How to defeat the pirates!

Property crime really pisses me off. Whether someone breaks into my neighbour's house or some Somali clowns steal cargo ships, it is a serious problem for society.

As we know, Somali pirates have taken to seizing ships and crews in international waters and hold them for ransom. Most recently, a huge Dubai-owned tanker carrying 2m barrels of oil destined for the US now being held, along with 16 others. Millions of $$ have been paid out in ransome so far, which only encourages them.

No one is safe, whether the ship is Ukrainian, Russian, Indian, Iranian, etc, all are targets.

So how does the international community defeat these pirates?
It has been shown that the pirates can range hundreds of miles off shore to make their capture. Steering around the danger area would require ever-larger detours.

Various navies are participating in security patrols, but this is not enough, and imo unnecessarily expensive for the nations involved. Sure, most Western nations' navies could make quick work of the pirates, but this would be costly and the pirates know it.

Frankly, the individual cargo ships should make themselves a more difficult target.
The ships simply need to be armed, A few WWII era cannons, heavy caliber machine guns placed in armored platforms on deck and some shoulder-fired missiles (with well paid mercenaries who know how to use them) would make quick work of pirate speedboats.

The pirates cannot damage a ship much in its capture, that defeats their purpose. The pirates must get close to the ships in order to capture them and are limited in their opportunity to shoot back. Therefore, it is the pirates themselves who are vulnerable to defensive measures.

The other alternative is to use a convoy system, where the cargo ships would travel in groups through the danger area with a couple of well-armed escort vessels and air cover.

I say we cut off their supply of peg-legs, hook-hands and eyepatches. And parrots. That'll show those fuckers.

Seriously. I know this is a serious topic, but I can't take it seriously.

Seriously?

I second those who have difficulty taking this seriously (and my feelings haven't changed for some years now.) In this article:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/20/Somali_pirates_demand_25M_for_Saudi_ship/UPI-63581227192800/

...they actually refer to the location the ship was taken to as the pirates' "lair" :rofl:


I mean come on, how is this actually an issue today!? A world of microchips and unmanned planes and satellite communications, and we're still falling for a 17th century scurge. Honestly, can't this just be dealt with already so we can move on? Personally, I like the mercenary idea. Hire a few guys who know how to fire an assault rifle or shoulder an RPG -- you know, the kind of guys with stubbly beards and brushy moustaches, wide brim hats and oversized aviators. I hear they usually chew a lot of Skoal and prefer to remain as "off the grid" as possible.

So at any rate, a couple of these guys packing some firepower would be a lot cheaper and a lot more awesome than paying out millions in ransom. And since anything goes in international waters, I doubt anyone will find fault with some bullet-riddled Somali pirate corpses cooking in a flaming power boat.

drink their rum! they are powerless without it

maybe merchants should take an idea or two from Waterworld?

(sorry for the lack of a serious response.)

I was surprised to hear from the news that these cargo ships are easy targets for takeover as there are no weapons aboard. The "pirates " ride up to the ships in multiple small boats and come aboard with nothing to stop them. What are the reasons that these ships cannot be armed? It would be fairly easy, in my opinion, from what I've seen on the news to have people stationed on the ship with weapons to watch over the waters and shoot at any approaching small boat that is threatening in an attempt to thwart a takeover.

Technically the Somalian government should be held responsible but last time I checked it collapsed and lawlessness prevails. For the Pirates it is a monetary issue. Arming merchant ships is not as easy as it sounds and I seriously doubt you want weaponry and munitions on board an oil tanker. :grinno:

Obviously the Pirates are well armed too. This is interesting to note. Flip side of the Somalian Pirate's actions.


Source: New York Times

NAIROBI, Kenya — The Somali pirates who hijacked a Ukrainian freighter loaded with tanks, artillery, grenade launchers and ammunition said in an interview on Tuesday that they had no idea the ship was carrying arms when they seized it on the high seas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/world/africa/01pirates.html?ref=world

Nuke them?:confused:

I like the Indians blowing them out of the water













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

What are the reasons that these ships cannot be armed? It would be fairly easy, in my opinion,

I think it is simply money and efficiency. Most ships are registered in nations of 'convenience' (ie, where it's cheap, like Liberia) and are usually staffed these days with a minimum of people who, again, work cheap. It simply will take greater financial losses in terms of ransoms paid and lost time before such steps are taken.

