Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: DREDger on January 03, 2010, 09:21:43 AM
-
Is anyone familiar with maritime customs/procedures.
It seems to me the easiest way to foil these new Somali speedboat attacks against maritime ships is to arm those ships with a .50 caliber or a 20mm.
Of course this is an obvious solution, so there must be some reason why this isn't done.
-
(http://msp235.photobucket.com/albums/ee134/TranslucentCrux/Humor/Somalia.jpg)
-
(http://msp235.photobucket.com/albums/ee134/TranslucentCrux/Humor/Somalia.jpg)
That never gets old. :rofl
-
ok, here's your reason:
You're the captain of a.....let's say Korean cargo ship. You stick a .50cal on the bow......and then while you're sailing towards Tokyo to drop some octopus tails off a Japanese destroyer runs a parallel course and instructs you that there ain't no way in hell you're sailing a boat into Tokyo harbour with that thing on the bow. Take it off now.
Or.....Chinese boat sailing for San Francisco with a 3" gun on the bow.
Or.....any other combination of arms and international tension that's gonna give any harbour master in the world cause to not want an armed merchant vessel in his port.
-
ok, here's your reason:
You're the captain of a.....let's say Korean cargo ship. You stick a .50cal on the bow......and then while you're sailing towards Tokyo to drop some octopus tails off a Japanese destroyer runs a parallel course and instructs you that there ain't no way in hell you're sailing a boat into Tokyo harbour with that thing on the bow. Take it off now.
Sure I can see that being a problem. But a gun like a .50 cal can be placed on and off a mount by one or two people. So when in dangerous waters like off the Somali coast, or the straights of Malaca, why not have the gun mounted and ready. But when you get to a peaceful port, just stow the gun(s) in the hold?
There must be some maritime law that says if you're a cargo vessel or not a ship of war, you cannot have weapons on board.
-
Seems logical to me Dred...it's not like the enemy vessels are armed to the teeth, they've got 3 guns maybe...only takes 1 to take it down.
-
ship convoys protected by warships also blockade of the pirate ports.
-
Sure I can see that being a problem. But a gun like a .50 cal can be placed on and off a mount by one or two people. So when in dangerous waters like off the Somali coast, or the straights of Malaca, why not have the gun mounted and ready. But when you get to a peaceful port, just stow the gun(s) in the hold?
There must be some maritime law that says if you're a cargo vessel or not a ship of war, you cannot have weapons on board.
Yeah see, the thing is.....a .50cal example isn't a good one cos a single .50cal isn't really going to be that effective. You've got a manually aimed .50cal and they've got.....what, small arms and RPGs? Somali's start taking .50cal fire and what'll happen is they'll upscale with longer ranged weapons and start punching holes in boats from distance.
Shipping companies don't want big holes punched in their boats.
The real way to go would be a longer ranged, computer assisted gun of some sort. Don't ask me, I'm no expert on maritime weaponry (uncle of mine was a weapons chief aboard HMS Leander, I'll ask him some time) but something more hard mounted would seem necessary rather than a soft mounted, removable .50cal. And that's what would get objected to.
The other problem you've got is when are merchant vessels allowed to open fire? How about a Chinese cargo ship with no actual cargo on boat sailing around the waters of Taiwan opening fire on anything that looked a bit shifty? ie, anything with a Taiwanese flag?
etc, etc.
I also suspect insurance companies might object to lots of high explosive rounds being carried around the seven seas and stored next to the smoking area. Being very general here but you get the idea.
Now, what is happening is certain cargo companies are hiring permanent additions to the crews of some vessels in the way of ex military shooters. Pirate boat comes close, they start taking accurate small arms fire. Someone told me some governments have objected to this practice but the companies involved have ignored them (good!). So far it's only American companies taking part in this practice. Go Yanks I say.
