Tuesday Afternoon...
What would WW3 look like?
- Thread starter Steve Shannon
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
- Status
Tuesday Afternoon...
You'll know the Houthi attacks have been neutralized when the global shipping industry resumes normal activities throughout the Red Sea and the Suez Canal. Insurance rates will determine, as long as it's a "war zone". Should the war escalate to the Straits of Hormuz....
It isn't next Tuesday. It's today. The Houthi fired an anti-ship missile today. We launched a Tomahawk at the radar site. The strike came from the Carney at 3:45am Yemen time.
boatgeek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 7,413
- Reaction score
- 7,962
I would take that bet in a heartbeat. They almost certainly targeted the facilities in the middle of the night to minimize human casualties, but advance warning of specific sites? I highly doubt that.
I do wonder how much the Houthis moved stuff around in expectation of the strikes. And how much satisfaction the targeting folks got from delivering a message of exactly how well we can track those movements.
As for the low casualties on the Houthi side, we were very clear that our patience was wearing thin and they needed to knock it off. There was a small strike in response to attacks on the US Navy ship to show that we really did mean business. Then the Houthis launched a large attack. They must have been expecting a fairly major attack. They might well have left some facilities unmanned and/or evacuated them once pickets on the coastline heard military planes inbound at low altitude. And/or they could just be covering up larger casualties.
It will be interesting to see if the Houthis can now mount any credible escalatory attack on a US military vessel in the Gulf of Tonkin Aden or Red Sea. If so, a casus belli will have been established to justify the definitive attack on the source of the malice and weaponry - Iran.
Apparently the UK leaked the news prematurely.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...igures-frustrated-news-houthi-attacks-leaked/
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2009
- Messages
- 5,993
- Reaction score
- 4,101
Fortunately in the future AI will solve all these human root cause failure modes.
For background: For a couple of decades there has been an ongoing debate in UK political circles about the role of Parliament in decisions about military action.
One view, predominantly held by the right-of-centre parties, is that 'Sovereign Privilege' permits the government to decide on matters of war and peace. This goes back to the 18c & early 19c when the monarch decided on foreign affairs and parliament decided on domestic affairs. SP was given to the Government of the day around Victoria's reign.
The opposing view, held mainly by centre and left parties, is that all such decisions should be made by Parliament. Their constitutional argument is that Parliament Sovereignty is undermined when the Government makes decisions on peace and war.
Assembling Parliament and openly debating options would be impractical where military speed and surprise are required, but could be useful for major conflicts where its necessary to send a message to the enemy.
In the last couple of decades Prime Ministers of both right and left leaning parties have exercised SP over some military actions and gone to Parliament over others. There is thus no real precedent for when to go to Parliament for a decision abouit military action, but the emerging trend seems to be that the Government makes the decision, then briefs the Leader of the Opposition and Speaker of the House before taking action. This gives representatives of Parliament outside the Government the opportunity to have their say before military action is taken. It also opens the possibility of leaks if there is a disagreement between the Government and the Speaker or Leader of the Opposition.
This type of political fudge is one of the consequences of not having a written constitution.
One view, predominantly held by the right-of-centre parties, is that 'Sovereign Privilege' permits the government to decide on matters of war and peace. This goes back to the 18c & early 19c when the monarch decided on foreign affairs and parliament decided on domestic affairs. SP was given to the Government of the day around Victoria's reign.
The opposing view, held mainly by centre and left parties, is that all such decisions should be made by Parliament. Their constitutional argument is that Parliament Sovereignty is undermined when the Government makes decisions on peace and war.
Assembling Parliament and openly debating options would be impractical where military speed and surprise are required, but could be useful for major conflicts where its necessary to send a message to the enemy.
In the last couple of decades Prime Ministers of both right and left leaning parties have exercised SP over some military actions and gone to Parliament over others. There is thus no real precedent for when to go to Parliament for a decision abouit military action, but the emerging trend seems to be that the Government makes the decision, then briefs the Leader of the Opposition and Speaker of the House before taking action. This gives representatives of Parliament outside the Government the opportunity to have their say before military action is taken. It also opens the possibility of leaks if there is a disagreement between the Government and the Speaker or Leader of the Opposition.
This type of political fudge is one of the consequences of not having a written constitution.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2009
- Messages
- 5,993
- Reaction score
- 4,101
US has written constitution and we have the same fudge whenever the executive branch and legislative are led by different parties. Our constitution is clear but that doesn't stop the argument.
Last edited:
In our system the party which holds the majority in the lower house is both the Government and the Executive. The leader of that party is automatically Prime Minister. The upper house has a reviewing and reforming role for legislation, but the lower house can ignore the upper house. The King has the symbolic role of signing acts into law. All power thus lies in the lower house. It avoids the kind of deadlock which seems to occur in America where the two houses and President are not all from the same party.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2009
- Messages
- 5,993
- Reaction score
- 4,101
Some of us prefer the deadlock as it keeps the country safe from ruin. Or at least keeps it on the slow track to ruin instead of the fast track.
