Will US attack Yemen in 2023?

When will this resolve?

2 days

Don't forget: IT IS 2024 🎶 USA IS NOT AT WAR 🎵

General considerations applicable to other comparable cases: [link removed] public narrative/beliefs changed towards “US attack Yemen”? West main stream narrative? Any Yemeni public’s evidence of viewing this as being attacked by US? [link removed] rule interpretation create an advantage for results that are consistent with main stream narrative? What is the alternative narrative (referring to more Yemeni-friendly narra, not conspiracy narratives) and does it put main stream narrative under challenge? [link removed] deciding any side create any legal or other risks that will be used by people to challenge the result to other directions? [link removed] the fact considered a very special extension of the interpretation of rules that result the market deviating from its original context? [link removed] the technical issues and severity of degree matter enough to change public general views?

If all properly addressed I will consider Yes build a strong case to deviate away from mainstream headlines and thus a legit dispute

Other than that No buyers are taking not properly defined risk, and can be so easily challenged by a technical dispute

In practice, there is a huge difference between attacking anything in ambiguous waters and clear territorial waters. The rules has left enough room to be interpreted as “start a strike in a preemptive manner in clear Yemeni territory”, as opposed to “a contingent defend” in highly ambiguous waters. Even if Yes-side could have provided a somewhat disputable attack location with proximity to Haycock island, US still don’t acknowledge nearby region as clear Yemeni territory. The island is still subject to disputes after 1998 UN documents, while US only fully acknowledges UN security council resolution (occasionally don’t) as opposed to other UN documents.

Now let's say you want to mechanically use the rules (which I don't agree). Let's assume the third party coordinates of the 2nd distressed calls is accurate and arguably within Yemeni waters. Large cargos can travel as fast as 24 nm/h, and it makes no sense for ships stop moving when face an attack. The only reasonable response is turning westward and getting closer to Eritrean waters. 40-50 min later attack happened, the speed would imply 15 nm-20nm away from the distress call location. In theory it can end up anywhere in map. But in practice it may well be westward and be very far away from Yemeni island, unless the ship don't want to escape and plan to surrender to Houthis(obviously not the case))

speculation. We only have access to the provided coordinates by the ship captain. These show the ship within Yemen territory at the time of attack. The typical route for cargo ships following this route, continues within Yemenis territory for another 24nm.

Again both sides cannot prove anything. No because it's mainstream view and interpretation of rules should be biased towards mainstream view

interesting theory, i dont think me and apsalar have ever been seen in the same room before so you might be onto something 🤔

If you want to make alts, Dumfuq ASSpalar, you need to make an effort. Nobody else has these levels of IMBECILITY and ARROGANCE, Decap, you give yourself away.

It's more akin to defending against Somali pirates that try to hijack boats. It's not similar to raiding Iraq or Syria in any fashion. Common sense will tell.

That's right. Statement from Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III on Ensuring Freedom of Navigation in the Red Sea: [link removed]

I would agree, but, the rules spell out that attacks on Houthi's count for yes. (e.g. if a Houthi weapons depot on Yemeni soil is subject to a US missile strike, this market will resolve to "Yes"). If this clause was not included it would be more debatable. However it was.

ASSpsalar, are you a retard who enjoys losing money on LoL markets then lying about it? You have that vibe, of a dumbass who can only post idiotic bullshit as you lie and scam all day.

The fire is self-defense in international waters. The U.S. Navy had every right to do so. UKMTO incident time and Centcom incident time are different. The locations are obviously different as well. No one blames the U.S. for that, even the Houthis. This is not an attack on Yemen

Nobody gives a fuck what you want, neocon retard. Go die in Yemen yourself, stupid fucking coward.

CNN: The US has avoided directly striking the group inside Yemen as it seeks to avoid escalating the crisis further. But a National Security Council spokesman said Sunday that the US would continue acting in self-defense. “We’ve got significant national security interests in the region just on our own … and we’re going to put the kind of forces we need in the region to protect those interests and we’re going to act in self-defense going forward,” Kirby said. [link removed]

FYI, I realized a few hours ago that the US military is not allowed to initiate a military strike without either (1) Congress declaring war or (2) Biden invoking the War Powers Resolution. Neither has happened here. So a "yes" resolution here would be labeling the US helicopter crew as criminals. I think it's No even beside that, but to me this locks it in. UMA/Polymarket can't be going around labeling the US military as criminals with 0 evidence to back it up. I've posted all of this in the UMA discord thread on the dispute.

Touch grass, Cringelord. You're not funny.

The location is close to Haycock island (Yemeni island) as compared to Haycock islands (Eritrean island). But no one is able to verify location of distress calls and where attack happened. That place is not as disputable as Southern red sea, but it is close to Saudi waters and channel west of the island is not marked by anyone, which is likely the route is. Again I hate turning this into technical issue, but those who assert on location should be aware that your analysis is flawed

No I'm just saying the accuracy is not enough to determined this issue. No evidence shows it has any more credibility than US government

Haycock islands (Eritrean island) is a narrow waters that claim by both sides, which put 12 nmiles rules under question. On Haycock island case, there are no overlap of islands but they are too close to Saudi waters and an empty lane west bound.

UK MTO provided precise coordinates that are within 12 na and clearly Yemeni territorial waters.

Ships are moving and some large cargo can move as quickly as 24 nm per hour. 50 min would be close to 20 nm, resulting the possibility of ending up anywhere when attacks happened

When expected the decision?

Wen Dispoot?

