On 2/1/2024 at 8:30 AM, ballpoint said:

This situation is analogous to the time that ship was stuck in the Suez Canal, preventing fast(er) shipping between Europe and Asia.  All free trading nations have the right to clear the blockage.  With whatever tools they have.

 

Analogous? I though he was a Roman emperor.

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It must worry someone in Britain's government that if the Falklands situation were to happen today they likely couldn't do anything about it.

Britain's navy used to rule the ocean waves, but now it seems to have run out of steam. How could a once proud nation go from ruling half the world ( the empire on which the sun never set ) to the rather pathetic semblance of a navy in such a short time. The Romans took hundreds of years to decline this far.

 

https://www.quora.com/How-long-did-it-take-the-Roman-Empire-to-fall

The fall of the Roman Empire was a complex process that took place over several centuries.

 

BTW what does one call an armed person who kills people not able to defend against him?

Netanyahu?

 

 

 

Rome wasn't built in a day, either.

1 hour ago, sirineou said:

de·ci·sive·ly

 

1.

in a manner that settles an issue convincingly or produces a definite resul

I think in this case, decisively means magically. Because I haven't seen any concrete plan for how this would play out.

5 hours ago, retarius said:

Britain has two aircraft carriers.....one is in the dock being fixed. It was supposed to go to NATO's scary war games that will make Russia shiver. It can't go. Will they send the one from the Red Sea or will it take too long to get there, or would they prefer it remain where it is and kill people not able to defend against it? The Americans are complaining that Britain is not ready for the next big conflict with XXXX fill in the space. 

BTW what does one call an armed person who kills people not able to defend against him?

Russia has one, it has been in repair since 2017. 

 

[ref]

In July, Russian state media reported that Russia's sole aircraft carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov, could return to active service by the end of 2024. Kuznetsov has been undergoing repairs since 2017, and its return to duty has been delayed repeatedly by mishaps and malfunctions. (Other sources add corruption.)

 

More: WIKI

Ship repairmen warned the military that the condition of Admiral Kuznetsov does not allow it to be deployed due to the high probability that it would sink or capsize. ... the metal structures below the third deck were significantly corroded. The holds are filled with muddy water, which makes it impossible to examine the ship in detail from the inside.

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

I think in this case, decisively means magically. Because I haven't seen any concrete plan for how this would play out.

 

Sometimes there are no great options. I don't see how doing nothing would be an improvement.

28 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Sometimes there are no great options. I don't see how doing nothing would be an improvement.

The issue I raised was with this from Sirineou:

"Anyone who thinks the US will not react decisively is sadly mistaken."

 

It looks to me like you're number yourself among the "sadly mistaken"? And, that, in fact, we are in agreement about this.

 

 

Several posts containing personal insults and petty bickering have been removed, as they are in violation of our Community Standards.

In 2002 the US ran its biggest ever wargame where they ran a 250 million dollar simulation against a fictional foe in the ME widely thought to be Iran. The Iranian side defeated the armed might of the navy within 24 hours by swarming kamikaze suicide boats at an aircraft carrier and the rest of the navy. It was so successful that they had to run it again with invented restraints to ensure they won. They are terrified of humiliation by low tech asymmetric warfare exposing their weaknesses. So expect a lot of bluster and posturing but no real significant blows against Iran. It was called Millenium Challenge 2002.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

33 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

In 2002 the US ran its biggest ever wargame where they ran a 250 million dollar simulation against a fictional foe in the ME widely thought to be Iran. The Iranian side defeated the armed might of the navy within 24 hours by swarming kamikaze suicide boats at an aircraft carrier and the rest of the navy. It was so successful that they had to run it again with invented restraints to ensure they won. They are terrified of humiliation by low tech asymmetric warfare exposing their weaknesses. So expect a lot of bluster and posturing but no real significant blows against Iran. It was called Millenium Challenge 2002.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

 

So 'terrified' they just had a massive strike against Iranian related targets.

You cite a report from over 20 years ago....

1 hour ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

 

 

If this was anything as straightforward as you imply, Iran would have already done something about the massive USA presence in the Gulf and elsewhere in the ME. Apparently, they do not take this as seriously as you do....

Another possible threat? 

 

Houthis may sabotage western internet cables in Red Sea, Yemen telecoms firms warn

Telecom firms linked to the UN-recognised Yemen government have said they fear Houthi rebels are planning to sabotage a network of submarine cables in the Red Sea critical to the functioning of the western internet and the transmission of financial data.

The warning came after a Houthi-linked Telegram channel published a map of the cables running along the bed of the Red Sea. The image was accompanied by a message: “There are maps of international cables connecting all regions of the world through the sea. It seems that Yemen is in a strategic location, as internet lines that connect entire continents – not only countries – pass near it.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/05/houthis-may-sabotage-western-internet-cables-in-red-sea-yemen-telecoms-firms-warn

Didn't know they / UK, had a carrier that was sea worthy ...

 

"With the HMS Queen Elizabeth sidelined, the navy may not be able to deploy an aircraft to the Red Sea — as armed forces minister James Heappey has suggested"

 

And he's the Armed Forces Minister 

 

I think they could use a few more jets also.