Today [the 14th] the Houthi launched a cruise missile at one of our Destroyers. I see a larger attack coming from us and the UK than the first one. Moon set in Yemen is at 8pm Yemen time.
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2015
- Messages
- 3,958
- Reaction score
- 2,720
Let's hope that they don't advertise this one beforehand again!
boatgeek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 7,413
- Reaction score
- 7,962
And they hit a US-owned cargo ship earlier today as well. No advertisements needed--there will be an airstrike in the next 24 hours, presumably tonight Yemen time. And after everyone feels good about some pretty explosions in a foreign land, we can go back to forgetting that air strikes do not end conflicts. I'm not asking for a land war, just saying that we shouldn't expect air strikes to cause attacks on shipping to stop.
While nobody seems to be making a stink about the War Powers Resolution at this time, an attack on a US-owned ship gives a little more coverage to the current administration. That said, the War Powers Resolution has been more or less trampled by presidents of both parties since the early 90's. Congress hasn't done its part either, mainly by not taking responsibility for shutting down presidents' military adventures. I'm guessing that they want no responsibility at all, whether it be for continuing a conflict or for forcing a withdrawal if either go badly. It's a lot more convenient for Congresscritters to point the blame down Pennsylvania Avenue.
While nobody seems to be making a stink about the War Powers Resolution at this time, an attack on a US-owned ship gives a little more coverage to the current administration. That said, the War Powers Resolution has been more or less trampled by presidents of both parties since the early 90's. Congress hasn't done its part either, mainly by not taking responsibility for shutting down presidents' military adventures. I'm guessing that they want no responsibility at all, whether it be for continuing a conflict or for forcing a withdrawal if either go badly. It's a lot more convenient for Congresscritters to point the blame down Pennsylvania Avenue.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2009
- Messages
- 5,993
- Reaction score
- 4,101
And there has been no attempt to prosecute the WPA in the courts because it will likely or not be found to be unconstitutional. So the WPA will remain like it always had been, a political cudgel.
There's nothing like the thrill of skating on thin ice.
boatgeek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 7,413
- Reaction score
- 7,962
And with the current originalism bent of the Supreme Court, nobody really knows what would happen. The Founders definitely didn't want the President to be able to embark on military adventures all on their own, but they also didn't want a standing army. I think that the current ambiguity actually suits both Congress and the White House. If the law was found to be constitutional, Congress has a lot more work to do and the White House has somewhat constrained power since it can't just ignore the law like it has for the last 30 years. If the law were found unconstitutional, Congress would have even more work to do (and responsibility for approving conflicts that might come back to haunt them) and the White House would have much more constrained power. Everyone likes the status quo.
Which is a long-winded way of saying that I agree with you.
The Houthi have just hit a US flagged cargo vessel, and had the effrontery to shoot at a US warship, according to numerous breaking reports. Talking heads, bristling with anger and righteous indignation on YouTube, are now demanding a direct strike on Iran to "send a message" that they must make the Houthi stop these attacks. IMHO, the basic logic of the situation is that regional war is now an established fact and further escalation appears quite possible, even likely.
If were up to me. And it isn't. I would keep the Houthi waiting a few days to let their guard done. Then do a truly big strike. Not just 60 targets. More like 160 targets.
The latest news is that our fleet has seized an Iranian ship filled with weapons bound for Yemen. This is probably wiser than bringing out the B-52's.
Edit:
Meanwhile, the Houthi have done some escalation of their own, announcing they will attack all vessels with US or UK flags. Their operations appear to have expanded to the Gulf of Aden, attacking a vessel bound for the major port of Djibouti. Shippers and insurers take note. Above all, Djibouti is of great strategic importance to the US, being the place where our destroyers reload and refuel.
2nd Edit:
There are fragmentary reports starting to emerge of an Iranian ballistic missile attack on Erbil, Iraq, potentially involving an Israeli base, a US base and US Consulate. There may be casualties.
3rd Edit:
Watching CNBC this morning, I see the markets opening down and oil prices up. Also, they report some Americans acting irrationally, such as, uh, "protesting" at Starbucks stores.
Last edited:
We hit them again. This time we took out four ballistic missile sites that were ready to fire.
Well things have gotten very interesting. Iran shot missiles and drones into Pakistan yesterday. Today Pakistan shot missiles and drones into Iran. And the UK and us hit the Houthi again. I saw it was 12 targets.
Iran vs Pakistan???
So I checked this article to find out what the story is: https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/18/world/iran-pakistan-attacks-tensions-explainer-intl-hnk/index.html
The opening salvo in this fast-moving sequence of events began Tuesday when Iran conducted strikes on Pakistan’s Balochistan province – killing two children and wounding several others, according to Pakistani authorities. Iran claimed it had “only targeted Iranian terrorists on the soil of Pakistan” and that no Pakistani nationals were targeted.
But the attack sparked anger in Pakistan, which called the strike “an egregious violation of international law and the spirit of bilateral relations between Pakistan and Iran.” Iran’s state-aligned Tasnim news agency said it had been targeting strongholds of the Sunni militant group Jaish al-Adl, known in Iran as Jaish al-Dhulm, or Army of Justice. The separatist militant group operates on both sides of the Iran-Pakistan border and has previously claimed responsibility for attacks against Iranian targets. Its ultimate goal is independence for Iran’s Sistan and Baluchestan province.
