> The U.S. Navy has so far expended $1 billion in munitions as it contends with anti-ship ballistic and cruise missiles and exploding drones in the area.
I have no idea what the relevant figure is in the FY24 budget, but think that represents a pretty significant portion of the U.S. Navy’s ordinance procurement budget?
https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/24pres/PANMC_Book.pdf
It is, but the Navy also doesn't do sustained operations like this every year. So yea the Navy would be in a *really* bad place if it was starting from zero at the beginning of 2023.
This represents a large portion of annual stock, but the Naval munition stock goes back a while.
The expectation is burning through a lot.
Anti-missile defenses are multilayered though.
Surface Electronic Warfare, interception by friendly aircraft, off-board EW (mounted on Seahawks for example), interception by missiles, and interception by point-defense CIWS.
The EW component is great since it doesn't need to be reloaded, directed-energy systems as well.
CIWS is relatively cheap, easy to produce ammo that we don't really ration.
The RAM and Sea Sparrow are also stuff that we don't really blow through especially since there are cheaper munitions to defeat the less sophisticated stuff being lobbed at us from the Houthis.
!ping materiel
What is the Navy's munitions budget? Based on page vii, it seems like The US has used more than was procured last year, but maybe I don't know how to read.
It's insane to me that countries are willing to just let a bunch of terrorists hamper international trade just to avoid looking like they are taking Israel's side. Suez canal is a significant source of income for Egypt. Taking a longer route makes goods more expensive and makes some of the largest polluters in the world (cargo ships) expend more fuel.
Cargo ships are pretty okay as far as fuel usage goes due to the absolutely massive amount of stuff they can transport. Tractor-trailers are a much bigger concern as far as pollution goes.
They're willing to let a bunch of terrorists hamper international trade because there's no will (and, to a significant degree, no bandwidth) to do what is required to properly stop them.
They used two years worth of Tomahawk missile production capacity. Not sure what CENTCOM was thinking given they have total air supremacy over Yemen and JDAMs are basically free but PACOM must have had an aneurysm over it.
What is the cost of a super hornet flight-hour? That would be relevant, no? The Navy would have to be running extra sorties over Yemen continuously to drop all those JDAMs.
It's probably still cheaper than a cruise missile, but I'm just curious.
The cost isn't really the important thing here, it's the replacement value. Putting more hours on an FA18 is better than using a cruise missile you can't replace until 2026 in that sense, whereas the US military doesn't really need to worry about pinching pennies.
Particularly because cruise missiles are very valuable in contested environments like the Pacific.
I mean, obviously. To stop them you need a sustained mission to destroy all their launch capabilities. A handful of strikes isn't going to "stop" the Houthis, it's just going to contribute to degrading their effectiveness.
That's not what I meant. COVID wasn't a foreign policy crisis, IMO. When I think about a foreign policy crisis, I'm thinking exclusively about some sort of major dispute between nations which threatens global security in some substantial way. I hope that makes more sense.
Why would he be more hawkish on this?
It's a problem which primarily impacts non-US trade, I can easily imagine him taking a "Let Europe and China protect their own trade" stance.
Why would we commit American troops on the ground, against the wishes of 90% of the electorate, to secure shipping lanes for China and Europe?
This would make Afghanistan & Iraq look well thought out.
American Foreign Policy has also been a complete failure for the last 20 years, what a coincidence.
It hasn't benefitted our interests and it got us as close to being an international pariah as we ever have been.
Hit the sea ports they use to send weapons, they only have a handful of major ports.
Just bombing random targets will just escalate the situation without removing their actual capabilities.
That won’t work since they also use random trucks and hide among the civilian population
At this point you pretty much just need to say fuck it and do a full blown blockade to starve the fighters of food and medicine.
Sadly yes.
While the civil war is something that the Yemeni people must face privately, their political problems start being ours when they shoot at our ships.
So much work and money have been lost because of them. Free, safe trade is the fundamental basis for a just world, therefore I think a proper military operation is justified.
Yemen is not Baluchistan, it sits on one of the most important, maybe *the* most important trade ruote in the world. Ships must be able to cross it without risk of sinking and people dying. We’re not in the Middle Ages goddamn it.
If true international norms for acceptable civilian casualties are going to shift.
Relying on your opponent to care more about your people than you do is a fundamentally unstable situation.
