"U.S. Destroyer Targeted" Topic

Iranian-backed Houthi rebels fired two missiles at a U.S. Navy destroyer operating off the coast of Yemen in the Red Sea on Sunday -- though neither missile hit the ship, the Pentagon said in a statement…

link

Not enough information there. 'Missiles' (bottle rockets? RPGs? Exocets?) fired 'near' (100 yards? 100 miles?) a US destroyer covers an awful lot of ground.

The HSV-2 which was a US Navy ship then sold to the UAE was struck by a weapon that produced a very large explosion. I don't know how far from the coast either ship was, but given that RPG's and ATGM's have short ranges compared to a anti-ship missile, but I would speculate that it was an Iranian manufactured Nasr-1. It is rather small at 3.5m in length and it was fielded with land based TEL's in 2012. It's TEL is smaller than the one for the Noor missile, but the Noor has a greater range.

Saw on CNN/FOX those Houthi missiles, probably supplied by Iran(?), fired two missiles at a US ship. The US took defensive measures. Regardless the missiles fell into the sea. Way off the mark.

Of course the Houthi are denying it. If reports are accurate ? And based on other actions by Iran toward USN vessels in the region. I wouldn't be surprised if Iran "coaxed" the Houthis to fire. But that is just my estimation.
However, they know the US will do nothing … Which at this point may be the correct decision ? But IMO, sooner or later a USN vessel(s) will be hit by Iranian or possibly now, Houthi weapons. Then things may escalate ?

But before that happens. Maybe the US can coax the Saudis into hitting those and any other know or suspected Houthi missile positions …

i side with US Nation and Forces of course …and happy that the missiles did'nt hit the target…but frankly those Houti rebels..of which i confess i don't know much about , have some quite a few reasons to be annoyed by such a disproportionate coalition of unwilling nations that bomb without any apparent reasons their homestead and kill, almost exclusivly, civilians..and so to try to retaliate

I think Yemen is under a blockade so the chances are that yes, it did happen but no, the Americans weren't being targeted…

I doubt the average houthi can tell the difference between ship classes beyond "Well, it's no one of ours".

It did occur, that is clear … Now how the Houthis got the missiles and why they fired them at the USN ? Those are still not clear at this time. And yes, since the US supports the Saudis who are using the Houthis for target practice, etc., …

It would not surprise me if they took shots at the USN. But also, they may not have even knew exactly who they were shooting at ? As already mentioned, more information is needed. However, the US media today is "obsessed" with other events at home … So it may be awhile before we get "the rest of the story" …

Seems pretty clear to me, since I'm not aware of an indigenous Yemeni missile production capability. I suspect they'd be hard-pressed to make metal pots and pans there, let alone sophisticated SSMs.

Those supplying the weapons to them should be subject to kinetic regime change.

I do suspect the firers knew the identity and ownership of the vessels, since they most likely have binoculars, telescopic sights, and intel from local fishermen in the region.

Turrets to starbo….. oh wait…..

Swing the deck into the wind………………make turns for 30 knots

The HSV-2 was fired on at night, so I wouldn't leap to any conclusions about whether or not the target was identified. Just glad no one was hurt.

For info, Yemen had a number of ASCMs in its inventory before the outbreak of the civil war

Yes, it's time to put boots on the ground and swing the civil war in favor of the Saudis once and for all.

I saw a report in a different story on this that stated a similar missile from Yemen was fired at a Saudi airbase also used by US forces in the region but fell short.

Expensive missiles to set up and fire for nothing. How many can unsophisticated Houthis actually deploy?

Yes, it's time to put boots on the ground and swing the civil war in favor of the Saudis once and for all.

Same Saudis that just deliberately targeted a funeral and killed 140 civilians in the process? The same Saudis that blackmailed the UN into removing them from a list of "persecutors of children" for indiscriminate bombing of Yemeni civilians?

The same Saudis that belong to a coalition that has let Al Qaeda take over a third of the country?

The Houthis were a persecuted minority. They rose up against their oppressors and are doing quite well given they're up against formidable firepower. Lucky for them the Arabs and their foreign mercenaries (mainly Colombians but also Australians and others) aren't exactly capable.

It's just a shame their major backer is Iran.

so civilised word..democratic nations..support those bearded ricoulous looking teocratic dictators that behead political opponents treat women like slaves and pay terrorists?…frankly Iran is far more presentable

The good news, is that it was not the USS Maddox that was targeted……..

