I'd love to drop anchor in your lagoon.
 

So really, I know this isn't the first dealing with real life pirates, but I just wanted to see what some of your thoughts on the situation were.

Mainly on the idea of not having armed men, fully trained, ready and willing to fight back aboard the ships. And the fact that theres actually pirates overtaking ships. Seems utterly amazing to me that this shit is going on.

Ohh and good job Hillary Clinton for laughing about the hostage situation while publicly speaking about it. Stupid bitch. :vash:

a destroyer escort sounds pretty tits.

those ships probably dont have armed dudes on them because they are a business and that's extra expense? are there legal restrictions to them carrying weapons?

response a. "In international waters?"

response b. "There are pirates taking over, do you think it'd be an issue if there were enough cops around to get caught carrying weapons?"

The spokesman for Maersk said they don't like to arm the crews because they don't want to get their employees involved in a fire fight. Also afraid if they have guns they'll screw something up, like starting a fire by shooting around flammable liquids. I guess in the past, they tried some sort of non-lethal sonic repellant thing, and all that did was provoke the pirates to start shooting sooner.

How about the old Q-ship idea? Heavily armed and armored vessel disguised as a container ship. Drop the disguise when the pirates get in range and blast them.

All they need are a couple decoy/ambush ships. Load them up with mostly empty containers so they look like a legit target, sail it close enough to the Somali coastline to attract the flies, then when they get close, unload on them with the CIWS that's concealed behind some fake containers. Seriously, do I have to come up with all the good ideas? This should have been done a couple years ago.

EDIT: Clearly I'm not the only one who thinks like this, so why hasn't it been done?

US Flagged merchant vessels ARE allowed to have small arms aboard, armory under control of the master, but the watch is allowed to be armed.

The other option is to put a small contingent of US Navy folks aboard; I'll wager a 5-incher and a handful of ma-deuces would ruin the pirates' day.

Both rules go back to the mid 19-teens, and have never been revoked.

International waters are governed by "Admiralty Law", which is a sort of mismash of the procedures and policies of all the various seafaring nations of the world, going all the way back to the Roman empire, and more or less consented to by all of the various governments and entities who engage in commerce and other activities upon the open water. Concepts such as right of salvage, remedy for collisions and other liabilities (Tort law), maritime liens, and so forth are a part of this body of law.

In modern times, the International Maritime Organization, under UN charter, is probably the most formal embodiment of an arbiter and administrator of maritime law, though every individual member nation is responsible for recognizing, enacting and enforcing the various conventions adopted by the organization.

the funny thing about boats is... they have to go through restricted waters to make their pickups and deliveries. can't really just dump all the guns in the drink when you get to territorial waters.

maybe just give the cap'n a SMAW to stash for emergencies.

Would someone really complain if ship captains armed themselves and started killing pirates trying to board them? No, not really. Certainly not the people that have vested interests in whatever is about to get hijacked. The companies themselves who hire these container ships dont want to be affiliated with promoting the use of lethal self defense but they wont complain if it cant be traced back to them, just simply a choice of the captain and his crew.

Life is not black and white.

I still can't figure out how these guys are getting on board or even close enough to get on board. put a guy on watch in the tower with a M107 and some night vision. they see a boat in the area, Somali coast, heading straight for you, fire a warning shot, they keeping coming sink the boat. not rocket science...

I think I read they had 14 boats and 200 crew hosting and recieved over $80 million in ransom last year! :bowrofl:

Serious post, apparently the pirates treat the ship's crews quite well. They're just interested in the cargo. Pretty intelligent to get that reputation since the crews won't engage in a firefight for cargo that's not theirs.

I think there are many reasons why these ships don't carry weapons, or weapons that can deter other ships.

1) Liability. What if some dumbass shoots some fishers? Don't roll your eyes, we've all heard stories of people doing really stupid things.

2) Cost. What is the cost of putting people on board that can protect the crew? I am thinking at least 3 people with high powered rifles and or a couple of stationary guns. All that costs money.

3) Laws. What if XXX country doesn't allow guns into their port. Does that mean the contractors who protect the ships are now suppose to get off before entering territorial waters? And if so, that's more added cost.

4) Escalation of danger. Once you start arming the boats, what are the pirates going to do? Get bigger boats, more men and bigger guns. Look into the past when the British were fighting the pirates. What did the pirates do? They got more boats and men, then bigger weapons. But you are talking about civilians not trained people like that of the British Empire. So now you have huge fire fights with multiple boats for whatever is in the cargo holds. Is the crew really that more safe?

5) Military intervention. The US I doubt wants to put it's whole force over there to deter the pirates. They aren't a national security threat and from what I've read, the main reason they'd get involved if there was a national security threat. I think that other nations are going to have to get more involved to get rid of this problem. Maybe scout plans for suspected pirates and then move some fast moving cruisers over there.

It's a pain in the ass really is what these pirates are. They are just wanting the money and/or cargo. They don't want to kill someone because that hurts their negotiating part.

Rush Limbaugh asked once why Oil tankers don't have armed crew on board... That'd be one cool bomb..

My econ professor just had a book published called "The Invisible Hook". It talks about how economic incentives more or less motivated pirates. One of the things I found interesting was that pirates in olden times also treated the ships crew that they captured rather well. They did this so that ships would not fight back. If you were a captain of a ship and knew that you would be immediatly killed when pirates took over your ship you would fight back. If you knew they only wanted the ship and not your life you would not resist as much.

I believe the same things are going through the minds of modern day pirates. They know if they start harming crews that crews will start fighting back. That is a negative for both sides so they want to avoid that if at all possible.