It's very easy to arm them. Russians just love to sell somewhat-obsolete weapons systems pretty cheap so effective weapons are easy to come by.

Install a few of these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashtan) and they will take care of the pirates for now (against their boats) and even into the future if they decide to upgrade to helicopters, missiles, etc.

I am not sure how trading ports would react to armed private vessels coming into their waters, though. Perhaps inspections could be done by Customs or Coast Guard top ensure such systems are disarmed before mooring.

It's very easy to arm them. Russians just love to sell somewhat-obsolete weapons systems pretty cheap so effective weapons are easy to come by.

:screwy:

Are you dreaming? Better yet I say let the Canadian Navy and Canadian taxpayers worry about them or other countries for a change. :grinyes: If the U.S. gets involved too much the world will get pissed off at us even more or have pity or sympathy for the Pirates.

:screwy:

Are you dreaming? Better yet I say let the Canadian Navy and Canadian taxpayers worry about them or other countries for a change. :grinyes: If the U.S. gets involved too much the world will get pissed off at us even more or have pity or sympathy for the Pirates.

Where did you get the idea that any taxpayer has to pay to arm the ships?

I thought it was obvious that the cost of arming and/or protecting these ships lies exclusively with the ship owners, and no one else (like any other ship upgrade or maintenance)

Where did you get the idea that any taxpayer has to pay to arm the ships?

Ah, you missed my point which was facetious in nature but based on reason. The Canadian part was a joke. :lol:

:meant: What I meant to say it is dumb and unrealistic to arm civilian merchant vessels for obvious reasons. The taxpayers money comes into play when you use properly armed or equipped and well trained forces like the military to do the job.



I thought it was obvious that the cost of arming and/or protecting these ships lies exclusively with the ship owners, and no one else (like any other ship upgrade or maintenance)

Time for a reality check. The responsibility to protect their ships and crews lies with the shipping companies to a certain extent but that can be done without arming these vessels which is clearly a misplaced notion. And do you honestly believe that a shot across the bow with some obsolete weapon system is going to deter or scare away the Pirates? If nothing else it will cause an escalation and lives will be lost. The link below has a good discussion which makes sense to me. You can take it for what it worth.

Piracy and Armed Response on Ships (http://www4.marinelink.com/en-US/News/Article/327958.aspx)

Also note from the article U.N. action in the matter.


The recent approval by The United Nations Security Council for the use of foreign naval ships to protect vessels off the pirate ridden coastline of Somalia has immediately resulted in Somali opposition leaders coming out against the six month UN Security Council authorization, stating that the UN's intentions are to 'usurp their coast and loot marine resources'.

Ah, you missed my point which was facetious in nature but based on reason. The Canadian part was a joke. :lol:

I got the joke, I just did not acknowledge it!! :)


:meant: What I meant to say it is dumb and unrealistic to arm civilian merchant vessels for obvious reasons. The taxpayers money comes into play when you use properly armed or equipped and well trained forces like the military to do the job.
This entire thread is somewhat tongue - in cheek, to keep lively discussions going here.
Sure the idea of armed merchant vessels is amusing and appealing but IMO the 'convoy' idea as posted in my first post is much more likely that arming ships.

An alternative to armed merchant vessels is for the ship owners to hire armed (mercenary) escort vessels


Time for a reality check. The responsibility to protect their ships and crews lies with the shipping companies to a certain extent but that can be done without arming these vessels which is clearly a misplaced notion.
In many countries around the world, many, many private corporations use armed security, armed staff, mercenaries or whatever you want to call them to protect their property, staff and operations from opportunistic criminals.
But those operations are all on land. How is it that the water is any different??
IMO the precedent for private, armed protection of property and operations was set a long time ago . Paid protection is IMO the same whether its on land or water.


And do you honestly believe that a shot across the bow with some obsolete weapon system is going to deter or scare away the Pirates? If nothing else it will cause an escalation and lives will be lost. The link below has a good discussion which makes sense to me.

Obsolete systems?? The pirates use little boats and hand-held automatic rifles. They rely on climbing over the side of the vessels. How sophisticated is that? Sure the Russian systems are not quite up to western Navy's standards but they are, IMO more than up for the task at hand.
And no shot across the bow either.... shoot to sink only, after a suitable warning.

