Navy Seals kick butt!

[Tunnelcat]

The Captain that was held hostage by the Somali pirates is free! The Navy Seals really did a good job! Good for them. About bloody time! Three pirates dead, one is being held by the U.S.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/04 ... a.pirates/

What do you guys think should be done with these pirates in the future to prevent further ship hijackings in this area of the world?

[AlphaDoG]

Establish a beachhead and send in the marines to rout out any remaing pirates.

[Tunnelcat]

Weren't we in that mess of a country a few years ago with disasterous results and the deaths of a few of our military men? The place is a pithole that would end up like Afganistan, or worse, for us.

I say arm the merchant ships and let them blow the hell out of any boarders that try it. Or maybe a sea blockade of the Somalia coast by a coalition of world navies.

[Spidey]

I say arm the merchant ships and let them blow the hell out of any boarders that try it.

Agreed, and I would also like to see an international armada sail up and down that coast freeing those captured ships.

I really can’t understand why the international community is putting up with this ★■◆●.

[VonVulcan]

I say arm the merchant ships and let them blow the hell out of any boarders that try it.

X3

[Dedman]

If they are in international waters, aren't they allowed to do that now? I'm asking because I don't know what international maritime law says on the matter.

[Lothar]

Weren't we in that mess of a country a few years ago with disasterous results and the deaths of a few of our military men?

There was a single "disastrous" occurrence in Mogadishu -- 18 American soldiers killed, and somewhere between 133 and a couple thousand killed on the other side. That's slightly disastrous, but I think less so than handing over the country to various Islamists, pirates, etc.

Part of the problem with pirates is that international law doesn't really cover the situation well, and certain courts have started trying to impose rulings (on unrelated subjects) on people outside of their own countries. This means nobody is quite sure how much force they can use against pirates without ending up locked up for the rest of their lives by some random Canadian or European court. We need a clear international law that allows people to defend themselves with deadly force, and that allows various navies to move in against pirates without fear of legal repercussions. Make piracy a dangerous enough business and the pirates will get out of it.

[Drakona]

I really can’t understand why the international community is putting up with this *****.

Because attacking folks in international waters is a good way to get accused of war crimes.

More nations are sending aircraft and warships to patrol the Gulf of Aden. But none of these nations are willing to go ashore to destroy pirate bases, and some are restricting the use of force (against the pirates) by their warships. The anti-pirate forces are constrained by their governments wish to avoid anything that will look bad in the news. The pirates know how to manipulate the media. So a policy of shooting up any speedboats full of gunmen found off the north coast of Somalia, carries with it the risk of bad press and being accused of war crimes.

It's not like we (or a lot of other nations, for that matter) lack the firepower or even the willpower to stop these guys. It's just that as long as they operate at a low level, the PR risk is too high to justify action. You have to wait until after they screw up by attacking an American, and even then, wait until there's a clear danger to him and the media have already picked a villian in the story. Then you can maybe shoot some pirates a little bit.

I say arm the merchant ships and let them blow the hell out of any boarders that try it.

X3

The economics don't work out. For some reason, if you put weapons on board, your insurance premiums go way up. For the time being, it's a small percentage of ships that get attacked, and the pirates are demanding small ransoms (compared to the risk and overall cost of the voyage). It's better to just take the hit, let insurance pay the ransom, and go on with your life. So things will have to get worse before it becomes economical for them to get better.

Yeah, I know. It seems self-evident to me, too, that a ship with an armed guard on board, even a mercenary one, is a lower risk than one without. Evidently the folks who do the insurance don't see it that way, and won't until the piracy gets a lot more expensive. So the obvious and decent thing to do--consider them enemies of the human race and shoot them--gets trumped by political and economic concerns until they get greedy or bloodthirsty enough to become a real problem.

Heaven help them if that happens, though.

[Dakatsu]

I think that each country should have a law, and simply the actions are dictated by the law of the ship's country...

[Spidey]

Of all the reasons I can think of to not kill pirates as they try to board merchant ships, worring about the PR has to be at the bottom of my list, and getting accused of war crimes, when there is no war, is just a joke.

[SilverFJ]

Execution, no trial, machetes.

[Octopus]

Navy Sharp Shooters.... It just sounds weird. I mean those bolt action rifles must have been dusting for years in storage. WOOT! USA!

[Will Robinson]

I think if you arm a ship then no insurance company will pay a claim because an armed ship is a legitimate target to any countries military. So rather than have your cargo held up or even lost but paid for by insurance you risk losing the cargo and the ship and no insurance will be paid on any of it because you made it a military target.

Maybe a short term solution would be if NATO countries started training missions in those waters since there is the benefit of so many live targets to practice on....

[Kilarin]

My solution, which is probably both illegal and impractical, would be along the lines of how Heinlein suggested we deal with terrorist.

When the FIRST ship is captured by the pirates and ransom is demanded, the navy blows it up. Kaboom, with all hands on board.

There MIGHT be a second ship captured, there won't be a third. Both lives and money are saved in the long run.