-
Yeah see, the thing is.....a .50cal example isn't a good one cos a single .50cal isn't really going to be that effective. You've got a manually aimed .50cal and they've got.....what, small arms and RPGs? Somali's start taking .50cal fire and what'll happen is they'll upscale with longer ranged weapons and start punching holes in boats from distance.
Shipping companies don't want big holes punched in their boats.
The real way to go would be a longer ranged, computer assisted gun of some sort. Don't ask me, I'm no expert on maritime weaponry (uncle of mine was a weapons chief aboard HMS Leander, I'll ask him some time) but something more hard mounted would seem necessary rather than a soft mounted, removable .50cal. And that's what would get objected to.
You kind of just contradicted yourself...you said a gun that shows all the time would be bad, but you just said it'd be good...
-
Nah what I said was if you're gonna mount a gun it needs to be a BIG one. And unfortunately a big gun gets objected to.
-
I watched a show about this on the History Channel. They said some Cargo and crusie liners are hiring private security firms to protect them.
And the U.S. Coast Guard does there part by escorting ships through dangrous areas and into busy harbor areas.
(http://cache3.asset-cache.net/xc/50936289.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF1939847EC77F5F8D1CE903625011167EAF039F71A9C9BC19C35)
-
Forgive my ignorance but......what dangerous areas are there around the US coast that the US coastguard escorts ships through?
Are we talking around the Florida Keys and such?
-
The real way to go would be a longer ranged, computer assisted gun of some sort. Don't ask me, I'm no expert on maritime weaponry (uncle of mine was a weapons chief aboard HMS Leander, I'll ask him some time) but something more hard mounted would seem necessary rather than a soft mounted, removable .50cal. And that's what would get objected to.
Mmmmh...Phalanx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS).
-
Yeah see, the thing is.....a .50cal example isn't a good one cos a single .50cal isn't really going to be that effective. You've got a manually aimed .50cal and they've got.....what, small arms and RPGs? Somali's start taking .50cal fire and what'll happen is they'll upscale with longer ranged weapons and start punching holes in boats from distance.
hard to believe that you English once ruled the seas.
-
Mmmmh...Phalanx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS).
Yeah. Imagine seein two of those on a cruise ship in place of those radar thingies.
-
hard to believe that you English once ruled the seas.
Why's that then pray tell?
-
The Royal Navy fought piracy and slavery wherever it was encountered throughout the 19th century and the result was the 'Pax Britannica' freedom of the seas that benefited commerce worldwide. It's a pity no navy has been so effective against piracy in the modern age - but probably that's because 'head money' is no longer paid for each pirate killed. Ah, for the freedom of action enjoyed by 'Rajah' Brooke and Captain Keppel in Sarawak and Borneo in the good ol' days. :t
Splice the mainbrace!
:cool:
-
Forgive my ignorance but......what dangerous areas are there around the US coast that the US coastguard escorts ships through?
Are we talking around the Florida Keys and such?
Well when i said dangrous areas it means like maybe near Guantamano Bay, Cuba cause its so poor down there that things are unpredictable. And over near Somlia the Coast Guard has warships and they do patrols over there and to help Frieghters get through. When i said Busy areas i'm talking about New York City and Baltimore type stuff. Its not dangrous but with the terrorist and stuff its good to have a escort.
-
Is anyone familiar with maritime customs/procedures.
It seems to me the easiest way to foil these new Somali speedboat attacks against maritime ships is to arm those ships with a .50 caliber or a 20mm.
Of course this is an obvious solution, so there must be some reason why this isn't done.
it's very simple. arm the ships...........it'll take less than a month before these pirates learn better.
as for ports not wanting to let armed ships in? well, they either escort them in, or the product gets sold to someone who will let em in.
-
Given the nature of the threat, I'm not sure a mounted weapon would be the ideal solution.
Shoulder-fired small arms would be both effective (against glorified row-boats) and concealable (for purposes of maintaining a non-antagonistic posture).
-
1) You cannt put arms at cargo ships, cause you wouldnt allowed to enter any port (as states before)
2) You cannt escort all cargo ships and pirates increasing their range as time passed
Water jets was proved to be most effective defense against pirates, as long as crew watch over while cross dangerous waters (instead of drinking vodka or whatever).
-
1) You cannt put arms at cargo ships, cause you wouldnt allowed to enter any port (as states before)
2) You cannt escort all cargo ships and pirates increasing their range as time passed
Water jets was proved to be most effective defense against pirates, as long as crew watch over while cross dangerous waters (instead of drinking vodka or whatever).
arming ships is the best answer. these people only understand violence.
-
"Arm" it with a black painted fake from wood, something that looks like a badass gun. Then wait and see if you get arrested. :neener:
-
You can't arm merchant ships, they would immediately pull their insurance. As soon as you put arms on a ship it becomes in effect a Naval vessel for the country under which it sails. Many merchant ships put into ports that would never allow a naval vessel of that country to enter same port.
The only weapons they are allowed are a limited supply of small arms under lock and seal.
I think the answer is the equivalent of a Navy Seals Unit. Only they'd have to be under UN flag. Ideally they would be a quick strike force with 2 boats, some heavy weapons, instead of defending they would attack as soon as pirates are spotted.
The problem is complicated, its tied up with treaty's between hundreds of country's.
Also the ocean is vast, while some piracy happens in constrained straits. If they are hunted out of those area's they just pop up in others.
I suspect you could accomplish more with a dozen Predator drones and hellfire missile's than anything else.
-
You can't arm merchant ships, they would immediately pull their insurance. As soon as you put arms on a ship it becomes in effect a Naval vessel for the country under which it sails. Many merchant ships put into ports that would never allow a naval vessel of that country to enter same port.
The only weapons they are allowed are a limited supply of small arms under lock and seal.
I think the answer is the equivalent of a Navy Seals Unit. Only they'd have to be under UN flag. Ideally they would be a quick strike force with 2 boats, some heavy weapons, instead of defending they would attack as soon as pirates are spotted.
The problem is complicated, its tied up with treaty's between hundreds of country's.
Also the ocean is vast, while some piracy happens in constrained straits. If they are hunted out of those area's they just pop up in others.
I suspect you could accomplish more with a dozen Predator drones and hellfire missile's than anything else.
the only problem with having some form of security that isn't on the ship being attacked, is that more often than not, there is no way to respond quickly enough.
as for not allowing the ships into port? fine. they don't get their product. again, pretty simple.
-
http://www.somalicruises.com/
-
I suspect you could accomplish more with a dozen Predator drones and hellfire missile's than anything else.
And how it would help? You see suspicious ship and just blow it away? It would be much worst than piracy itself.
as for not allowing the ships into port? fine. they don't get their product. again, pretty simple.
Who care? It isnt port's direction problem.
-
And over near Somlia the Coast Guard has warships and they do patrols over there and to help Frieghters get through.
Um...Selino...the U.S. Coast Guard does not patrol anywhere near the African continent. What is patrolling those waters is Navy warships from several countries.
Wasn't there a U.N. sanction or something that prohibits merchant ships from being armed with weapons a few years back? I see a huge opening for mercs to ride shotgun on merchant vessels...assuming the shipping companies are willing to pay the price. Hell, if it were me I'd pack a few guys up with miscellaneous weapons...put some softpoint mounts on the ship and charge the shipping company a few grand per man plus expenses for every one way trip...if trouble occurs, the company pays extra for eliminating the problem. When the ship gets into friendly waters, the mercs get pulled off and the ship goes on its way.
-
from the CG web site.
