Somali pirates vow retaliation after captain freed

[Kilmer72]

Are we not all brothers and sisters on this planet? How can pirates say they owe us? What is wrong with people? I am surprised that the Chinese did not finish them off after they said they were going to hunt them down. I just wish we all could get along.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090413/ap_ ... omali_view

[langleyparkjoe]

Its crazy stuff Kilmer, very sad too

[Bob 0119]

These ships should be allowed to protect themselves. I think the problem is that these ships are not allowed to have any weapons on them.

I'm thinking these ships should be allowed to have at least small arms up to .50 caliber and short range explosive launchers to defend themselves against these pirates.

[PulpExposure]

These ships should be allowed to protect themselves. I think the problem is that these ships are not allowed to have any weapons on them.

I'm thinking these ships should be allowed to have at least small arms up to .50 caliber and short range explosive launchers to defend themselves against these pirates.

If I remember right, it's not that these ships are not allowed to have weapons on board; they are. The reason they're unarmed is because the shipping companies have decided that it's not worth the risk and cost to have armed people aboard.

Quick link I pulled up about this.

For his part, Captain Bushy won’t say whether he would arm merchant ships like the Maersk Alabama. “If this ship had had weapons, it may have helped, but I’m not so sure.”

On one hand, arms could escalate the situation so that more people are killed.

Still, he notes, “if you’re going to put weapons on a ship and train people to use them, you have to have plenty of firepower and know how to use it.”

“Use of armed crews who didn’t sign up to fight is a bad idea,” says Giles Noakes, chief maritime security officer for BIMCO, an international association of ship owners. “The industry believes very strongly that it’s not for the companies to train crews to use firearms and then arm them…. If you open fire, there’s potential for retaliation. Crews could get injured or killed, to say nothing of damage to the ship.”

Putting armed teams on board isn’t a good idea either, he says.

While it “might be successful initially, the pirates will look at this problem and come back with bigger weapons and fire them from a distance.”

[Countertrey]

These ships should be allowed to protect themselves. I think the problem is that these ships are not allowed to have any weapons on them.

I'm thinking these ships should be allowed to have at least small arms up to .50 caliber and short range explosive launchers to defend themselves against these pirates.

If I remember right, it's not that these ships are not allowed to have weapons on board; they are. The reason they're unarmed is because the shipping companies have decided that it's not worth the risk and cost to have armed people aboard.

Quick link I pulled up about this.

For his part, Captain Bushy won’t say whether he would arm merchant ships like the Maersk Alabama. “If this ship had had weapons, it may have helped, but I’m not so sure.”

On one hand, arms could escalate the situation so that more people are killed.

Still, he notes, “if you’re going to put weapons on a ship and train people to use them, you have to have plenty of firepower and know how to use it.”

“Use of armed crews who didn’t sign up to fight is a bad idea,” says Giles Noakes, chief maritime security officer for BIMCO, an international association of ship owners. “The industry believes very strongly that it’s not for the companies to train crews to use firearms and then arm them…. If you open fire, there’s potential for retaliation. Crews could get injured or killed, to say nothing of damage to the ship.”

Putting armed teams on board isn’t a good idea either, he says.

While it “might be successful initially, the pirates will look at this problem and come back with bigger weapons and fire them from a distance.”

Say what you want. There is a role for companies like Blackwater, and this is one of them.

There is also a means, with plenty of Precedent, for dealing with the "clans" that sponsor these thugs... where do y'all think the "to the shores of Tripoli" part of the Marine Hymn comes from. We don't need to hold ground. Just make it too expensive for them to conduct their "business" as usual. These are extortionists, not terrorists. If it costs too much, they'll stop.

[tcwest10]

GARGH!
I can't believe that, in this day and age, there are still pirates around...in Pittsburgh or on the high seas.
It's ridiculous. What's next? Highwaymen on horseback?
Props to the snipers. Bringing Bob Lee Swagger to life.

[VetSkinsFan]

These ships should be allowed to protect themselves. I think the problem is that these ships are not allowed to have any weapons on them.

I'm thinking these ships should be allowed to have at least small arms up to .50 caliber and short range explosive launchers to defend themselves against these pirates.

If I remember right, it's not that these ships are not allowed to have weapons on board; they are. The reason they're unarmed is because the shipping companies have decided that it's not worth the risk and cost to have armed people aboard.

