Yo-ho-ho and a case of 20mm
The attempt by the Israeli Defense Forces, under the leadership of the Netanyahu government, to destroy Hamas in the Gaza Strip, a war that so far has caused tens of thousands of casualties in the Palestinian territory and a major loss of buildings, as well as creating a humanitarian crisis in finding food and shelter for displaced persons, threatens to expand into a regional conflict, with Hezbollah, aided by Iran, testing Israel’s abilities on the border with Lebanon and of particular interest here, the Houthis in Yemen attacking shipping on the Red Sea.
The possible damage to global trade in the latter escalation were the subject of an interview by Ward Carroll, one-time Navy aviator and author, and Sal Mercogliano, a former merchant mariner and current instructor in maritime history, security, and policy. In brief, the U.S. Navy is building up a presence in the area, and the use of rockets and drones launched from Houthi-controlled territory in Yemen may bring the transit of cargoes through the Red Sea to a halt, forcing shipping to divert around the continent of Africa and causing delays in the global supply chain.
We have already been here in recent years with the COVID-19 pandemic, and given both the on-demand nature of present markets and the precarious nature of economies that have become the norm in this century, a new interruption could tip many nations into a severe downturn, building even more support for far-right nationalist movements such as are represented by Viktor Orbán, Donald Trump, and their ilk.
Attacks on shipping in this region are nothing new, as anyone who remembers the various flare-ups of Somali piracy knows. In recent years, attacks on vessels with an apparent economic motive have been concentrated in the Strait of Malacca and the Gulf of Guinea and nearby waters, and thanks to the work of a number of navies, the rate has seen a significant drop since its recent peak in 2010.
Solving this problem—attacks on the high seas in general and the specific acts of war committed by the Houthis—is no simple matter. If it were, we would have achieved that goal in the seventeenth century or in 1805 or…. As I said above, there has been a decline in maritime violence in recent years, thanks to the use of military force, and more of that may be necessary. We might even have to resort to the age-old tactic of arming merchant vessels.
This is a complicated matter, since maritime law is no simple thing. Vessels registered in the United States, for example, would be allowed to carry some arms on the open ocean, subject to restrictions on ammunition quantities and a declaration to relevant authorities that the munitions in question are not being permanently exported to another country. Entering the territorial waters of another country legally while armed would involve following their rules, and those vary from outright bans to requirements for informing local customs agents and storing the weapons and ammunition either onboard or with said agents.
And then there is the question of practicality. Firing at targets from a heaving deck is a skill that must be acquired if the weapon is manually operated, though that can be done. Firing at fast-moving aircraft in this situation takes a bit more learning. And how effective such activities might be against a swarm of drones or rockets is in doubt. If the attackers are in rubber boats or small fishing vessels, a sailor with a rifle on the targeted ship may very well be able to do good work, but an antiaircraft task with today’s hostile flying machines is best done with missiles or CIWS. While these can get the job done, we all have to consider how expensive consumer goods would become if they are transported on vessels that have to fire million-dollar rockets or thousands of rounds of 20mm ammunition a second. And the first time a merchant ship shoots down a passenger plane or some country’s piloted reconnaissance aircraft, the whole idea of arming civilian transport will be dubious. That is also the case if cranky nations and terrorist groups obtain even more powerful or numerous weapons of their own to overwhelm defenses.
Regular readers will know, however, that I favor structural solutions to violence when possible. In my several decades of watching politics, I have seen a strong isolationist wing in the United States, but the reality is that we are a part of one planet, and if we insist on being alone, we will also be poor, unable to buy nifty weapon systems. And eventually, the rest of the world will force us to be involved, as we experienced in our battles against the Barbary pirates.
The better answer is to reduce the number of conflicts around the world. We do this by making our assistance to nations like Saudi Arabia and Israel conditional on their efforts to reach peace settlements and by genuine nation-building—by aiding the people of a nation to achieve decent lives with opportunities for even more improvement.
Is this expensive? It can be, though it is cheap when compared to the costs we incur when we prop up dictators and aid in the oppression of entire populations. Our choices are to make ourselves a small nation, subject to the whims of any other country willing to take our current place in geopolitics, to engage in a war of all against all, or to build a functioning global community.