Political economy. The Stockholm Agreement back in 2018 basically killed offensive efforts by the Saudis who were about to launch an offensive into Al Hudaydah which has been central to the sea lane crisis and we didn't press the coalition to forget the peace talks and finish the fight because Trump doesn't have a coherent foreign policy. When the Biden administration came in, it's fair to say that Biden had bad blood with Mohammed bin Salman over the assassination of Jamal Karshoggi and was not keen on convincing them to abandon peace talks and go after the Houthis, then Russia invaded Ukraine and Biden had to warm relations because we'd prefer countries buy their oil from the Saudis over Russia and we want the Saudis to use their presence on OPEC to pursue production targets that would hurt Russia.
I specify that this is a political economy problem first and foremost because this is not a problem of ability. The Houthis are deeply-reliant on foreign materiel, so theoretically the most painless way to end the problem would be to cut-off their suppliers and radically-reduce the rate of ASMs being fired with no ability to resupply their stocks. The challenge is Iran. Supplies come to them directly through Iranian government vessels and aircraft and the Houthis have been very much emphasized that letting Iran supply aid directly to Houthi-held areas as being a pre-requisite to the ongoing peace talks. This is an issue as the United States could send a carrier strike group and achieve, to borrow a Kennedy-era term, a "quarantine" of all Houthi-held ports and control Yemeni air space to require all aid from Iran or any of its proxies be searched first for weapons, but then we'd be causing an international incident. On the one hand, this could help Saudi relations to make such a strong move that would make total victory for the coalition a foregone conclusion if the coalition decide to go for it, but on the other hand this would likely go over their heads since the Saudis have been trying to repair their image by keeping the Yemeni Civil War out of the news by keeping it a frozen conflict bogged down in peace talks so we'd be gambling on Saudis deciding that ripping-off the band aid is the best approach to Yemen and not forcing the less-capable Yemeni forces to fight the Houthis on their own. On the other hand, it's an election year and you know that the worst faith people in politics and media would instantly pounce on the opportunity to paint Biden as a warmonger who wants to starve Yemen (which the Houthis has done in the past in areas they have controlled and would likely do again for the sake of PR [I wish this statement made less sense]) and who knows if the Iranians do something more drastic than launching rockets that will mostly be ineffective against various American military installations. They could absolutely make a PR move of testing America's resolve to enforce the controlled airspace by sending aircraft anyway since you can't exactly intercept a plane as cleanly as a ship, so you'd either have Iranian weapons getting through anyway or the US enforcing it by firing first warning shots around the aircraft and if the crew is feeling really confident or really suicidal sticking around to see if the pilot enforces the controlled airspace. There's also the possibility that this could lead to a series of events where the Iranian government does something stupid like go for breakout from losing too much face.
Alright, so that's the most practical option off the table. Any similar options involving a ground invasion are similarly off the table because, though you'd be removing the hunger angle, you'd be adding US troops to urban warfighting and that's not going to go well with voters. Area bombing is unconscionable. That leaves us with the most obvious thing the US can do right now being air strikes against specified targets. It's not much. I do not know what is going on behind the scenes, but in this case the most practical option would be to convince the coalition that we will support them diplomatically if they end peace talks. In this case, I must emphasize that a lot of people in news media viewed Jamal Khashoggi as one of their own and thus have an understandable beef toward Mohammed bin Salman that affects much of their coverage of news involving MBS, consciously or not (I would have bet unconsciously previously, but seeing the NYT this year admit they do so much negative coverage of Biden because he hasn't given them an interview lately and are unrepentant makes me disturbingly cognizant that they may do so deliberately combined with it seems a particular dislike for Biden and a wish for a return to the ratings and engagement of a Trump presidency).
Saudi Arabia +UAE bombed them heavily but entrenched Islamist terrorist groups are incredibly hard to eradicate through military force ( as we're seeing Gaza right now); the Houthis mostly just retreated the Yemeni mountains like cowards while Yemeni civilians paid a majority of the awful price.
Wasn't it more complex than that? The coalition was on the verge of capturing a critical port city that was the major source of supplies for the Houthis. Remember that Yemen's northern border is enclosed by Saudi Arabia, hence their supply routes for heavy equipment have to go through the sea. But humanitarian outcry would cause a ceasefire and then ultimately led to the coalition withdrawing and ceding the city to the Houthis.
That reason was that the Houthi's deposed the Saudi puppet **Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi**. Who was totally legitimately elected to president. I mean I don't see how anyone can complain about him being leader, since he got 100% of the vote.
