frontpage.
newsnewestaskshowjobs

Made with ♥ by @iamnishanth

Open Source @Github

fp.

Teaching Mathematics

https://www.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~spurny/doc/articles/arnold.htm
1•samuel246•2m ago•0 comments

3D Printed Microfluidic Multiplexing [video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ2ZcOzLnGg
1•downboots•2m ago•0 comments

Abstractions Are in the Eye of the Beholder

https://software.rajivprab.com/2019/08/29/abstractions-are-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/
1•whack•2m ago•0 comments

Show HN: Routed Attention – 75-99% savings by routing between O(N) and O(N²)

https://zenodo.org/records/18518956
1•MikeBee•2m ago•0 comments

We didn't ask for this internet – Ezra Klein show [video]

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ve02F0gyfjY
1•softwaredoug•3m ago•0 comments

The AI Talent War Is for Plumbers and Electricians

https://www.wired.com/story/why-there-arent-enough-electricians-and-plumbers-to-build-ai-data-cen...
1•geox•6m ago•0 comments

Show HN: MimiClaw, OpenClaw(Clawdbot)on $5 Chips

https://github.com/memovai/mimiclaw
1•ssslvky1•6m ago•0 comments

I Maintain My Blog in the Age of Agents

https://www.jerpint.io/blog/2026-02-07-how-i-maintain-my-blog-in-the-age-of-agents/
2•jerpint•7m ago•0 comments

The Fall of the Nerds

https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/the-fall-of-the-nerds
1•otoolep•8m ago•0 comments

I'm 15 and built a free tool for reading Greek/Latin texts. Would love feedback

https://the-lexicon-project.netlify.app/
1•breadwithjam•11m ago•1 comments

How close is AI to taking my job?

https://epoch.ai/gradient-updates/how-close-is-ai-to-taking-my-job
1•cjbarber•12m ago•0 comments

You are the reason I am not reviewing this PR

https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/479442
2•midzer•13m ago•1 comments

Show HN: FamilyMemories.video – Turn static old photos into 5s AI videos

https://familymemories.video
1•tareq_•15m ago•0 comments

How Meta Made Linux a Planet-Scale Load Balancer

https://softwarefrontier.substack.com/p/how-meta-turned-the-linux-kernel
1•CortexFlow•15m ago•0 comments

A Turing Test for AI Coding

https://t-cadet.github.io/programming-wisdom/#2026-02-06-a-turing-test-for-ai-coding
2•phi-system•15m ago•0 comments

How to Identify and Eliminate Unused AWS Resources

https://medium.com/@vkelk/how-to-identify-and-eliminate-unused-aws-resources-b0e2040b4de8
2•vkelk•16m ago•0 comments

A2CDVI – HDMI output from from the Apple IIc's digital video output connector

https://github.com/MrTechGadget/A2C_DVI_SMD
2•mmoogle•17m ago•0 comments

CLI for Common Playwright Actions

https://github.com/microsoft/playwright-cli
3•saikatsg•18m ago•0 comments

Would you use an e-commerce platform that shares transaction fees with users?

https://moondala.one/
1•HamoodBahzar•19m ago•1 comments

Show HN: SafeClaw – a way to manage multiple Claude Code instances in containers

https://github.com/ykdojo/safeclaw
2•ykdojo•22m ago•0 comments

The Future of the Global Open-Source AI Ecosystem: From DeepSeek to AI+

https://huggingface.co/blog/huggingface/one-year-since-the-deepseek-moment-blog-3
3•gmays•23m ago•0 comments

The Evolution of the Interface

https://www.asktog.com/columns/038MacUITrends.html
2•dhruv3006•24m ago•1 comments

Azure: Virtual network routing appliance overview

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-network/virtual-network-routing-appliance-overview
2•mariuz•25m ago•0 comments

Seedance2 – multi-shot AI video generation

https://www.genstory.app/story-template/seedance2-ai-story-generator
2•RyanMu•28m ago•1 comments

