Pirates..

[cntryboy0531]

I just read another story about a Ship off of Somalia being hijacked with 21 people on board. Shipping companies are STILL not wanting to arm these ships...

Can anyone guess as to why these companies dont want to arm them?

After a few failed hijacking attempts where the pirates were turned into shark bait from a few hundred yards out with a chain gun on the deck of the ship, it would probably put a stop to these idiots hijacking boats.

But I guess as long as the companies continue to pay out, and refuse to do anything about it.. Then I'm heading down to Somalia to take up side work..

[Rlong1985]

From my understanding of the current situation and having spent some time in the HOA region it has to do with jurisdiction and much of the law’s that these so called pirates are breaking is a grey area. Yes they are pirates but what do you do when you can’t prove where they come from? Where do you take them for justice? Despite the most people’s in the sea going community feelings you can just throw someone into the sea for boarding your vessel whether or not you get away with it. You have a moral obligation to help those stranded even if they just tried to board your vessel. Shipping companies would rather detour around Somalia and hope for the best than be entangled in Horn of Africa Politics. Remember the CIC and TFG of Somalia is very much in a civil war right now. Puntland and Somalialand are not recognized by the international community although they are the most stable regions of Somalia. Even though they are considered stable compared to Somalia, these are the regions in which most of the pirate attacks imitate from.

[Switchback]

Being armed in international waters is one thing. The instant that a ship goes into port, the crew is subject to the local laws. It would be a nightmare for the company to coordinate this in the few countries that would permit it and most would just prohibit the weapon possession.

I can tell you, first hand, that going to "friendly" countries with weapons even with official and diplomatic passports can be problematic... now for a ship crew to do it. I don't think so!

I think the law part is fairly easy. There are numerous internationally accepted laws being broken. You may, however, run into more problems deciding the punichment (based on which country you ask).

[Rlong1985]

Piracy is not a cut and dry issue even some scholars in Somalia believe that some of these “pirates” are in fact Somali Coast Guard enforcing fishery and natural resource protection. Clearly this is not the case when you have pirates boarding vessels well outside of the 12nm Somali Water and into international Zone. But it can show you the mind set of some of the Somalis and how disillusioned they have become after nineteen years of civil war.

Security detachments whether it be French, English, American and or another NATO back country would be resemble. Security teams from warships board the merchant ships requesting assistance and provide protection when and where they can. Generally it’s a broader form of protection and less hands on in the form of convoy escorts. Large lines of merchant ships stick together with one or two warships following them through the most infested waters. Problem with both of these solutions is the timing, most ships do not want to wait for the convoy to start, and others do not care to travel at the set pace.

[MikeG]

I just read another story about a Ship off of Somalia being hijacked with 21 people on board. Shipping companies are STILL not wanting to arm these ships...

Can anyone guess as to why these companies dont want to arm them?

After a few failed hijacking attempts where the pirates were turned into shark bait from a few hundred yards out with a chain gun on the deck of the ship, it would probably put a stop to these idiots hijacking boats.

But I guess as long as the companies continue to pay out, and refuse to do anything about it.. Then I'm heading down to Somalia to take up side work..

To what end? Arming a crew makes them targets and liabilities. So far the most serious event I have seen was the kidnapping of the Captain that ended when snipers aboard a US Navy ship killed the pirates. So far, crews have not had to defend their lives. It's tragic but it will take crew deaths before shipping companies will assume the liability and training required of an armed crew.

Believe or not, I think the pirates know there is no winning an escalating conflict and they will go out of their way to avoid deaths of crew members. That way it's still being played out that it's about "stuff". No one wants to die defending their cargo. (note: i'm not saying they dont have the right to defend themselves against kidnapping, but know one would assume the liabilty when they aren't dying in the first place)

The way I look at it is this is just like Walmart. The CEO deals with shoplifters and a few armed robbers. He doesn't really consider arming the "crew" of Walmart. He might hire an armed security company to protect individual stores in problem areas. He may put political pressure on the local PD to protect his stuff. And he may use non-lethal security devices. There may be a point where the crew demands to be armed or refuses to work but we aren't there yet. Shipping companies are hiring companies to escort their ships, they are buying non-lethal repellers dand they are pressuring governments to protect their "stuff".

I bet there is an enterprising ex-Navy seal (is it ex or xe-navy) that has created a company and bought large, fast interceptor boats to escort clients through dangerous waters. The only question is how much is security worth?

[Rlong1985]

That is not the only incident where Somali pirates have been engaged on the high seas by western nation. France along with other European naval powers has interests in the area.

There are several non-lethal measures crew’s are using to protect their ships such as the use of water streams from the main fire system on board and tear gas. The main measure of defense still is avoidance of all small indigenous boat ( skiffs ) used regularly by pirates but also used by local fishermen. Most of these pirates are ill equipped for long distance naval engagements and will look for an easier target.

Blackwater I believe already bought a vessel it is out fitting for such a task. Most of the pirates want nothing to do with Helicopters or anything that looks like western military entity.

[JoetheGI]

To what end? Arming a crew makes them targets and liabilities.

Arming a crew? Perhaps so.

Hiring specialists? Not so much.