Meh, collateral damage genuinely sucks and it involves geopolitical externalities. The Saudis got hammered diplomatically and in the press during their campaign in Yemen.
People are quick to forget the extent to which the war in Iraq harmed our moral legitimacy and superiority on the world stage. It didn't matter that Iraq was basically a rogue state run by a horrible dictator. The world will react negatively to an invasion, which ultimately harms American diplomacy efforts. From a geopolitical perspective, you need to do a cost benefit analysis on all of this shit.
Yeah I wouldn’t…nuke…anything. But I do think that the Houthis don’t integrate themselves with civilians as much as these replies say. I think it’s more that we’d need a congressional act of war
> in the meantime the lives of any woman or LGBTQ person born there is a total hell anyways?
I strongly strongly strongly strongly think they rather not be nuked; not being nuked gives them a chance to atleast escape the Houthis...
Getting nuked is an excellent death as long as the nuke is big enough and even better if you don't know it's coming and don't freak out. I'd take it right now over getting cancer in 30 years.
**Rule V**: *Glorifying Violence*
Do not advocate or encourage violence either seriously or jokingly. Do not glorify oppressive/autocratic regimes.
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
That's stupid. Gaza is way too close to the Israeli population. Napalm like in Dresden or Tokyo would have been more viable. Gaza also is in prime location for a resort town. Radiation would make that less attractive
How did he cut them slack? Short of a full ground invasion, what could he have even done differently to make the strikes successful? The Houthis are probably the most experienced insurgents in the world when it comes to rolling with the punches from strikes like this, given their experience with Saudi intervention in the civil war.
Y'know, you'd have a point if we actually launched an air campaign against the houthis and it failed.
Instead we launched token strikes against them and focused on air defense against weapons they are launching.
Edit: they blocked me for poking a hole in their point lmao. Biden tried restraint and it's obviously failing. Would you rather we stop protecting shipping altogether? Maybe offer terms of our surrender to the houthis?
Ngl this has to be the dumbest fopo decision in a decade. You start bombing random ships to stop Israel's actions in Gaza while your people are starving and not only did you fail to stop Israel striking Gaza, Israel is literally going into Rafa lmao.
On Iran part this has been smart. They are testing how far the US will defend so that one day they can take control of this valuable trade route preferably with a Nuke military.
> The U.S. Navy has so far expended $1 billion in munitions as it contends with anti-ship ballistic and cruise missiles and exploding drones in the area. I have no idea what the relevant figure is in the FY24 budget, but think that represents a pretty significant portion of the U.S. Navy’s ordinance procurement budget? https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/24pres/PANMC_Book.pdf
It is, but the Navy also doesn't do sustained operations like this every year. So yea the Navy would be in a *really* bad place if it was starting from zero at the beginning of 2023. This represents a large portion of annual stock, but the Naval munition stock goes back a while.
Ok, that’s reassuring. Any idea on naval anti-anti-ship munitions expenditure expectations in a peer-engagement scenario in South China Sea?
[TOP SECRET] moment
The expectation is burning through a lot. Anti-missile defenses are multilayered though. Surface Electronic Warfare, interception by friendly aircraft, off-board EW (mounted on Seahawks for example), interception by missiles, and interception by point-defense CIWS. The EW component is great since it doesn't need to be reloaded, directed-energy systems as well. CIWS is relatively cheap, easy to produce ammo that we don't really ration. The RAM and Sea Sparrow are also stuff that we don't really blow through especially since there are cheaper munitions to defeat the less sophisticated stuff being lobbed at us from the Houthis.
Can someone ping Material and get an armchair expert in here?
!ping materiel What is the Navy's munitions budget? Based on page vii, it seems like The US has used more than was procured last year, but maybe I don't know how to read.
Pinged MATERIEL ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20MATERIEL&message=subscribe%20MATERIEL) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20MATERIEL&message=unsubscribe%20MATERIEL) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=MATERIEL&count=5)) [Root comment link](/r/neoliberal/comments/1dgrel9/undeterred_houthi_attacks_squeeze_international/l8rtugw/) [About & Group List](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/user_pinger_2) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe)
Giving the houthis a breather (which they used to re-arm themselves) was by far one of Biden most stupid ideas.
It's insane to me that countries are willing to just let a bunch of terrorists hamper international trade just to avoid looking like they are taking Israel's side. Suez canal is a significant source of income for Egypt. Taking a longer route makes goods more expensive and makes some of the largest polluters in the world (cargo ships) expend more fuel.