Πfs – The Data-Free Filesystem

https://github.com/philipl/pifs
2•ravenical•31m ago•0 comments

Go-busybox: A sandboxable port of busybox for AI agents

https://github.com/rcarmo/go-busybox
3•rcarmo•32m ago•0 comments

Quantization-Aware Distillation for NVFP4 Inference Accuracy Recovery [pdf]

https://research.nvidia.com/labs/nemotron/files/NVFP4-QAD-Report.pdf
2•gmays•33m ago•0 comments

xAI Merger Poses Bigger Threat to OpenAI, Anthropic

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2026-02-03/musk-s-xai-merger-poses-bigger-threat-to-op...
2•andsoitis•33m ago•0 comments

Atlas Airborne (Boston Dynamics and RAI Institute) [video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNorxwlZlFk
2•lysace•34m ago•0 comments

Zen Tools

http://postmake.io/zen-list
2•Malfunction92•37m ago•0 comments
Open in hackernews

US seizes oil tanker off coast of Venezuela

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/12/10/us-venezuela-oil-tanker/87704943007/
86•geox•1mo ago

Comments

stevenalowe•1mo ago
Under what authority???
k310•1mo ago
The Epstein Distraction Act.
jajuuka•1mo ago
Under Operation Freedom. We're gonna make sure every drop of oil is liberated from Venezuela.
JumpCrisscross•1mo ago
> Under what authority???

Under U.S. law, if they're smart, anti-piracy and anti-narcotics interdiction. They're not, so they're citing sanctions.

Practically, however, this is sort of the endgame to the spheres-of-influence narrative. China can ram Phillipine fishing boats. Russia can steal children. America can commandeer random shit in the Western hemisphere.

crest•1mo ago
Non but superior firepower the US is reverting to might makes right for all to see. I can't wait for the response to "China seizes container ship leaving Taiwan loaded with illicit semiconductors to enforce its tariffs and export restrictions on trade with the 'rebelious province' by force".
seanmcdirmid•1mo ago
The problem with that is that those ships leave from Taiwan’s east coast and the ryukyus with american military resources are in the way of China getting to the east coast of Taiwan (which is really another reason they want Taiwan along with developing some bases in the South China Sea, they are basically hemmed in with the current political arrangement).
monerozcash•1mo ago
So, despite all the stupid trolling there's an actual answer to this question.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea authorizes any state to interdict stateless vessels, which this was.

stevenalowe•1mo ago
I can find no such claim in the news, the articles all say “Venezuelan oil tanker”
monerozcash•1mo ago
Poor quality articles.

Here's an actual industry source which captures the whole story in the headline https://www.lloydslist.com/LL1155836/Weve-just-seized-a-tank...

stevenalowe•1mo ago
I stand corrected, thank you.

I still don’t approve of it, but it does appear to be “legal”

monerozcash•1mo ago
It's generally considered best practice to detain these vessels as they tend to present a danger to ... well, basically everyone.

It's really a good thing the US did this, one less dangerous stateless vessel at sea. Trump admin does lots of bad things, this is beyond reproach.

cherryteastain•1mo ago
Imagine the outrage if the title were instead "China seizes Philippine oil tanker in South China Sea"
monerozcash•1mo ago
How is that comparable? That seems like a deliberate misrepresentation of the situation.

US actions here almost certainly have the full backing of what they (probably rightfully) consider to be the legitimate Venezuelan government.

antifa•1mo ago
> probably rightfully

Surely we're all old enough to know that's an obvious lie. The US government probably doesn't know or care if Maduro is a dictator, they're just here for the oil.

monerozcash•1mo ago
US would get the oil regardless of who they back, there's nobody else with the technical capabilities to extract at scale in Venezuela. This is a completely ridiculous argument.
antifa•1mo ago
No it's not, the current regime is very open about how excited they are about getting that oil and very hand wavy about everything else.

It would be ridiculous to argue that the current regime has any genuine concerns or interest about democracy, drug trafficking (even just pardoned one), or the legitimacy of Venezuela's government.

monerozcash•1mo ago
> the current regime is very open about how excited they are about getting that oil and very hand wavy about everything else

Yes, because it makes sense to trust what the Trump admin tells you.

