86
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
86 points (95.7% liked)
World News
2316 readers
133 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Hopefully, but knowing the US they would just redirect anti-piracy units operating in the Indian Ocean to the Red Sea. Or they would begin to arm merchant ships which itself is a big problem, but I doubt the US and Israel care much for international law.
Putting all my big expensive warships in a nice tight shallow lane full of heavy merchant traffic. Do any of the sailors on the USS Cole have some insight as to why that might not be a great idea? Anyone? No? Okay, nevermind then. Sounds like a great idea.
The big problem with arming merchant ships is that this would require them to maintain a larger staff with significantly more autonomy. Mercenaries aren't cheap. Using advanced anti-ship weapons isn't easy. And maybe you don't want to give the sailors you imported from Jakarta on cheapo salary access to six-figures in hardware that would sell like lightning at any of the ports of call your ship plans to visit.
Putting all my big expensive ships in a narrow straight so they're easier to attack and then I can use that as justification to fully go to war with whoever I want.
As for arming the ships they'll just find a bunch of highly trained contractors with duct tape over where the navy badges would normally be, only downside is they are super expensive.
At a certain point - particularly given how comically padded the US military's provisioning has become - you can't just wage war with whomever you want. There's a real cost to all this, and the US economy has been eating it for decades. War might look good on a balance sheet for a particular business quarter-to-quarter, but its shit for the overall health of an industrial economy long term.
We simply cannot be at war with every single recalcitrant country in Asia, at once, all of the time. That's a big reason why we pulled out of Afghanistan and Iraq. Its a big reason why we've shed much of our zeal for Ukraine after a couple of years of conflict. Its a big reason why we backed off treating China as an existential threat. Nobody seems to be interested in the African West Coast anymore, either, despite the wave of coups and uprisings from Niger to Senegal. Nevermind Ethiopia running hot-and-cold with Tigray.
It is entirely too much for the US to manage, particularly when the BRICS are no longer willing to play along.
That's far more than the private companies want to spend. And while the US could foot the bill, there simply aren't enough ex-military contractors to go around for this many ships.
Someone needs to tell the current regime that. On the other hand, no don't tell them anything. Let them continue.
Again, there's a reason Biden had to commit to pulling us out of Afghanistan. There's a reason we're stumbling and backpeddling on our support for Ukraine. There's a reason we didn't try and invade Brazil or continue our campaign to harass Cuba or further ratchet tensions in the Straight of Taiwan.
Blinken is at the end of his rope and knows it. That's why he did the multi-state tour following genocide in Gaza. He can't afford to divert assets to a full blown fight with Israel at the center. Not after Iraq and Iran have aligned, the Saudis are going their own way, and half of West Africa is in revolt.
Yes I know all of that but I suspect Biden doesn't, even if Blinken does. It really seems like they've bitten off more than they can chew here and now the Biden regime is stuck and facing a several potential checkmate scenarios. The problem is that he can't get out now. I suspect Blinken is at his wits end with Joe's stubborn antics and tantrums. You can see by his cringe at Joe calling Xi a Dictator for example.
Some good analysis (non ML) on the pieces on the board here imo. Stick with it, it gets better as it goes on.
Love me some quality analysis.
Man. Just a few years ago, I've never imagine witnessing the downfall of an Empire in real time.
BTW, overexpansion and militarily overspending was one of the causes of Rome's downfall. Does it make the USA Rome 2.0?
Lol yea America totally can't just go to war with whoever they want for nebulous justifications.
As a counter example I would point you to the last 60 years of American foreign policy.
The last 60 years have been a great point in my favor. Since Korea, we've been posting Ls every 20 years. And its cost us heavily, both in modern industry (which we've shipped out to countries that aren't in perpetual wartime footing) and in domestic infrastructure (roads/bridges collapsing, aviation industry in retreat, silicon sector morbund, bio-tech sector lagging Cuba). We export raw materials and import finished goods. The polar opposite of what an imperial superpower is supposed to be doing.
The only two finished products we produce reliably are fossil fuels and fission bombs. Everything outside of that is FIRE sector speculation. That's been the consequence of US foreign policy. We've surrendered all the bedrock industries that gave us international footing at the end of WW2. Not good.
Oh yea we deffinitly stopped doing the same thing over and over and over again right after everybody collectively agreed Korea was a failure.
Oh wait, half the country still insists we won Korea and Vietnam and 95% of them supported the war on terror.
I mean, yes. Case in point, no more ground invasions of superpowers after MacArthur fucked up.
Not the half that actually has to fight these wars.
Do you think the US war machine gives a damn about the welfare of their saliors and officers? The Cole wasn’t sunk, or badly damaged for that matter but even if let’s say 3 frigates get sunk (an absurd scenario in the case), the US would care less and use it as a justification to increase their presence.
