• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

It's official - Piracy pays off

Water runs downhill. Always. We, in the USA paid the bill..or will eventually.

What's the choice but to arm the tankers with with weaponry and crews capable of removing a threat. Of course that means more risk if fired upon. Not a good situation by any means.
 
It is against international law to have fire arms on board a civilian vessel. I would know after spending 80 straight days my last deployment patroling this region... I asked the same question to the Officer's, and that was the answer I got about it being illegal for them to carry fire arms on board for self defense. The best that they can do is coat the stern of the ship, and all rails back there with lubricant in an attempt to stop them from climbing on board. The other thing they usually try to do is keep the fire hoses armed, and ready to go so when they try to come in the super structure they spray them back out the door. In all honesty though when confronted with RPG's (it happened when I was out there), and AK-47's most crews will surrender the ship (as would I). Then we send in the helicopter (armed of course), and the ship shows up on station in an effort to get the pirates to surrender control of the ship back to the crew, and turn themselves in. I am not party to those negotiations, so I do not know how that works/what is said. I imagine though that the pirates always get a hefty payout if they keep doing it.. I always said we need to put missles on the helicopter and just obliterate the ship without regards to their well-being, and this would all stop. This is why I am, and always shall remain enlisted. Cause I am not good at handling these types of situations. :jump:
 
Roadrunner

I like the way you think. Too bad the "enlisted" folks of the world aren't in charge as they are the ones with the best solutions to the problems at hand.

OBIO
 
Hi
Was watching a Tv show about this just last night..Its called Mighty ships and was about a new Denmark warship in the area the pirates operate.The biggest issue is the size of the area they patrol and the speed at which they can respond... even with an armed heli.Its up to the attacked ships owner's to pursue legal charges if the pirates are caught which a lot dont do so they are just released minus their weapons....The civilians do fight back as one dutch freighter did using a flare gun,got a direct hit and sunk the pirates boat...they also prosecuted the pirate's that were rescued.
Wozza
 
Hi All,
Since civilian ships can't be armed,...and that's a fact,...I always thought of another alternative. Something like the Civil War Confederate raider or German raider ship of WWI.
Even though the ship would appear to be a ship of commerce,...it would be a military ship from stem to stern. Manned by Navy or Marine personnel. With the arms to back it up. Then throw a tea party for the pirates.....

 
Surely the World could club together for a dozen armed UAV's on permanent patrol. Either sink the pirates in the middle of the Indian Ocean or follow them back to their bases and deal with them there.
 
This is a very difficult issue. I am unsure of the legalities of making military vessels look like civilian ships ala WWII.. The laws get very tricky though once you are in International waters. This is why even on our US Navy ships we carry US Coast Guard sailors to do all the negotiating, and shooting if need be. Cause if WE do it then it is seen as an act of war against X country. If they do it (Because they are a branch of the DoT) they are just doing their law enforcement duty, and all is legal.. The issue with just blowing them away is that you need to read them their rights, give them a chance to surrender, etc... I am sure many of you have seen or heard of the Carribean drug smuggling operations where they load up cigar boats/submersible craft with drugs and try to get them to the US. We have large issues with that because unless you physically set foot on that vessel, and extract the drugs from said vessel that is the only way you can charge them with any crime. For this they install pretty creative automatic sinking mechanisms in these boats and they scuttle them at the first sight of our H-60's.. So then we wind up picking them up as drifters at sea, taking them to Miami, and they are sent home to start all over again. Granted I am sure the cartel's most likely kill them afterwards for losing millions of dollars in drugs, but they are still let go. You get into that same issue with the pirates. Just it is not as dramatic as they do not have the capability to spontaneously sink the ship. Granted we still need permisison from the host nation to board which can take hours on it's own. So until we clear up all this red tape that needs to be gone through all of this stuff is continue to happen. Which is the main reason countries just pay the ransom to get the ship/crew back, and let the pirate's go.
 
" .... It is against international law to have fire arms on board a civilian vessel .... "

Being totally non PC , there's the problem.

The civilised world abides by the law , but the pirates ( and terrorists ) don't.

What's required is for some of these powers to start thinking outside of the box and deal to these pirates.

If that means disquising a vessel and having armed military on board, who's going to loose sleep.

Pete.
 
Once they release the ships, what's to stop another group of pirates from capturing them again? The whole thing with ransoming them is very dodgy to me.

Probably not a good thing that I'm not in charge. I'd sink the captured ships with the pirates and crews onboard before I'd pay any ransom.
 
USCG has been part of Homeland Security since 2001'ish. I was a plank holder in Homeland Sec from the time of transfer. No longer under Department of Transportation. I'll be the first to admit I'm currently way out of touch, but I'm having trouble with the statement about USCG personnel being onboard to be the shooters. I'm happy to be properly edumacated though.

Being that I'm on the Great Lakes, not sure of international law other than Canada, but last I read I can be armed while in the Caribbean, just have to deal with the PITA regs of declaring a weapon in each port of call. No idea how cruising on a 30 foot sailboat compares with merchant marine regs though...
 