Quick link I pulled up about this.

For his part, Captain Bushy won’t say whether he would arm merchant ships like the Maersk Alabama. “If this ship had had weapons, it may have helped, but I’m not so sure.”

On one hand, arms could escalate the situation so that more people are killed.

Still, he notes, “if you’re going to put weapons on a ship and train people to use them, you have to have plenty of firepower and know how to use it.”

“Use of armed crews who didn’t sign up to fight is a bad idea,” says Giles Noakes, chief maritime security officer for BIMCO, an international association of ship owners. “The industry believes very strongly that it’s not for the companies to train crews to use firearms and then arm them…. If you open fire, there’s potential for retaliation. Crews could get injured or killed, to say nothing of damage to the ship.”

Putting armed teams on board isn’t a good idea either, he says.

While it “might be successful initially, the pirates will look at this problem and come back with bigger weapons and fire them from a distance.”

Pulp, this is at the link you provided, not at you.

Successful initiallly? You don't deal with bullies by ignoring them, you beat them at their own game. How does this guy suggest the situation be handled? Prayer and faith?

I believe that we acted 5 days too late. We need to show these people what it means to mess with the U.S. We will not negotiate with terrorists or extortionists. Anyone who takes aggression on a U.S. flagged ship will be dealt with swiftly, harshly, and permanently. There are no other options.

While it “might be successful initially, the pirates will look at this problem and come back with bigger weapons and fire them from a distance.”
Doing the right thing is not always doing the easy thing. The right thing is to show these terrorists (or however you wish to categorize them) who's got the biggest stick. I can guarantee it's not a third world country.

[PulpExposure]

I agree with you Vet, however, there's a fundamental unfair part about that stance.

All of the losses that are incurred, incur to private companies. If a nation's navy begins hostilities, again, all the ancillary damage (be it loss of the expensive ship, or loss of life) happen to the private company. That's simply because while the pirates have no hope of fighting the US Navy or whatever, they can continue their reign of terror on the unarmed (or lightly armed) cargo ships. If it gets to the point where the pirates are no longer interested in ransom, and only sinking ships to later salvage them, what private company is going to want to ship cargo through that area? Unless, of course, the US (or other sovereign nation) is willing to indemnify damages that occur as a part of Operation "A-Hoy Matey."

[VetSkinsFan]

I agree with you Vet, however, there's a fundamental unfair part about that stance.

All of the losses that are incurred, incur to private companies. If a nation's navy begins hostilities, again, all the ancillary damage (be it loss of the expensive ship, or loss of life) happen to the private company. That's simply because while the pirates have no hope of fighting the US Navy or whatever, they can continue their reign of terror on the unarmed (or lightly armed) cargo ships. If it gets to the point where the pirates are no longer interested in ransom, and only sinking ships to later salvage them, what private company is going to want to ship cargo through that area? Unless, of course, the US (or other sovereign nation) is willing to indemnify damages that occur as a part of Operation "A-Hoy Matey."

Two points:

1
There is ancillary damage as you state now (hi-jacking the ship, taking cargo, ect), so ramping up defense would do nothing but create MORE of an already existing problem. I haven't checked on any but this latest, but these terrorists had AK-47s only. Not that they don't have access to larger weapponry (I can neither confirm nor deny), but they don't have it in this instance. Status quo is not acceptable.

So if our U.S. Navy defending our ships (repeat, U.S. flagged vessels), then what shall we do? Continue these terrorists to control these waters and just pay them off? Because, as all other bullies, I'm positive that they'll get tired of the easy money and just stop their illegal actions. As I said before, I believe that if we make a swift and fierce example of hte next few confrontataions, they're look at Old Glory and at least think twice before assualting a U.S. possession.

The time is now to stand up and defend what is ours. There is obviously some benefit by traveling these dangerous waters b/c this is not the first time they've pirated in these waters. We back down now and I guarantee that it will not be observed as an act of strength.

[PulpExposure]

There is ancillary damage as you state now (hi-jacking the ship, taking cargo, ect), so ramping up defense would do nothing but create MORE of an already existing problem.