Nuclear-armed Pakistan is majority Sunni – the dominant branch of Islam – while Iran and its “axis of resistance” is largely Shia.
Iran’s strikes on Tuesday sparked a diplomatic spat, with Pakistan recalling its ambassador from Iran and suspending all high-level visits from its neighbor. And after Pakistan’s strikes, Iran on Thursday demanded “an immediate explanation” from its neighbor, Tasmin reported. Nearby nations have weighed in, with India saying it has “zero tolerance towards terrorism,” and that the attack was “a matter between Iran and Pakistan.” China has urged both nations to exercise restraint and avoid escalating tensions further.
boatgeek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 7,413
- Reaction score
- 7,962
Most people reading this thread probably already know this, but just in case...
A reasonable historical parallel for current relationships between majority Sunni and majority Shia Muslim states is the relations between European Protestant and Catholic states in the 1600's and 1700's. A few of them worked together, but mostly they existed somewhere between hostility and active warfare. In the modern day, most of the warfare is by armed proxy groups (Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS, and these folks, who were news to me).
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 1,734
- Reaction score
- 1,384
Pakistan.... Wow! That wasn't on my Bingo card... Makes sense thought. As mentioned in many previous post, the muslim world isn't very cohesive and resorts mostly to "tribalism" when it comes to relations. That is especially true when it comes to the differences between Shia and Sunni.
Pakistan took the opportunity to strike in Iran while the central Mullah government was distracted by other actions and looking mostly to the west in anticipation of possible coalition strikes due to Yemen and Syria. If anything, it's a good tactic by Pakistan. I'd rate the Pakistani military a bit more capable than Iran in terms of military strength, especially in "airpower." (aircraft, missiles, drones, etc) The other strength Pakistan has going for it is there is no fear of an internal conflict like there is in Iran. While there may be some strife within the borders of Pakistan, there is a legitimate government in place unlike Iran. Iran has a "cohesion" issue and the tendency to look the other way when wayward factions do things like the actions of the Baloch. The fact that the locations were so far away from Tehran, they probably had no clue what was going on, much less control it.
Pakistan took the opportunity to strike in Iran while the central Mullah government was distracted by other actions and looking mostly to the west in anticipation of possible coalition strikes due to Yemen and Syria. If anything, it's a good tactic by Pakistan. I'd rate the Pakistani military a bit more capable than Iran in terms of military strength, especially in "airpower." (aircraft, missiles, drones, etc) The other strength Pakistan has going for it is there is no fear of an internal conflict like there is in Iran. While there may be some strife within the borders of Pakistan, there is a legitimate government in place unlike Iran. Iran has a "cohesion" issue and the tendency to look the other way when wayward factions do things like the actions of the Baloch. The fact that the locations were so far away from Tehran, they probably had no clue what was going on, much less control it.
boatgeek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 7,413
- Reaction score
- 7,962
In this case, Iran shot first. Pakistan just returned fire.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 1,734
- Reaction score
- 1,384
Iranian separatist.
The Houthi fired two missiles at an American cargo ship. They missed. We responded by striking two launch sites. That was the morning of the 18th.
There are two other factors in play in the Iran/Pakistan exchange.
Firstly, there is an ongoing dispute about water supplies along Irans eastern (Pakistan & Afghanistan) border. Water disputes along that border have led to low-level conflicts for years.
The second and more important factor is that the border runs through the Baluchi heartland, another legacy of post WW1 border setting by the western allies. There has been a movement for an independent Baluchistan for decades. Both Iran and Pakistan claim to be attacking Baluchi terrorist camps over the border. The claim is more plausible than the opening of hostilities between the two countries.
I don’t buy into the notion that this is a Sunni/Shia issue. There are Sunni enclaves all over Iran and they have suffered no specific persecution since 1979. Irans dominant internal issue is suppressing secularisation. The existence of a 10% Sunni population is not going to worry the Ayatollahs unless the Sunnis join the secular uprising, which is unlikely as it would undermine their own Sunni culture.
Firstly, there is an ongoing dispute about water supplies along Irans eastern (Pakistan & Afghanistan) border. Water disputes along that border have led to low-level conflicts for years.
The second and more important factor is that the border runs through the Baluchi heartland, another legacy of post WW1 border setting by the western allies. There has been a movement for an independent Baluchistan for decades. Both Iran and Pakistan claim to be attacking Baluchi terrorist camps over the border. The claim is more plausible than the opening of hostilities between the two countries.
I don’t buy into the notion that this is a Sunni/Shia issue. There are Sunni enclaves all over Iran and they have suffered no specific persecution since 1979. Irans dominant internal issue is suppressing secularisation. The existence of a 10% Sunni population is not going to worry the Ayatollahs unless the Sunnis join the secular uprising, which is unlikely as it would undermine their own Sunni culture.
Early 1800's, can't wait!
- Status
