95% of container ships are now going around the Southern Tip of Africa

Shipping impacts: cost, time, capacity

• Detour around the Cape adds ~10–20 days / ~20–33% to Asia–Europe transit times; fuel per extra day is large but spread over thousands of containers.
• Consensus: the bigger effect is reduced capacity and availability rather than per-voyage fuel cost. Longer voyages mean fewer trips per year → shipping supply down → prices up more than raw cost increase.
• Estimates mentioned: container rates on some lanes roughly doubled; one commenter relays a ~2% eventual consumer price impact but others doubt such specific numbers.
• Insurance for the Cape route is higher due to rougher weather; insurance via the Red Sea has surged due to war risk.

Why ships are diverting

• Cause: Houthi attacks on shipping in/near the Red Sea, framed as support for Gaza and an attempt to pressure Israel and its backers.
• Several links cite the attacks as part of broader Houthi involvement in the Israel–Hamas war.
• Some ships (notably Chinese-linked) reportedly still use the Red Sea, suggesting selective targeting or side-deals.

Debate over maps and distance

• Long subthread on whether Mercator projection misleads about the extra distance around Africa.
• Arguments:
  • Critics: Mercator visually understates the extra length vs Suez, especially for Africa.
  • Defenders: Mercator is fine for this purpose; distortions are inevitable; it actually stretches higher latitudes.
  • Alternatives (equal-area, two-point equidistant, gnomonic) are discussed but seen as niche or complex.

Geopolitics, military options, and sea power

• Wide disagreement on appropriate response:
  • Some argue for bombing launch sites or even hitting Iran; others warn this risks “another Afghanistan” or wider regional war.
  • Skepticism that airstrikes alone can suppress mobile, small-scale missile/drone infrastructure.
• Debate on whether this shows US sea control “failing” vs the US simply choosing not to escalate yet.
• Discussion of EU’s limited naval capability and political reluctance; China seen as benefiting from US overstretch and sometimes from selective safe passage.

Regional actors: Egypt, Houthis, Iran, Saudi

• Egypt loses significant Suez revenue; commenters say it has few military options and is politically constrained.
• Houthis are widely described as Iran-backed; some emphasize their own agency and popularity in parts of the Arab world.
• Prior Saudi-led war against the Houthis is cited as proof they are hard to “wipe out.”

Economics, inflation, environment

• Most expect higher global shipping costs, especially for Europe, and some knock-on inflation.
• US impact debated: less reliant on Suez for Asia trade, but global freight is one market, so prices propagate.
• Emissions: longer routes clearly worsen emissions; some note this clashes with climate goals.

Israel–Palestine framing and moral arguments

• Strongly polarized views:
  • Some label Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide/ethnic cleansing and see Houthi attacks as legitimate pressure or “humanitarian intervention.”
  • Others reject the genocide label and describe Houthis as genocidal or terroristic themselves.
• Extended argument over how the UN genocide definition applies; many legal and moral nuances raised, no consensus.

Other themes

• Insurance: war-risk insurance exists and is getting pricier, contrary to a claim it’s “impossible to insure” conflict zones.
• Proposals: arm merchant ships, escort them with mobile air defenses, or use private military contractors; others call this unrealistic or escalatory.
• Meta: complaints about Twitter/X as a source; calls for better primary links and tools like Flexport’s analysis.