Well, as of now, that's not true. It's rare that the pirates even harm their hostages. Right now, the pirates don't harm their hostages or the ship; in fact, they actually keep them in pretty decent shape. It's just like a tax, just this tax you actually SEE the guns held by the guys asking for your money

I haven't checked on any but this latest, but these terrorists had AK-47s only. Not that they don't have access to larger weapponry (I can neither confirm nor deny), but they don't have it in this instance. Status quo is not acceptable.

Generally small arms, but that includes RPGs. And I'd bet a few RPGs would do a buttload of damage to a cargo ship.

Not to mention they had hijacked a cargo ship full of T-72 tanks and other more advanced weaponry (like AA guns), released two months ago.

So if our U.S. Navy defending our ships (repeat, U.S. flagged vessels), then what shall we do? Continue these terrorists to control these waters and just pay them off? Because, as all other bullies, I'm positive that they'll get tired of the easy money and just stop their illegal actions. As I said before, I believe that if we make a swift and fierce example of hte next few confrontataions, they're look at Old Glory and at least think twice before assualting a U.S. possession.

The time is now to stand up and defend what is ours. There is obviously some benefit by traveling these dangerous waters b/c this is not the first time they've pirated in these waters. We back down now and I guarantee that it will not be observed as an act of strength.

In theory, sure. In reality, it's just not that simple.

For starters, IF you found people you thought were pirates, how would you know who is a fisherman and who is a pirate, unless they get close enough to the cargo ship? I mean it's not like these guys are driving around in destroyers or flying pirate flags, and you can't just prospectively bomb the crap out of every Somali vessel in the area. Or I guess you can, I suppose, but I wouldn't really appreciate that kind of action from the US.

Remember, it's a damn big ocean out there, and to ensure protection over every last cargo ship, you'd need to station armed guards on them. Right now, the shipping companies have determined that it's cheaper, in a risk-benefit analysis, to go unarmed, and pay a ransom, rather than station expensive mercs on a ship in case it gets attacked (and risk that the ship gets sunk/damaged, or the crew gets killed).

I'm not really sure how bringing the Navy into this will change that a lot. Unless you're willing as a US taxpayer to fund a military unit stationed on every US-flagged vessel, or a destroyer escort for every vessel. In either case, it's ridiculously expensive...

Edit: Well I guess we could go after their land headquarters, but I'm not sure how you'd differentiate pirate from non-combatant. I mean the end game to dissuade these guys would be a Soviet tactic, I suppose?

In October 1985, Alfa was dispatched to Beirut, Lebanon, when four Soviet diplomats had been taken hostage by militant Sunni Muslims. By the time Alfa was onsite, one of the hostages had already been killed. The perpetrators and their relatives were identified by supporting KGB operatives, and they latter were taken hostage. Following the standard policy of 'no negotiation', Alfa proceeded to sever some of their hostages' body parts and sent them to the perpetrators with a warning that more would follow if the Russian hostages were not released immediately. The tactic was a success and no other Russian national was taken hostage in the Middle East for the next 20 years, until the 2006 abduction of Russian diplomats in Iraq.

[VetSkinsFan]

So status quo is okay. And now, with the threat that they will kill and Americans due to "owing" us, how do we handle that? When they kill a CPT and a few crew members, are we all gonna hug and say we're even now?

I realize my emotional reaction lacked the specific logistics needed to actually put this type of plan in to play, but taking an American at gun point and considering it a "tax" is ludicrous. I highly doubt that CPT last weekend thought of his ordeal as "tax collateral."

We may not be able to stop the pirates because it's imposible to detect early enough for intervention. I don't know how many vessels we have cruising through there. There are a lot of variables that I do not know. I'll even go so far as to say I am not qualified to make the statements that I have made.

I do know that taking Americans at gun point, in my mind, is unacceptable. PERIOD. They do need to be dealt with sternly, swiftly, and permanently.

[PulpExposure]

So status quo is okay. And now, with the threat that they will kill and Americans due to "owing" us, how do we handle that? When they kill a CPT and a few crew members, are we all gonna hug and say we're even now?

That's not what I said. I merely was bringing up the point that the escalation by the military will lead to consequences. Period.

I do know that taking Americans at gun point, in my mind, is unacceptable. PERIOD. They do need to be dealt with sternly, swiftly, and permanently.

Ok. How?

[VetSkinsFan]

So status quo is okay. And now, with the threat that they will kill and Americans due to "owing" us, how do we handle that? When they kill a CPT and a few crew members, are we all gonna hug and say we're even now?

That's not what I said. I merely was bringing up the point that the escalation by the military will lead to consequences. Period.

I guess there are no consequences now? I don't want ot be world police, I want to protect U.S. interests. A vessel flagged under the U.S. I qualify as a U.S. interest. If we protect U.S. interests with deadly force, there is a significant chance that these pirates will turn to softer targets. I don't see how armed crews are a bad thing. They have the right to defend themselves. They are already being hi-jacked and held hostage at gunpoint.

What do you propose?

[PulpExposure]

So status quo is okay. And now, with the threat that they will kill and Americans due to "owing" us, how do we handle that? When they kill a CPT and a few crew members, are we all gonna hug and say we're even now?

That's not what I said. I merely was bringing up the point that the escalation by the military will lead to consequences. Period.

I guess there are no consequences now? I don't want ot be world police, I want to protect U.S. interests. A vessel flagged under the U.S. I qualify as a U.S. interest. If we protect U.S. interests with deadly force, there is a significant chance that these pirates will turn to softer targets.

Or, once they board the cargo ship and see it's manned by Americans, they just shoot them and leave, and turn to other nation's ships to snag hostages and make money?

I don't see how armed crews are a bad thing. They have the right to defend themselves. They are already being hi-jacked and held hostage at gunpoint.

Well, there you get into some tricky issues with guns and national laws; once these cargo ships enter soverign waters, those nations may not want (or allow) private citizens holding guns.

And, again, you get into the arms race issue. You outfit your crewmen (and train them) on how to use small arms. The pirates get fired on...and then shoot back with RPGs.

Note that this is a solution that the shipping companies have looked at, and have decided is not worthwhile. As I posted earlier, they bear the ultimate cost for these pirate raids...so there's got to be some kind of weight given to that decision.

What do you propose?

Seriously? The only thing I can see that makes sense is not some stupid piece-meal system where you hope to interdict the pirates (as they're currently doing) over the huge ocean expanse. Seriously, the chance that a US Naval ship will be able to stop a pirate attack is virtually nil.

Instead, go into their pirate port (whatever the heck it's called), and wipe the thing from the map. Know that you're going to incur civilian casualties, but make sure these pirates don't have a place to call home.

There are a whole mess of problems with the pirates. #1) pirating is so much more lucrative than anything else the country has to offer, that these pirates have nothing to lose, basically (it's essentially pirate or starve); #2) they're virtually impossible to identify as pirates, as they use the same damn boats that fishermen do; etc.

[VetSkinsFan]

Or, once they board the cargo ship and see it's manned by Americans, they just shoot them and leave, and turn to other nation's ships to snag hostages and make money?

The point is that they don't leave that ship.

Well, there you get into some tricky issues with guns and national laws; once these cargo ships enter soverign waters, those nations may not want (or allow) private citizens holding guns

Easy solution. You want our aide, let us handle our business. You don't accept aide and then dictate the rules you'll receive it as well. It wouldn't work that way in my book. While I'm on a tirade, I wouldn't be giving these BILLIONS away when it could go to worthy causes internally, anyway.

And, again, you get into the arms race issue. You outfit your crewmen (and train them) on how to use small arms. The pirates get fired on...and then shoot back with RPGs.

I'm willing to bet Somalian fisherman don't have bigger sticks than we do. Put our big sticks to use.

Note that this is a solution that the shipping companies have looked at, and have decided is not worthwhile. As I posted earlier, they bear the ultimate cost for these pirate raids...so there's got to be some kind of weight given to that decision.

It's reasonable to think that the CPT might have a stance on arming the crew after his ordeal. I'd bet a dollar to a donut that he's seriously contemplated it at the very least.

Seriously? The only thing I can see that makes sense is not some stupid piece-meal system where you hope to interdict the pirates (as they're currently doing) over the huge ocean expanse. Seriously, the chance that a US Naval ship will be able to stop a pirate attack is virtually nil.

Instead, go into their pirate port (whatever the heck it's called), and wipe the thing from the map. Know that you're going to incur civilian casualties, but make sure these pirates don't have a place to call home.

So I interpret this as you agree with me, just not my specific rants. I've already admitted my emotional uneducated reaction, but my point was quite understood in theory.

