> These houthis are not famined. They have expensive boats and top-notch arms. It looks like they even have guided missiles (you're not going to shoot down a reaper with small arms fire and they've already shot two of them down). The somali's too, they have a lot of money. They could use it to feed their people but they choose to use it to make their local warlords richer.

Even proceeding under the assumption the accusations of wealth are true (I genuinely have no idea, sounds plausible), it's irrelevant. I'm doubtful the rich Yemenis and Somalis are the ones manning the boats. Their wealth has no bearing on whether the people on the boat are starving or not. Maybe they could stop the famine and thus the piracy, but they don't seem like they're going to, so it's not really relevant here.

> There's a big difference between having a big chance (or certainty) to die years in the future or to have the certainty to die on your next trip out. Because that will happen if there's a DDG around with the fingers on the trigger. There's just simply no point then.

So there's more of a point in sitting around and waiting for starvation to kill you and your kids? Over half of their children have stunted growth from lack of food, and ~15% of kids under 5 are starving to a degree where they have Wasting Syndrome and their bodies are starting to digest their own muscle for food. 1.3 million pregnant or lactating women, and 2.2 million children have had to be treated for acute malnutrition. A child in Yemen dies of starvation every 10 minutes.

Do you realize how utterly fucked a healthy person has to be to have Wasting Syndrome? There isn't a worse level of starving; the only form of hunger worse than having Wasting Syndrome is being actually dead.

15% is roughly 1 in 7. 1 in 7 children is so hungry that they've got the same syndrome as someone dying of AIDS or cancer who can't or won't eat anymore. 1 in 7 children have parents who have to watch the child be so hungry they might die the same way an AIDS or cancer patient has to. 1 in 7 children has parents who have to make impossible choices every day about how to get food, how far they're willing to go to get food, and who gets to eat if they can't get enough food.

I don't even think certain death would matter. If my options are getting blown into a pink mist by a Predator drone or watching my family starve to death, there's a perverse sort of kindness in a death that's at least swift (and likely less painful than starving).

The only thing you could threaten them with is a worse death (read: torture, it takes genuine sadism to find something worse than starving someone and only giving them cholera-infested water), or to threaten their families (a war crime and a genuinely horrifying thing to do).

There is nothing that isn't a war crime or a crime against humanity you can do to someone worse than starving them, period. Even a swift death is preferable; it at least spares the suffering.

Yemen has been blockaded and in a famine since 2015, and there is no sign of that changing. I'm doubtful there's enough hope and optimism left for anyone to be presuming that the situation will improve on a timeline relevant to their starving children.