Oil might be one of the many excuses they give, but it's obviously a lie because there is nobody else in the world capable of profitably extracting Venezuelan crude at any meaningful scale.

cherryteastain•1mo ago
> How is that comparable? That seems like a deliberate misrepresentation of the situation. Russian actions here almost certainly have the full backing of what they (probably rightfully) consider to be the legitimate Donestk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic governments.
monerozcash•1mo ago
Can you explain how exactly that is supposed to be a comparable situation? It's pretty widely accepted that Edmundo González won the legitimately held elections in Venezuela
cherryteastain•1mo ago
Maduro is a corrupt dictator who holds sham elections, but that does not change the fact that he unfortunately is the president of the internationally recognized government. Will you also propose US seize Turkish or Russian freighters because Erdogan and Putin "won" elections under highly suspect circumstances?

If Putin came out in 2020 and said "I do not recognize Joe Biden as US president, he stole the election, Donald Trump was the real winner, so I am sanctioning America and seizing American LNG tankers" everyone would take that as a hostile action and even a casus belli.

monerozcash•1mo ago
> but that does not change the fact that he unfortunately is the president of the internationally recognized government

Hardly true at this point.

>Will you also propose US seize Turkish or Russian freighters because Erdogan and Putin "won" elections under highly suspect circumstances?

Not sure why you're asking me this. I'm not proposing the US should seize Venezuelan freighters, I'm just saying they have a reasonable excuse if they choose to do so.

>If Putin came out in 2020 and said "I do not recognize Joe Biden as US president, he stole the election, Donald Trump was the real winner, so I am sanctioning America and seizing American LNG tankers" everyone would take that as a hostile action and even a casus belli.

Donald Trump probably wouldn't have, and perhaps many of his supporters :)

Centrino•1mo ago
> internationally recognized government

Countries not recognizing the current government of Venezuela as legitimate:

- US

- all 27 EU member countries

- UK, Canada, Australia

- Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay

- Israel, Japan, Morocco, South Korea

- Switzerland, Norway, Iceland

JumpCrisscross•1mo ago
> Russian actions here almost certainly have the full backing of what they (probably rightfully) consider to be the legitimate Donestk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic governments

Bullshit that might have worked if Russia didn't proceed to claim de facto sovereignty over the rest of Ukraine.

It's also precisely the same logic the U.S. is using. Maduro is illegitimate. The legitimate, elected goverment in exile wants Maduro toppled. Herego, this shit.

basisword•1mo ago
Will you be sticking to this reasoning when the US decides Russia is the legitimate government in large parts of Ukraine in a few months?
monerozcash•1mo ago
I don't see how this reasoning would be at all applicable in that situation.

There are good reasons to believe that Edmundo González won the elections in Venezuela, there are no good reasons to believe anything similar about illegally occupied territories in Ukraine.

JumpCrisscross•1mo ago
> Imagine the outrage if the title were instead "China seizes Philippine oil tanker in South China Sea"

China has been sinking Philippine boats in Philippine territorial waters [1].

There are good reasons to be outraged about this. But it's continuing a precedent China and Russia set, presumably assuming the West wouldn't follow.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Reed_Bank_incident

ArcHound•1mo ago
Hello, I am from overseas. Can someone please explain to me why would they do that? What is the goal, what is the plan, what is the intent? Thanks for any comments, I am utterly confused.
genter•1mo ago
Don't worry, a significant portion of us in the US are also utterly confused in regards to whats going on with the federal government.
ArcHound•1mo ago
Thanks. I just saw at BBC that it was "for a very good reason". I just thought that I'm missing some context. I guess all that's left to say is to wish you a great day.
antifa•1mo ago
That very good reason's name? Manufacturing Consent. Iraq WMDs 2.0 brought to you by Mr No New Wars.
drannex•1mo ago
Oil. It's always oil.
SilverElfin•1mo ago
I suspect they want to gain access to Venezuelan oil reserves to make energy cheaper, reduce prices, and win elections. Or grift off it for personal wealth. Or both.
sundbry•1mo ago
I suspect it's loaded with drugs rerouted from the speedboats that have been getting BTFO.
dpkirchner•1mo ago
I have also seen people believe that those boats have drugs, it's wild. I mean if they had drugs we would gather proof and hold trials instead of just murder, murder, murder.
jagoff•1mo ago
So, to be very clear, what do you believe were in those 55 gallon drums on that multiple engined long hull speed boat?
lawlessone•1mo ago
Well we'll never know will we? because they blew it up.
dpkirchner•1mo ago
I'm not going to assume they are drugs, I'm not that weird. I'm confident our military could figure it out and share the evidence, though. They should be competent enough.
AngryData•1mo ago
They could be smuggling other things, we got tariffs all over the place.
onlypassingthru•1mo ago
Gold? Gems? Cartel victims? Or... a 'boatload of cash'?!