There are a whole mess of problems with the pirates. #1) pirating is so much more lucrative than anything else the country has to offer, that these pirates have nothing to lose, basically (it's essentially pirate or starve); #2) they're virtually impossible to identify as pirates, as they use the same damn boats that fishermen do; etc.

We either handle force with force, or get the hell out of the water. I'm just as content to stop giving aide to these pirates as I am to execute them for abducting and threatening at gunpoint our American brothers and sisters.

If we don't send vessels flagged under the U.S., then I have nothing to cry about. I personally am tired of being world police and at the moment could care less if other ships are captured or "required to pay taxes on."

[Countertrey]

As I posted earlier, they bear the ultimate cost for these pirate raids...so there's got to be some kind of weight given to that decision.

No. Their crews bear the ultimate cost. And, from what I have heard, the crews want protection.

Beyond that, the costs are ultimately borne by the consumers, who see their costs go up as shipping companies pass the costs of their insurance premiums on to the them...

The pirates, ultimately, are extorting you and me. The bottom line is, as long as the "business" of piracy pays, it will continue. When the costs exceed the benefit, piracy will whither and die. Continuing to pay the ransom will only guarantee that piracy will continue.

The solution to this is not in criminal law. It most definitely is not in continuing to feed the parasites. It is a military problem that requires a military solution. Let the military do so. It is not necessary to hold ground as part of the solution to this... just to break lots of things, and kill a few more khat fortified thugs.

[Irn-Bru]

Using the whole of the military to address this problem is inefficient, ineffective, and will cost us a hell of a lot more than other solutions. It's performing intricate surgery with a hatchet.

Edit: I also don't see why it's somehow the right of U.S. shipping companies to have U.S. military protection wherever they decide to go. Socialized security policies across the sea are as misguided as socialized domestic policies at home, and with similar results: remove scarcity and cost and the demand shoots far higher than is reasonable. . .with the tax-payers and/or U.S. dollar holders paying the bill. (Through taxes or inflation, take your pick )

[Countertrey]

Using the whole of the military to address this problem is inefficient, ineffective, and will cost us a hell of a lot more than other solutions. It's performing intricate surgery with a hatchet.

Edit: I also don't see why it's somehow the right of U.S. shipping companies to have U.S. military protection wherever they decide to go. Socialized security policies across the sea are as misguided as socialized domestic policies at home, and with similar results: remove scarcity and cost and the demand shoots far higher than is reasonable. . .with the tax-payers and/or U.S. dollar holders paying the bill. (Through taxes or inflation, take your pick )

1. You do recall the seminal purpose and mission of the United States Navy, do you not? (hint... there were referrences to the freedom of navigation, and the need to protect American shipping)

2. Do you realize how few US flagged shipping companies there are?

3. We are speaking of a specific and limited geographic area. Gulf of Aden/Indian Ocean bordering Somalia.

4. The major framer of the Constitution himself saw value in destroying the dens of pirates, and, in fact, became the first US President to actually project US power overseas in the successful pursuit of that goal. Shores of Tripoli, baby!

No one is suggesting the "whole military" become involved (hyperbole does not become you). All that is required is a Global Hawk, a 688I, perhaps a B1/B2/B52 for "special" jobs. Three platforms. Add some infiltrated boots on the ground to watch and collect GPS coordinates, and you're good to go. In terms of the cost, I would prefer to blow cash killing these parasites than supporting their khat habits and paying for their villas. Given the choice of having to pay more for goods versus paying to kill thugs... um... sorry, thugs.

[VetSkinsFan]

Using the whole of the military to address this problem is inefficient, ineffective, and will cost us a hell of a lot more than other solutions. It's performing intricate surgery with a hatchet.

Edit: I also don't see why it's somehow the right of U.S. shipping companies to have U.S. military protection wherever they decide to go. Socialized security policies across the sea are as misguided as socialized domestic policies at home, and with similar results: remove scarcity and cost and the demand shoots far higher than is reasonable. . .with the tax-payers and/or U.S. dollar holders paying the bill. (Through taxes or inflation, take your pick )

So the U.S. vessels being targeted by pirates don't get U.S. military protection. They are abducting people at gunpoint and holding them ransom, or for "taxes" as someone called it. Foreign aggressors are allowed to take U.S. vessels by force, and U.S. shouldn't do anything to protect them.