Just heard on the news. That that Houthis, fired at the US Destroyer, because the US is supporting the Saudis. The Houthi spokesman said, that Saudis are getting direct orders from Washington, DC. And Houthis were dancing in the street chanting, "Death to America" and "Death to Israel". Hmmm ?

It is well known that Shia Iran supports the Shia Houthis. So I wonder who told them the lie/propaganda that the Saudis are being told to bomb the Houthis by DC ? I wonder ?

And it just shows more of Iran's influence on them. And I guess they just decided to chant "Death to Israel", because their mentor and supporter Iran does it. Of course for many islamists, wanting to eliminate the Jews is in their standard dogma.

Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism are in Houthi ideology.*

Along with wanting to kill all the infidels. Which if anyone here does not know … is most of us …

But let me add the Saudis are as big a bunch of islamists as the Iranians. And both support islamic terrorism … just different sides of the same coin … Plus rumor has it, AQ is getting support from some of the Saudis … Who knew !!?!!?!?

*And just a little intel on the Houthis … en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houthis

Yes, it's time to put boots on the ground and swing the civil war in favor of the Saudis once and for all.

The only boots on the ground should the ones we sell to the Saudis. And I hope they are waaay over priced.

[Dave I bet many here don't know about the USS Maddox … but let's see … shall we ? ]

The US has troops and Special Forces operating in Yemen at the behest of the Saudi-Emirate coalition. It is providing intelligence, targeting information, weapons, munitions, maintenance and logistic support to the coalition which is attacking Yemen. Thus the US is a co-belligerent in this part of the forever war and its ships are thus legitimate targets from the Houthi POV. The USN is also helping the Saudi-Emirate coalition impose an embargo on Yemen which is blocking deliveries of humanitarian supplies like food and medicine from reaching Yemenis on both sides of the conflict.

As to the USS Maddox, Robert McNamara admitted that the Maddox was operating inside North Vietnamese territorial waters at the time of the first attack while conducting a signal intelligence mission and coincidently while South Vietnamese special forces teams were being landed in N. Vietnam. He also admitted that the Maddox initiated hostilities by shooting three warning shots at the N. Vietnamese P-4 torpedo boats in their own territorial waters and that the second attack never really happened. Thus the whole Gulf of Tonkin incident was a sham from the start and a pretext for war as Daniel Ellsberg later proved with his exposure of the Pentagon Papers in 1971. It would be good if a new whistleblower emerged to expose the real extent of the US role in the Yemen War today.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Since when does firing warning shots constitute "instituting hostilities"?

"How many can unsophisticated Houthis actually deploy"?

As many as their Iranian allies are willing and able to supply to them.

$170 USD Billion worth, give or take a few bucks, and tens/hundreds of millions more in exchange for additional hostages taken and eventually released.

Ah yes, the evil Americans and their sailors preventing the delivery of "humanitarian supplies" (read troops, weapons, and ammo) into the theater.

One report I heard about the bombing of the funeral was that a lot of enemy fighters were killed.

Innocent civilians also die since those in the region use them as human shields to protect their fighters, weapons, and ammo, so really they have no one to blame but themselves.

Expensive missiles to set up and fire for nothing. How many can unsophisticated Houthis actually deploy?

If I'm not mistaken, they previously hit a Saudi coalition base during a major meeting, killing a good number of commanders or something. It was a pretty high-payoff target. I think they've also hit some ammunition dumps with ballistic missiles. So they will probably continue to expend such ordnance, even if they occasionally swing and miss as they thankfully did here.

Since when does firing warning shots constitute "instituting hostilities"?

If another nation's warship is in YOUR territorial waters and opens fire, can you really tell the difference between a warning shot and poor aim? Should you even give them the benefit of the doubt? They probably shouldn't be shooting at you in the first place.

I doubt there's a 'good side' to support here. Stand well clear.

the Houthi yellow baseball caps are pretty scary link

The US has troops and Special Forces operating in Yemen at the behest of the Saudi-Emirate coalition. It is providing intelligence, targeting information, weapons, munitions, maintenance and logistic support to the coalition which is attacking Yemen. Thus the US is a co-belligerent in this part of the forever war and its ships are thus legitimate targets from the Houthi POV

Yes and those US military personnel are operating under legal orders, by a freely legally elected civilian government. They are doing their duty. That is what SF types do … in boots, sandals or Nikes. I understand why the Houthis are targeting the USN. But I also understand why the USN or other US forces may target the Houthis in return.

As to the USS Maddox, Robert McNamara admitted that the Maddox was operating inside North Vietnamese territorial waters [etc.]