[Spidey]

I think if you arm a ship then no insurance company will pay a claim because an armed ship is a legitimate target to any countries military. So rather than have your cargo held up or even lost but paid for by insurance you risk losing the cargo and the ship and no insurance will be paid on any of it because you made it a military target.

There is a certain logic to that, but of course you then have the option to declare war on any attacker, and all that implies.

[Will Robinson]

I think if you arm a ship then no insurance company will pay a claim because an armed ship is a legitimate target to any countries military. So rather than have your cargo held up or even lost but paid for by insurance you risk losing the cargo and the ship and no insurance will be paid on any of it because you made it a military target.

There is a certain logic to that, but of course you then have the option to declare war on any attacker, and all that implies.

I suppose but in this case the "you" is merely a private commercial entity and so they are at the mercy of their governments desire to declare and wage the war and the Somali pirates wouldn't be deterred since they really don't have any kind of home base that isn't already in a constant state of war anyway...

[snoopy]

My solution, which is probably both illegal and impractical, would be along the lines of how Heinlein suggested we deal with terrorist.

When the FIRST ship is captured by the pirates and ransom is demanded, the navy blows it up. Kaboom, with all hands on board.

There MIGHT be a second ship captured, there won't be a third. Both lives and money are saved in the long run.

I don't think I could pull the trigger on that one. It might make logical sense to do it that way, but it's one of those end justifying the means thing that I don't think you can let yourself do, for fear of it repeating itself in more and more questionable forms.

I really don't know how one would deal with this... If you could assume a military escort you could just watch them like hawks and wait for them to make a mistake, like this time. The problem is, you really can't.

I wonder what you happen if crews started scuttling their own boats to prevent these guys from making off with cargo. It'd probably mess with insurance.

[Zantor]

Establish a beachhead and send in the marines to rout out any remaining pirates.

The only issue with that is jurisdiction and stuff, but otherwise hell yeah.

I saw that on the news last night. That's amazing.

[Spidey]

The logic here is a little convoluted, They don’t fly the flag of a corporation on the high seas, they fly the US flag, so therefore the “you” in this case is “US”.

There are only 3 basic kinds of ships on the open seas, Military, Merchant Marine & Civilian. If they can categorize a Merchant Marine ship as Military, because it carries defensive weapons, well then attacking it would be an attack on the US military. (and yes the choice to go to war would be the governments, that’s what I had in mind in the first place)

Personally I think the flaw is re-categorizing the ship in the first place, (but that’s JMHO, and has no bearing on the facts)

Oddly, I think the obvious answer is staring us right in the face….

They take a ship…take it back!

[Kilarin]

I don't think I could pull the trigger on that one

Like I said, impractical, and that's one of the main reasons.

Another impractical solution: I wonder if you could get around the "armed ship" problem by not actually arming the big ship. Rather put your mercenaries into a different well armed (and faster) ship and let them escort you.

VERY expensive, I'm sure. Oh well.

[Spidey]

I didn't say that, snoopy did. (but I agree)

.........................

EDIT:

Just watched an interview with a former State Dept. guy, And apparently the insurance issue regarding arming of ships has nothing to do with it being considered “military” and solely to do with the chance of total or greater losses, during the fight.

[Tunnelcat]

Navy Sharp Shooters.... It just sounds weird. I mean those bolt action rifles must have been dusting for years in storage. WOOT! USA!

Obviously you've never read any of Richard 'Demo Dick' Marcinko's books. The Navy has VERY elite sniper teams, just for these contingencies. If they were using those .50 caliber Barrett rifles, things went SPLAT when the rounds hit! Pirate protoplasm! Hooya! to the Navy!

I heard somewhere that the shooting was done at night, so maybe they were using some type of thermal or night vision to pick out their targets.

The pirates say they are now going to retaliate for the deaths of their men.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... wD97HJI3G0

Well crap, now the gloves should come off. No more mister nice guy for the merchant marine any more. To top it off, this ship was carrying FOOD AID for Somalia! Talk about bitting the hand that feeds you.

I say the shipping companies should hire trained heavily armed guards to protect their interests if NATO doesn't get on the ball here. The free world has allowed this to go on WAY too long. These pirates are like kids in a candy store with no parents around to tell them 'NO'! They'll keep taking more and more and start killing as time goes on if there's no hard response. The insurance companies better start seeing the problem for what it's becoming, a high-seas murder and theft business. Maybe when family members start suing the shipping companies for the murders of their loved ones, while on the job, the new bottom line will change their opinions about arming merchant ships.

[Will Robinson]

I didn't say that, snoopy did. (but I agree)

.........................

EDIT:

Just watched an interview with a former State Dept. guy, And apparently the insurance issue regarding arming of ships has nothing to do with it being considered “military” and solely to do with the chance of total or greater losses, during the fight.