We'll never know now will we?

mmustapic•1mo ago
I get it. If you are travelling in a high speed boat with 55 gallon drums then you get executed, for the crime of travelling in a high speed boat with 55 gallon drums.
fatbird•1mo ago
Fuel oil deliveries to smaller communities that don't buy in tanker quantities. Those boats are basically the u-hauls of the sea.
cosmicgadget•1mo ago
> I mean if they had drugs we would gather proof and hold trials

That's the reason you believe the boats weren't carrying drugs?

somewire077•1mo ago
I am looking at the map and confused. How can these small boats reach US? Venezuela is over 900 nautical miles away from US, assuming 40 knots it can take 24 hours. Do they have enough fuel? Why strike boats on the Pacific Ocean? One cannot reach the Pacific from Venezuela unless via Panama canal.
bigyabai•1mo ago
That would be a convenient scapegoat, but I've seen no evidence suggesting it is likely.
spjt•1mo ago
Because it has oil on it, you can sell oil for money.
m348e912•1mo ago
While I don't think the US has the authority to warrant the sizing of another country's oil tanker, the US may believe they have justification.

Accusation: Venezuela is using Nigeria as a means to launder sanctioned oil.

https://x.com/0x2719/status/1998867882365825299?s=20

cherryteastain•1mo ago
Domestic laws of a country do not constitute valid justification for seizing another country's vessels under international law.
JumpCrisscross•1mo ago
> Domestic laws of a country do not constitute valid justification for seizing another country's vessels under international law

The great powers (China, Russia and America) have each, at this point, explicitly rejected this principle. More broadly, internationa law does contain broad exemptions for piracy.

Aloisius•1mo ago
International law exempts piracy? That's somewhat contrary to my understanding, but fascinating if true.

But if we're using that as a justification, are we admitting the US has turned pirate then?

JumpCrisscross•1mo ago
> International law exempts piracy

UNCLOS provides that “all states have universal jurisdiction on the high seas to seize pirate ships and aircraft, or a ship or aircraft taken by piracy and under the control of pirates, and arrest the persons and seize the property on board” [1].

> if we're using that as a justification, are we admitting the US has turned pirate then?

No, because the seizure was not “committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft” [2]. Under UNCLOS states can’t be pirates.

(Again, this is academic. China has been blowing off UNCLOS judgements in the South China Sea for years.)

[1] https://www.un.org/depts/los/piracy/piracy_legal_framework.h...

[2] https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unc...

monerozcash•1mo ago
This seizure was absolutely legal under the UNCLOS, the US unquestionably has valid justification under international law to seize this (and any other) stateless vessel.
monerozcash•1mo ago
Any US actions wrt Venezuela almost certainly have the backing of what the US (probably rightfully) considers to be the legitimate government of Venezuela.
NoGravitas•1mo ago
Meaning Juan Guaido?
basisword•1mo ago
Sanctioned by who? The president who thinks his tech companies shouldn't be subject to European laws when they operate in Europe believes completely separate countries have to abide by his rules when doing business?
SilverElfin•1mo ago
Even if they want to launder sanctioned oil, that is up to those two other countries. The US has no right to militarily intervene.
crest•1mo ago
In theory they gave the flag state a perfectly valid casus belli, but the flag state isn't in a position to take on the US navy. It would be funny if the flag states or the owners tried to seize US owned property in some involved jurisdiction as compensation.
crest•1mo ago
Steal the oil and in the process destabilize the government to force regime?
lawlessone•1mo ago
It's great for anyone else selling oil too , pushes the prices up, e.g Russia.
credit_guy•1mo ago
It was spelled out in the recently published National Security Strategy [1]:

   > We want to ensure that the Western Hemisphere remains reasonably stable and well-governed enough to prevent and discourage mass migration to the United States; we want a Hemisphere whose governments cooperate with us against narco-terrorists, cartels, and other transnational criminal organizations; we want a Hemisphere that remains free of hostile foreign incursion or ownership of key assets, and that supports critical supply chains; and we want to ensure our continued access to key strategic locations. In other words, we will assert and enforce a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine.
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-N...
givemeethekeys•1mo ago
China wants oil. Wants to pay in Chinese Yuan.

