Dealing with Somali pirates

[hatesfreedom]

Were I operating a shipping company, I'd hire an outfit like Blackwater to put a handful of personnel on every ship, with instructions to take no prisoners. If you perceive a threat to this vessel, greet it with an RPG. The wages and support for such a staff has to be less than the ransomes being paid, plus my ships keep moving. It shouldn't take too long before the pirates decide things aren't working out as planned.

I believe the shipping companies would prefer not escalating the situation like that. It's one thing to have a nationalized navy chase the pirates away and quite another to try and repel boarding actions. I mean, in example the pirates haven't really been that violent when taking over ships. Not many hostages at all have been killed, and most hostages have reported being kept in pretty good conditions. That all changes if you start arming merchant vessels. I believe the shipping companies would prefer they are protected without having to bring on mercenaries.

Also, there are only like 200 US registered cargo ships in operation. We are not in any way a world leader in merchant mariners so it will be astounding if another US vessel gets captured anytime soon.

[Batman]

Plus, I believe it's against the law for US merchant vessels to carry arms on board.

[danceswithcats]

Were I operating a shipping company, I'd hire an outfit like Blackwater to put a handful of personnel on every ship, with instructions to take no prisoners. If you perceive a threat to this vessel, greet it with an RPG. The wages and support for such a staff has to be less than the ransomes being paid, plus my ships keep moving. It shouldn't take too long before the pirates decide things aren't working out as planned.

I believe the shipping companies would prefer not escalating the situation like that. It's one thing to have a nationalized navy chase the pirates away and quite another to try and repel boarding actions. I mean, in example the pirates haven't really been that violent when taking over ships. Not many hostages at all have been killed, and most hostages have reported being kept in pretty good conditions. That all changes if you start arming merchant vessels. I believe the shipping companies would prefer they are protected without having to bring on mercenaries.

Also, there are only like 200 US registered cargo ships in operation. We are not in any way a world leader in merchant mariners so it will be astounding if another US vessel gets captured anytime soon.

While I understand what you're saying, the task of effectively protecting that area of water by another party is all but impossible, from what is heard on NPR, owing to the vastness of area.

Perhaps it's a bad analogy, but NYPD can't protect every cabbie from getting robbed. A cab with a guy in the right front seat who is armed isn't likely to get robbed once the word gets on the street.

[silenus]

The pirates are obviously contemptuous of our response, since they have siezed 4 more ships. Time to take off the gloves and stop playing nice.

[Baldwin]

The pirates are obviously contemptuous of our response, since they have siezed 4 more ships. Time to take off the gloves and stop playing nice.

Meaning what, exactly?

[silenus]

See my previous suggestions. Exterminate them like the vermin they are. Leave nothing but scorched earth behind.

[ivan astikov]

Plus, I believe it's against the law for US merchant vessels to carry arms on board.

And? Who is going to complain? Dead pirates?

If the law is stupid, it shouldn't be a law.

[Walker in Eternity]

Plus, I believe it's against the law for US merchant vessels to carry arms on board.

And? Who is going to complain? Dead pirates?

If the law is stupid, it shouldn't be a law.

That's ok if you're only dealing with pirates, but the US and Royal Navy both stop and search vessels for contraband etc. If vessels are encouraged to carry weapons it makes life harder for the naval personnel.

In my opinion the best option is limited air strikes to take out any potential pirate vessel before it engages in such activity (shaky legal and moral territory I know), combined with a mulitnational force of vessels patrolling the area. This may be difficult given the requirements of various other areas around the globe.

[ivan astikov]

Wouldn't the US and Royal Navy approach any suspect boat as if it was carrying weapons anyway? How would it make their job more difficult?

[Batman]

If the law is stupid, it shouldn't be a law.

