Not sure what could be other outcome. They only fire defensively and when you do it, eventually you have to go back to port to reload missiles. Only way to definitely end the attacks is to put boots on the ground and clear it - but big question is where to put the captured anti-Western population that results. Keeping them in Yemen itself, say in concentration camps until they age out, will not be acceptable from human rights standpoint because of scorching heat: living there overall amounts to torture. Which country will allow placing that much captive population on it's territory? I can't see how it can work.
You're very funny. Boots on the ground? Are you aware that a Saudi coalition (with generous Western support, mercenaries, etc.) has stalled for over 9 years, throwing away tens of thousands of lives trying to defeat the Houthis? The only parts of the country the coalition controls are largely empty and sparsely populated.
That's the funny thing about asymmetric warfare: militants gouge your eye with weapons that cost $1k to $10k - you retaliate with a $4m Tomahawk, and repeat this process nonstop until you're exhausted and leave after 20 years (remember Afghanistan).
You may have the watches, but they have the time.
It took the US less than 6 weeks to take Kabul, but the Taliban simply retreated into the villages and continued their insurgency until they drove the US.
You seem quite eager to recreate gulags. This is not what most people consider an acceptable 'solution'. In fact, if you're going this far, it would be considered more humane to wipe them out with a nuke.
Are you seriously proposing to isolate/deport an entire population? And furthermore, do you really think that the only thing that would make it a human rights violation would be the heat? Am I missing the joke?
"The Alsace entered the Red Sea in late January, a few weeks after the US and UK launched an illegal war on Yemen to protect Israeli shipping interests."
I don't know if any war can be legal, but in my POV attack to defend is acceptable.
As for the statement "there is no military solution", I would say that there is.
First, it's obvious that traditional weapons are not designed to be efficient in this kind of guerrilla warfare, where cost vs. benefit is a significant factor. A drone costs only a few hundred dollars. Using a missile to destroy a drone makes as much sense as using a cannon to kill a sparrow. A laser weapon is clearly the way to go.
Another threat is the cheaply produced rebel missiles. Destroying them on target is costly, even for the cost-optimized Israeli Iron Dome system. So I think the most sensible solution is an automatic weapons system with eyes in the sky: constant surveillance, and using AI to proactively strike before the rebels can even launch a missile. The goal is to actively destroy their launch site/base and/or shorten their launch window to the point where they can no longer accurately aim. Or, the enemy may have to implement a more costly and sophisticated launch system (such as remote launch), which again balances the cost-benefit ratio for the defender.
The surveillance part can be achieved by a combination of stationary satellites, drones and EC aircraft. Detecting and launching a proactive attack is not too hard. The hard part is the legality and the danger such an automatic weapons system poses to civilians and humanity in general.
