Posted on 01/01/2024 11:24:32 AM PST by Chode
The global economic system is built on trade, and to trade, you need ships and safe, efficient routes. Often, that mean travelling through maritime choke points, where geography squeezes trade through a concentrated point.
In the Red Sea, one of those chokepoints has come under pressure as a result of attacks by the Houthi movement based in Yemen, driving hundreds of vessels to divert to much longer routes around Africa.
Now, US and Houthi forces have exchanged fire, with several Houthi boats reportedly being destroyed attempting to board a container ship.
And beyond the risk of this particular campaign, the sight of relatively cheap attacks reshaping the contours of global trade may serve as a warning to decision makers elsewhere. After all, if technology and techniques can be applied in the Red Sea, why not at other maritime chokepoints around the world?
On that cheery note, welcome to 2024.
Jefferson and the Barbary wars? I think not.
I remember some wag saying, “No Islam, know peace. Know Islam, no peace.” Surely, this is hyperbole...
“The Noor (Persian: نور) is a long-range anti-ship cruise missile manufactured by Iran. The missile is in primary service with the Iranian Navy. The missile is a reverse engineered Chinese C-802 anti-ship missile.”
“The missile is powered by Toloue-4, an Iranian version of the French Microturbo TRI 60 engine.”
“In January 2004, Iran announced that it has started manufacturing the DM-3B mono pulse radar for the Noor missile. According to Iranian officials, DM-3B is a millimeter-wave active radar used in the last stage of missile flight to find the target and home-in the missile on it. Because of its frequency, it is very hard to jam the radar, which is located inside the nosecone.”
“In early 2012, during Velayete-90 wargames, a Noor missile was tested with improvements in electronic systems, a more jam-resistant radar and better target acquisition algorithms.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noor_(missile)
JFK-style PT boats with torpedoes are a possibility.
Stomping on the ants won’t cure the problem, the mound will have to destroyed.
Stomping on the ants won’t cure the problem, the mound will have to destroyed.
Suez Canal revenue is important to Egypt.
We should be taking out any/all Houthi military targets.
Somebody explain how our helicopter crews only took out 3 of the 4 attack boats?
(Hint: Somebody called off the pursuit.)
We should be hitting meaningful targets INSIDE Iran!
This crap about not wanting to expand the conflict is nonsense!
Look how easily a rag tag militia was able to shut down shipping in the Red Sea. The Houthis are an Iranian proxy and there’s concern that if the US responds with a full military assault on them the war will expand to a regional conflict directly involving Iran. Should that occur it’s expected that Iran may decide to shut down the Persian Gulf which would be catastrophic to the world economy so we are hoping to avoid that scenario, thus our somewhat muted response so far against the Houthis. It’s a very complicated situation.
There are quite a few reasons for the U.S. to stand down, in fact. I'll list just a few:
1. These aren't U.S. ships being attacked.
2. These ships aren't owned by U.S. companies.
3. These ships aren't transporting cargo to or from U.S. ports.
4. The U.S. is one of the only countries in the world that has refused to ratify the current United Nations "open seas" treaty.
I put these four facts together, and I would conclude that the U.S. has no legal or diplomatic justification for dealing with any "active threats" to foreign civilian ships in the Red Sea.
I'll take it one step further and point out that these threads on FR are filled with the kind of globalist slop that is incompatible with any understanding of the U.S. as a free, independent and sovereign nation. It's disturbing to see so-called "conservatives" on this website who are perfectly fine with this scenario:
A. Chase many of our major manufacturing industries overseas.
B. Make large swaths of America destitute in the process.
C. Chase all our maritime shipping companies overseas, too.
D. So now we have U.S. taxpayers footing the bill for the U.S. Navy to protect Danish ships ... flying Panamanian or Liberian flags ... with crews of Filipino sailors ... delivering that cheap Chinese crap to your local Walmart and Dollar General stores.
You can’t possibly keep a straight face if you think this makes any sense at all.
The Houthi's are in fact, attacking U.S. positions in the Middle-East, including U.S. Navy vessels.
To date, we've elected to only destroy their missiles in flight rather than at their source.
The fact that we chose to protect other flagged civilian ships in international waters and then conduct a half-assed mission was my objection.
It isn't as though the U.S. has no valid interests in maintaining international shipping routes, especially when those threats have actively engaged U.S. troops.
Every container ship diverted from the Red Sea passage has to take the longer route around the Cape, which means the containers are slower to go back into circulation, driving the price of a container higher.
As the cost of a container goes up, so does the price companies have to pay to ship their goods, followed by higher prices the end consumer has to pay - worldwide. As the prices rice for goods, inflation follows.
Somebody explain how our helicopter crews only took out 3 of the 4 attack boats?
—
It was a good will gesture, and for the rest, ask Biden to explain his warm hearted policy toward Iran and its proxies ...
JFK-style PT boats with torpedoes are a possibility.
—
If we still had those obsolete boats, today there are the A-10s and AC-130Js on station.
Most Freepers would insist they don't support A through D, but the U.S. foreign policy and military actions they support are aimed directly at helping to facilitate that whole charade.
The fact that we chose to protect other flagged civilian ships in international waters and then conduct a half-assed mission was my objection.
The fact that we chose to protect foreign civilian ships in international waters under ANY circumstances is my objection. In fact, I believe it may even be illegal under Federal law to do this.
It isn't as though the U.S. has no valid interests in maintaining international shipping routes, especially when those threats have actively engaged U.S. troops.
Here's my proposal:
1. The U.S. military will not protect any foreign civilian ships in international waters.
2. The U.S. military will protect any ship in international waters that meets all the requirements of the Jones Act as it applies to domestic transportation. Basically, this means U.S.-flagged vessels owned by U.S. companies, manufactured in domestic shipyards, and with U.S. citizens or resident aliens as crew members.
Didn't the Chinese start a 'panama canal' through Nicaragua at some point in the past?
Is China going to building a canal in Nicaragua?
In 2013, a Chinese firm called HKND signed an agreement with the Nicaraguan government, which granted the company a 50-year right to build the canal, renewable for a further 50 years. However, the handshakes and overtures have so far come to nothing. HKND closed its office in Hong Kong in 2018.Aug 25, 2023
100%
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.