As for escalation....... the pirates are opportunistic bullies, and we all know how to deal with them. Security measures usually work........ criminals will cease operations or seek out easier targets.
As for lives being lost...... that is likely to happen regardless of the merchant's response.

Maybe Blackwater can put it's services onboard.

I'm with magicrat on this one.A couple of medium and light cannon at any spot where the pirates can climb up, and a couple placed on the bow and stern of the ship (a lot of these ships are HUGE, remember) and the'yll be fine. Pirates would quickly turn away from the fight if they knew 20,30, and 40 millimeter shells were likely to come in their general direction. And the ones that weren't smart enough to... would get killed by 20, 30 and 40 millimeter shells hitting them. No skin off my back. I have no problem with private companies hiring professional guards to protect their assets.

Obsolete systems?? The pirates use little boats and hand-held automatic rifles. They rely on climbing over the side of the vessels. How sophisticated is that? Sure the Russian systems are not quite up to western Navy's standards but they are, IMO more than up for the task at hand.
And no shot across the bow either.... shoot to sink only, after a suitable warning.

Still speculating? Obviously you have no experience in the Navy or any military service for that matter. It is asymmetrical warfare. The enemy doesn't need sophisticated weapons. No need for further discussion unless you want me to continue laughing. :biggrin:

Did someone mention Blackwater?

Blackwater Gunboats to Protect Ships (http://www4.marinelink.com/en-US/News/Article/328828.aspx)

Still speculating? Obviously you have no experience in the Navy or any military service for that matter. It is asymmetrical warfare. The enemy doesn't need sophisticated weapons. No need for further discussion unless you want me to continue laughing. :biggrin:

Did someone mention Blackwater?

Blackwater Gunboats to Protect Ships (http://www4.marinelink.com/en-US/News/Article/328828.aspx)
Now Bob, the whole suggestion is tongue in cheek, but you shouldn't be so dismissive, or else people may not be so receptive to your posts in future.:smile:

Thank you for the link. I was actually thinking of those folks given their performance elsewhere in the world........

As for asymmetrical warfare.........this concept does not really apply. This is not 'warfare! It is theft!. The combatant's motivations are different than in warfare. The pirates actually need to capture the merchants, not wage war, so they are limited in the unconventional tactics they can use. They do not want to die nor do they want to destroy their targets. So a strong deterrence is all that's needed to make them choose another target (or career for that matter).

Blackwater knows this, their ship-board 'attack helicopter' will make things asymmetrical ..........:grinyes:

What are the reasons that these ships cannot be armed? It would be fairly easy, in my opinion, from what I've seen on the news to have people stationed on the ship with weapons to watch over the waters and shoot at any approaching small boat that is threatening in an attempt to thwart a takeover.
Arming merchant ships is not as easy as it sounds and I seriously doubt you want weaponry and munitions on board an oil tanker. :grinno:

From what I had seen in the news report they made it sound that there were mainly cargo ships that were being hijacked. I only saw one tanker during the whole report. Mind you this report ran on some non-descript cable channel at 4 am and I was watching this in my son's hospital room having been awake for the past 36 hours or so with many cups of caffeine :grinyes: Having watched that, it just seemed too obvious the answer was to arm these ships or have a security force that was trained in defending these ships. But yeah, that is a good point about having munitions on board a tanker, especially if the crew is not properly trained in the handling of the firearms. :eek:.

LMAO. Well, so much for security guards/forces on board commercial ships being effective and the Pirates inability to breach security. Hot off the press.


Source: AP
November 28, 2008

Tanker guards flee pirates by leaping into sea

NAIROBI, Kenya - Somali pirates hijacked a chemical tanker with dozens of Indian crew members on board Friday, and three British security guards were rescued by helicopter after jumping into the sea, officials said.

A warship on patrol nearby had sent helicopters to intervene in the attack, but they arrived after pirates had taken control of the Liberian-flagged ship, diplomatic officials said on condition of anonymity, as they were not authorized to speak with media.

Still on board were 25 Indian and two Bangladeshi crew members, after the British security guards escaped by jumping into the water, the diplomats said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27951761