UK and US forces launch 'targeted strikes' against Houthi rebel targets in Yemen

[Gandalf]

The question is also "Do they Control, or just Claim Control?"
Sana'a, the Capital of Yemen, is in the Houthi-controlled region, but are they Running A Government from there?

Al Jazeera's Guide to the Houthis

They act like a government, with the trappings thereof. I would be inclined to call them a government, but not the government Yemen.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

When you see how much coastline they've got to work with and where it's locared, no wonder they're able to attack shipping transiting the strait so easily.

[Ralin]

"
Sana'a, the Capital of Yemen, is in the Houthi-controlled region, but are they Running A Government from there?

What Else Would They Be Doing?

[Solauren]

"
Sana'a, the Capital of Yemen, is in the Houthi-controlled region, but are they Running A Government from there?

What Else Would They Be Doing?

Doing non-government things. Setting up your major operations in the national capital causes a bit of a shield effect. No one can bomb you, and that capital city, into the ground, without declaring war.

So, if someone decides to bomb Sana'a into the ground because that's a major Houthi stronghold, they've declared war on Yemen.

[Gandalf]

The Houthis collect taxes, print money, and have a justice system. So they're clearly governing at this point.

Interestingly, before this started up again, the Houthi faction was losing favour with the people because of a a whole bunch of domestic woes. However, the strikes by the US et al are granting the Houthis legitimacy, as their rule is in part justified by resistance to US led colonialism. More people are signing up to join the Houthis, which will fuel these conflicts going forward.

[LadyTevar]

The Houthis collect taxes, print money, and have a justice system. So they're clearly governing at this point.

Interestingly, before this started up again, the Houthi faction was losing favour with the people because of a a whole bunch of domestic woes. However, the strikes by the US et al are granting the Houthis legitimacy, as their rule is in part justified by resistance to US led colonialism. More people are signing up to join the Houthis, which will fuel these conflicts going forward.

Of course. Vicious Cycle starts again.

*sigh* Sometimes I wish NATO/US could just wash it's hands of the whole MidEastern area, from Egypt to Pakistan. Just sit back and let them kill each other over religion or tribal feuds and leave it be.
But the West stuck their nose nearly two hundred years ago, the Brits divided them up into Territories and Countries, and now we're stuck with the fallout.

[Ralin]

Sometimes I wish NATO/US could just wash it's hands of the whole MidEastern area, from Egypt to Pakistan. Just sit back and let them kill each other over religion or tribal feuds and leave it be.
But the West stuck their nose nearly two hundred years ago, the Brits divided them up into Territories and Countries, and now we're stuck with the fallout.

Which part of the latter paragraph stops the US from doing that?

[Solauren]

*sigh* Sometimes I wish NATO/US could just wash it's hands of the whole MidEastern area, from Egypt to Pakistan. Just sit back and let them kill each other over religion or tribal feuds and leave it be.

Unfortunately, our current technology requires access to that areas greatest resource - oil.
If a hostile to the west power take control of that area, oil prices will skyrocket. Hell, without outside intervention to keep the area stable, they might anyway.

So, any administration that pulls out of influencing that area, may end up causing serious economic problems.
And that's both career, and possible 'actual' suicide.

However, once we have practical non-fossil fuel engines, I completely agree. Pull out of the area, and tell them we'll talk with whomever wins the resulting Battle Royale.

[PainRack]

*sigh* Sometimes I wish NATO/US could just wash it's hands of the whole MidEastern area, from Egypt to Pakistan. Just sit back and let them kill each other over religion or tribal feuds and leave it be.

Unfortunately, our current technology requires access to that areas greatest resource - oil.
If a hostile to the west power take control of that area, oil prices will skyrocket. Hell, without outside intervention to keep the area stable, they might anyway.

So, any administration that pulls out of influencing that area, may end up causing serious economic problems.
And that's both career, and possible 'actual' suicide.

However, once we have practical non-fossil fuel engines, I completely agree. Pull out of the area, and tell them we'll talk with whomever wins the resulting Battle Royale.

That still won't work since global trade is still going to be essential to the world economy. Especially in terms of providing food relief to countries stricken by climate change.

[Solauren]

That still won't work since global trade is still going to be essential to the world economy. Especially in terms of providing food relief to countries stricken by climate change.

Okay, how does pulling out of Oil Nations, when we no longer need Oil, going to affect global trade?

[EnterpriseSovereign]

An interesting side note, it's not Saudi Arabia that has the most oil anymore, that honour belongs to Venezuela in South America. The problem is that the latter's oil is a a lot heavier than the former, which makes it more difficult to extract and has a bigger environmental impact.

[PainRack]

That still won't work since global trade is still going to be essential to the world economy. Especially in terms of providing food relief to countries stricken by climate change.

Okay, how does pulling out of Oil Nations, when we no longer need Oil, going to affect global trade?

Because the Suez Canal, Red Sea and etc is global trade and we just saw how the Houthi and the Yemen civil war now has global impact from just a few drone strikes and helicopters?

So, Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, etc..... any civil war can has global consequences?

[Solauren]

That still won't work since global trade is still going to be essential to the world economy. Especially in terms of providing food relief to countries stricken by climate change.

Okay, how does pulling out of Oil Nations, when we no longer need Oil, going to affect global trade?

Because the Suez Canal, Red Sea and etc is global trade and we just saw how the Houthi and the Yemen civil war now has global impact from just a few drone strikes and helicopters?

So, Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, etc..... any civil war can has global consequences?

If we are no longer using Oil to power vehicles, we could switch to just using aircraft to fly over or around those areas.

Yeah, at first, it would be a major issue, but nothing that can't be surmounted.

[Ralin]

That's fucking stupid. Planes are never going to be able to match container ships for bulk shipping.

[PainRack]

Okay, how does pulling out of Oil Nations, when we no longer need Oil, going to affect global trade?

Because the Suez Canal, Red Sea and etc is global trade and we just saw how the Houthi and the Yemen civil war now has global impact from just a few drone strikes and helicopters?

So, Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, etc..... any civil war can has global consequences?

If we are no longer using Oil to power vehicles, we could switch to just using aircraft to fly over or around those areas.

Yeah, at first, it would be a major issue, but nothing that can't be surmounted.

Ignoring the laws of physics which will dictate that it's cheaper to ship things across, the Yemen war also diverted airplanes around their airspace when it was hot, causing airlines to lose money. Especially with the Qatar blockade.

So still unworkable in magic land.

[Solauren]

I ran some math on the problem (Air vs Sea shipping). I've rounded numbers for easy math.

Ignoring Fuel requirements (i.e we've magically replaced oil with handwavium which is basically cold fusion), and assuming same transit time, it would take approximately 1 Million of the fourth largest (and one of the most widely used) commerical freight aircraft to equal the cargo capacity that is supposed to be at sea at any given time. (the aircraft contain hold roughly equal to 7 shipping containers, and most cargo ships can hold 150 or so of them.)

So, naval shipping definately and massively outstrips air shipping. No question.

If you account for the speed of flight vs the speed of sail, the number drops from 1 Million by a considerable margin (it's roughly 20 days to go via freight on the sea, Japan to the United States, but under 2 days by plane. For the sake of easy math, I'll assume air shipping is always 10 times faster) to roughly 100,000 cargo planes.

Doable, with alot of effort.

But immediately? I agree, absolutely not. Even with 'handwavium', it would take several decades or not building container ships, and build airplanes, enmass, to reach that point.

[Broomstick]

*sigh* Sometimes I wish NATO/US could just wash it's hands of the whole MidEastern area, from Egypt to Pakistan. Just sit back and let them kill each other over religion or tribal feuds and leave it be.
But the West stuck their nose nearly two hundred years ago, the Brits divided them up into Territories and Countries, and now we're stuck with the fallout.

No, it's not that.

They have petroleum, and that's the substance our current civilization runs on.

As long as that's the case we can never leave, and the Middle East can never be rid of everyone else.

[Gandalf]

No, it's not that.

They have petroleum, and that's the substance our current civilization runs on.

As long as that's the case we can never leave, and the Middle East can never be rid of everyone else.

If the western powers pull out of the area, then some places will fall to chaos. Some will blame said western powers for enabling the situation, and decide to act on it violently.

The long term approach would be to be less colonial, and more cooperative. Unfortunately that's a non starter for a lot of people because the profit margins aren't as sweet, and politicians would lose their distracting boogeyman.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

UK-registered cargo ship attacked by Yemen’s Houthi rebels ‘at risk of sinking’

UK-registered cargo ship that was attacked by Yemen’s Houthi rebels is now at risk of sinking, a spokesman for the militant group has said.

The Rubymar sustained “catastrophic” damage in the missile attack off the coast of Yemen, Houthi military spokesperson Yahya Sare’e said in a statement posted to social media site X on Monday.

The crew were forced to abandon the vessel but are safe, he said.

His statement continued: “The ship suffered catastrophic damages and came to a complete halt.

“As a result of the extensive damage the ship suffered, it is now at risk of potential sinking in the Gulf of Aden.”

Downing Street condemned Houthi attacks on shipping.
The UK’s Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) on Sunday said it had received a report of an incident 35 nautical miles south of Al Mukha, a town on Yemen’s Red Sea coast.

The ship, which it did not identify, was damaged after “an explosion in close proximity to the vessel,” UKMTO said, adding that “authorities are investigating”.

“Military authorities report crew have abandoned the vessel. Vessel at anchor and all crew are safe.”

The Prime Minister’s spokesman said on Monday: “Clearly we condemn any attacks by the Houthis against commercial civilian ships.”

The official said the HMS Richmond continues to patrol the Red Sea to help protect commercial shipping.

“As the PM has said, we will not hesitate to act to protect freedom of navigation and lives at sea,” he added.

The Iran-backed Houthis also claimed to have shot down a US drone in the port city of Hodeidah.

The ship is believed to be Belize-flagged, Lebanese-operated and UK-registered, and was travelling through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait connecting the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden when it was targeted.

Separately on Monday, the UKMTO and security firm Ambrey said another vessel, a Greek-flagged, US-owned bulk carrier, had come under attack in the Gulf of Aden, with the crew reported to be safe.

The UK and the US have carried out joint air strikes against Houthi rebels in recent weeks in order to stop attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea.

Since November, the Iran-backed militants have repeatedly targeted ships in the Red Sea in what they say is an effort to support Palestinians in the conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.

They have often targeted vessels with tenuous or no clear links to Israel, imperilling shipping in a key route for trade between Asia, the Middle East and Europe.

The dangers have forced many vessels to divert around the southern tip of Africa instead of using the Suez Canal, increasing costs and lengthening delivery times.

The European Union on Monday launched a naval mission to help protect shipping against attacks in the Red Sea.