this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2024
40 points (85.7% liked)
World News
32363 readers
253 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
We know that because western ships aren't able to take this route successfully. Western ships either go around or they get attacked at which point they either end up being sunk or turn around. The impact is very visible https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/mi/research-analysis/supply-chain-red-sea-shipping-disruptions-impact.html
Yemen doesn't need naval ships or planes. They have missiles and drones which is enough to cover the area. Meanwhile, even US military is now complaining that shooting multi million dollar missiles at thousand dollar drones is not practical. The whole US strategy is being invalidated by new technology. US navy is a dinosaur.
I mean the route still not being safe for shipping doesn't mean they have no impact. Just not enough to make it safe.
Not that those would do them any good, they'd get wrecked. Much better off with lobbing rockets. It's like Iraq terrorists and using roadside bombs instead of something like tanks. That'd make no sense.
True. This and Ukraine war has kinda shown how poorly a traditional navy works against drones especially. But I think Somali boat attacks and stuff like that is an even older example of how hard that sort of uneven fighting is.
What impact are they having, please be specific here.
Sure, US can beat a navy that plays by the same rules, but the reality is that there are cheaper options available nowadays.
So far, the story is that Yemen is achieving their stated goals and US is not.
Destroying parts of the Houthi capability, shooting down missiles and drones.
Yes that's what I meant with this: "True. This and Ukraine war has kinda shown how poorly a traditional navy works against drones especially. But I think Somali boat attacks and stuff like that is an even older example of how hard that sort of uneven fighting is."
I mean if the goal was to make products more expensive then absolutely.
No actual evidence that US managed to destroy parts of Yemeni capability. Shooting down missiles and drones isn't having an impact because shipping is still being interdicted.
And yes, that was literally the goal stated by Ansar Allah, they're blockading shipping from Israel and countries that support Israel in solidarity with Palestine. Their blockade is achieving economic damage.
But Houthis have confirmed some of the strikes. Not everything, there's of course plenty of strikes they haven't confirmed but that were confirmed by satellite. I'm not sure either side would claim the strikes have had no impact, just that Houthis think they can continue this longer than the US can.
In that case they've set a pretty reasonable and achievable goal. I thought the object was to stop the Israel attack on Palestine or something tbh.
US and Saudis have been trying to bomb Yemen into submission for like 8 years now with nothing to show for it. I don't see why a few more air strikes are going to change anything.
What part are you replying to with this?
I'm referring to US doing strikes in Yemen, this is nothing new and this strategy showed no results over past 8 years. No reason to expect anything different going forward.
Right, you're talking about who lasts longer? I thought you were talking about the no impact thing and was confused.
It's both, Yemenis have shown that they've been able to last for 8 years without any clear impact from the bombing strategy. The impact from Yemeni blockade is visible, we see economic costs for the west. The impact from bombing in terms of Yemen being able to pursue its policies is not clear because we don't see their policies change or become less effective.
So when you meant no impact you were thinking of in the way that if they can still shoot missiles that means there has been no impact?
Right, I'm saying the strikes are not achieving a change in behavior or capability. So, there is no impact in terms of what Yemen is doing whether US carries strikes out or not.
I guess I thought you meant the strikes were having no impact as in genuinely zero impact
I mean, I'm sure they're having impact killing civilians and destroying infrastructure in Yemen.
Missile firing infrastructure and capability is sorta the target. Luckily first civilian death was just yesterday and so far I think that's the only one.
If missile firing infrastructure is the target, then it's pretty clear that US is not capable of doing any meaningful damage to this infrastructure. Again, the original point was that US is unable to achieve its stated goals while Yemen is.
Yes, I just misunderstood it as a more literal "no impact" than what you were saying.