I’m not sure why people are arguing about the location of the incident. The United States did not initiate an attack. They were fired upon and returned fire. Absolutely not the same thing as “initiating an attack”. I was YES up until the deadline, but I am more than happy to buy NO now, as the facts clearly do not support a YES outcome here.

1) Location seems off its territorial water judging from a map (not saying 100% accurate); 2) Anyone who buy no shares is not reasonably aware of the risk of word interpretation and territory [link removed] from essence of market, this market is about military expert gauging on a low probability attack that is conducted in a pre-emptive manner, where "initiate" could be interpreted as pre-emptively based on spirit of market and headline. 3) Mechanically understand the rules as deciding whether any fire around any islands would risk legal disputes

The UKMTO report states the location of the incident, about 8.5 miles from Yemeni land, within the 12-mile territorial waters that the United States and Yemen recognize. 15°22'45.00"N 41°46'47.00"E , Incident #530 reported at [link removed] . The report also states that the small boats departed. Centcom says that armed crew aboard the Maersk ship fired on the small boats to prevent a hijacking. Where would the small boats go when they departed, after taking fire, and knowing there would be a response by the naval coalition? Would they expose themselves by motoring farther into the middle of the Red Sea away from Yemen? Or would they flee back toward Yemeni land? I would guess they were rushing back to Yemeni land, like to those nearby Yemeni islands, which would make it more likely that the US Navy engaged them even deeper inside Yemeni territorial waters, not farther from Yemen outside Yemen's territorial waters

Reported as 60 nautical miles north west of Yemen. And that seems ti have been picked up in the media as well. So would appear to be in international waters right? Though i might be missing something here?

[link removed]

It would be nice if somebody could locate a track for the Maersk Hangzhou to see their exact location for the times in question, but I haven't found anything, so I don't know if they were sharing their position, considering the dangerous waters they were transiting.

MAERSK HANGZHOU Draught (Reported/Max): 17 meters. Depths outside the 12-mile zone are greater than 100 meters (check it out for yourself on Google Earth). You can see maritime traffic at [link removed] Ships only need a 5-15 minutes to pass the danger zone. And that's why the Houthis have failed. And Houthis didn't claim their borders were violated by the U.S. Navy helicopters

No, there are no coordinates. “The U.S. Navy helicopters returned fire in self-defense, sinking three of the four small boats, and killing the crews.” - Centcom didn't say where it happened

In taking those steps the U.S. Navy has acted in accordance with international law. That's why we haven't seen any protests from Yemen. The fire was opened in international waters.

It was about 8.5 miles from Yemeni land where the incident occured. UKMTO now shows coordinates of the small boat attempted boarding incident (Incident #530), and it is about 8.5 miles from Yemeni territory (see more info and maps just posted to Discord). Location is 15°22'45.00"N 41°46'47.00"E , reported at [link removed] . You can input the coordinates yourself on Google Earth and trace a line about 8.5 miles from Yemeni land.

UKMTO Incident time - 2:47 UTC. Centcom Incident time - 6:30 Sanaa time (3:30 UTC), 43 minutes later. These things should not be confused. “MAERSK HANGZHOU” speed recorded (Max / Average): 21.2 knots / 18.9 knots. That gives us 15 nautical miles in 43 minutes. UKMTO location is probably Yemeni territorial waters (9 miles from the island). Centcom location of the U.S. Navy's helicopters attack is unknown (they arriving 43 minutes later.). The US see them as international waters (9+15=24 miles, anything beyond 12 miles is legally international waters). Centcom claims self-defense, not an attack on Yemeni territory.

I realize it's not easy to admit , but we have two incidents . 1. Attempted boarding. 2. Helicopter attack

The UKMTO report states the location of the incident, about 8.5 miles from Yemeni land, within the 12-mile territorial waters that the United States and Yemen recognize. The report also states that the small boats departed. Centcom says that armed crew aboard the Maersk ship fired on the small boats to prevent a hijacking. Where would the small boats go when they departed, after taking fire, and knowing there would be a response by the naval coalition? Would they expose themselves by motoring farther into the middle of the Red Sea away from Yemen? Or would they flee back toward Yemeni land? I would guess they were rushing back to Yemeni land, like to those nearby Yemeni islands, which would make it more likely that the US Navy engaged them even deeper inside Yemeni territorial waters, not farther from Yemen outside Yemen's territorial waters.

New info just posted on discord illuminates a possible reason the ship was in Yemeni waters and would have trouble fleeing away from Yemeni waters. The sea in the area of the attack is 2000 ft deep, but farther to the center of the sea, farther from Yemen, it is much shallower, as shallow as 5 feet according to Google Earth. Other sources show depths of about 100 feet, and down to 0 feet farther west, so there is some discrepancy regarding the exact depth, but it is definetly shallower if you travel farther from the Yemeni coast. You can use Google Earth and look at the bottom right elevation, and it shows the water depth as a negative number. So three miles farther west from the attack incident, for example, according to Google Earth, the sea is much shallower. Presumably the Houthis know that this is a vulnerable area--the ships have to transit within Yemeni waters there because of depth constraints farther from Yemeni waters. The ships are boxed in and vulnerable there, close to those Yemeni islands. [link removed]

There's a small danger zone (just a few miles). The ship has a speed of 21 knots (nautical miles per hour). No one (Centcom, U.S. government, the Houthis, ВВС, CNN, Reuters, AP, AFP, Xinhua, ...) is talking about “territorial waters” or Yemeni maritime territory. Centcom claims self-defense. The Houthis confirmed it was self-defense. Game over