Red Sea / Houthi rebels situation

NickK said:
Re: Middle East always ready to kill each other. This is the way..

The entire area is always in tension and always has been. It just takes an accidental wrong word or someone running over someone's line in the sand. A minor scuffle occurs and it ends up as a new balance where they hate each other.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the above could sum up many (if not most) parts of the world
 
rypt said:
Unfortunately the above could sum up many (if not most) parts of the world
Click to expand...
The difference is that most other parts of the world eventually mature and settle down. England was at war with France for decades. Now we aren't. Various European countries were at war for decades. Now we aren't. The United States had a civil war between the north and south. Now they don't. Scotland used to hate England for centuries. Now they still do.
 
Last edited:
Hades said:
The difference if that most other parts of the world eventually mature and settle down. England was at war with France for decades. Now we aren't. Various European countries were at war for decades. Now we aren't. The United States had a civil war between the north and south. Now they don't. Scotland used to hate England for centuries. Now they still do.
Click to expand...
Fortunately the latter is words rather than sticks and stones!
 
NickK said:
Re: Middle East always ready to kill each other. This is the way..

The entire area is always in tension and always has been. It just takes an accidental wrong word or someone running over someone's line in the sand. A minor scuffle occurs and it ends up as a new balance where they hate each other.
Click to expand...

That's a bit of a trope tbh.. there are longstanding issues/rivalries both with borders and ethnic/religious tensions.

The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was in part the result of an ongoing dispute re: directional oil drilling over a shared oil field, the Saudi/Iran rivalry is a longstanding, deep sectarian issue, it's not some trivial event that has caused them to hate each other.

Likewise borders such the lack of one for Kurdistan (a stateless people) or indeed issues re: the state of Israel and it's expansion/settlements into Palestinian territories are not exactly minor things either.
 
Last edited:
politico says pentagon considering striking Iranian naval assets in retaliation, but this would need Biden approval and is just one of several options on the table
 
Last edited:
Hades said:
That won't be escalatory at all. Nope, not at all.

BRB, getting some tinned food in for the coming WW3...
Click to expand...


Funny the last time the US sank most of the Iranian navy it didn't start ww3, but now we have the internet and if a tin foil hat on the internet says so it must be true, so what ever will we do!? I dunno about you, but I'm gonna sit on my toilet and have a great big pooooooo
 
Last edited:
NickK said:
You mean a longer range bushmaster style with flack capability? (Aka Gepard on a ship). Same issue - large ammo use.
Long range aa is where a small rail gun would work if they could guarantee the accuracy but they can’t.

Small missiles are still possibly the answer.
Click to expand...
Not at all something as simple as this:
en.wikipedia.org

5-inch/54-caliber Mark 45 gun - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Which will be fitted to all the the type 26 frigates and the US are currently using successfully against drones in the Red Sea, the issue with our current gun is nobody else uses this calibre so the correct sorts of ammunition are not available to make it a viable AA platform, if memory serves they reused the deck guns from the type 42 on the 45's to save money. The type 31 seems even better equipped for the drone threat using both a modern deck gun with programable ammunition and a couple of heavy duty AA canons.
 
Grim5 said:
Funny the last time the US sank most of the Iranian navy it didn't start ww3, but now we have the internet and if a tin foil hat on the internet says so it must be true, so what ever will we do!? I dunno about you, but I'm gonna sit on my toilet and have a great big pooooooo
Click to expand...
Yep my comment was quite tongue in cheek. But I do feel the situation is a little more dangerous now. We have several bloks forming that have mutual interests; Russia, China, North Korea and a lot of the Middle East -vs- the Western powers. It could quite easily spiral out of control.
 
I doubt there will be any direct action against Iran.

However I wouldn't be surprised if a significant amount of US military assets start heading in that direction in preparation for a full scale operation to help support the Yemen Government regain control of the country.
 
a1ex2001 said:
When did bombing a country become 'Kinetic Strikes' what a weird choice of language it sounds like an overly politically correct AI bot wrote the post!
Click to expand...
You are looking into it too much. Military action these days is multi domain and can take many different forms. Kinetic strikes is a term used to differentiate from other potential actions.
 
steve45 said:
You are looking into it too much. Military action these days is multi domain and can take many different forms. Kinetic strikes is a term used to differentiate from other potential actions.
Click to expand...
What other options the the term bombing would cause confusion, kinetic strikes is just plain odd it's up there with special operation for me.
 
Bug One said:
I doubt there will be any direct action against Iran.

However I wouldn't be surprised if a significant amount of US military assets start heading in that direction in preparation for a full scale operation to help support the Yemen Government regain control of the country.
Click to expand...

I'd be pretty stunned if there was any direct action against Iran like you say; far more likely that the American's start a campaign of air strikes against Iranian backed forces in Syria and Iraq
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom