Modern High Seas Piracy

[MORAY37]

blowing them up would be fine too.

 but if we cannot spare our ships to escort armed ships into port, how can we spare them to escort them through dangerous waters?

It is much easier (and COST EFFICIENT) to use a few of our ships there, to escort merchants through known dangerous waters, than to use all of our ships here through our own coastal waters just because they have a deck mounted defense system. 

The obvious caveat.... how much damage could said defense system do to a port, in the wrong hands? 

[CAP1]

It is much easier (and COST EFFICIENT) to use a few of our ships there, to escort merchants through known dangerous waters, than to use all of our ships here through our own coastal waters just because they have a deck mounted defense system. 

The obvious caveat.... how much damage could said defense system do to a port, in the wrong hands? 

 true...and how many ships have been taken before naval help could arrive?

it's not the navy's fault....as they can only move so fast, but the fact is there is no better defense from these pirates, than to have weaponry on board.

 as i said before...it won't take long, till they stop, once they discover they'll more than likely die trying to take a ship

[Rich46yo]

Im all for blowing them to hades and back any which way is possible. If merchant sailors want to do it then fine with me. I just think they would neither want to or would. They just dont want to take that kind of chance in order to protect some corporations ship and cargo.

But say they wanted to? Train up too? Were motivated too? I wouldnt deny them the right to self preservation over the off-chance some Somalian dhow driver would get axed because his fishing poles looked like guns. You dont have to be military to tell a fishing pole from a gun. We heard variations of this same Liberal "your all a bunch of idiots" theme here when millions were denied their 2nd amendment rights when the anti-gun nuts would spew their, "your going to shoot all these helpless children by mistake", themes. If the merchant sailrs want to be armed, and train up for it, then I say "good shooting".

I feel the same way for our citizens who ace some criminal scumbag to protect themselves.

[CAP1]

Im all for blowing them to hades and back any which way is possible. If merchant sailors want to do it then fine with me. I just think they would neither want to or would. They just dont want to take that kind of chance in order to protect some corporations ship and cargo.

But say they wanted to? Train up too? Were motivated too? I wouldnt deny them the right to self preservation over the off-chance some Somalian dhow driver would get axed because his fishing poles looked like guns. You dont have to be military to tell a fishing pole from a gun. We heard variations of this same Liberal "your all a bunch of idiots" theme here when millions were denied their 2nd amendment rights when the anti-gun nuts would spew their, "your going to shoot all these helpless children by mistake", themes. If the merchant sailrs want to be armed, and train up for it, then I say "good shooting".

I feel the same way for our citizens who ace some criminal scumbag to protect themselves.

yep.


again, if they learn that they're highly likely to die trying to take a ship......and that there is a good probability of dying if they look like the ones that are going to try to take a ship, know what's gonna happen?

 the innocent dudes are gonna drop the dime on the pirates faster than you can count 10.

[Widewing]

I agree that arming merchant ships (except in times of war) is opening a can of worms that should remain sealed.

What some companies are doing is hiring private security companies, who escort merchant ships, and I believe put armed teams on some ships. Inasmuch as they are not ship's crew, I think they manage to skirt around maritime law, but please correct me if I'm off base on that.


My regards,

Widewing

[Widewing]

It is much easier (and COST EFFICIENT) to use a few of our ships there, to escort merchants through known dangerous waters, than to use all of our ships here through our own coastal waters just because they have a deck mounted defense system.  

The obvious caveat.... how much damage could said defense system do to a port, in the wrong hands?  

I have been wondering why they don't convoy these vessels in known areas of pirate activity. It would be much easier for one small Frigate or Corvette to protect ten or fifteen ships rather than try to cover them when they are hundreds of miles distant from each other.


My regards,

Widewing

[nirvana]

There's a lot more that goes on with deployments in the Coast Guard than what is actually posted on the internet.  I'm sure the public affairs people would be more than happy to answer questions as to why current assets over there aren't taking a more active role in fighting piracy.

Admiral Allen posted about piracy and the Coast Guard in a blog located here http://www.uscg.mil/comdt/blog/2009/04/coast-guard-collaborates-with-us.asp

These most recent attacks against U.S. ships have added to the already heightened sense of urgency, and have raised the possibility of armed security teams as a specific measure to be employed by merchant vessels to reduce their vulnerability to pirates. The Coast Guard, working closely with the maritime industry, will issue a new Maritime Security Directive to address additional security measures authorized and required by U.S. vessels operating in waters threatened by piracy. It is important to recognize that armed security is but one of many protection measures, including the application of non-lethal tactics.

A press release of the apprehension of suspected pirates by Coast Guard and Navy forces can be found here http://www.piersystem.com/go/doc/786/254015/

[MORAY37]

I have been wondering why they don't convoy these vessels in known areas of pirate activity. It would be much easier for one small Frigate or Corvette to protect ten or fifteen ships rather than try to cover them when they are hundreds of miles distant from each other.


My regards,

Widewing

I think they (The U.S. Navy and Royal Navy) were attempting to set something up like that, but companies were crying due to having to wait for the escorting ships to get there.  Profit, not safety rules many aspects of this issue.  Most of them could just go the long way around Africa, if they were so worried about anything other than profit.

[MORAY37]

See Rule #4

[ChickenHawk]

So far the pirates have not been deterred in the least.  They now have a stock market with inventors for their piracy trade and as a result, they have now started asking for even more ransom money.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B01Z920091201

[gyrene81]

Rich, have you ever been at sea?  At 1000 yards, it's virtually impossible to positively identify anything on a boat, in seas.  An RPG has a range of 1100 meters.

Nothing modern high res optics couldn't overcome...have you ever had to use modern weaponry? There is a 20mm chain gun setup that can be mounted on almost anything...it has options for targeting that allows the operator to drive nails at 500yds...1500yds is combat operational distance. A few well armed and trained men on a freighter will prevent pirates from boarding that ship.

[DrDea]

people like you are the reason there are pirates.

+1
 So its better to just let them hit these ships time and time again? So someone doesnt hurt someones feelings by putting a gun on the ship? I call BS. If you have a 50 cal and some trained people ready to use it,your gonna see this crap slow to a trickle. The key is training.
 I have absolutely ZERO problem with a merc ship pulling into a US harbor with a 50 mounted on it for defense.

[rstel01]

As far as escorts from either the USN or RN, too bad for the Merchant Ships it's not our problem.

Let Liberia or Panama (The bulk of the Merchant Fleets fly these flags to bypass US and UK Maritime Shipping taxes) send their navies. It takes tons of money to operate a blue water fleet. Why should we (US and UK taxpayer) foot the bill for ship owners who do not even pay taxes to support the Navies they now need? Or, they can change the ships flag to the US or UK and pay the taxes, then rightfully receive protection from the Navy.   

Even if you call Ernest Will into this (To which I am a Veteran of), at least Kuwait paid for all the Fuel for the Comideasfor ships and reflagged them for the transit through the Straights of Hormuz.     

[Simba]

A nation's navy has two primary duties:

1) Defend the nation.

2) Uphold the freedom of all peaceful merchantmen to proceed about their lawful business without fear in international waters.

When a Royal Navy or US Navy warship refuses to go to the aid of a troubled ship of ANY nation, that's the day hell will freeze over.

[CAP1]

A nation's navy has two primary duties:

1) Defend the nation.

2) Uphold the freedom of all peaceful merchantmen to proceed about their lawful business without fear in international waters.

When a Royal Navy or US Navy warship refuses to go to the aid of a troubled ship of ANY nation, that's the day hell will freeze over.

THEY DON't refuse to the best of my knowledge.....but by the time they can react to the distress call, it's well too late........

which brings us back to arming the ships. if not arming them, arm at least some of the crew...or have armed security on board.....and no restraints on if or not they can fire upon something that appears to be these pirates.