Yes, I'm pretty sure we all know that … Like that entire era … it was a mess …

Legion 4 wrote:

I understand why the Houthis are targeting the USN. But I also understand why the USN or other US forces may target the Houthis in return.

I think you may have put the cart before the horse here. The use of the phrase "in return" implies the Houthis did something to provoke the USA. They did not. They rose up against a hostile and duplicitous government which repeatedly persecuted and openly attacked them on multiple occasions. Then they were attacked by the Saudi-Emirate coalition when these foreign powers could not keep that vicous puppet regime in power any longer. The US is a partner in that coalition and has thus indirectly and directly attacked Yemen and the Houthis long before the Houthis made any attempt to attack US forces or interests. Cause usually precedes effect in most non-quantum event-chains.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

"Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism are in Houthi ideology"…let's be serious please….which is the danger to Israel that could come from those few tribesmen with unsophisticated waepons, poor leadership anf fighting principlaly for their survival and those of their women and children?….but on the other hand the bearded ineducated caricatural thugs that rule as perverse dictators while the international comunity called them "princes" from decades finance all possible ennemies of the Israel Nation and protect even in their country their worst ennemies….

Legion says above:

…those US military personnel are operating under legal orders, by a freely legally elected civilian government. They are doing their duty.

Is this a statement that applies to this particular situation, Yemen, or is this a general justification for anything USA military do anywhere any time? This is an eerie echo of the "following orders" defense that was disallowed at Nurnberg.

Care to elaborate on this?

The only reason the US policy in Yemen is anti-Houthis is because they're shia and aligned with Iran. It's geopolitical, since Iran is overasserting herself in the ME and "must be stopped." The Houthis just happen to be on the "wrong side."

Also, the US is seeking to atone for handing Iraq to Iran on a silver platter after the ill-conceived invasion that toppled Saddam. By supporting Saudi Arabia and vetoing any legislation allowing American citizens to sue SA for 9/11, it hopes to repair any damage in relations with Riyadh and to keep SA as one of its biggest importers of arms.

28mm Fanatik:

So we compound the blunders and crimes of the past with crimes anew, all in the name of encircling Iran and placating the House of Saud? It makes one wonder who we should be rooting for, doesn't it? Whose worse, a mullah who sacrifices so many to his version of god's plan on Earth or a politician who sacrifices so many to further arms sales and political hegemony? The devil lives at the extreme poles of our behaviour.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson

I'm with you, Rod, and I only happily point out the hypocrisy in American foreign policy for all to see.

But apparently we see all too many people here who put more weight on words (i.e. the rhetoric and bluster of Iran) than deeds (the behind-the-scenes machinations of SA).

28mm Fanatik:

My apologies then. It seems my sarcasm detector is on the fritz right now.

Cheers and I'll try harder to master subtext.
Rod Robertson

"Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism are in Houthi ideology"…

It's a quote from the link I posted … Sounds like many arab/moslems on the region … No ?

The use of the phrase "in return" implies the Houthis did something to provoke the USA. They did not.

Let me clarify. The point was IF the Houthis hit a USN ship. Then they could expect return fire of some sort. And probably not just from the Saudis. But fortunately for all concerned nothing hit … yet …

Because the Houthis are being attacked by the Saudis. And the US is supporting them. It is no surprise the Houthis fired on the USN. But they should remember if they hit a USN ship. The return fire from various US assets might be something they don't want to endure. IMO, of course …

Is this a statement that applies to this particular situation, Yemen, or is this a general justification for anything USA military do anywhere any time? This is an eerie echo of the "following orders" defense that was disallowed at Nurnberg.

No … don't read into my comment. US Military Personnel can only follow lawful legal orders. From a legally elected civilian government. And in this case the orders were to deploy to the region and support the Saudis, etc. I'd imagine. Nothing illegal about that from what I can tell ? You ?

If the orders were illegal, violated GCs, etc., those are considered unlawful and should not be followed. I thought you would have known that ? So let me make it very, very clear … the US Military knows the legacy of Nuremburg. If ordered to do something illegal those orders do not have to be followed. Again, deploying to the region to support any ally … well … there is nothing illegal about that.

The troops on the ground do not make up US foreign policy. And regardless, for example, if they like or dislike the ally they were ordered to support. Means nothing … you do your duty. As long as it is legal.

If the ally commits war crimes, etc., … The US troop leadership on the ground is required to report this up the chain of command. To do anything more, beside trying to tell the ally's leadership that this is illegal, etc., try to convince him otherwise, etc., … To do anything more would possibly violate your orders. That is the way I understood it. From the US ARMY Infantry Officers Advance Course in '84 and other sources as well …

Now every situation is different, so don't try to paint [me ?] with a broad bush.