How shall these pirates be dealt with then? Let's say I go with the "no military assistance." Since I'm prior service, maybe my judgment is clouded. Enlighten me.

[Irn-Bru]

So the U.S. vessels being targeted by pirates don't get U.S. military protection. They are abducting people at gunpoint and holding them ransom, or for "taxes" as someone called it. Foreign aggressors are allowed to take U.S. vessels by force, and U.S. shouldn't do anything to protect them.

How shall these pirates be dealt with then? Let's say I go with the "no military assistance." Since I'm prior service, maybe my judgment is clouded. Enlighten me.

I'm fine with the pirates getting killed. Not sure I see your point---is it really so important that "we" do it?

[Irn-Bru]

1. You do recall the seminal purpose and mission of the United States Navy, do you not? (hint... there were referrences to the freedom of navigation, and the need to protect American shipping)

2. Do you realize how few US flagged shipping companies there are?

The answer to both of those questions is "yes", but I still think the problem I point out is relevant.

4. The major framer of the Constitution himself saw value in destroying the dens of pirates, and, in fact, became the first US President to actually project US power overseas in the successful pursuit of that goal. Shores of Tripoli, baby!

TJ was a much better philosopher and writer than he was president. Not everyone is perfect, and the flaws of anyone are exacerbated when they are given immense power.

It's also worth noting that Jefferson resented a LOT of what he did after he left office, and dedicated the remainder of his career to stripping the powers of the U.S. government.

But again, the relevance of this isn't immediately apparent. . .

No one is suggesting the "whole military" become involved (hyperbole does not become you). All that is required is a Global Hawk, a 688I, perhaps a B1/B2/B52 for "special" jobs. Three platforms. Add some infiltrated boots on the ground to watch and collect GPS coordinates, and you're good to go.

Somehow I doubt that we are currently, or would in the future, do it that efficiently. I bet the scale of over-effort and over-spending is / would be similar to NASA moon missions versus the X-prize (and other entrepreneurial) space efforts. Just a guess---a hunch, really---but I don't think it's a bad one.

In terms of the cost, I would prefer to blow cash killing these parasites than supporting their khat habits and paying for their villas. Given the choice of having to pay more for goods versus paying to kill thugs... um... sorry, thugs.

I think that's a false dichotomy. I don't have to choose the former or get the latter. Although if a firm wants to pay hundreds of millions of dollars when they only need a few guns, that's their business. Removing this conflict from the interested parties---or making an argument that we are the interested party (see Vet's language)---is a big mistake IMO.

[Kilmer72]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090414/ap_ ... ew_options

Its a crazy cycle with no way out it looks like

[PulpExposure]

Irn-bru can take up the mantle for awhile. Just wanted to address some specific points.

Or, once they board the cargo ship and see it's manned by Americans, they just shoot them and leave, and turn to other nation's ships to snag hostages and make money?

The point is that they don't leave that ship.

Well, there you get into some tricky issues with guns and national laws; once these cargo ships enter soverign waters, those nations may not want (or allow) private citizens holding guns

Easy solution. You want our aide, let us handle our business. You don't accept aide and then dictate the rules you'll receive it as well. It wouldn't work that way in my book. While I'm on a tirade, I wouldn't be giving these BILLIONS away when it could go to worthy causes internally, anyway.

Uh, a lot of these aren't vessels delivering aid. They're vessels engaged in commercial shipping...

And, again, you get into the arms race issue. You outfit your crewmen (and train them) on how to use small arms. The pirates get fired on...and then shoot back with RPGs.

I'm willing to bet Somalian fisherman don't have bigger sticks than we do. Put our big sticks to use.[/quote]

Again, these are commercial shipping vessels. I doubt many commercial cargo carriers have large weapons.

No. Their crews bear the ultimate cost. And, from what I have heard, the crews want protection.

Really?

Surprising. I was under the misapprehension this entire time that the companies bought the ships and paid the insurance on the ships, which pay out the death/disability benefits for the crewmen.

Silly me.

Beyond that, the costs are ultimately borne by the consumers, who see their costs go up as shipping companies pass the costs of their insurance premiums on to the them...

Yeah, because staffing enough military units for rapid response for an incredibly huge area of ocean is so very inexpensive.

Also, you're honestly talking about keeping a 688 attack boat on station at all times for essentially speed boats? Hah. That's hilarious!

