of today.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

No, arming merchant vessels would not allow unimpeded access through the Strait of Hormuz. It would fail to overcome Iran’s de facto control, expose ships to disproportionate state-level threats they cannot counter, and create insurmountable legal, insurance, operational, and escalation risks. This holds true even in the current post-ceasefire environment (as of April 12, 2026), where only a handful of vessels transit daily, and only with explicit Iranian coordination or toll payments.

Actually, arming them would pretty much put an end to Iran's threats entirely. A single lower end missile defense system and a couple of 20mm Oerlikons of the WW 2 variety would do just fine in most cases. Iran couldn't send out some IRG in a speed boat with AK 47's to deal with such a ship. They'd get shot out of the water in a nanosecond. Iran no longer has a 'real' navy. It's on the bottom of the gulf now--well, except of that one frigate the USN sank in the Indian Ocean...

 

[Dutch Uncle]

No, they're not. Current international law and maritime law prohibits it.

Why are merchant ships not armed?

It's based upon laws and norms that were set up over the past few decades when piracy wasn't really a concern. Most countries don't want foreign controlled

www.studycountry.com

Fighting Fire With Fire: The Debate Over Arming Merchant Vessels

As pirate attacks mount, armed security teams can protect you in more ways than one. By Darren Friedman, Esq. and Lauren Smith, Esq. For

maritime-executive.com

Given the rise in piracy and the threat of radical Islamic nutjob countries like Iran and Yemen, there's a debate about whether to change those laws, but that hasn't happened as of today.

Trump said he doesn't need international law so why should anyone else, Terry?

Despite your attempt to derail, the fact remains merchant ships can't afford a Phalanx system. While a few heavy machine guns might be able to take down a few drones before impact, a swarm would likely overwhelm them. All it takes is one to get through for the insurance companies to freak out.

https://thehill.com/policy/international/5680714-trump-morality-international-law/

Trump says ‘own morality’ is only limit on his power: ‘I don’t need international law’​

 

[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]

Actually, arming them would pretty much put an end to Iran's threats entirely. A single lower end missile defense system and a couple of 20mm Oerlikons of the WW 2 variety would do just fine in most cases. Iran couldn't send out some IRG in a speed boat with AK 47's to deal with such a ship. They'd get shot out of the water in a nanosecond. Iran no longer has a 'real' navy. It's on the bottom of the gulf now--well, except of that one frigate the USN sank in the Indian Ocean...

Iran (via the IRGC Navy) enforces control through a mix of asymmetric and standoff weapons that lightly armed merchant ships cannot defeat:

• Shore- and sea-based missiles, drones, and USVs: Anti-ship cruise/ballistic missiles, armed UAVs, and unmanned surface vessels have already struck or threatened 20+ commercial ships since February 2026.
• Mines and fast-attack craft: Persistent mine risks and small-boat swarms remain active threats.
• Selective “toll booth” regime: Ships must coordinate via VHF, provide crew/ownership details, pay fees (up to $2 million in some cases), and follow IRGC-mandated routes in Iranian territorial waters. Unauthorized attempts trigger warnings of destruction.

Private maritime security companies (PMSCs) offer no defense against these. Merchants lack military-grade sensors, damage control, or firepower. Even WWII-style “armed merchantmen” (with deck guns) were vulnerable to state navies and are irrelevant here.

Practical and economic barriers make it unworkable.

• War-risk premiums are already prohibitive or unavailable. U.S. offers of political risk insurance have not spurred traffic because owners prioritize crew safety over profits. Arming ships would likely void policies further or trigger higher exclusions.
• Crew and company reluctance: Seafarers face lethal risks; no shipping executives are volunteering crews for armed confrontations. Recent transits are limited to “friendly” flagged vessels (e.g., Chinese, Indian) that negotiate safe passage, not armed defiance.
• Logistics and legality: Arming requires flag-state approval, training, and compliance with rules on weapons in territorial waters (shared Iran-Oman zone under transit passage rights). Most nations prohibit or heavily restrict this for civilians. Escalation risk is high, since Iran could treat armed ships as combatants.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Trump said he doesn't need international law so why should anyone else, Terry?

Despite your attempt to derail, the fact remains merchant ships can't afford a Phalanx system. While a few heavy machine guns might be able to take down a few drones before impact, a swarm would likely overwhelm them. All it takes is one to get through for the insurance companies to freak out.

https://thehill.com/policy/international/5680714-trump-morality-international-law/

Trump says ‘own morality’ is only limit on his power: ‘I don’t need international law’​

They don't have to. The company would simply buy a few containerized weapons systems and swap them out on their ships as they enter and leave high threat areas.

Weaponized Containers: A Warship-in-a-Box for Warfighting Advantage | Center for International Maritime Security

2027 War Readiness Week By Steve Wills Introduction Naval vessels of all types have grown over the past 50 years. Even relatively low-end warship classes, such as the littoral combat ship, possessed significant system complexity. The tilt towards increasing warship complexity occurred before the...

cimsec.org

Most shipping companies would see a say, $10 million one-time investment in these as a cost-effective means to protect their far more valuable ships.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

They don't have to. The company would simply buy a few containerized weapons systems and swap them out on their ships as they enter and leave high threat areas.

Weaponized Containers: A Warship-in-a-Box for Warfighting Advantage | Center for International Maritime Security

2027 War Readiness Week By Steve Wills Introduction Naval vessels of all types have grown over the past 50 years. Even relatively low-end warship classes, such as the littoral combat ship, possessed significant system complexity. The tilt towards increasing warship complexity occurred before the...

cimsec.org

Most shipping companies would see a say, $10 million one-time investment in these as a cost-effective means to protect their far more valuable ships.

Your fantasies are interesting, Terry. How many ships are in the Gulf? What is the total cost? How long to swap these $10M systems out?

"These conversions do come with limitations in speed and especially the ability to sustain and recover from damage."
Any sane person want to guess what the smarter path would be rather than spending billions arming thousands of civilian ships around the world?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3w39lg84w2o
"You've had nearly 800 ships stuck in there for several weeks. Most of them are now loaded with cargo so the priority is going to be to get them out."