Venezuela has oil. Wants to sell them in Chinese Yuan, because America bad.

America ensures the world's waters stay safe for commerce as long as all countries continue to do business in dollars.

When they don't, America is forced to remind them.

China in the meantime continues to diversify away from oil and doesn't mind taking risks that could cut supply. Venezuela's leadership has, for reasons well understood, fewer options.

America's number one export, as is every global empire's number one export is its currency. It's a gift and a curse.

Saddam's days were numbered when he began selling oil in Euros.

Gaddafi's days were numbered when he tried to sell oil in "gold dinars".

JumpCrisscross•1mo ago
> as all countries continue to do business in dollars

This is nonsense. We would still be going after Venezuela even if they did business in physical dollars the way Iran did for years.

givemeethekeys•1mo ago
Rarely are the reasons singular, but I do think that stopping trade (and not just oil trade) in USD is the biggest reason.
JumpCrisscross•1mo ago
> I do think that stopping trade in USD is the biggest reason

This hasn't been a thing since the 1970s. Oil is priced and settled in multiple currencies today, including out of New York and London. America is a net oil exporter. And global oil trading volumes are insignificant compared with other dollar uses.

There are a lot of stupid reasons we're going to war with Venezuela. None of them have to do with dollar hegemony.

lossolo•1mo ago
Thats not true. ~85%+ of global oil trade is in USD.

https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/ire/focus/ecb.irebox201906...

JumpCrisscross•1mo ago
> Thats not true. ~85%+ of global oil trade is in USD

What part isn't true? I never said most oil isn't traded in dollars. Just that it's priced and traded in currencies other than dollars on commodities desks in the United States.

In 2019, over 60% of all global trade was dollar denominated [1]. (58% today.) That's $27tn of dollar-denominated export invoices. Globally, oil exports are $1.3tn [2].

The petrodollar hypothesis held in the 1970s. It was becoming irrelevant with the 1980s' trade liberalisation. By 2019 [3] it had become totally irrelevant, both as a rational motivation and as a non-conspiratorial geopolitical talking point.

[1] https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/programs/geoeconomics-center...

[2] https://www.worldstopexports.com/worlds-top-oil-exports-coun...

[3] https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/The-US-Just-Became-A-N...

dragonwriter•1mo ago
While seizing oil supplies and using them to corruptly reward cronies of Trump’s is probably part of it, a bigger part of it is just to have a war, both to provide a legal and propaganda cover for domestic repression (a war with Venezuela —due to a completely fictitious invasion by Venezuela—is already part of the pretext for that since Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act on that basis in March) and to provide an electoral rally-around-the-flag effect.
SilverElfin•1mo ago
Imagine saying vile things about Somalians for weeks and then turning into an actual Somalian pirate (EDIT: a small fraction of Somalians). What a farce.
monerozcash•1mo ago
I feel like associating piracy with Somalians like you just did is also bordering on "saying vile things about Somalia", presumably only a very small fraction of Somalians are pirates.

Just food for thought.

SilverElfin•1mo ago
I agree and point taken. But I also did not state or imply that most Somalians are pirates. I was just repeating the common racist memes I see on Twitter as a parody of them.
spjt•1mo ago
Interesting that I read elsewhere that most Venezuelan oil goes to China due to the sanctions. Would be nice to see them put a carrier group down there to guard their shipments...
neom•1mo ago
Deescalation would be preferable to escalation no? Personally I'd prefer this cold war we're living through not kick off into global hot war.
TitaRusell•1mo ago
Whoever replaces Maduro will still be corrupt. Americans think they are fighting the good fight but it will turn out like Iraq: the spice will flow and the Chinese know it.