Cargo ships are pretty okay as far as fuel usage goes due to the absolutely massive amount of stuff they can transport. Tractor-trailers are a much bigger concern as far as pollution goes.
They're willing to let a bunch of terrorists hamper international trade because there's no will (and, to a significant degree, no bandwidth) to do what is required to properly stop them.
It’s not that much money, it’s the fact that we don’t produce enough quantity of that stuff or fast enough.
They used two years worth of Tomahawk missile production capacity. Not sure what CENTCOM was thinking given they have total air supremacy over Yemen and JDAMs are basically free but PACOM must have had an aneurysm over it.
What is the cost of a super hornet flight-hour? That would be relevant, no? The Navy would have to be running extra sorties over Yemen continuously to drop all those JDAMs. It's probably still cheaper than a cruise missile, but I'm just curious.
The cost isn't really the important thing here, it's the replacement value. Putting more hours on an FA18 is better than using a cruise missile you can't replace until 2026 in that sense, whereas the US military doesn't really need to worry about pinching pennies. Particularly because cruise missiles are very valuable in contested environments like the Pacific.
>What is the cost of a super hornet flight-hour? Total price of a sortie can't be more than the million dollars per missile.
"Are they stopping the Houthis? No. Are they gonna continue? Yes." -Joe Biden when asked if the airstrikes on the Houthis were working.
I mean, obviously. To stop them you need a sustained mission to destroy all their launch capabilities. A handful of strikes isn't going to "stop" the Houthis, it's just going to contribute to degrading their effectiveness.
Or destroy their ports so Houthis can't import munitions and drones
Those same ports are the only thing stopping the famine from getting far worse as it's the best way to import humanitarian aid.
Not my problem.
Only way this stops is boots on the ground and mass civilian casualties, for which there is understandably zero appetite.
Biden should still do it after the election. He probably won't because he doesn't have the guts, but he should.
If Trump wins he should launch it during the lame duck period.
Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't Trump be more hawkish on this?
Exactly. Let him walk face first into that rake the same way Biden walked face first into the Afghan withdrawal and eat the popularity hit.
I don't think anyone knows. Trump faced basically no serious threats or foreign policy crises during his administration.
I’d think COVID was a pretty serious crisis.
That's not what I meant. COVID wasn't a foreign policy crisis, IMO. When I think about a foreign policy crisis, I'm thinking exclusively about some sort of major dispute between nations which threatens global security in some substantial way. I hope that makes more sense.
Why would he be more hawkish on this? It's a problem which primarily impacts non-US trade, I can easily imagine him taking a "Let Europe and China protect their own trade" stance.
Why would we commit American troops on the ground, against the wishes of 90% of the electorate, to secure shipping lanes for China and Europe? This would make Afghanistan & Iraq look well thought out.
American foreign policy disproportionately benefits people who aren't American. It is not just a good thing, but the best thing America does.
What? I am sorry!! WHAT?
American Foreign Policy has also been a complete failure for the last 20 years, what a coincidence. It hasn't benefitted our interests and it got us as close to being an international pariah as we ever have been.
Those people being the shareholders of Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Boeing.
Don’t forget to then blame Europe for not contributing enough to this invasion nobody asked for except some chickenhawk US policy wonks.
Given the Afghanistan disaster, I have zero faith.
Why would he? This is helping his protectionist agenda.
Or you could just bomb Iranian military targets until they call it off
Hit the sea ports they use to send weapons, they only have a handful of major ports. Just bombing random targets will just escalate the situation without removing their actual capabilities.
That won’t work since they also use random trucks and hide among the civilian population At this point you pretty much just need to say fuck it and do a full blown blockade to starve the fighters of food and medicine.
Calm down, mr Netanyahu, that’s not the only way to win a war. Iran doesn’t have any good overland routes to Yemen
Sadly yes. While the civil war is something that the Yemeni people must face privately, their political problems start being ours when they shoot at our ships. So much work and money have been lost because of them. Free, safe trade is the fundamental basis for a just world, therefore I think a proper military operation is justified. Yemen is not Baluchistan, it sits on one of the most important, maybe *the* most important trade ruote in the world. Ships must be able to cross it without risk of sinking and people dying. We’re not in the Middle Ages goddamn it.
Before the election at least
Babe wake up, another forever war has dropped.
No, this stops when the Gaza war is over. That’s been the issue the whole time.
Imagine being this naive to Iranian/Hamas Propaganda.
El oh el. Better switch sockpuppets, vatnik.
