There's a whole very technical conversation to be had here. The Navy developed and then abandoned a class of "littoral" combat vessels in the mid aughts. These ships would have been designed to handle exactly what is happening in the Red Sea. The problem is that these vessels would have to be "fighting" ships. They would have had to rely on a combination classic naval guns for offence and CIWS guns for defense. Its a workable system but not perfect. They would not have been "superior" and I think thats why they were abandoned in favor of more "modern" fleet solutions.

At modern scale you might have a point, but international shipping has been a thing since the 15th century.

Their armament can reach shipping in the straights, with incredible cost effectiveness.

Fair enough. I guess the answer to my gripes it that modern tech require a "land war" when it come to control of the Red Sea.

I know. That was kind of my point. Surely an MEU and a naval support could hit Houthi ports and surrounding facilities then return to the carrier group? Its how we used to fight. Are the joint chiefs taking such exercise off the table?

a sm2 (standard missile 2) is I think right around $1mil a shot.

I keep hearing this from various professionals. Perhaps giving up gunnery in favor of high tech ballistics was a mistake?

muslims don't care about their own lives

I'm not sure I buy this. "I'm willing to die to fight the outlander" is not the same as "I don't care if I live or die." Particularly when the Yemenese Houthis seem to be achieving their goals.

Make no mistake, I don't care about what are essentially 21st century privateers (Iranian letter of marque, as it where), but a Navy's job is not to go fight the other guy's navy. Navies exist to protect commerce. Why is a US carrier group unable to do this in the Red Sea?

Not to change the subject, but I'll see your 8/7 and raise you a 9/11. That having been said I totally buy the idea that Israel had a pretty good idea of what was going on and sacrificed a few of their own to justify military action in the Gaza strip. A proper deep dive will indicate that early Zionists, proto-Israeli intelligence groups, and Mossad more or less invented the tactics we associate with Islamic Terrorism. See also the Lavon Affair . Note the last sentence of the second paragraph

Any Navy vets care to weigh in on wtf is happening in the Red Sea?

All this shit is pretty scary to me because I don't like the idea of sectarian violence becoming common in the US. I wish "Red" states would get off the pot and push for a de facto return to federalism. In some ways this has been happening with small issues like abortion and school curriculums, but we really need to drive home the point the the US Government serves at the pleasure of the people as represented by the states.

OKC bombing

I will never be able to shake the suspicion that McVeigh was a dope that his handlers lost control of, like so many "terrorists" stopped by the FBI post 9/11.

Even the twats at reddit know that Hitch was wrong

A cross I bear around here is to constantly remind folks that "American Conservativism," that is to say neoconservatism, was founded by literal Trotskyites.

It is these progtards that will be the ones that instigate

If you look at what the feds did in Waco, this isn't new. If you do a deep dive into interviews given by federal agents involved in that fiasco, you will find a trend of quasi-religious sensibilities justifying their actions. What separates us from the 90s is that a whole lot of Americans are less inclined to buy into the type of propaganda the Urinalists and the government pushed regarding the Branch Davidians. I'm afraid that a Waco like incident in 2024 could actually lead to a cold civil war, armed insurrectionists and all. This doesn't bother the Feds because they assume they will win like in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam.

a significant portion of the domestic terrorism threat originates from supporters of the former president

How do you parse this if Trump wins in November? Will DHS publish memos stating that "a significant portion of the domestic terrorism threat originates from supporters of the President?" I thought deepstate was a conspiracy theory?

I've always loved to story behind how Edgar Rice Burroughs got into writing fantasy novels. Apparently Burroughs had always been a bit of a "failure' in life, moving from on career to the next without much success. In his late thirties he decided, after reading fiction magazines, that folks were getting paid to write "such rot," and he could do better even if he had never written before. Turns out he was right.

Specifics of the conflict aside, if American troops carried out operations like the IDF, there would be global calls to drag our officers to the Hague. Frankly I'd oppose that because I'd prefer our own JAGs to send people like that to Ft. Leavenworth for the rest of their lives.

To this day (nearly 3 decades after I read them), I vividly recall Screwtape's letter on the "most effective" temptation. The one where he explains the best way to drag down a soul was to get them to focus on all the little things than make one unhappy: "Why can't I get a proper piece of toast," "all i want is... ," "is it so much to to ask that... ." And then allowing those minor complaints to fester and eat away at a person while they blame their family, friends, neighbors, and ultimately God for their unhappiness.

The "line in the sand" exists precisely because the medical profession decided they were comfortable terminating viable pregnancies for whatever reason. They parsed a dilemma and . . . chose poorly. The populations of most American states disliked that state of affairs so they implemented democratic restrictions on that sort of behavior. So now abortionists must tackle a different dilemma: what to do in the very rare case of a pregnancy that will actually kill the mother and laws that involve extreme prohibitions. If you take them at their word and they are not cowards, then they will perform the abortion. That's how you parse an ethical dilemma.

We are in this position because abortionists can not be trusted. They were the ones that turned "health of the mother" into a opening you can drive a truck through. These fuckin whiney doctors you hear on the news are the ones unable to parse an ethical dilemma. Their profession's behavior is what lead to "harsh" legislation that creates the type of situations they complain about.

remaking the Chronicles of Narnia

I will cut my own throat before I watch them butcher's Jack's work "for the modern audience." Amazon's rape of Tolkien is where I first drew a line with things that I will not even hate watch.

(or were)

We have families who's tradition of military service goes back centuries telling their kids not to enlist, a concerted DEI effort in recruiting, and a push to enlist "newcomers." I don't think it would take much to indoctrinate the enlisted ranks into a new ethic. I'm not a veteran, but I've got the impression from some of the guys around here that are that this sort of ideology pushing has become common in the armed services. It starts with the gay shit and moves on to calling the political views of a certain type of American as "dangerous." At the end of the day most people will point a rifle at someone else if they believe that they are doing so for the right reasons. An army unit shooting at Americans will believe they are protecting the country from terrorists or rebels.

A man should not be able to go from general to spy chief to silicon valley director in one life time. Make me wonder about conservatives blind faith that the US military would "never attack Americans."

My congressmen said "Israel is our alley and always will be no matter what." I thought that was oddly strong for an elected representative to say. He's a "Catholic" to boot; in theory, Catholics don't buy into the 'premillennial dispensationalism' that make Protestants so enamored with Israel. Frankly after the vid, I assume he's a diddler and AIPAC has the receipts.

The importance of nomenclature in the scientific method and the Marxist approach to language are utterly at odds. We aught to be at a point in society that we reject emotivism based philosophies if we want to "listen to the science." The twatwaffles in the Academy have managed to have it both ways, sadly.

This thing feels weird. I suspect Merchan is playing up a shitposter from the Court Facebook page so he (but really other people) can say: 'we looked into it and there was no jury bullshit.' Then, when in a few months, a jury member blabs that they all knew they were going to convict from day one, the courts and the press can all say that the Judge already put this issue to rest.

and there was no treatment

I don't think this will happen before some sort of social collapse, but a right wing psychology movement is the only thing that could provide hope for people like this. And by 'right wing' I mean grounded in realist thinking. I suspect that if the social sciences were not irrevocably left wing, we would have cognitive therapy coupled with modern pharmaceuticals the could fix or mitigate "the gay." I've always suspected that the kvetching about conversion therapy was based on the fear that the wrong sort of people were offering therapy. Troons are, of course, a creation on modern psychology.