Brilliant observation. However, pirates are considered criminals under US law. This means that by allowing merchant vessels to go armed, the government would be effectively allowing merchant fleets to take the law into their own hands. It's as if every cabby in New york was allowed to carry a gun in lieu of police patrols. Giving sailors guns could bring up further complications:

Let's say they get attacked by pirates and repel them. But one pirate survived and is now at the mercy of the sailors, who kill him. Now, instead of a case of piracy in the high seas, its a murder case. It won't look good on TV to try sailors for killing a pirate. And this is just one of the many problems of letting guns onboard civilian ships.

The best option, IMHO, is to attack pirates at the coast. This is already a part of the military's developing plan to combat piracy. Another method mentioned farther down the thread were something akin to Q ships. Q ships were civilian ships armed by the military to serve as decoys, they were meant to bait submarines into attacking them in order to destroy the sub.

[Walker in Eternity]

Wouldn't the US and Royal Navy approach any suspect boat as if it was carrying weapons anyway? How would it make their job more difficult?

Of course they would, but most law abiding boats would not be carrying weapons and therefore if the law were to be relaxed then it would mean more work as every boat would have to be treated as if it were armed and dangerous.

[ivan astikov]

[quote=Walker in Eternity]

Wouldn't the US and Royal Navy approach any suspect boat as if it was carrying weapons anyway? How would it make their job more difficult?

Of course they would, but most law abiding boats would not be carrying weapons and therefore if the law were to be relaxed then it would mean more work as every boat would have to be treated as if it were armed and dangerous.[/quote:15euslfe]
:dub: It sounds like you are just confirming what I said?

Any military vessel tasked with patrolling the seas, should not be looking at certain boats and thinking "Ah, that's a 'law-abiding' boat!".

Every boat should be believed to be carrying arms unless they know different, and that can only be established by going aboard and searching.

[Walker in Eternity]

I see your point. Perhaps the difficulty would arise from the amount that actually carry guns increasing and deciding to make a fight of it.

[ivan astikov]

A fair assumption, but any crew willing to hold off authorised forces with their weapons is obviously up to no good anyway, and needs its weapons and crew removing from the equation.

[Walker in Eternity]

True, but allowing more crews to carry weapons might encourage illegal behaviour and therefore make more work for our already overstretched forces.

[hatesfreedom]

You guys missed the point on that one. Merchantmen don't want to be armed because it'll hold up customs, and getting held up in customs for a few days can destroy the profit margin on that trip.

Shipping is not really that profitable an industry to be in.

[ivan astikov]

You guys missed the point on that one. Merchantmen don't want to be armed because it'll hold up customs, and getting held up in customs for a few days can destroy the profit margin on that trip.

Shipping is not really that profitable an industry to be in.

If the merchantmen were keeping an adequate watch, they'd only need one or two mercenaries armed with R.P.G's assisting them.

[silenus]

You'd be amazed how many countries react negatively to private parties possessing rocket-propelled grenades.

[ivan astikov]

You'd be amazed how many countries react negatively to private parties possessing rocket-propelled grenades.

Why should they? It's not as if they are going to be taking them on shore leave with them.

Are there any objections to whaling boats having a whopping harpoon to attack something far more benign than pirates?

[silenus]

Harpoons aren't man-portable.

Most countries have heavy restrictions on private weaponry. If a freighter docks and the crew (or security people) are armed, they will be arrested/jailed/detained/ejected. The authorities are afriad of those weapons getting loose in-country. As noted, this impacts the bottom line. Better to let the navies of the world kill all the pirates rather than try to do it yourself. If they would just get off the dime and do it!

[Inigo Montoya]

Now a harpoon would be a hell of a deterrent for pirates! But maybe overkill.

I'm thinking the real solution is a land-based one. Maybe I'm just getting old, but I'm getting tired of failed/failing states wreaking havoc on nations that can actually get/keep their shit together. This world has a lot of advancements to make and countries like these, in addition to being stressful to everyone else, are worse than dead weight. Sure, Somalia's not got much in the way of resources, but they're not just a big sand pit either. At the very least a stable government could establish the country as a source of cheap industrial labor. Just allowing the region to languish as it does, however, is a disservice to everyone. I say dress up imperialism and international government-making however you want to, but that's the only real answer.