When did I say that it had anything to do with Bush’s humanity?
Anything but a defensive war against North Korea is impossible because the South Koreans would object to the serious risk that 10 million of its citizens becoming hamburger under North Korean (conventional)artillery shells, and wouldn’t allow U.S. troops to stage from there. As neither of N. Korea’s other neighbors (China and Russia) would look kindly on 500,000-1,000,000 U.S. troops on their soil, and the U.S. lacks that amphibious assault capabililty to tackle N.Korea, war is an impossibility.
Gee, those are pretty much exactly the same points I keep making about Iraq, but nobody seems to believe me.
Actually, I’ve revised my thinking slightly on Iraq. There still won’t be any invasion, but I now think there’s an even chance of a Gulf War-style air assault (which we can do even without the Saudis). Combined with vague threats of invasion, I suspect the plan will be to see if the Iraqi military takes out Saddam. Just a guess.
Hmmm…Not sure about it being legal. I know nothing about the laws or treaties applying in high seas, but does it mean that the the Italian navy, at the request of Egyptia, could board and inspect a US weapon shipment headed to Israel, for instance? I somewhat doubt it…
Under admiralty, the ship’s flag determines the source of law. For example, a ship flying the American flag in the Persian Gulf would be subject to American admiralty law; and a ship flying a Norwegian flag in American waters will be subject to Norwegian admiralty law. This also applies to criminal law governing the ship’s crew. But the ship must be flying the flag legitimately; that is, there must be more than insubstantial contact between the ship and its flag, in order for the law of the flag to apply. American courts may refuse jurisdiction where it would involve applying the law of another country, although in general international law does seek uniformity in admiralty law.
Which is saying that a ship flying no flag is under no law, logically. Trying for more information.
Ship was flying no flag:
(Lot of those psycho gold fringed flag sites)
Ooh! Pirates!
Eh, can’t find anything better. Basically, it looks like, if you’re flying no flag, you’re claiming not to be a citizen of any country, and therefore fair game.
Has anyone found anything that might shed light on why Yemen would want to part with X Million dollars for a missile that can’t hit anything smaller than a city and lacks target?
Now here’s a question. How do you use a Scud for defensive purposes??? It is a missile that carries up to a ton of explosive warhead, or a nuclear device. If Yemen wants defensive weapons, surely they should be buying things like Patriot missiles to fight off Scuds!
Yes, I am quite sure under international law navy vessels have the right to visit, inspect cargo and papers. This is often done in areas where pirates operate or in times of conflict. Navy vessels of any flag can enforce international law and treaties (for example regarding pollution or fishing). OTOH, navy vessels of any flag enjoy sovereign immunity and cannot be stopped, boarded or inspected. I cannot find a cite in supoport of this but I am quite sure that is the way it is.
You don’t always have to threaten the geographical countries of potential invaders in order to deter them; in the Yemeni case, it appears that their missiles are a threat to potential invading forces.
Fair enough. I was under the impression that the Scud had poor accuracy (i.e. it can hit a target the size of a city). That would seem to make it a poor choice when engaging a mobile land force.
It also would mean that the threat existed outside of the Scuds range, otherwise you could threaten geographic targets.
They’ve got Saudi Arabia to the north, Oman to the east, Somalia across the Gulf of Aden to the south, Eritrea and Djibouti to the west, also across a body of water, the Red Sea (and the Gulf). So who exactly, out of those suspects, do the Yemenis have pegged as the folks who must be deterred by the purchase of Scuds?
The only reason I could come up with why anyone would want Yemen would be the strategic value. BTW, the Port of Aden is where the USS Cole was bombed.
But I’m not familiar enough with Arab world politics to know who would try to capture Yemen and the Port and then be in a position to dictate terms to the world’s shipping, not to mention the U.S. Navy.
I’m no military expert but how useful is a Scud in closing down shipping lanes?
The ships move at what 20 kmph? Seems that you would need a much more accurate tool than a Scud to hit it. Even the threat of closing a busy international shipping lane would bring the usual suspects out to ensure the security of world trade.
So at $4M for what 12 Scuds gives us ~10% of their declared military budget to achieve…?
Following from CNN
"Authorities say the ship was traveling instead to the Horn of Africa. Because Scud missiles cost about $4 million on the black market… "
It doesn’t look like you can close a shipping lane with Scuds (chemical/biological disperse; nuclear vaporizes a lot of water).
It does look like you could hit land forces with chemical/biological weapons but your accuracy drops dramatically with range. So you can’t really threaten forces outside of Yemen. This seems to imply that the threat is outside of a Scud range but has the potential to engage in land/naval activity within it.
Seems far fetched to think Yemen has that kind of threat (the raging Djboutis not withstanding)
It looks more and more like Yemen is acting as a middle man
