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
    26
    arrow-down
    36
    ·
    1 year 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.

      • Cinner@lemmy.worldB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year 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
            ·
            1 year 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.

      • Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        41
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s called sensationaliam, adding a detail for no reason in the headline is the very definition of it.

        I don’t. Many people will, I guarantee it.

        No, I’m not trying to make anything scary saying it’s sensationalized is the very opposite of that.

        • key@lemmy.keychat.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          29
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Take your complaint up with US Central Command, they’re the ones who described them as “ballistic missiles”. It’s not sensationalizing to use the phrase your sources use, they’d be criticized for bad reporting if they just said “missiles”

          • Madison420@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            24
            ·
            1 year ago

            They are ballistic missiles, the fact that it’s in the title is the irrelevant part because people see “ballistic” and go ooo that must be bad when in reality a ballistic missile against a us destroyer is an insanely idiotic waste of money.

              • ours@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s an important fact. These rebels are well known to be supplied by Iran, specifically with ballistic missiles which they have used before against Saudi targets.

              • Madison420@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                17
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’ve already explained this, I’m not responsible for anyone else’s reading comprehension bud.

                  • Madison420@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    6
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I didn’t lead anyone anywhere bud.

                    That’s quite literally sensationalism. Instead of houthi missile it’s houti make ballistic missile so the uneducated go “wait they have ballistic missiles” and read a story that is a nothing burger. It’s like the seventh time they’ve been attacked loitering in the area.

                    Nope, you’re judging it based on people that actually read like most of us in world News. The average person is not smart, and lacks critical thinking and judging by how many people don’t get it they number may be a bit higher than I assumed. Yes intent matters, that’s why they added ballistic lol.

                    No need, but you probably aught to rethink some things yourself.

        • fishos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Except a ballistic missile often invokes the image of an low tech, unguided mortar more than it does an intercontinental nuke. You calling it “sensationalized” is implying it’s the worse thing when it’s clearly not.

          • Madison420@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            No an unguided missile in military parlance is a rocket and yes probably a ballistic one. But way to prove my point, your average person has no idea what the fuck they’re talking about.

          • Madison420@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            17
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s not.

            Does the word ballistic materially change the subject of the article? No it’s an unnecessary adjective. And yes your example would be as well. They tried to make it sound worse, it’s a shitty Iranian missile fired well under maximum range it being ballistic is irrelevant aside from being an idiotic choice.

            Not at all. How exactly do you get that out of my comments.

              • Madison420@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                1 year ago

                For reasons already stated, it’s not hard to understand. You should read Chomsky if you don’t understand the importance of words.

                Again, remove ballistic and it changes nothing but adding it makes it sound worse. That’s sensationalism.

                There’s no bias and I’m pretty sure I told you why I’m my last response didn’t I .

                  • Madison420@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I’ve repeatedly explained sensationalism, I’m not sure why you’re saying I haven’t.

                    It literally is.

                    Not at all.

                    Try what again?

                • Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I won’t read Chompsky because I know the importance of words

                  The dude thinks the USA invented propaganda and no other country uses it

                  • Madison420@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Apparently not.

                    And no they didn’t, propaganda is much older than England let alone the US and we’re certainly not the only ones to use it but way to prove that lack of critical thinking.

        • Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Boat A responded to a call from Boat B that was under attack in the water. Boat A fired warning shots and used a weapon to deflect an incoming weapon. No injuries or damage were reported. The incident is being investigated.

          Better?

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Well yes, but actually no.

            We both know you didn’t have to remove all the detail along with the sensationalized detail. You’re just trying to be petty about it.

              • grue@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Calling it a missile can be sensationalism to some people.

                People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. It’s a “missile” if it has a means of self-propulsion (otherwise it’s a “bullet” or “shell”) and a guidance system (otherwise it’s a “rocket”). Maybe some people would think calling a missile what it is is sensationalism, but they’re just wrong.

                They sensationalized the headline with omissions to make a point.

                Yes, I’m aware of what they were trying to do. Their point was stupid and they were petty to make it.

                • magnetosphere@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’ve always wondered what the difference is between a “rocket” and a “missile”, but constantly forget to look it up. Now I know it’s a guidance system. Thanks!

                  • grue@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Describing it further as a missile, bullet, mortar, shell. Can all be considered sensationalism.

                    No, that’s a lie. Words have meanings and you aren’t entitled to pretend “missile” isn’t factually accurate.

          • Madison420@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            Nope detail to convey the subject is good, irrelevant detail to draw clicks isn’t.

            If someone sensationalizes a situation or event, they make it seem worse or more shocking than it really is.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Mads, it’s time for your takes to get wildly less insane.

          • Madison420@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Aww still salty Mr bigot? Here to make fun of my disability or some shitty racist take on houthis?

            Ed: almost forgot. You’re a bigot, at least be an honest bigot. An ashamed Nazi is still a Nazi.

              • Madison420@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                How’s that bud, you get actively called out for being a troll on like 80% of your comments what leg have you to stand on?

                Should I link your bigoted sexist bullshit? Or how about your bigoted ableist bullshit? Pick your poison or I’ll pick it for ya.

                You’re a bigot, at least be an honest bigot. An ashamed Nazi is still a Nazi after all.