 

24 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Didn't know they / UK, had a carrier that was sea worthy ...

 

"With the HMS Queen Elizabeth sidelined, the navy may not be able to deploy an aircraft to the Red Sea — as armed forces minister James Heappey has suggested"

 

And he's the Armed Forces Minister 

 

I think they could use a few more jets also.

 

 The UK has two new carriers, so one out of action with a prop problem, and? 

 

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

 The UK has two new carriers, so one out of action with a prop problem, and? 

 

the other in the English Channel area.  Good to keep it close by apparently:

source

22 hours ago, sirineou said:

de·ci·sive·ly

 

1.

in a manner that settles an issue convincingly or produces a definite result.

They will decisively take action which will accomplish nothing, except keep the weapons manufacturers making loadsacash.

2 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Didn't know they / UK, had a carrier that was sea worthy ...

 

"With the HMS Queen Elizabeth sidelined, the navy may not be able to deploy an aircraft to the Red Sea — as armed forces minister James Heappey has suggested"

 

And he's the Armed Forces Minister 

 

I think they could use a few more jets also.

 

Thanks for the link. Although it makes for dire reading I'm chortling as it exposes the "leaders for the bumbling fools I believe them to be. How could any leader be so incompetent as to reach that state of permanent "non readiness"?

 

I liked this bit

The report pulls no punches in demanding action. The U.K. government though is beset with many other urgent problems from the national health service to crumbling schools and a disastrous infrastructure project, all of which call for billions of pounds to remedy. Whether there is anything extra to buy aircraft, even low-cost ones, is very much open to doubt.

 

Oh dear, was it such a good idea to give all the money to Ukraine ( and perhaps israel ) when they had so much more need of it themselves?

 

Once upon a time, in an alternate universe, Britain made it's own aircraft that were excellent, but does it make anything now?

 

21 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

Rome wasn't built in a day, either.

I don't get that. Britain didn't get to rule half the world in a day either.

15 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

They will decisively take action which will accomplish nothing, except keep the weapons manufacturers making loadsacash.

The military industrial complex would certainly love it.  But There are huge special interests  involved 

and I am sure there is pleasure on politicians to resolve this issue. 

Regardless of the lip service the US is giving concerning  a two state solution, no such a thing is going to happen. Israel  like most of the world has a birth rate problem, their problem is mitigated by the very large birth tare of the Orthodox community. It is projected that they be 20% of the population in the next 15 years . 

So don't listen to what the US says, look at what they do. And they just approved a 14 billion military package aid deal.  That does not seem to me like pressure on Israel for a two state solution. 

 

So what remains? The petroleum industry will not tolerate the disruption of 5% of the worlds   petroleum flow. Remember that at a minimum insurance on these shipments  must be skyrocketing  affecting the final price. They are predicting  a $93 per barrel bench mark if conditions in Ukraine and middle east continue. And the Palestine issue will not be solved. 

One or the other has to give. And I think that one thing will have to one way or another be the Houthis 

4 minutes ago, sirineou said:

The military industrial complex would certainly love it.  But There are huge special interests  involved 

and I am sure there is pleasure on politicians to resolve this issue. 

Regardless of the lip service the US is giving concerning  a two state solution, no such a thing is going to happen. Israel  like most of the world has a birth rate problem, their problem is mitigated by the very large birth tare of the Orthodox community. It is projected that they be 20% of the population in the next 15 years . 

So don't listen to what the US says, look at what they do. And they just approved a 14 billion military package aid deal.  That does not seem to me like pressure on Israel for a two state solution. 

 

So what remains? The petroleum industry will not tolerate the disruption of 5% of the worlds   petroleum flow. Remember that at a minimum insurance on these shipments  must be skyrocketing  affecting the final price. They are predicting  a $93 per barrel bench mark if conditions in Ukraine and middle east continue. And the Palestine issue will not be solved. 

One or the other has to give. And I think that one thing will have to one way or another be the Houthis 

The Saudis may have something to say about it because they know the Houthis are not going away, no matter how many bombs the US drops. Yemen is rather larger than Gaza.

One just hopes the US isn't insane enough to actually send troops into Yemen. One hopes that they actually learned something from the Afghanistan disaster.

14 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The Saudis may have something to say about it because they know the Houthis are not going away, no matter how many bombs the US drops. Yemen is rather larger than Gaza.

One just hopes the US isn't insane enough to actually send troops into Yemen. One hopes that they actually learned something from the Afghanistan disaster.

Well you sure are good at slinging dirt on other countries what’s your answer to the hammas murderers scum going into people’s homes raping murdering and burning families alive?personally I don’t see how the Israelis had much choice nor do the rest of the civilized countries in keeping the sea lanes open it is what it is and it sucks

2 hours ago, KhunLA said:

the other in the English Channel area.  Good to keep it close by apparently:

source

and? So 2 years ago it also broke down. Do you have its complete service history or the service histories of US carriers?

 

You think UK carriers are the only ones that break down?