Is this a statement that applies to this particular situation, Yemen, or is this a general justification for anything USA military do anywhere any time?

Let me repeat … at no time did I say or condone such actions. You should have known that … I'd think ? You may think I'm Colonel Kurtz … but I clearly am not …

Kurtz: Did they say why, Willard, why they want to terminate my command?

Willard: I was sent on a classified mission, sir.

Kurtz: It's no longer classified, is it? Did they tell you?

Willard: They told me that you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound.

Kurtz: Are my methods unsound?

Willard: I don't see any method at all, sir.

Kurtz: I expected someone like you. What did you expect? Are you an assassin?

Willard: I'm a soldier.

Kurtz: You're neither. You're an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill.

I only happily point out the hypocrisy in American foreign policy for all to see.

If there is a policy ?

CNN/FOX just said it was two USN ships that were fired upon and again both missiles missed. To paraphrase part of the report, " the missiles were fired from territory controlled by Houthi terrorists supported by Iran … "

So that's the "Official" line at this time …

You can add Anti-Americanism to the Houthi's too, and the dithering over a possible response continues.

A pity we no longer respond in kind when people try to kill our people.

That's emboldened many around the globe.

In the gold old days, the overwhelming response salvoes would be on their way before the enemy weapons even had a chance to cool.

You can add Anti-Americanism

Gee, I wonder why? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the arrogance America has shown in the ME with all the regime changes and meddling in the civil wars of Syria and Yemen.

We've only proved to the world that we're particularly adept at tearing things down without building them back up. Don't hate us for that!

I hate to interrupt your regularly scheduled America bashing/defending…

But, there's new news on the attack. Apparently there were two US ships involved and the destroyer actually fired SAMs in its defense and it deployed a decoy. No had evidence on what effect these counter measures had on the SSMs.

link

This article seems to say that Houthi launched a fairly sophisticated. The missiles appear to have been guided by a radar site and had small ships on-hand to spot for them.

link

This map gives a feel for the location involved:

It's a pretty narrow piece of water that is heavily transited. Also notice that the two tankers siezed on Sept 14 have Chinese names. I wonder if they are PRC ships? I don't see China taking friendly stance on having their shipping seized.

Good intel Tanker !

Gee, I wonder why? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the arrogance America has shown in the ME with all the regime changes and meddling in the civil wars of Syria and Yemen.

That is fine to say on this type of forum, etc. … But those USN ships or anybody being fired at what is designated "the enemy", mean little. It is a matter of survival.

I'm pretty sure those USN crews, didn't say, "That OK you want to kill us because the arrogance America has shown in the ME with all the regime changes and meddling in the civil wars of Syria and Yemen.

Soldiers, Sailor, Airmen, Marines, etc. Don't make up US foreign policies. Let me repeat, those US military personnel are operating under legal orders, by a freely legally elected civilian government.

US Military Personnel can only follow lawful legal orders. From a legally elected civilian government.

And in this case the orders were to deploy to the region and support the Saudis, etc. I'd imagine. Nothing illegal about that from what I can tell.

The troops on the ground do not make up US foreign policy. And regardless, for example, if they like or dislike the ally they were ordered to support. Means nothing … you do your duty. As long as it is legal.

A pity we no longer respond in kind when people try to kill our people.

It seems some may feel that may be OK, because of the arrogance America has shown in the ME.
The US only proved to the world that we're particularly adept at tearing things down without building them back up.

We've only proved to the world that we're particularly adept at tearing things down without building them back up. Don't hate us for that!

But it is OK to target/kill us … Because our legally elected civilian leadershipers' foreign policy is weak to non-existent.

You can add Anti-Americanism"
i don't think we can talk of antiamericanism….neither we ca'nt talk about wrong past US Policy in ME and in general all over the world..in my opinion every US intervention from Vietnam to Gulf War ..including support to Israel..(real one not as the fake one given today)…had been in the sake of freedom and defence of human rights and liberal Christian societies..but today..or at least from Yugoslavian Wars untill today ..it seem they choose as allies or people to give their support exactly the opposite of what good people think they should give to..i can imagine the feeling of Hutus, Serbians minorities, Assad Army, Egyptian Military ecc..once they realize that who they expect to protect them…in fact support their ennemies….

"Assad Army"

I don't really recall Assad's Syria as ever really being an ally of the US. They were in the Gulf War Coalition against Sadaam and that's pretty much it. In fact the USMC made it perfectly clear that "friendly fire" might not be avoidable if the Syrians were deployed near them. I would imagine that most Army units had the same attitude.. all of us remembered what happened in Beirut in 1983 and would have loved getting some payback.

