3 ms·

You are talking nonsense. There are no 'Houthi bases' to attack because it's a guerilla force. If the US could destroy Houthi rebels it would have done it alrea

You are talking nonsense. There are no 'Houthi bases' to attack because it's a guerilla force. If the US could destroy Houthi rebels it would have done it already. You think the US somehow 'allowed' the Houthis to totally block commercial route trough the Red Sea instead of the actual reality that the US Navy and the allies were simply unable to prevent Houthis from doing it? Seems you are unaware that the Yemeni civil war has been going on for years now and the US Navy has been actively involved in it from the very beginning doing naval blockade of the Yemeni coast.

ranger207 3y ago
Houthi drones, missiles, and speedboats don't appear out of the ether. The Navy is taking a passive approach right now, only responding to threats rather than going in and attacking. At the least, if an antiship ballistic missile is fired, since it flies on a ballistic trajectory it's relatively easy to figure out where it came from and send a cruise missile back. Or if you want to be preemptive you could use tactics honed in Afghanistan to surveil and watch for the launch sites. Of course you can't eliminate guerilla forces using just airstrikes; but you can remove launching facilities. There weren't any major drone strikes or ballistic missile attacks in Afghanistan. Technically it's relatively not very difficult to have a surveillance plane orbit overhead watching for where ballistic missiles are coming from, then have orbiting fighters or bombers strike that before the launcher and its crew have had time to displace. The reason it hasn't been done is purely up to political decisions.
- pi-e-sigma 3y ago
  Yeah, right, the US left Afghanistan for 'purely political reasons', too. Not because they couldn't win the war even though they had 20 years to do it. Soviets left Afghanistan also because of purely political reasons, not because it was unwinnable war for them. Get a grip of reality, dude.
  - ranger207 3y ago
    Yes, the US left Afghanistan because of political reasons, not technical reasons. The US lost the war in Afghanistan. All wars are waged, won, and lost for political reasons. The war in Afghanistan was unwinnable because there was no path to a viable democratic government in Afghanistan. That doesn't have any bearing on the effectiveness of tactical and technical measures.
    - pi-e-sigma 3y ago
      So tell me what are these political reasons preventing the US from attacking Yemen? Saudi Arabia has been waging war with Yemen rebels for years now, and the US has been helping the Saudis. What exactly is preventing the US from getting even more involved? I'll tell you what: nothing, apart from the fact that the US knows that it will be a losing battle, another Afghanistan, never ending war that would cost the US trillions and would have nothing to show for all that wasted money. And why would it be never-ending? Because just like in Afghanistan the US can't fight guerillas for shit, especially now when the Houthis have powerful allies in the region. So it's all not because of some bullshit 'purely political' reasons but for very practical ones: the US military is simply not capable of decisively winning such a conflict. And that's why they are carefully treading now

ranger207 3y ago

Houthi drones, missiles, and speedboats don't appear out of the ether. The Navy is taking a passive approach right now, only responding to threats rather than going in and attacking. At the least, if an antiship ballistic missile is fired, since it flies on a ballistic trajectory it's relatively easy to figure out where it came from and send a cruise missile back. Or if you want to be preemptive you could use tactics honed in Afghanistan to surveil and watch for the launch sites. Of course you can't eliminate guerilla forces using just airstrikes; but you can remove launching facilities. There weren't any major drone strikes or ballistic missile attacks in Afghanistan. Technically it's relatively not very difficult to have a surveillance plane orbit overhead watching for where ballistic missiles are coming from, then have orbiting fighters or bombers strike that before the launcher and its crew have had time to displace. The reason it hasn't been done is purely up to political decisions.

pi-e-sigma 3y ago
Yeah, right, the US left Afghanistan for 'purely political reasons', too. Not because they couldn't win the war even though they had 20 years to do it. Soviets left Afghanistan also because of purely political reasons, not because it was unwinnable war for them. Get a grip of reality, dude.
- ranger207 3y ago
  Yes, the US left Afghanistan because of political reasons, not technical reasons. The US lost the war in Afghanistan. All wars are waged, won, and lost for political reasons. The war in Afghanistan was unwinnable because there was no path to a viable democratic government in Afghanistan. That doesn't have any bearing on the effectiveness of tactical and technical measures.
  - pi-e-sigma 3y ago
    So tell me what are these political reasons preventing the US from attacking Yemen? Saudi Arabia has been waging war with Yemen rebels for years now, and the US has been helping the Saudis. What exactly is preventing the US from getting even more involved? I'll tell you what: nothing, apart from the fact that the US knows that it will be a losing battle, another Afghanistan, never ending war that would cost the US trillions and would have nothing to show for all that wasted money. And why would it be never-ending? Because just like in Afghanistan the US can't fight guerillas for shit, especially now when the Houthis have powerful allies in the region. So it's all not because of some bullshit 'purely political' reasons but for very practical ones: the US military is simply not capable of decisively winning such a conflict. And that's why they are carefully treading now