this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2024
195 points (99.5% liked)

World News

38506 readers
2675 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jet@hackertalks.com 22 points 2 months ago (4 children)

What gets me every time they talk about this pier... The ships in the photos are amphibians landing ships designed with ramps and flat bottoms so they can unload on the beach without a pier. The pier is totally unnecessary in this scenario

[–] Emmy@lemmy.nz 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The pier was necessary for Israeli ops tho

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] roboto 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

To rescue the 4 hostages in return for almost 300 dead Palestinians and magnitudes more of wounded people.

[–] Emmy@lemmy.nz 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This right here is the correct answer.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I don't think it's credible to say that The pier was built for the Israeli rescue operations.

In fact, without the pier they still would have executed the operation. Pier was convenient, but not necessary

[–] Emmy@lemmy.nz -1 points 2 months ago

In fact, without the pier they still would have executed the operation. Pier was convenient, but not necessary

There's absolutely no way they'd have allowed it's construction of it wasn't necessary for them. We can tell because it's already being dismantled

[–] rbesfe@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The amphibious ships are small and can't carry a lot. The proposed idea made a lot of sense in that it would allow larger ships to be used so less trips and less fuel per ton of aid, but the political will was just never there to keep it running or make sure it was planned thoroughly enough.

Absolutely shameful, but on the plus side military logistics students just got another case study.

[–] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, but then you're on a beach, so you need vehicles that can drive on a beach, possibly in wet sand, possibly still half in the water. Unless you're actually doing amphibious assault in enemy territory building a pier is a good idea as it makes unloading vehicles/cargo much easier and broadens the type of boats you can use for transport.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

100% agreed. If they had been serious about this whole we're going to bring supplies in from the sea. Day 1 through 30 should have been amphibious vehicles. Day 30 through 60 should have been pier-based vehicles, and 60 plus should be showing massive high throughput. With UN peacekeepers at some point to prevent bombing of the aid caravans.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

UN peacekeepers lol.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Those are the little boats that take things from the pier to the shore. The boats that take things over the ocean to the pier are not landing vessels. They are large ships and only have a cargo ramp, which requires a pier to unload. I looked at hundreds of pictures before writing this and didn't see one large ship with beach landing capabilities. The largest landing ship I saw was the USAV Matamoros, Runnymede-class ship with a capacity of 20 stacked containers, with no ability to load them onto trucks. It needs a pier to load trucks. Could maybe carry eight trucks already loaded, which is nothing. It operates regionally, not transoceanic.