Never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake.

sylos•1mo ago
Americans don't think this is any kind of good fight.
JumpCrisscross•1mo ago
> Would be nice to see them put a carrier group down there to guard their shipments...

This would be a 4D chess move right off the edge of the game board and into a latrine.

China doesn't want to get involved in an oil war. It doesn't want to send its limited blue-water capabilities into America's backyard to get painted. It doesn't want to deal with oil supply chains against America's nuclear-powered fleet. And it doesn't want to risk Trump popping an aneurysm and disabling their ships, an attack to which all retaliation options carry material risks of nuclear escalation (in a way bombing boats on the other side of the world does not), and which would mean trashing China's and the global economy as the trade war turns blockade.

monerozcash•1mo ago
China also doesn't have the capabilities to extract the super heavy and poor quality Venezuelan crude, only the US has those capabilities.

Essentially all of the existing infrastructure in Venezuela was built by Americans, and is crumbling.

While Venezuela has tremendous amounts of oil, most of it is not very easy to extract profitably.

JumpCrisscross•1mo ago
> China also doesn't have the capabilities to extract the super heavy and poor quality Venezuelan crude

They could build this. That's orthogonal to planting an oil-burning carrier group halfway around the world next to nuclear CVNs that could be reached from U.S. soil by Cessna 172s.

monerozcash•1mo ago
It would not be worth it for them, they have much more lucrative options in their own neighborhood.
JumpCrisscross•1mo ago
> It would not be worth it for them

Oh yes, we completely agree. More to the point, the tens of billions of dollars they'd burn–at a minimum–on a pointless proxy war with the U.S. would be better spent continuing to reduce China's reliance on foreign oil.

monerozcash•1mo ago
I specifically meant that it wouldn't be worth it for China to do any kind of large scale oil extraction in Venezuela even if the US let them. Most of the oil in Venezuela is really hard to extract profitably.

Without US expertise and investment the oil in Venezuela will tend to stay in the ground.

lenkite•1mo ago
> China also doesn't have the capabilities to extract the super heavy and poor quality Venezuelan crude, only the US has those capabilities.

Strangely, India does too.

monerozcash•1mo ago
True, but so far at a pretty small scale and with much of the equipment sourced from the US as far as I understand it. I don't think they've been able to get the costs down to profitable levels either, right?
lenkite•1mo ago
Actually, India has one of the worlds largest refineries for extra heavy crude oil processing. The Reliance Jamnagar refinery have a crude capacity ~1.4 million barrels per day (bpd).

The Nayara refinery (Russian stakeholder) is rather smaller at 390–400 kbd. There are a few other state owned and private refineries in the South that can process heavy crude cumulatively upto a million bpd.

You are right that the equipment was from US (Lummus Technology). However, due to sanctions, the Nayara refinery has begun retrofitting from eastern suppliers.

It is sad that both Venezuela and Iran (and now Russia) are all now under West-enforced oil sanctions. Makes life difficult for poor nations that don't have native oil supply. It is not possible to compete with EU for economic oil purchase in the global market

monerozcash•1mo ago
Refiners, yes. The problem for Venezuela is the extraction, Venezuelan oil is very hard to get out of the ground.
seanmcdirmid•1mo ago
China doesn’t have the infrastructure or logistics to wage a far from home operation against a similar power country (let alone the USA). They might get there in a decade or two, but right now there isn’t much they can do besides provide material support.

Their whole move to EVs is more about national security as it is about environment. Not having to get into wars about oil because you don’t need so much is it’s own freedom.

riku_iki•1mo ago
> China doesn’t have the infrastructure or logistics to wage a far from home operation against a similar power country (let alone the USA).

they can totally do asymmetrical actions:

- deploy submarines which could attack offenders

- rather fast develop large quantity of ocean attack drones (even Ukraine could do it with rather limited industrial capabilities)

JumpCrisscross•1mo ago
> deploy submarines which could attack offenders

While letting U.S. kit paint the submarines they'll presumably want to use on Taiwan.