Not to mention I have no idea how a 688 could possibly be quick enough to respond to any pirate action in these

No one is suggesting the "whole military" become involved (hyperbole does not become you). All that is required is a Global Hawk, a 688I, perhaps a B1/B2/B52 for "special" jobs. Three platforms. Add some infiltrated boots on the ground to watch and collect GPS coordinates, and you're good to go.

Right...those few "platforms" can respond well enough to cover the entire area that's in question.

I mean it's only what...1 million square miles of ocean? According to a British Rear Admiral, it takes 30-40 minutes to respond to a pirate threat...and pirate attacks occur in 10.

"From the point when the merchant vessel has seen the pirates to the point where they are on his bridge and it is game over, is about 10 minutes," he said.

If the merchant vessels can take protective measures, he added - either by putting up barricades to block the pirates getting on board, or locking themselves into their super-structure and making it difficult for the pirates to gain access - that buys the coalition force time.

"If they can extend that period out to about 30 or 40 minutes, it actually becomes very feasible that a coalition warship, or helicopter, or maritime patrol aircraft will arrive on the scene and will be able to assist them."

Oh, and the US military thinks arming the merchant ships is a bad idea.

This begs the question: Should merchant vessels be arming themselves in defence, as suggested controversially in December by US Defence Secretary Robert Gates?

Captain Richard Farrington, Operation Atalanta's Chief of Staff, thinks not.

"Industry thinks it's a bad thing, we think it's a dangerous thing and we would not condone it," he told the BBC.

"It's ultimately down to the decision of the individual shipping company but it brings with it as many problems as it does solutions and on balance we think it's more likely to escalate a difficult situation than improve it."

But what do they know anyways?

[Countertrey]

Irn-bru can take up the mantle for awhile. Just wanted to address some specific points. <snip>

No. Their crews bear the ultimate cost. And, from what I have heard, the crews want protection.

Really?

Surprising. I was under the misapprehension this entire time that the companies bought the ships and paid the insurance on the ships, which pay out the death/disability benefits for the crewmen.

Silly me.

Yes... silly you. I'm sure your right... the CREWS would clearly prefer to be dead, with their heirs well remunerated for their service... Or... perhaps you don't consider the terror of being held for ransom to be a "price".

Beyond that, the costs are ultimately borne by the consumers, who see their costs go up as shipping companies pass the costs of their insurance premiums on to the them...

Yeah, because staffing enough military units for rapid response for an incredibly huge area of ocean is so very inexpensive.

Also, you're honestly talking about keeping a 688 attack boat on station at all times for essentially speed boats? Hah. That's hilarious!

I assure you... there is pretty much ALWAYS a 688 within range of the Somali coast. Most likely 2 or 3.

Not to mention I have no idea how a 688 could possibly be quick enough to respond to any pirate action in these

Hmmm... I had no idea that the pirate's bases were mobile... interesting. Really... you should expand your knowledge of the options availible to the military. The pirates are just tools. They have a support system. They have a leadership chain. I suspect that there is a fairly solid knowledge of where each of those gangs originates from, where their HQ is, who their tribal chief who has supported these actions is. Expand your imagination! The targets are NOT on the water.

No one is suggesting the "whole military" become involved (hyperbole does not become you). All that is required is a Global Hawk, a 688I, perhaps a B1/B2/B52 for "special" jobs. Three platforms. Add some infiltrated boots on the ground to watch and collect GPS coordinates, and you're good to go.

Right...those few "platforms" can respond well enough to cover the entire area that's in question.

I mean it's only what...1 million square miles of ocean? According to a British Rear Admiral, it takes 30-40 minutes to respond to a pirate threat...and pirate attacks occur in 10.

No imagination. None.

You see, I do have a considerable body of knowledge of the capabilities and operating methods of the US military. You can disagree with my conclusions, but on this subject, I do have some understanding (kind of like YOU and the law).

Again, I could care less where the pirate's BOATS are. Again, their bases don't move. They are, in fact, rather incendiary. Yes, I continue to expect the Navy to respond to requests for assistance from mariners, especially US Flag mariners, but THAT is simply a reasonable response in reaction to a provokation. Taking the initiative does not involve responding to these criminal acts directly. It involves making the price of piracy too high for the pirates to be willing to pay.

