Thread: Now We're in Trouble!

I agree with the sentiment, but the reality is that we don't have enough marines to do this and cost of private security on thousands of ships might be prohibitive. We should at least start sinking the "mother" ships that allow these guys to operate so far out at sea.

Jordan

I would like to see the pirates addressed with a seek find and destroy mission by our forces and those of our allies. Preemptive to any hostage taking and especially after the fact.

Originally Posted by jnich67

I agree with the sentiment, but the reality is that we don't have enough marines to do this and cost of private security on thousands of ships might be prohibitive. We should at least start sinking the "mother" ships that allow these guys to operate so far out at sea.

Jordan

If the shipping company, or its insurer, isn't willing to shoulder the costs of keeping their ships safe then they shouldn't be crying to us. The reality is the area is too big to patrol effectively. Unless they are willing to provide their own security or alter their schedules so they can run in convoys with an escort or two they are going to end up on the short end eventually.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

I would like to see the pirates addressed with a seek find and destroy mission by our forces and those of our allies. Preemptive to any hostage taking and especially after the fact.

They need to use the "pursue them onto shore" option the UN sanctioned... or they were talking about sanctioning. I don't really keep up on that stuff.

Either way though it is too much area to effectively patrol. What might work is taking the time/resources to hunt down those mother ships and capture/sink them. Without them they can't venture as far out. It might be tough to spot a little motorboat in all that water but I imagine a few passes with AWACs or satellites would give them a good idea where to look for the bigger ones.

Nobody gave a rats @$$ about these pirates until they hit an oil tanker for the first time this year. I suspect it'll take these guys a long time to realise what should be done in response to western protection in the gulf there. I'm pretty sure there will be a slew of pirate deaths this year and that in the future they will simply avoid those ships which are not alone on the open seas.

X

Originally Posted by TomSD

If the shipping company, or its insurer, isn't willing to shoulder the costs of keeping their ships safe then they shouldn't be crying to us. The reality is the area is too big to patrol effectively. Unless they are willing to provide their own security or alter their schedules so they can run in convoys with an escort or two they are going to end up on the short end eventually.

I understand what you're saying, but at the end of the day, we'll end up paying for the security through higher prices...It will be passed along.

Jordan

Originally Posted by xman

Nobody gave a rats @$$ about these pirates until they hit an oil tanker for the first time this year.

X

I'm sorry X, I am not sure what your point is. Could you please elaborate?

Originally Posted by TomSD

They need to use the "pursue them onto shore" option the UN sanctioned... or they were talking about sanctioning. I don't really keep up on that stuff.

Either way though it is too much area to effectively patrol. What might work is taking the time/resources to hunt down those mother ships and capture/sink them. Without them they can't venture as far out. It might be tough to spot a little motorboat in all that water but I imagine a few passes with AWACs or satellites would give them a good idea where to look for the bigger ones.

I agree. Between satellites, drones, patrol aircraft, signal intelligence, etc, we should be able to locate a fair number of these larger boats. Then we'll just have to deal with all the whining bleeding hearts when pirates start dying in numbers.

Jordan

There are no "mother ships". The pirates are independants with smalls boats and small arms who have found that shipping companies will pay dearly for the return of an experienced crew and/or skipper. They are impossible to differentiate from the hundreds of other small boats fishing in the area until they attack. They made a huge mistake when they took the skipper of an American flagged vessel. Our Navy is in business to protect that ship. We are not going to run a security service for the rest of the world's merchant vessels.

The solution is for a shipping company to pay for armed security on board each ship they send into "dangerous" waters. A half dozen pirates with AK-47's and RPG's in a small boat can overtake and board any ship that has no one shooting back. One man standing a topside watch can alert the rest of a crew to draw arms and repel boarders. Even two people with shotguns from a protected, elevated position can put down any attack from a small boat.

Question: The fourth pirate, the one who went to the destroyer to "negotiate" for the American captain. Was he happy when the shooting went down? Was he surprised? Or, was he the smart one who knew the American Navy wasn't going to play around much longer but didn't want to look like a sissy in front of the other three clowns?

Brad

Listening to the radio this morning...

This is me paraphrasing...

1) Due to internal treaties/laws/whatever, these ships are not allow to have armed crewman. If they did arm, they would not be able to dock in some ports.

2) the percentage of ships that get hijacked is very very low and shipping companies dont want to spend the money\

3) the companies say it is the job of the governments to keep the waters safe