Kind of the same thing though from a practical standpoint....if the risk is so great the insurance is too expensive or not offered the customer chooses to not arm rather than not insure.
Sailing an armed ship into a foreign port can't be a simple thing especially for us capitalist infidel crusader types.
Hell, they blew up the U.S.S. Cole with out fear of reprisal the last time we had a President who preferred to call these attacks law enforcement problems so what can we expect now that we elected a guy who bows to the Saudi King and calls the war on terror a foreign contingency!?! The odds Obama will wage any thing close to war to protect a commercial interest, even a ship under military protection, is really low. Now wage a war against commercial interests....that he'll do....er, did....

[Lothar]

The pirates say they are now going to retaliate for the deaths of their men.

It's just that as long as they operate at a low level, the PR risk is too high to justify action. You have to wait until after they screw up by attacking an American, and even then, wait until there's a clear danger to him and the media have already picked a villian in the story.
...
So the obvious and decent thing to do--consider them enemies of the human race and shoot them--gets trumped by political and economic concerns until they get greedy or bloodthirsty enough to become a real problem.

Exactly... we've now provoked the pirates into putting on their black hats, and we've got some US and French military guys being treated like heroes for their rescues. The PR war has shifted. It'll take perhaps one or two more incidents to give the Navy the green light to start taking out pirates, at which point it will suddenly become a VERY dangerous career path. I expect there to be a few rather violent incidents in the near future, and then piracy will fall off dramatically as the pirates find themselves outmanned, outgunned, and outclassed.

[Tunnelcat]

I expect there to be a few rather violent incidents in the near future, and then piracy will fall off dramatically as the pirates find themselves outmanned, outgunned, and outclassed.

I should effing hope so, soon! Get some balls NATO! You'd think it would be getting a little expensive to risk shipping in that area now.

My question is where does all that ransom money come from and go to in the end? If it's going to fund terrorism somewhere, and you can bet some of it is, isn't that illegal, if not immoral? It is in Britain. Isn't that just nice. Our shipping companies pay a hefty ransom, it goes to fund Al Qaeda to attack us somewhere else in the world, AGAIN!

http://www.reuters.com/article/africaCr ... SN09299422

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7847351.stm

[CUDA]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/04 ... index.html

A senior defense official said each was a shot to the head.

I'll say this 3 times and 3 times ONLY
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[Kilarin]

I didn't say that, snoopy did. (but I agree)

Ooops! Sorry!

[Octopus]

So moving forward (now that people are starting to wonder if the pirates are going to start attacking US ships harder, in that area) are we going to have decoy US ships to catch these guys? I would watch that show! \"Punked Pirates\"

[snoopy]

As Lothar & Drakona have have pointed out, the best we can hope for is that they continue to shoot themselves in the foot. The fact that we're sitting here talking about this means that they've dealt themselves a blow.

As long as they managed to stay out of the public eye, they would have been able to continue do their thing, on a limited scale, without anyone taking particular action about it. If they retaliate as promised, they will only be waking the slumbering beast. It may already be too late.

[Octopus]

What I love is the media is covering EVERY priate attack now, like it's a new trend.
(Remember shark month...? )

[SilverFJ]

The fact that we're sitting here talking about this means that they've dealt themselves a blow.

or that we discuss basically every noteworthy global current event on this board anyway...?

[Lothar]

The fact that we're sitting here talking about this means that they've dealt themselves a blow.

or that we discuss basically every noteworthy global current event on this board anyway...?

The pirate attacks started in the early 1990s at a low level, and ramped up in 2005. But we've just now decided that these events are "noteworthy".

If the pirates had kept things at the level they were in 2005-2006, we probably still wouldn't be talking about it... but now that they've messed up, the topic has become "noteworthy" and the media is starting to pile on. One or two more big slip-ups by pirates (killing a hostage, or attacking Americans) will mean it's all over for them.

[Spidey]

The news shows I watch have been covering this issue for over a decade, but the pirates have just recently expanded their operational area, and decided to attack the wrong ship…so now it’s big news.

[TechPro]

I got an idea ... \"Survivor: Somali Pirates\"

[SilverFJ]

I first learned about it when I watched \"Captain Ron\".

[dissent]

I got an idea ... "Survivor: Somali Pirates"

LMAO

[Neo]

é ^_~

I'll say this 3 times and 3 times ONLY

MAXIMUM LULZ

[Tunnelcat]

Maybe NATO has got some good ideas, or at least remembered some old ones. I just read that they might resurrect the WWII merchant convoy idea that would make it easier for protection from a multinational military Naval force. If the pirates don't get a hold of submarines, it might work.

I see that the French can kick butt too. They went after a small pirate group that had attacked a French vessel, proceeded to follow them to their mother ship with a helicopter when the attacking group fled and arrested the whole lot of them, including those on the mother ship!

[Tunnelcat]

Oops! Maybe NATO'S not so bright. They chased down and actually captured a group of pirates. However, all they did was confiscate their weapons and LET THEM GO with their boats back to Somalia! Idiots!

[Spidey]

That’s sad if true.

Maybe they put a Spidey tracker on the boat.