Defense is for Losers

While I do not wish to replicate the French General Staff's élan mistake*, there are cases where defending is losing, and missile defense is one of them. I don't know what will happen in the Red Sea or as a result of it, but I know what will not happen. The United States will not defend thousands of ships from incoming missiles and drones without wiping out bad guys in Yemen. Task Force 153 will never be manned or equipped for this task, as it is impossible.

In my heart, I hope that this is all "Nice doggie" while we get subs and big-wing assets in place to strike from one end of Yemen to the other. The defense available from ship-based magazines is rapid and impressive, but very thin. Our defense for anything but our own Navy ships—and for any target at a distance—is missiles, and our missile launchers cannot be reloaded at sea. Even if they could, missile numbers are limited. There are some more, but there are not lots more.

If I were China, I would do whatever it took to get some sensor packages on some of those drones.

Just saying.

As Ward Carroll alludes in the video below, back in the Cold War we used to say "shoot the archer, not the arrows" and this applied to any defensive effort, not just his beloved Tomcat. In fact, it becomes useful to think of our destroyers (the missile tubs) over there as if they were aircraft. No reloads, limited loiter time; useless after a few engagements. Sure, you bring the plane back to the ship, but that's not presence—that's absence. Same with bringing the ship back to port.

Global shipping is in for a nasty turn if this doesn't get cleared up fast. We can expect another supply chain disruption—as if we had actually recovered from the well-known one.

This administration is probably being outpaced by events (perhaps there are magnificent things being warmed up as I speak, but...). We are sleep-shouting into WWIII not for whom we support but for how we fail at that task.

Islam took Constantiople in 1453, severing much trade and degrading the rest. Europe was cut off from the Silk Road except at risk and loss of life and limb, and with punishing bribery rates when trade was even possible. "Spice" from the east was not solely flavor for food, but a preservative, a medicine, and a hygienic aid as well. Columbus went west in no small measure because the eastern route had become unsustainable.

There is no fourth world to go through. We will defeat our enemies or be conquered.

* More of a putrefying zeitgeist issue but with roots in policy, curdling in the military culture. Take a truth and enshrine it at the expense of other truths, and soon enough you have a cult.