They literally accomplished nothing. US hasn’t managed to protect a single ship to date. Meanwhile, countries participating in the genocide are seeing real economic damage as a result of the blockade. The fact that US is no longer able to project power the way it used to is very much noteworthy.
How do we know their strikes haven’t protected any ships, that is, preventing any strikes from happening?
Not to mention, what about the failed strikes their defence systems (against their ships) that they have succesfully defeated? They’ve shot down some missiles from what I remember. Or do you just mean civilian ships?
The fact that US is no longer able to project power the way it used to is very much noteworthy.
They have quite a few naval ships and planes I think Yemen right now?
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.
Yemen doesn’t need naval ships or planes
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.
The whole US strategy is being invalidated by new technology. US navy is a dinosaur.
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 the route still not being safe for shipping doesn’t mean they have no impact. Just not enough to make it safe.
What impact are they having, please be specific here.
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.
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.
What impact are they having, please be specific here.
Destroying parts of the Houthi capability, shooting down missiles and drones.
Sure, US can beat a navy that plays by the same rules, but the reality is that there are cheaper options available nowadays.
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.”
So far, the story is that Yemen is achieving their stated goals and US is not.
I mean if the goal was to make products more expensive then absolutely.
I’m just surprised they’re still writing articles about individual attacks especially if nothing more special happened
It just shows that Yemen is still interdicting ships and that US isn’t able to do anything about it. That of itself is noteworthy.
I mean it’s showing they haven’t completely stopped them for sure but I’m not sure if someone expected them to.
Ehh I dunno. It’s not like every single terrorist attack in Iraq was noteworthy, at least not international news noteworthy imo.
They literally accomplished nothing. US hasn’t managed to protect a single ship to date. Meanwhile, countries participating in the genocide are seeing real economic damage as a result of the blockade. The fact that US is no longer able to project power the way it used to is very much noteworthy.
How do we know their strikes haven’t protected any ships, that is, preventing any strikes from happening?
Not to mention, what about the failed strikes their defence systems (against their ships) that they have succesfully defeated? They’ve shot down some missiles from what I remember. Or do you just mean civilian ships?
They have quite a few naval ships and planes I think Yemen right now?
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.