> fast develop large quantity of ocean attack drones

This is plausible. (Still not worth it for Beijing. But doable.)

seanmcdirmid•1mo ago
They could sell on credit submarines, drones, and so on to Venezuela, along with some training. They could even make it into a war by proxy, but asymmetrical by the Chinese themselves? They have too much to lose to do that these days.
nradov•1mo ago
Lol what a joke. It would take a Chinese SSN about a month just to make the transit. By the time they reached the op area it would be almost time to turn around and go home.
riku_iki•1mo ago
Tensions in region started few months ago, so assets could be deployed already.

Also, my bet Maduro will still endure multiple months from now.

nradov•1mo ago
Nah. Chinese submarines aren't that quiet so if there were any in the area then the US Navy would have them localized already and there's no sign of that. And Chinese subs lack the persistence to stick around without support for long. The reality is there are zero Chinese subs anywhere near Venezuela.
riku_iki•1mo ago
Thank you for your theoretical speculations.
cosmicgadget•1mo ago
Submarines needing support isn't theoretical.
riku_iki•1mo ago
Sure, there could be support ship in deep ocean.
cosmicgadget•1mo ago
Now who is speculating?
riku_iki•1mo ago
Support ships are not speculations.
cosmicgadget•1mo ago
A speculative deployment is.
riku_iki•1mo ago
Sure, I specified this in all comments using "can" and "could" words.
nradov•1mo ago
You bet! I'm always happy to educate people who don't understand this stuff.
riku_iki•1mo ago
My opinion is that you are the one who doesn't understand this stuff.
Gud•1mo ago
Why, do you think the Chinese believe this illegal blockade by the US will cease?

China would be stupid not to show some force

nradov•1mo ago
Regardless of legal issues and whether it would be stupid or not, China still lacks an effective blue water navy capable of projecting sustained power in the Caribbean Sea. They just can't do it in any meaningful way. They're expanding fast and might be able to do it in a few years but not today.
xg15•1mo ago
This more so, as the two countries "upgraded" their relations to an "all-weather strategic partnership":

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-12-02/us-venezuela-global-a...

https://english.www.gov.cn/news/202505/10/content_WS681e8bd6... (chinese state media)

I guess this will show what "all-weather" is supposed to mean. It doesn't seem to include any military support and at least others are sceptical with respect to the current situations as well:

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/3335116/china-unlike...

lurk2•1mo ago
> Interesting that I read elsewhere that most Venezuelan oil goes to China due to the sanctions.

It's possible China has built out its infrastructure in the past 5 years and can process this oil now, but in the 2010s the more common practice was for the Venezuelans to sell the oil to a Chinese intermediary that would transport it on a tanker to the Gulf Coast, where the American refineries capable of processing Venezuelan sour crude are located.

jjkaczor•1mo ago
Give the Mr. "New New Wars" another "peace prize"...
basisword•1mo ago
Can someone explain why US sanctions on Iranian oil would have any relevance to Venezuela? And why the US would have any right to enforce those sanctions by seizing some other countries tanker? Or is this the US just doing what it wants because nobody will tell it otherwise?
seanmcdirmid•1mo ago
Oh, I think I know this one. Venezuela crude is really heavy and dirty, but a lot of refineries, including ones in Texas and I imagine Iran, are designed to mix it with some lighter crude to derive a decent gasoline yield. These refineries only work like this however, and have basically become dependent on dirty crude sources like Venezuela. The USA I think is dealing via Alberta tar sands, but maybe they decided to just steal the oil from Venezuela directly (Trump is unhinged like that).
crest•1mo ago
This is the US navy resorting to gunboat diplomacy.
JumpCrisscross•1mo ago
> Can someone explain why US sanctions on Iranian oil would have any relevance to Venezuela?

"Brokers in Singapore told The Wall Street Journal that a tanker called the Skipper was the vessel seized off Venezuela early Wednesday. The tanker, formerly called the Adisa, had been sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control for carrying Iranian crude" [1].

[1] https://www.wsj.com/world/americas/u-s-seizes-oil-tanker-off...

cocoricamo•1mo ago
There are shadow fleets of tankers trafficking oil across the world. Venezuelan oil is sanctioned as well as Iranian so no company without licenses and correct paperwork would touch it unless you move it enough to hide the origin. In the end they all know where it comes from but like the plausible deniability.