Somali pirates exist because they CAN exist. As soon as it becomes a lethal proposition to attempt to hijack a commercial vessel, the "pirate" man pool will start to dry up. It's not hard to find volunteers willing to take up arms against those they KNOW are unarmed, and more than likely, will NOT fight back using lethal force. However, it's another thing entirely knowing you are going up against someone who WILL fight back, and just very well may kill you in the process.

That's why they don't try to hijack naval vessels.

Send them to the bottom imo...

[MountainMan]

Pirates have kidnapped entire crews and are still holding a large amount of people. I firmly support bait ships. Let the pirates attack and just send them to the bottom of the ocean. No worries about jurisdiction. You attack a ship you may die.

I would wholey support a roving patrol that put armed soldiers on all US ships and engage every pirate target through the area. If you see a ship with an American flag flying leave it alone or you make not make it back.

[Kimble]

I just read another story about a Ship off of Somalia being hijacked with 21 people on board. Shipping companies are STILL not wanting to arm these ships...

Can anyone guess as to why these companies dont want to arm them?

After a few failed hijacking attempts where the pirates were turned into shark bait from a few hundred yards out with a chain gun on the deck of the ship, it would probably put a stop to these idiots hijacking boats.

But I guess as long as the companies continue to pay out, and refuse to do anything about it.. Then I'm heading down to Somalia to take up side work..

I recently went to a course that provided counter-piracy training (our agency, and the Navy as a whole, is pretty strongly involved in these ops), and the simple fact is the companies would rather pay the randsom and hope the Navy (counter-piracy missions are actually a collaborative effort by several nations' navy, not just the U.S.) will save them. As a matter of fact, IF a distress call goes out from a ship being boarded by pirates, the average time before the pirates make it to the bridge of a commercial vessel is 15 minutes. It seems to defy logic in the minds of LEOs looking at the situation, but it's a business decision where randsoms seem to be more cost effective.

[retdetsgt]

It seems to defy logic in the minds of LEOs looking at the situation, but it's a business decision where randsoms seem to be more cost effective.

And they can just pass the cost on to the consumers, which they do.

[Kimble]

And they can just pass the cost on to the consumers, which they do.

Precisely. As long as it doesn't hurt their pockets, and there's a false belief that the Navy will save everyone from piracy (the Maersk Alabama situation was an anomoly), you won't see a large scale effort to provide armed security on merchant vessles in the Gulf of Aden.

[sgtbear111]

Paying the insurance and handing over the merchandise is preferred by most owners. It becomes another matter when the vessel or crew is seized for reasons other than theft.

Had a lesson in 'risk management' here when the a railroad was folding its corporate tent. Poor maintenance of rolling stock and tracks were the cause of many incidents. The receivers of the bankruptcy (incl. the US Govt) elected to insure vs repair. When an anhydrous ammonia shipmment derailed from a trestle onto I-90, they paid the bills but did not repair beyond clearing the tracks for use. Quick haz mat recognition by a firefighter prevented mass poisonings. Loss of shipments and damages to those along the way were part of doing business.

Going armed can be a hassle in foreign countries. A naval vessel is a recognized extension of sovereign territory. Many merhant vessels operate under "flags of convenience" to avoid regulations of their corporate domicile. Lloyds of London insures much of the tonnage on the oceans, unknown what their "armed" rules might be.

[cntryboy0531]

Interesting. I figured there was a monetary reason behind it, and possibly legal issues. But, I guess as companies feel that they'd rather just pay up than arming someone, this will continue.

So, who wants to go to Somalia for some extra work??

[Adrenolize]

Rules~smules.

I understand what everyone is saying. I even understand the comparison to Walmart and corporate bottom line.

Here is my bottom line. We are Americans with the best military in the world. All this political PC crap that I see our State Department makes me sick. We didn't get to be the top dog by giving pirates hugs and care packages for seizing our ships. We built it upon phrases such as Shock and Awe and Fear Factor. I'm a history buff, and enjoy reading up on civilizations and what brings them to greatness and decline. When a country or empire begins to get soft and comfortable on top, their fall is short to follow. Read up on France in the 1920's and 30's.

That said, I wouldn't care whose feelings it hurt when a ship under my flag steams around Africa and sinks a couple of skiffs with gun toting welfare hopefuls. I'd feel better if the world learned a new phrase when they see the Stars and Strips on the horizon: Duck and Cover.

Then again, I'm a Marine. Marines are weapons. Why have a weapon if we can't use it?

[Cat_Doc]

Pirates have kidnapped entire crews and are still holding a large amount of people.

You are damn right and this is intolerable (at least it should be). If they want to take cargo or property, no human life is worth that. But, when you are taking hostages and removing their freedom, placing them under harm's way and tormenting the family and loved ones...sink the bastard pirates every chance you get!

Just a couple of innocent looking "bait ships" that laid down overwhelming fire would cause much hesitation with the pirates. The problem is that you have to leave at least one friggen pirate alive and make sure he gets back to tell the others what happened to cause the desired psychological fear and hesitation.

That may be a logistical problem?

Maybe they could video tape the destruction then air drop a digital copy on pirate HQ?

Maybe they are already doing that with deniability?