4 ms·

Quoting a former Navy sailor in that article: >“This is the most sustained combat that the U.S. Navy has seen since World War II — easily, no question,” said B

Quoting a former Navy sailor in that article: >“This is the most sustained combat that the U.S. Navy has seen since World War II — easily, no question,” said Bryan Clark, a former Navy submariner and a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. “We’re sort of on the verge of the Houthis being able to mount the kinds of attacks that the U.S. can’t stop every time, and then we will start to see substantial damage. … If you let it fester, the Houthis are going to get to be a much more capable, competent, experienced force.” The UK and the Royal Navy are also less than impressed[1]. Once upon a time a US Navy Carrier Strike Group was touted as more destructive than an average country's entire air force, but the reality is the US Navy today is stretched thin fighting an enemy that's so overwhelming them that they make WW2 comparisons and underperform to the point of abject failure known as friendly fire. [1]: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/24/red-sea-houthis-us-navy-prosperity-guardian-iran-gaza/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/24/red-sea-houthis-...

kgermino 2y ago
Nothing in your quote implies "as hard or harder." In fact, it aligns well with what your parent said: The US Navy hasn't seen significant sustained combat in 80 years. Whether or not they'r prepared for that has nothing to do with that quote and saying the we won't be able to easily bat them down every time is a long way away from saying they're as big a challenge as Japan in the '40s.
quesera 2y ago
> This is the most sustained combat that the U.S. Navy has seen since World War II — easily, no question I have no drone in this fight, but your characterization of this quote is nonsensical. The quote does not imply that the threats are closely comparable. It merely states that the current conflict is the "most sustained" since a past event which was obviously much more sustained. I have stood on my roof and looked upward, and thought that it's kind of interesting that the next-highest solid object from my position is a plane, a satellite, or the moon. I am not intending a meaningful comparison of the altitudes of houses and planes (or satellites or moons) when I do so.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  It's the stuff that immediately follows which is the actual blasphemy: >We’re sort of on the verge of the Houthis being able to mount the kinds of attacks that the U.S. can’t stop every time, and then we will start to see substantial damage. Remember that Arleigh Burke destroyers and other ships equipped with AEGIS are supposedly the best interceptors in the world. Remember that USN CSGs are supposed to instill absolute fear and execute absolute destruction when required. Admitting that the Houthis can (and will) penetrate and defeat that is all but admitting the US Navy can't handle any more of this, that the Houthis and the financiers behind them are peer enemies if not superior. The only thing I wasn't expecting when I originally read that was that the "substantial damage" ended up coming from the US Navy themselves. Who needs enemies with friendlies like this.
  - quesera 2y ago
    OK but that's just the "US Navy was built for major power wars" problem. The asymmetrical combat problem is real. We saw that back in 2000 with the USS Cole. I have no insight here obviously, but there's a reasonable theory of warfare that you must accept small losses to justify overwhelming force. Parrying small attacks against the peace is difficult -- cops can't stop bar fights -- but if it spills out into the streets, the riot police are ready to shut down the block (if you want to save the innocents) or bomb the neighborhood into oblivion (if you do not). The US public prefers the first approach, until they do not. War is politics.
    - fullspectrumdev 2y ago
      Basically this. There’s an asymmetry at play in a few ways - one being will to fight/engage. At the moment, there is a lack of political will to properly give the Houthis a pounding into the sand to force them to stop chucking shit at ships. Mainly because the American public does not want to deploy marines to Yemen and get in another pointless land war in a sandbox.

kgermino 2y ago

Nothing in your quote implies "as hard or harder." In fact, it aligns well with what your parent said: The US Navy hasn't seen significant sustained combat in 80 years. Whether or not they'r prepared for that has nothing to do with that quote and saying the we won't be able to easily bat them down every time is a long way away from saying they're as big a challenge as Japan in the '40s.

quesera 2y ago

> This is the most sustained combat that the U.S. Navy has seen since World War II — easily, no question I have no drone in this fight, but your characterization of this quote is nonsensical. The quote does not imply that the threats are closely comparable. It merely states that the current conflict is the "most sustained" since a past event which was obviously much more sustained. I have stood on my roof and looked upward, and thought that it's kind of interesting that the next-highest solid object from my position is a plane, a satellite, or the moon. I am not intending a meaningful comparison of the altitudes of houses and planes (or satellites or moons) when I do so.

Dalewyn 2y ago
It's the stuff that immediately follows which is the actual blasphemy: >We’re sort of on the verge of the Houthis being able to mount the kinds of attacks that the U.S. can’t stop every time, and then we will start to see substantial damage. Remember that Arleigh Burke destroyers and other ships equipped with AEGIS are supposedly the best interceptors in the world. Remember that USN CSGs are supposed to instill absolute fear and execute absolute destruction when required. Admitting that the Houthis can (and will) penetrate and defeat that is all but admitting the US Navy can't handle any more of this, that the Houthis and the financiers behind them are peer enemies if not superior. The only thing I wasn't expecting when I originally read that was that the "substantial damage" ended up coming from the US Navy themselves. Who needs enemies with friendlies like this.
- quesera 2y ago
  OK but that's just the "US Navy was built for major power wars" problem. The asymmetrical combat problem is real. We saw that back in 2000 with the USS Cole. I have no insight here obviously, but there's a reasonable theory of warfare that you must accept small losses to justify overwhelming force. Parrying small attacks against the peace is difficult -- cops can't stop bar fights -- but if it spills out into the streets, the riot police are ready to shut down the block (if you want to save the innocents) or bomb the neighborhood into oblivion (if you do not). The US public prefers the first approach, until they do not. War is politics.
  - fullspectrumdev 2y ago
    Basically this. There’s an asymmetry at play in a few ways - one being will to fight/engage. At the moment, there is a lack of political will to properly give the Houthis a pounding into the sand to force them to stop chucking shit at ships. Mainly because the American public does not want to deploy marines to Yemen and get in another pointless land war in a sandbox.