"In 2008, Coast Guard PSU 309 trained and deployed to the Middle East with the Navy’s Maritime Security Squadron 4 to support Operation Iraqi Freedom point defense and harbor security operations in Kuwait. Six Coast Guard WPBs are currently forward deployed in Kuwait in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, conducting maritime critical infrastructure protection and security operations. Additionally, the Coast Guard Cutter DALLAS deployed in support of Naval Forces Europe, conducting theater security cooperation with African, Mediterranean, and Black Sea nations. "
-
Merchant ships cannot be armed. It's maritime law. If you arm a merchantman with anything mounted(permanent or semi permanent), it is subject to all law that a warship is and the country it is flagged under carries the responsibility for its' actions.
Only if the merchant fleet is under direct jurisdiction of a country's Navy (as in WW2, when the merchant fleet became part of the Navy) can you mount arms to it.
The obvious implication being that the people responsible for the use of any weapons would be directly accountable for its' consequence of use. What you speak of, is giving a corporation not only a means of defending its' ships with deadly force, but also its' profits. Corporations become world powers down this road.....
-
the only problem with having some form of security that isn't on the ship being attacked, is that more often than not, there is no way to respond quickly enough.
as for not allowing the ships into port? fine. they don't get their product. again, pretty simple.
So. Dangerous line you tread. At what point does MAERSK define a threat? Is is a direct threat to the ship.... or to its' profits? So you have a motorboat doing circles around your merchant ship in say, China. A guy pulls out something that looks like an RPG from 2000 yards. You fire, because you think you're under attack. Turns out it's some guy that had a bunch of fishing poles.
International incident.
Second case. You're tooling around India. A flagged Indian Naval Vessel pulls alongside and demands boarding within their territorial waters. They can see your weaponry. Johnny Hick, fresh from the Merchant Academy, thinks it's gonna be funny to turn that 20 mm mount a bit. Indian naval Captain puts a round through the bridge.
International incident.
NAVAL SHIPS are flagged and armed, with the country flagging providing the training and the ACCOUNTABILITY for the use of those weapons.
It simply isn't debatable.
-
as for not allowing the ships into port? fine. they don't get their product. again, pretty simple.
So I guess you're also OK with letting armed ships into US ports then?
-
Is anyone familiar with maritime customs/procedures.
It seems to me the easiest way to foil these new Somali speedboat attacks against maritime ships is to arm those ships with a .50 caliber or a 20mm.
Of course this is an obvious solution, so there must be some reason why this isn't done.
Well its a little harder then that Dredge. Just putting a gun on a ship aint enough if you dont have the right people to shoot the guns. Sailors are trained and motivated to kill if they have to. Commercial vessel deck hands will look at the gun and say, "no way, you aint paying me enough". Then there is the issue of insuring the armed vessel, the deck hands...ect. There are also maritime Laws and agreements that prevent commercial vessels from being armed.
Also from what I understand some of these pirates are carrying some pretty heavy ords. A .50 might not be enough when they have the same along with RPGs and/or shoulder fired missiles. Again unless you have trained sailors holding the guns then they will probably do more harm then good. A lot of people get flat rattled when they get shot at.
-
You can't arm merchant ships, they would immediately pull their insurance. As soon as you put arms on a ship it becomes in effect a Naval vessel for the country under which it sails. Many merchant ships put into ports that would never allow a naval vessel of that country to enter same port.
The only weapons they are allowed are a limited supply of small arms under lock and seal.
Only a hand full of ships are flagged in the US. They are easy to spot... painted grey. It is far cheaper to flag your vessel in a foreign country. Another reason to flag in a foreign country is that the coastguard will overloook many problems the ship has. American flagged vessels are gone though with a fine tooth comb.
I have been on many foreign flagged vessels that have innertubes wrapped around leaking pipes and bailing wire twisted to hold it in place. These vessels were all in port at the Port Of Houston.
-
Only a hand full of ships are flagged in the US. They are easy to spot... painted grey. It is far cheaper to flag your vessel in a foreign country. Another reason to flag in a foreign country is that the coastguard will overloook many problems the ship has. American flagged vessels are gone though with a fine tooth comb.
I have been on many foreign flagged vessels that have innertubes wrapped around leaking pipes and bailing wire twisted to hold it in place. These vessels were all in port at the Port Of Houston.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_merchant_marine_capacity_by_country
If Merchants were allowed to be armed....
Japan and Germany would become the largest Navies in the world ......... :noid...exactly what they've been planning for all these years. :lol :lol
-
So I guess you're also OK with letting armed ships into US ports then?
actually yea i am.......'cause i know they'll be escorted in by the worlds best. :aok
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_merchant_marine_capacity_by_country
If Merchants were allowed to be armed....
Japan and Germany would become the largest Navies in the world ......... :noid...exactly what they've been planning for all these years. :lol :lol
:rofl
-
actually yea i am.......'cause i know they'll be escorted in by the worlds best. :aok
280 ships in the United States Navy, currently. Half deployed overseas.
You'd rather we'd have them all spend time "harbor mastering" merchants in and out of port (because they're now armed), than actually practicing to fight real navies? :rolleyes:
All due to some incredibly poor Somalis half a world away....? Overreact much?
-
280 ships in the United States Navy, currently. Half deployed overseas.
You'd rather we'd have them all spend time "harbor mastering" merchants in and out of port (because they're now armed), than actually practicing to fight real navies? :rolleyes:
All due to some incredibly poor Somalis half a world away....? Overreact much?
USCG
-
All due to some incredibly poor Somalis half a world away....? Overreact much?
"poor Somalis"? Whatever economic conditions they have are their own doing...if they can afford AK47s and RPGs...they can afford to do something besides commit international crimes. I wouldn't call shooting back an over reaction...in any country.
-
See Rule #4
-
The Gulf of Aden and western Indian Ocean have been piracy hotspots for centuries. Even the Royal Navy in its prime couldn't stop and search all the hooligans, so the policy was deterrence by dealing harshly with all pirates when they were caught; if the bad'uns didn't stop when ordered, they were promptly fired on and sunk, and any pirates captured were usually given short shrift. Any state that supported piracy was liable to be blockaded until its government took effective steps against the criminals that operated from its territory. The US Navy's first official overseas deployments were against the North African states that preyed on American merchant ships. The result was a marked decrease in piracy and a corresponding massive increase in profitable peaceful trade.
So now it's insurance companies' rules and rogue states whining 'unfair' that should dictate policy? Hmmm, that's the tail wagging the dog, when it should be the other way round. Appeasing nasties doesn't work. Merchant ships these days operate with crews too small to spare men for repelling boarders, so place a few under naval command, equip them with effective means to fight and send them into harm's way with a crew of well-trained personnel; a modern version of the old 'Q-ship' tactic. Sail ships together in convoy with naval escort through the worst trouble spots. Advise pirates and anyone who supports them that their attacks will be contested and their lives will end in misery if caught anywhere near a peaceful merchant ship.
Pirates aren't romantic rogues, they're a sore on the arse of humanity - and sores should be lanced before they infect the whole of the body.
:mad:
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
Ahhh....such a peaceful world we live in, eh? :)
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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/
-
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.
-
See Rule #4
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
My .02:
The way to stop the piracy is to go back to the rules of old. Caught attacking ships...? You are immediately hung at the nearest port and left to rot.
-
Pheasants are hung, old boy - men are hanged.
;)
-
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.
You can generally tell someone who's on the edge of holding their point together by their attacks on people who aren't even talking to or referencing them.
-
You can generally tell someone who's on the edge of holding their point together by their attacks on people who aren't even talking to or referencing them.
which would be why you've just posted the above?
-
which would be why you've just posted the above?
You'll note that I don't have an argument placed here to support, so that makes no sense.
-
You'll note that I don't have an argument placed here to support, so that makes no sense.
well, i actually don't get what you were gettin at.........i made a statement. a statement concerning the ongoing conversation. a statement that could/would improve the situation.