An economics book about pirates entitled "The Invisible Hook" just made my day. That is frakkin brilliant.

Well just because bank robbers mostly go in without intending to hurt/kill anyone, doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

I can agree with both sides, because both sound good;

Leave them alone, let them take what they want, everyone lives and only money or material is lost.

Keep the ships armed adequately and when you see the bastards coming.....blow them the fuck up! Continue to your destination and complete the job. :bigtu:

You left out the most important number 4 in any plan!! Profit!!

It does when the nearest Sheriff is a 5 hour boatride away.

How about the reason these guys began pirating. They were originally fisherman whose waters have been stripped of their resources, and their livelyhood, by foreign corporations doing essentially, the equivalent of strip mining in the ocean.

Bank robbieries are a little diffrent then taking over a ship. I am not sure if he talks about the Somalian pirates in his book. It just got delivered to my house today so I plan on reading it this weekend.

Now if I was on a boat that was going near Somalia I personally would want to be armed. I am one of the guys that would put up a fight and not give in.

After US citizens have been taken hostage I think the US Navy will start patrolling those waters a bit more.

I wonder if there is a difference.

Because there have been some personal watercraft attacked by pirates and those were some mean fuckers from the reports. Either A) they were trying to kill to get the boat or B) they changed their tactics.

But it does lead to credence that you don't hear about the attackers killing people on board. A few of the ships have been out there for a few months I think too.

The answer is not to have civilians engage an armed advesary at sea. Attempt to dissuade the pirates with non-lethal means, utilize safe-rooms with "kill-switches" for engines/navigation systems and wait for support to arrive. - This keeps the cargo crews alive.

Then hunt the pirates down when they are on land and execute them.

:facepalm:
Please stay in Texas.

Are you justifying ocean piracy?

No, I'm just trying to paint the whole picture. It doesn't help anything to villanize people and not try to understand how the situation was created. You end up only dealing with the symptoms, and not the root problem, and shit like this keeps happening.

I think in terms of mass destruction. Yes, I'm grinning.

Hiroshima got the message... don't you think Somalian pirates would too?

Not saying the US should do it, I'd give a thumbs up to whoever stepped up to the plate. Forget root causes and deter future incidents with one-big-bang.

I could say the same thing about Kentucky...

Its all a matter of perspective. If you think about it, you could justify any social deviance :jerkit:

Too judgemental.

You think you're better than me?! Go swing on your "hero" Rudy's nuts. :jerkit:

Rudy is a fucktard. Try again...
Can you get more judgmental than thinking dropping a bomb on thousands solves problems???

Oh, maybe I wasn't clear enough.

I didn't mean on thousands, just on one pirate ship.

Ah, ok, I did misunderstand that, sorry. That's not quite as absurd but It still doesn't stop future pirates from being created.

lol, bader is hardcore.

Somalia is a non-regulated, governmentless breeding ground for lawlessness. How it got that way is currently irrelevant. The fact something needs to be done is not.

I agree it is a bit draconian, however in an environment in which force and brutality is the only recognized currency of respect, use it.

- L

kids smoking pot shouldn't even go to jail.

Violent crime and stealing my shit...death and hand chopping off. If you steal my shit, I'll kill you. No, seriously...beware of bleeding heart libs with guns. Molan Labe.

I'm going to steal your ---- virginity. What now!

poz or neg?

Someone tell these two we are taking about real Pirates, not butt-pirates!

Poz baby, poz.

'Nuff said...

Funny story, my dad just got a job as software project manager at insitu.

I'm happy with the end result. Lives were lost yes, but they put themselves in that situation. Hopefully next time they stay the fuck away from the ships.

And the only credit that should be given is to the men that took those shots. Not the guy that gave the OK late in the game. Just my own personal :2cents:

the outcome was badass.

but remember, it's not just "shoot a guy day" out there, it's a foreign policy thing too. 3 sniper rounds is not a solution for the big picture.

i think the pirates are bad ass, its been going on for so long it seems funny to me that they cant be stoped.

As someone who has a bit of an inside track on this whole thing, let me break it down for you without the bullshit.

IT ALL COMES DOWN TO THE POLICY OF THE INSURANCE COMPANY. There is nothing legal preventing shipping companies from arming their crews. Lloyds does not allow, VIA POLICY, arming of crews on ships that it insures. Their public policy to deal with the problem is to pay the ransom to get the ship back after a standard term of negotiations. If the pirates want $1mil in order to release a $5mil ship holding $10mil worth of cargo, and spare the lives of the crew, they'll pay... they'll simply pay.

I know a bit about small-boat tactics. To adequately defend a 1000ft-long ship, you'll need a minimum of 4x.50cal and 2 bodies per weapon to defend the ship at the range required to ensure nothing gets within RPG range. Small caliber crew served weapons and sniper rifles are not adequate. RPG's are the primary threat. One round penetrating the hull can start a fire that will sink the ship. This of course is not the goal of the pirates, but if crews start fighting back, the pirates will start sinking ships to deter it. This is what the insurance companies are afraid of, and this is why Lloyds will not allow it.

In the end, paying out ensures they get the ship (and crew) back. They'd rather pay 20 ransoms rather than risk a ship being sunk.

Like most things in life, this is complicated, but most people will be happy to see a few guys killed, politicians smile and then forget about it. Pirates of the Somali coast | Marketplace Scratch Pad | Marketplace from American Public Media

the funny thing about pirates is.... why are they admired?

like the disney ride "pirates of the carribean". people romanticize them.

Will disneyland in 50 years start work on the Al Qa3da ride? wtf.

If they do, I am sure it will Bomb.