Most Venezuelan oil is very heavy and sour and needs to be mixed with lighter oil to be refined and they need access to restricted chemicals for the process. As it was explained to me a few months ago Iran provides lighter oil, solvents and materials for the refining and they take the heavier oil to sell it in the black market.

Sanctions aside the tanker was there for the taking by any government. Spoofing location and flying a false flag are enough to justify boarding and seizure by any country since it's a stateless ship likely involved in illegal activities.

In short yes, USA does it because it can and there's legal justification for it beyond "Trump oil, Trump bad lel", but as usual HN devolves to a potato when world events touch USA politics.

JumpCrisscross•1mo ago
"The move came just hours after Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado left the country on a boat, an escape that potentially gave the Trump administration an opening to take more aggressive action against the Maduro regime" [1].

[1] https://www.wsj.com/world/americas/u-s-seizes-oil-tanker-off...

zzleeper•1mo ago
Hope they don't confuse her boat and blow her up :/
tim333•1mo ago
She made it to Oslo and is celebrating her peace prize by calling for an invasion

https://news.sky.com/story/venezuela-has-already-been-invade...

monerozcash•1mo ago
>a large tanker, very large, largest one ever seized, actually -DJT

Spoiler alert: It wasn't

Trump tanker DWT: 310309

Sirius Star DWT: 318000

m463•1mo ago
hmmm... "seized" :)

Sirius Star ... on 15 November 2008, becoming the largest ship ever captured by pirates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Sirius_Star

monerozcash•1mo ago
I'm too lazy to edit the wikipedia page to say "seized" instead of captured, so let's just pretend I did that.
leopoldj•1mo ago
This ship is a known blockade runner. "The ship has frequently carried oil from countries under U.S. sanctions, and its tracking data shows multiple recent trips to Iran and Venezuela"

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/10/us/politics/oil-tanker-ve...

Aloisius•1mo ago
For it to be a blockade runner, there would need to be a blockade.

Are we blockading Venezuela? That would generally be considered an act of war.

nradov•1mo ago
Right. The official reason given for seizing the M/V Skipper was sanctions violation, not a blockade. I don't know whether this was the real reason but as of today other vessels are still sailing in and out of Venezuelan ports without interference. There is no blockade.

The vessel is registered in Guyana so I guess they can complain if they think the seizure was illegitimate.

https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:41...

dragonwriter•1mo ago
> The official reason given for seizing the M/V Skipper was sanctions violation, not a blockade.

“Sanctions” imposed by one country on another limiting its trade with third countries are (if force is used to effect them) a (limited) blockade and absolutely an act of war.

nradov•1mo ago
Well then I guess Guyana can declare war on the USA if they want to.
perihelions•1mo ago
Guyana says it's a false flag,

> "The government of Guyana — which borders Venezuela — said in a statement Wednesday the ship was falsely flying the Guyanese flag, despite not being registered in the South American country"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-we-know-oil-tanker-the-ski...

(Context reminder: Guyana is the country Venezuela's Maduro threatened to invade in 2023).

(Also context: the sanctions on this ship's Russian owner date from 2022, and are about violating US sanctions on Iranian oil).

monerozcash•1mo ago
UNCLOS gives any state the authority to interdict stateless vessels.
Aloisius•1mo ago
The US pressures countries to deregister ships on US sanctions lists. The ship had previously been registered in Panama.

It feels a little sketchy to force countries to deregister ships in order to seize them, but they could have flown Venezuela's flag instead of taking the risk of being stateless instead.

perihelions•1mo ago
Further context: it's owned by a sanctioned Russian oligarch,

> "The ship — known as Adisa in 2022 — is among the vessels controlled by sanctioned Russian oil magnate Viktor Artemov, the Treasury said in a statement[...] The tanker is controlled by Nigeria-based management company Thomarose Global Ventures LTD and owned by a firm linked to Artemov, according to publicly available data."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-we-know-oil-tanker-the-ski...

classified•1mo ago
> In July, the Trump administration walked back a February move to cut off U.S. oil giant Chevron from doing business in Venezuela.

"It's OK when it's our guy."