What if america started arming pirates like iran and chinka do with houthies and made them sink Rossyans and Chinka shadow fleet boats?
>The us would never
It armed multiple paramilitaries before, and chinka and rossya are giving them every reason to do so.
Like giving philiphine cartels drones capabilities so they sink the shadow fleet

Theyd also gain importsnt data on the actual capabilities of chink pot metal ships.
Imagine all the kino footage

>>63959875 (OP)
Every time USA has started arming militias of rebels, radicals and zealots, it has spiraled out of control and has become a bigger problem for americans themselves.

Maybe just... NOT do that?

>>63959875 (OP)
They should hire privateers, and they potentially already have; as western opsec tends to be better than slavs and our plans less obvious than the chinks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence)

Western actors suffer from the crippling handicap of caring at least a little about their own populace, which discourages them from doing reckless shit that can come back to bite them later.

Iran, Russia and China have killed far more of their own people than irregular proxy forces could ever dream of and continue to get away with it, so they can be much more aggressive in that regard. Their states are much more insulated from the consequences of their actions.

For example they could have them make low observability boats like the cartel one and have them patrol the coast, armed with a few sea skimming drone missiles, add in ocean camo and spraying salt water on the ship to blend in the IR signatire and you re lit

>>63959875 (OP)
>Sink
Last time pirates hijacked a Chinese ship, China did nothing and just paid the ransom of several millions of dollars. You can make a business off this.

>>63959877
This. US weapons are just too good and give actual power to crazies.

>>63959875 (OP)
Because that shit is a massive fucking liability in terms of both general geopolitics (for multiple different reasons) and just general national safety? What the fuck do you do if one of these third world wastemen go and rape and pillage some European or other allied nation vessel before sinking it? Tell them "Whoopsie daisy, they were only supposed to attack Chinese and Russian trade vessels!" That'll look really fucking good, won't it?

It's not the fucking 1700s anymore, privateering isn't a viable approach for a first world nation. One of the reasons Iran got shat on with bunker busters recently (aside from just regular AIPAC shenanigans, oy vey), is because they were doing shit like arming the fucking Houthis, who were attacking American and allied trade routes.

>>63959875 (OP)
They already do, it's called Ukraine

>>63960306
Not privateers.

>>63960190
>What the fuck do you do if one of these third world wastemen go and rape and pillage some European or other allied nation vessel before sinking it?
Is this a rhetorical question or are you so retardedly cucked you can't even conceive simply bombing them out of existence and thus also setting an example for the next ones to get such gibs? And would a hypothetical bad incident like that not still be worth it for advancing your geopolitical goals when it means no direct involvement with boots on ground and worst-case scenario you simply stop funding them? Do you expect an advantage over all your enemies who already do this simply by what, raising your eyebrow, issuing a condemning statement, putting together a committee, you absolute mouthbreather? How the fuck do you even expect to rule the world when you're this buckbroken even at theoretical solutions?
What harm could've arming the HTS possibly done instead of having Turkroaches do it? What about Mali? Burkina Faso? Simply obliterate Fagner out of Africa. Or even just properly aiding Ukraine?

>>63959875 (OP)
You mean like Al Qaeda?