You might have a point with the others, but not with the Syrian Arab Army. They were never an ally.

Firstly, and way back up the thread, if you enter someone's territorial waters, and then 'fire warning shots' at their vessels, how is that not a 'hostile act' ?

Secondly, the Saudis support a particularly unpleasant, radical, virulent, violent and radical sect of an monotheistic religion. They have bombed hospitals, attacked civilians and basically adopted a stance that I have heard advocated on this website a few times. By any objective standard not viewed through the prism of certain media outlets, the Saudis are a far greater supporter of terrorism, violence and extremism than any of the other bogeymen you have created.

Legion – I'm well aware of the requirement for USA military personnel to disobey illegal orders. I taught classes on the law of land warfare in the Army. However, your point about the duty to disobey illegal orders is beside the point.

Is a legal order the same as a moral order? How much iniquity can be contained in the law before it becomes insupportable? When do other considerations take precedence over legality?

Hitler and his regime were the legal government of Germany. His orders were, one would expect, legal within that context. Field Marshal Keitel, who was hung for, among several charges, "conspiracy to commit crimes against peace, planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression". He carried out orders from the legal head of state to prosecute Germany's wars. However, as we know, these wars were not in the end successful. Keitel was executed for following the legal orders of his legal superiors. The court did not consider following orders a sufficient defense. Was the court correct or was this just revenge by the Allied Powers, "victors' justice" as some claimed?

Perhaps you will object to this reference to the Third Reich and point to your qualifier, "a freely legally elected civilian government," implying that Hitler's government doesn't qualify under this caveat so Hitler's orders to Keitel were in fact illegal under the Legion Doctrine. So let's bring this closer to home. John Yoo, while serving as Deputy Assistant US Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel under the Bush administration, worked up legal justifications for torture by USA.

On December 1, 2005, Yoo appeared in a debate in Chicago with Doug Cassel, a law professor from the University of Notre Dame. During the debate, Cassel asked Yoo,
'If the President deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?', to which Yoo replied 'No treaty.' Cassel followed up with 'Also no law by Congress—that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo', to which Yoo replied 'I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that." (From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo)

When does a soldier cease being an obedient soldier standing behind the fig leaf of duty and resume the duties of a moral being?

Complaint has been filed …

Back OT … Just saw on CNN/FOX. Another attack by Houthi missiles on USN craft. I'm sure this is being directed by Iran. And this in not my opinion, but is the US military's, intel agencies, etc., …

The IRGCN tried to start an incident with their little speed boats, previously . US Intel/Military believes Iran is trying to show how weak the US is and that other arabs/moslems in the region should be aware of this, etc., …

Iran and it's allies are pushing the envelope … sooner of later, they may find this will be a mistake. But they have at least a few weeks at most to play this game … maybe ?

Here's the Swift (former USN HSV-2) after it was hit by a Houthi missile. For those not in the know, ship was chartered by UAE military.

She didn't sink but being an aluminium ship, she burned like a candle. I suspect this will be a hull write off.

gcaptain.com/photos-show-catastrophic-damage-to-hsv-swift-following-missile-attack/#at_pco=smlwn-1.0&at_si=57feb9bf7e6b47fc&at_ab=per-2&at_pos=0&at_tot=1

Interesting pictures. I've seen worse on WWII ships though and they were put back into action. I guess we'll see how modern engineering and materials hold up!

Fire can warp hulls and in this case it was a blazing inferno. This also means replacing all the internal bits including possibly engines.

The ships you've shown lost bits but aren't burnt out wrecks. They were also built to take hits unlike the above which is essentially a car ferry.

The USN has launched Tomahawk missiles against three Yemeni radar sites located in Houthi controlled territory according to Reuters and the Washington Post. Will things escalate or stabilise now?

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Hang on, what are Houthi's doing with operational radar sites in the first place?

The Arabs have been bombing this country with the most modern aerial weapons known to man for over a year now and have somehow not managed to shut down three ancient radar
systems?!?

The Saudis/Emiris have massive long range strike capability – F-15S, F-16E/F (most advanced F-16s in the world), Tornado IDS, Mirage 2000-9 and have E-3 support. They also have known access to US intelligence!

If an enemy radar even dares to flick on in Western operations, it gets a HARM or LGB for the trouble. In fact they're usually the first target so they don't get a chance to switch on unless they're mobile.

I suspect the result is Houthis don't fire missiles at US destroyers anymore. Back to your regular programming.