Posted on 01/06/2024 6:54:12 AM PST by logi_cal869
Yesterday, the ongoing disruption of shipping in the Red Sea took an interesting turn. The Uncrewed Surface Vessel (USV), a threat well known to anyone who has operated in the Gulf in the last few years – and very well known to the Russian Black Sea Fleet, some of whom have taken up residency on the bottom as a result – made its appearance in the southern Red Sea.
So far, details are scant. Vice Admiral Cooper, the US Fifth Fleet commander based in Bahrain, said:
“This was a one-way attack, unmanned surface vessel that had launched from Houthi-controlled territory, had transited out to international shipping lanes, clearly with the intent to do harm. Fortunately, it detonated. It’s unclear who the target vessel was…”
It’s a significant development for Operation Prosperity Guardian (OPG), the international naval effort whose aim seems to be something like “providing sufficient reassurance to shipping companies to restore the freedom of navigation in the Red Sea”.
First, it’s clear that the Houthis show no sign of slowing down, despite a joint statement from the governments of the United States, Australia, Bahrain, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, South Korea, Singapore and the United Kingdom on 3 December that this must not continue. The entirely defensive nature of OPG coupled with ‘stern warnings’ isn’t deterring the Houthis.
Second, the USV explosion will not help reassure the major shipping companies such as Maersk, MSC, Hapag-Lloyd and Evergreen who have elected to route around the Cape of Good Hope rather than run the Houthi gauntlet through the Bab-el-Mandeb chokepoint. For the big shippers, the strait truly is living up to its name: the Gate of Grief.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
United Nations Oceans and Law Of The Sea, Piracy Under International Law
Please do not consider above reference as my endorsement of anything about the UN.
Why wait?
Unless, of course, it doesn’t yet meet with the timing of the scenario they’ve planned for us domestically.
C-130s, B-2s, maybe others. 🤗
Changes do occur, that’s why a military can survive governments.
Freedom of navigation is important. But you do make a good point.
Before and during WW2 the United States had a large merchant fleet. Many merchant ships flew the American flag. But then ship owners started to register their ships elsewhere to avoid US regulations and taxes.
Panama and Liberia are the most common “flags of convenience” countries.
So it is a fair question to ask. If a ship owner switches an American flag for a Panamanian one, should he still be afforded the full protection of the US Navy? I’m not quite sure what the answer should be there.
The U.S. is one of the only countries in the world that has refused to ratify the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
This is exactly what I meant when I said the U.S. has no legal or diplomatic justification for protecting foreign civilian ships.
It is pretty amazing that supposedly the most powerful Navies in the world can’t stop a bunch of goat herders armed with drones, remote controlled boats and some number of cruise missiles from causing a major disruption of world commercial shipping.
Rerouting around the Cape of Good Hope will add significant cost and time to transit which will create supply chain issues and makes thing more expensive.
No offense, but you seem like you have a screw loose upstairs. LOL.
Anyone who doesn’t think the answer to that question is ”Hell, no!” doesn’t belong on this website.
I believe obama and john brennan’s personally targeted drones took out more Yemeni markets and wedding parties than military targets
They would like to hold Brandon up as a strong wartime president. What a joke.
Arrrrr, matey.
The Somali Pirate Corps back in service.
Wanna bet they won’t hit Chinese or Russian ships?
The US has no modern legal agreement, however the US has historically and repeatedly enforced the law of the sea on Piracy.
Precedent, including letters of marque and reprisal.
If the US Navy chooses to do so again, they will, depending on Naval Leadership.
You would win that bet.
It’s actually a tough question to answer, in my opinion. A country must always act in its overall best interests, obviously. It is odious to protect merchant ships that refuse to fly the American flag. But is it in America’s best interests overall?
By protecting those ships, America is rewarding their bad behavior. And by not protecting them, America is rewarding the Houthi‘s bad behavior.
It’s a mess. If I’m ever appointed Chief of Naval Operations, I believe I’ll decline the position.
Oh, and one more thing. I just checked all my upstairs rooms. No screws are loose.
This is the correct answer.
***********
They usually are. /sarc
The entirely defensive & weak nature of OPG coupled with ‘stern warnings’ isn’t deterring the Houthis. Obviously, a second sternly worded warning is in order along with a red line ...
“I, for one, fail to grasp the apparent refusal of the USN to adopt proximity munitions to destroy small surface craft.”
*************
The DEI budget has probably soaked up all the money.
When the cost of containers goes up due to disruption, then the price of the goods in them goes up. Everyone everywhere is effected by the rising costs of goods:
More than ample justification to take out the 2,000 or so Hootie terrorists.
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.