We are unauthorized to fire on any civilian vessel... USCG snipers have to be the ones to take the shots. Did not realize they were part of HomSec. Could of swore they were DoT, but it has been some years since I last deployed. All I know is they have been dupitized if you will with law enforcement type powers, and are able to charge people with crimes. Where as we only have the power to go and wage war. I will post the link, but here it is from the USCG SouthComm website:

"Embarked on <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:eek:ffice:smarttags" /><st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region>, and at times partner nation naval vessels, is a Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachment that takes the lead during operations to board suspected vessels, seize illegal drugs, and arrest suspects. Also, a Navy helicopter squadron detachment is on board to assist in detection and monitoring."

Navy helicopter squadron detachment would be me. :jump: Thanks for enlightening me that they are part of HomeSec though. They really barely ever spent any time talking to us. Other than to come back there slapping their gun in, and telling us we needed to boogie. Was a lot more action that the defending against pirates off the coast of Somalia. We took 2 helicopters with us on that det and just flew the 1 pretty much. As said before it is rediculous the amount of area they expect one ship to cover plus its helicopters. Anyone that knows the range of the H-60's knows we aren't covering a very big circle in an area that goes for 1,000's of miles up to the Suez.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:eek:ffice:eek:ffice" /><o:p>http://s519.photobucket.com/albums/u359/Roadburner426/SH-60B%20Cruise/?action=view&current=Picture036.jpg</o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p>Coasties SouthComm Site: http://www.southcom.mil/appssc/pages/counternarco.php</o:p>
 
Roadrunner,...just curious,....what manufacture of shotguns do the USCG use? Mossbergs 500 series or Remington 870 series? Your photobucket album included a serviceman (face blocked out) holding a pump shotgun.
 
To be honest I have no clue what model shotgun that is I was holding. They let me use it for the photo-op. I would imagine it is the same one that we use in the Navy though, and that is a Mossberg of some kind. There are no Remington shotguns currently in wide use that I know about. They are just now talking about bringing back the .45 ACP pistols for side carry as opposed to the 9mm.. Like I said though I am not in the know. Being an aviation guy I am not allowed to carry fire arms on duty. Just charged with fixing planes, and standing watch over them.. If there is someone that stands shipboard watch they could tell you all of that stuff as they use them for ASF, and to stand gate watch at the piers.
 
One of our volunteers has a family member out on "pirate duty" right now. It's too bad our ships have to account for all rounds fired. ;) What pirates? When? :pop4:<BIG grin>

Don
</BIG>
 
Back when I was on security detail (think repel boarders) on a sub tender about 20 years ago as a collateral duty, we used 12 gauge Remington 870s with about a 18" barrel. For qualifications, we used low brass bird shot, but when we got them out of the armory on a security violation, we were issued buckshot. As for the 45, I carried it every duty day onboard ship while on quarterdeck watch. When I retired in 97 we were still using it shipboard instead of the 9mm.
 
Roadburner440 said:
I imagine though that the pirates always get a hefty payout if they keep doing it.. I always said we need to put missles on the helicopter and just obliterate the ship without regards to their well-being, and this would all stop.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, let's cause ten times the damage just because of a few pirates!

The ransom for ships is just a very small fraction of the value of the ship itself and the goods it transports.



brad kaste said:
Something like the Civil War Confederate raider or German raider ship of WWI.
Even though the ship would appear to be a ship of commerce,...it would be a military ship from stem to stern. Manned by Navy or Marine personnel. With the arms to back it up. Then throw a tea party for the pirates.....
Click to expand...

It think that's a banned practice by now.

If my mind doesn't fail me, pirates once attacked a replenishment ship of the Marine, but turned back as soon as they realized they were after a military ship.


Still, one should finally take care of Somalia. The whole country is a freaking mess and piracy is just one of the lesser evils going on there.
 
We have tried appeasement before and it never worked out to well in the worlds favor. In fact it put Eastern Europe into several decades worth of suffering under the USSR after WWII.. I think if we would of handled that situation up front it may not have escalated to that point. People saying that something is not a lot in compared with the value of the bigger object misses the bigger picture I think. With all of the ransoms that have been paid totalled up I think we have far exceeded the value of any ship and it's goods. At what point do they realize that they can get away with whatever they want and just decide to go even bigger? Cause taking the Rhineland back was no big deal either, and look what that lead into. I think here maybe in a decade or so we will be wishing we were harder on the pirate problem now than we were, but by then it will be to late. Hopefully I am wrong.
 
Roadburner440 said:
...
Click to expand...

Sentence number two is wrong in so many ways, but I'll let you get away with it as it's not subject of this thread.

And let me be clearer on the matter of ransoms versus value of ship and cargo: The value of the cargo and ship is ALWAYS at least ten times higher than the ransom paid for it.

Also, pushing the wheel of violence on and on isn't a nice option either. Otherwise some Somalis might want to ship some printer cartridges to whatever state bombing their country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top