"From the point when the merchant vessel has seen the pirates to the point where they are on his bridge and it is game over, is about 10 minutes," he said.

If the merchant vessels can take protective measures, he added - either by putting up barricades to block the pirates getting on board, or locking themselves into their super-structure and making it difficult for the pirates to gain access - that buys the coalition force time.

"If they can extend that period out to about 30 or 40 minutes, it actually becomes very feasible that a coalition warship, or helicopter, or maritime patrol aircraft will arrive on the scene and will be able to assist them."

Oh, and the US military thinks arming the merchant ships is a bad idea.

This begs the question: Should merchant vessels be arming themselves in defence, as suggested controversially in December by US Defence Secretary Robert Gates?

Captain Richard Farrington, Operation Atalanta's Chief of Staff, thinks not.

"Industry thinks it's a bad thing, we think it's a dangerous thing and we would not condone it," he told the BBC.

"It's ultimately down to the decision of the individual shipping company but it brings with it as many problems as it does solutions and on balance we think it's more likely to escalate a difficult situation than improve it."

But what do they know anyways?

Um... you are aware, are you not, that Captain Richard Farrington, and Operation Atalanta are BRITISH, not AMERICAN ? I know... how inconvenient. [/i]

[PulpExposure]

Yes... silly you. I'm sure your right... the CREWS would clearly prefer to be dead, with their heirs well remunerated for their service... Or... perhaps you don't consider the terror of being held for ransom to be a "price".

You do know that up until now the hostages are treated extremely well by the pirates. Story:

The attackers generally treat their hostages well in anticipation of a big payday, hiring caterers on shore to cook spaghetti, grilled fish and roasted meat that will appeal to Western palates.

The pirates even let the hostages call home.

The 44-year-old, from County Durham, revealed that he had been able to talk over the telephone with his wife Hazel and daughter Amy, 18, and had reassured them he had not been harmed or threatened.

'The pirates are no problem whatsoever,' he said, 'We have had no mistreatment or anything. Our families don't have too much to worry about at the moment.'

Mr French, fellow Briton James Grady, 53, the 2nd officer, from Strathclyde, and 23 other crew are understood to be being held in the vessel's accomodation area as it is anchored off the Somali coast.

It was unclear whether the pirates were with the Briton as he spoke over the telephone yesterday with ITV News, suggesting there was a good rapport between captors and captives.

'The boys (the pirates) are quite happy,' he said. 'We are talking to them all the time, reassuring them. Hopefully, we are going to get some more phone calls to our families soon.

'All in all, we are not too badly off. Apart from the inconvenience of being locked up, our life is not too bad.'

Such is the extent of the pirate business in Somalia that a restaurant is said to have been opened specially to provide food for the hostages.

According to that article:

No hostages have ever been harmed by the Somali pirates.

I think all things considered, they treat their hostages pretty damn well. That being said...

You see, unlike Vet, I do have a considerable body of knowledge of the capabilities and operating methods of the US military. Again, I could care less where the pirate's BOATS are. Again, their bases don't move. They are, in fact, rather incendiary.

Now if you're talking about going after the pirates at their home port, if you actually read this thread, you'll see that's exactly what I said we should do.

I just think the idea of either arming merchant ships or the whole trying to interdict them at sea are ridiculous ideas.

Um... you are aware, are you not, that Captain Richard Farrington, and Operation Atalanta are BRITISH? I know... how inconvenient.

Ok, you got me there. But how does my mistake invalidate his opinion?

Edit to add something regarding my position why the shipping companies do not want to arm their crews:

Retired U.S. Army Colonel Ralph Peters says one of the reasons the pirates are so successful, is that the crews of the ships attacked are not armed. Colonel Peters says that is due to insurance issues.

"If ships were to fight back, insurance rates would skyrocket because the insurance companies, the maritime insurers are looking at what costs the most," he said. "And by their calculations, liability claims, actual damage to the ships or cargo might cost more than the $1 million or $2- or $3 million ransom.'

Peter Chalk, a maritime security expert with the RAND Corporation, says there are other reasons.

"Traditional flag states will not allow vessels that they register to be armed," he said. "And also, it's not really a good thing - some of the crew members you just simply don't want to have these people armed. There is always the chance that they could take over the vessel and that they could try and steal the cargo."