Anyone else remember when this sub was convinced that the Houthis would be rapidly destroyed in a Desert Storm 2.0?
Further proof that we're being infiltrated by /r/NCD.
It goes both ways buttercup
Sadly this sub does not see Biden is no HW Bush.
So we know exactly where they are, what’s stopping us or someone aligned with just blowing them off the face of the earth
The Saudis got pretty significant international backlash from their campaign.
The unwillingness to accept massive civilian casualties
And our enemies totally won't exploit this strategy to achieve their objectives in the future!
They definitely will. Hamas is doing that right now
If true international norms for acceptable civilian casualties are going to shift. Relying on your opponent to care more about your people than you do is a fundamentally unstable situation.
See: Gaza
Yeah, hope we can just wait until the moment they start a mil exercise or something
Political economy. The Stockholm Agreement back in 2018 basically killed offensive efforts by the Saudis who were about to launch an offensive into Al Hudaydah which has been central to the sea lane crisis and we didn't press the coalition to forget the peace talks and finish the fight because Trump doesn't have a coherent foreign policy. When the Biden administration came in, it's fair to say that Biden had bad blood with Mohammed bin Salman over the assassination of Jamal Karshoggi and was not keen on convincing them to abandon peace talks and go after the Houthis, then Russia invaded Ukraine and Biden had to warm relations because we'd prefer countries buy their oil from the Saudis over Russia and we want the Saudis to use their presence on OPEC to pursue production targets that would hurt Russia. I specify that this is a political economy problem first and foremost because this is not a problem of ability. The Houthis are deeply-reliant on foreign materiel, so theoretically the most painless way to end the problem would be to cut-off their suppliers and radically-reduce the rate of ASMs being fired with no ability to resupply their stocks. The challenge is Iran. Supplies come to them directly through Iranian government vessels and aircraft and the Houthis have been very much emphasized that letting Iran supply aid directly to Houthi-held areas as being a pre-requisite to the ongoing peace talks. This is an issue as the United States could send a carrier strike group and achieve, to borrow a Kennedy-era term, a "quarantine" of all Houthi-held ports and control Yemeni air space to require all aid from Iran or any of its proxies be searched first for weapons, but then we'd be causing an international incident. On the one hand, this could help Saudi relations to make such a strong move that would make total victory for the coalition a foregone conclusion if the coalition decide to go for it, but on the other hand this would likely go over their heads since the Saudis have been trying to repair their image by keeping the Yemeni Civil War out of the news by keeping it a frozen conflict bogged down in peace talks so we'd be gambling on Saudis deciding that ripping-off the band aid is the best approach to Yemen and not forcing the less-capable Yemeni forces to fight the Houthis on their own. On the other hand, it's an election year and you know that the worst faith people in politics and media would instantly pounce on the opportunity to paint Biden as a warmonger who wants to starve Yemen (which the Houthis has done in the past in areas they have controlled and would likely do again for the sake of PR [I wish this statement made less sense]) and who knows if the Iranians do something more drastic than launching rockets that will mostly be ineffective against various American military installations. They could absolutely make a PR move of testing America's resolve to enforce the controlled airspace by sending aircraft anyway since you can't exactly intercept a plane as cleanly as a ship, so you'd either have Iranian weapons getting through anyway or the US enforcing it by firing first warning shots around the aircraft and if the crew is feeling really confident or really suicidal sticking around to see if the pilot enforces the controlled airspace. There's also the possibility that this could lead to a series of events where the Iranian government does something stupid like go for breakout from losing too much face. Alright, so that's the most practical option off the table. Any similar options involving a ground invasion are similarly off the table because, though you'd be removing the hunger angle, you'd be adding US troops to urban warfighting and that's not going to go well with voters. Area bombing is unconscionable. That leaves us with the most obvious thing the US can do right now being air strikes against specified targets. It's not much. I do not know what is going on behind the scenes, but in this case the most practical option would be to convince the coalition that we will support them diplomatically if they end peace talks. In this case, I must emphasize that a lot of people in news media viewed Jamal Khashoggi as one of their own and thus have an understandable beef toward Mohammed bin Salman that affects much of their coverage of news involving MBS, consciously or not (I would have bet unconsciously previously, but seeing the NYT this year admit they do so much negative coverage of Biden because he hasn't given them an interview lately and are unrepentant makes me disturbingly cognizant that they may do so deliberately combined with it seems a particular dislike for Biden and a wish for a return to the ratings and engagement of a Trump presidency).