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

and? So 2 years ago it also broke down. Do you have its complete service history or the service histories of US carriers?

 

You think UK carriers are the only ones that break down?

Aug 2022 .... "carrier has spent more time in dry dock than at sea"

 

Launched

21 December 2017

 ... 6 yrs of service, and only half that time at sea, maybe, or a bit more.

 

Sell or mothball both of them, and save the taxpayers a lot of money.  Cancel the freakin F35s also, and take care of your citizens at home.

50 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The Saudis may have something to say about it because they know the Houthis are not going away, no matter how many bombs the US drops. Yemen is rather larger than Gaza.

One just hopes the US isn't insane enough to actually send troops into Yemen. One hopes that they actually learned something from the Afghanistan disaster.

 

@thaibeachlovers

 

The Saudis seem like they are interested in going back to the normalization path with Israel. Less demands now.

And other than in your posts - was there anything said about troops sent to Yemen?

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Thanks for the link. Although it makes for dire reading I'm chortling as it exposes the "leaders for the bumbling fools I believe them to be. How could any leader be so incompetent as to reach that state of permanent "non readiness"?

 

I liked this bit

The report pulls no punches in demanding action. The U.K. government though is beset with many other urgent problems from the national health service to crumbling schools and a disastrous infrastructure project, all of which call for billions of pounds to remedy. Whether there is anything extra to buy aircraft, even low-cost ones, is very much open to doubt.

 

Oh dear, was it such a good idea to give all the money to Ukraine ( and perhaps israel ) when they had so much more need of it themselves?

 

Once upon a time, in an alternate universe, Britain made it's own aircraft that were excellent, but does it make anything now?

 

Once upon a time, in an alternate universe, Britain made it's own aircraft that were excellent, but does it make anything now?

 

sources: Not RT

 

[wiki] The aerospace industry of the United Kingdom is the second-largest national aerospace industry in the world (after the United States) and the largest in Europe by turnover, with a global market share of 17% in 2019. In 2020, the industry employed 116,000 people.

 

Long article, see Current Main projects (about 66+) under these sections.

 

- Crewed civil fixed-wing aircraft

- Crewed military fixed-wing aircraft

- Civil and military UAVs and UCAVs

- Helicopters

- Engines

- Missiles (Hi, Storm Shadow)

- Radars

- Satellites

- Spaceplanes

9 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Aug 2022 .... "carrier has spent more time in dry dock than at sea"

 

Launched

21 December 2017

 ... 6 yrs of service, and only half that time at sea, maybe, or a bit more.

 

Sell or mothball both of them, and save the taxpayers a lot of money.  Cancel the freakin F35s also, and take care of your citizens at home.

Oh I'm sure you'd prefer the UK to up its current 2.3%  defense spending as share of GDP to the mighty US of over 12%

 

No pleasing some people. Besides which:

 

A combination of the nuclear-powered endurance of US Navy carriers and an immediate lack of a UK solid stores support vessel for any UK flattop deployment indicate no near-term requirement.

https://www.naval-technology.com/news/no-immediate-requirement-for-uk-carrier-deployment-to-red-sea/

The United States will not send troops into Yemen, in part because the Saudis are more than willing to do that if the situation ever arises. 

 

What I see in the Red Sea is more military involvement from the Indians and Chinese. The US will then focus on countries in the Iranian sphere such as Iraq, Syria or Afghanistan/Pakistan. 

31 minutes ago, Arindos said:

The United States will not send troops into Yemen, in part because the Saudis are more than willing to do that if the situation ever arises. 

 

What I see in the Red Sea is more military involvement from the Indians and Chinese. The US will then focus on countries in the Iranian sphere such as Iraq, Syria or Afghanistan/Pakistan. 

Nonsense.

When it comes to feckless incompetence the Saudis reign supreme.

When was the last time their military was involved in a successful ground invasion?

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The Saudis may have something to say about it because they know the Houthis are not going away, no matter how many bombs the US drops. Yemen is rather larger than Gaza.

One just hopes the US isn't insane enough to actually send troops into Yemen. One hopes that they actually learned something from the Afghanistan disaster

I will not be presumptuous enough to pretend to know what the US will do, only that they will do something. There is too much at play not to. 

 

14 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I will not be presumptuous enough to pretend to know what the US will do, only that they will do something. There is too much at play not to. 

 

They already are doing something. You have been remarkably coy about specifying what more they are likely to do. It looks like the current level of engagement isn't enough. So what's left, but landing troops? And that doesn't seem likely. And even on the off chance it does occur, what would be the prospects of that for success?

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

They already are doing something. You have been remarkably coy about specifying what more they are likely to do.

Only because I don't pretend to know what the options are.

 

10 minutes ago, placeholder said:

It looks like the current level of engagement isn't enough.

I agree

10 minutes ago, placeholder said:

So what's left, but landing troops?

Not sure if that's the only option remaining. I am sure they have gamed a bunch of options and have assigned a a possible level of success, to each one. ,

I don't know what other options are available, but it seems to me that the US is very good at developing proxy wars. So that might be an option. After all , there is a civil war in Yemen.