Two ballistic missiles were fired from Houthi rebel-controlled Yemen toward a US warship in the Gulf of Aden, after the US Navy responded to a distress call from a commercial tanker that had been seized by armed individuals, the US military said Sunday.

The tanker, identified as the Central Park, had been carrying a cargo of phosphoric acid when its crew called for help that “they were under attack from an unknown entity,” the US Central Command said in a statement.

The USS Mason, a guided-missile destroyer, and allied ships from a counter-piracy task force that operates in the Gulf of Aden and off the coast of Somalia responded to the call for help and “demanded release of the vessel” upon arrival, Central Command said.

“Subsequently, five armed individuals debarked the ship and attempted to flee via their small boat,” said the statement posted on social media platform X.

  • Madison420@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    32
    ·
    10 months ago

    It just means they follow a ballistic trajectory instead of direct fire like a tow missile.

    It doesn’t really matter no, they’re just trying to make it sound scary. You gotta remember like half or more of the population won’t know that and don’t have the critical thinking to look it up.

    Fun fact in this case it’s a ballistic and a cruise missile. Likely a sayyad version of the qud missile which is itself likely a recased version of an Iranian missile.

    • schmidtster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      How are they trying to make it sound scary? They are literally just telling you the type of missle. Cruise vs ballistic. Anything else is in your head.

      People don’t need to look anything up, it’s not denoted as intercontinental, so why would you assume that?

      You’re the one trying to make it sound scary lmfao. The article is fine and don’t claim critical thinking when you’re lacking it yourself. People aren’t going to assume icbm since it wasn’t ever mentioned until you did….

      • Cinner@lemmy.worldB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        The vast majority of the public understands “missile fired from ship” to mean a missile fired from a ship, like they’ve seen in the movies. Hits the ship and goes boom. “Ballistic missile” invokes the misunderstanding of a missile with a nuke attached as the warhead.

          • Cinner@lemmy.worldB
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            10 months ago

            The media says ballistic missiles when they want to invoke the idea of ICBM with nuclear warheads. If you didn’t realize that, then you’ve never watched the news during a time of tense international relations, which means you’re likely quite young. No reaching required.

            • schmidtster@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              10 months ago

              Not young at all and no they aren’t. There’s nothing to imply icbm from ballistic, cruise would be more worrisome in reality than ballistic, so making the distinction removes an issue there.

              And why are you assuming nuclear with icbm? None of those are related unless you make the biased connection.

              You are reaching even worse now……