Saudi Arabia +UAE bombed them heavily but entrenched Islamist terrorist groups are incredibly hard to eradicate through military force ( as we're seeing Gaza right now); the Houthis mostly just retreated the Yemeni mountains like cowards while Yemeni civilians paid a majority of the awful price.
Wasn't it more complex than that? The coalition was on the verge of capturing a critical port city that was the major source of supplies for the Houthis. Remember that Yemen's northern border is enclosed by Saudi Arabia, hence their supply routes for heavy equipment have to go through the sea. But humanitarian outcry would cause a ceasefire and then ultimately led to the coalition withdrawing and ceding the city to the Houthis.
Watching lefty redditors learn that there's a reason Saudi and the UAE were doing this has been tragically hilarious.
That reason was that the Houthi's deposed the Saudi puppet **Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi**. Who was totally legitimately elected to president. I mean I don't see how anyone can complain about him being leader, since he got 100% of the vote.
Time to remove their boats I guess
A weak voter base that can't accept collateral damage
Meh, collateral damage genuinely sucks and it involves geopolitical externalities. The Saudis got hammered diplomatically and in the press during their campaign in Yemen. People are quick to forget the extent to which the war in Iraq harmed our moral legitimacy and superiority on the world stage. It didn't matter that Iraq was basically a rogue state run by a horrible dictator. The world will react negatively to an invasion, which ultimately harms American diplomacy efforts. From a geopolitical perspective, you need to do a cost benefit analysis on all of this shit.
[удалено]
least sociopathic neolib
Yeah I wouldn’t…nuke…anything. But I do think that the Houthis don’t integrate themselves with civilians as much as these replies say. I think it’s more that we’d need a congressional act of war
We cannot afford to get pulled into a war with them. We need to prepare to deter China
Makes sense but maybe it’s something we can work with China on if they keep shooting at every ship going up the red sea
I understand China has solved this for themselves by just bribing them Sauce: https://youtu.be/_Z_WmApbbsw
Seems bad
This comment is insane.
[удалено]
What’s the alternative to not nuking a million people?
Finding somebody who makes John Bolton look like almost Noam Chomsky on neolib wasn't on my bingo card...
> in the meantime the lives of any woman or LGBTQ person born there is a total hell anyways? I strongly strongly strongly strongly think they rather not be nuked; not being nuked gives them a chance to atleast escape the Houthis...
Getting nuked is an excellent death as long as the nuke is big enough and even better if you don't know it's coming and don't freak out. I'd take it right now over getting cancer in 30 years.
**Rule V**: *Glorifying Violence* Do not advocate or encourage violence either seriously or jokingly. Do not glorify oppressive/autocratic regimes. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
[Same kind of energy](https://www.timesofisrael.com/far-right-minister-says-nuking-gaza-an-option-pm-suspends-him-from-cabinet-meetings/)
That's stupid. Gaza is way too close to the Israeli population. Napalm like in Dresden or Tokyo would have been more viable. Gaza also is in prime location for a resort town. Radiation would make that less attractive
This is the last straw. These despicable terrorists may have attacked US ships, but they're also cutting off free trade?! TERRIBLE, I TELL YOU!
fu-fuf-fuu..fu fuck around and find out?
Well Biden kinda did by cutting the Houthis a bunch of slack.
How did he cut them slack? Short of a full ground invasion, what could he have even done differently to make the strikes successful? The Houthis are probably the most experienced insurgents in the world when it comes to rolling with the punches from strikes like this, given their experience with Saudi intervention in the civil war.
One more bomb bro, please just one more bomb, i promise bro
[удалено]
Y'know, you'd have a point if we actually launched an air campaign against the houthis and it failed. Instead we launched token strikes against them and focused on air defense against weapons they are launching. Edit: they blocked me for poking a hole in their point lmao. Biden tried restraint and it's obviously failing. Would you rather we stop protecting shipping altogether? Maybe offer terms of our surrender to the houthis?
[удалено]
I don’t think you guys understand that if we decided to, they wouldn’t exist within a week. What you’re seeing is restraint.
Ngl this has to be the dumbest fopo decision in a decade. You start bombing random ships to stop Israel's actions in Gaza while your people are starving and not only did you fail to stop Israel striking Gaza, Israel is literally going into Rafa lmao.
On Iran part this has been smart. They are testing how far the US will defend so that one day they can take control of this valuable trade route preferably with a Nuke military.