Plus if we’re being honest, it took years of preparation and the bombers being VERY lucky to pull off the Cole bombing. The ships electric detection system was offline, many sailors only died because it was lunch time and everyone was lined up in the galley that was alongside where the detonation occurred, and the captain was expecting a refueling ship which distracted the observation crew, along several other factors. Al Queda had tried a few times before on other ships and all the bombers were just slaughtered, for example with the USS Sullivan.
Also, a “nice tight shipping lane”, unless an attack is happening in the Suez Canal itself, there are kilometers of sea in all directions inside the Red Sea. More then enough space for a pirate ship to be picked up on radar, or even just seen with the plain eye. I’m sure that a speedboat would fare well against a CIWS gun.
Do you doubt the eagerness of the US war machine to make more weapons sales? Plus I feel like you’re putting a bit to much weight in the weapons needed. They don’t need the merchant ships to be auxiliary cruisers, they’re not fighting warships. Literally 1 WW2 40mm bofors gun on the port and starboard side would solve the issue, if I’m being as cheap as possible.
The reason they haven’t done this is because it increases ship insurance.
I think the sailors and officers in the region care. And I think it becomes increasingly difficult to manage a military when your frontline units are constantly flinching and cowering. IEDs in Iraq weren't just about killing individual occupying soldiers. They increasingly bottled troop units up in their bases and "Green Zones". The Highway of Death was no joke. Then, on a prolonged scale, they fractured Bush's already-reluctant "coalition of the willing" and depressed recruitment at home and forced politicians and officers to wade through scandal after scandal as public opinion soured on the war.
The USS Cole bombing had a profound negative impact on public perception of military readiness. It was not eclipsed by the relative success of the US invasion of the Balkins during the Bosnian/Kosovo War or the success of Desert Shield in repelling Iraqis from Kuwait. But while we were in Iraq and Afghanistan, we were having convoys and bases hit practically every day. Hugely demoralizing for anyone interested in making a career as a US soldier.
I doubt the capacity of production, given how much we've padded out the process of construction and distribution. Building at scale in the modern era has proved an insurmountable obstacle. That's fine when we only do a few high profile engagements every couple of years. But in a protracted multi-front war spanning the entire rim of the Asian continent? And when you consider the sheer volume of shipping moving along the coast?
The whole reason we have a Navy to begin with is to defer the need for every merchant vessel to keep its own on-board company of marines. I'm sure someone would love to profit off a new need to arm every shipping container from Kenya to Kyoto. But that person isn't on the board of Maersk.
The Cole was hit in port, not underway in the Red Sea. Also the merchant traffic in the Red Sea, especially where it gets concentrated down near the south, limits options for warship mobility that could absolutely allow determined actors get within striking range.
Yes, those ships, even merchents, do have capabilities and options for defense, but they're not invulnerable. Hamas came over the wall in fucking paramotors. I wouldn't underestimate the levels of ingenuity a beleaguered, desperate, and angry people are capable of.
I'm not saying your points are invalid, I'm just saying the threat against any ship out there is above 0% and there probably aren't simple solutions given those involved and the environment.
I agree with the Cole port bombing, but that doesn’t really change what I said. That just puts it further into context that Al Qaeda was barely lucky enough to hit an out of commission frigate in port, let alone one underway. Plus merchant shipping being concentrated in the south is insanely protected, UN air and naval forces based out of Dijoboiti would make any determined strike a pointless suicide mission. They would be shredded by Chinese, French, US, Russian, British, Korean, Japanese, etc ships and aircraft the second they entered protected zones.
I agree that no ship is invincible, but you have to be realistic. Yemen is not fielding top of the line warships. There’s only so ingenious you can be with speedboats unless they somehow build themselves as SSK submarine I guess.
There’s no simple answer to this, but to act like any sort of rebel force has any sort of chance at victory in a scenario like this is insane.
I wasn't trying to get you to change what you said, I was just adding context, flavor for discussion. We could discuss hypotheticals all day as well. With the way things have been heating up in the middle east over the Israel invasion, we may not have to wait long to see what could happen, to be honest.
Who knows, maybe they'll strike a ship near the Bab-Al-Mandab to lure out that multinational strike force from Djibouti straight into a minefield.
What out of commission frigate were you referring to? The Cole is a destroyer and was struck during inport refueling.
Even this risks deeper escalation though as Yemen will protect its own interests.
Yemen is in no position to pose any sort of material threat to the United States. But also, why would they? The internationally recognized Republic of Yemen is a close US and Saudi ally, and essentially a puppet state. Further the Houthi movement has no standing navy, even auxiliary craft. What would they even do?