The case against Arming Pirates

mmarsh

Active member
Some bright sparkplug on the internet googled all the reason AGAINST arming merchant ships. Some seem valid points, others less so. Here is his list:

1. Most sailors aren't trained to use weapons. "We're sailors, not soldiers," said one.
2. No matter how ships arm themselves, pirates will come back with bigger guns. If you escalate, pirates will escalate more. You can end up with pirates sitting far off and bombarding the ship or raking it with machine gun fire.
3. Arming ships will increase insurance costs, since insurance must now cover a range of liability and death situations.
4. Most ports won't let an armed ship dock. Period. "Trust me, you aren't sailing into San Francisco with mercenaries carrying RPGs on board." Since a merchant ship may dock at many different ports, carrying weapons would be a problem.
5. The cost of carrying armed private security forces would probably exceed the cost of a potential ransom.
6. Ships carrying chemicals or gas don't want weapons aboard, and don't want to provoke a firefight.
7. Shipping companies would rather pay ransom than risk crew members being killed. It's all a matter of liability costs.
8. From a pirate's standpoint: if the crew is a threat, why not just kill them?
9. If you're going to give guns to your sailors, you must provide weapons training. That would be a huge expense, and increase liability costs. (You don't just give handguns to pilots and think an airplane is safe.)
10. Do we want foreign merchant ships sailing into American ports with cannons and machine guns?
11. Pirates rarely kill commercial crews on large vessels (though yacht owners are frequently killed). Their goal is ransom (whereas on yachts, it's just thievery).
12. How many sailors are willing to die to protect a rich ship owner's profit?
13. If ships carried weapons, it might make them a greater target, as pirates seek to steal the weapons, too.
14. Pirates have been a problem for many, many years, and merchant lines have learned to cope with the threat.
15. If a crew member smuggles a weapon into certain port and gets caught, he could spend 5-10 years in a foreign prison.
16. Military vessles are considered "sovereign territory" when visiting foreign harbors, but that courtesy is not extended to civilian vessles. So any weapons possession is subject to local laws.
17. Nervous sailors could accidentally shoot innocent fishermen, who often approach merchant ships offering to sell their catch.
18. In an armed confrontation with pirates, the chance is great that a sailor will be injured or killed. This raises huge liability issues for ship owners.
19. Bringing weapons aboard ships is "strongly discouraged" by the United Nations International Maritime Organization.
20. Many ship owners are less worried about piracy than they are that sailors will kill each other in personal disputes.
21. A fight with pirates can create an international incident.

What do you guys think?
 
One thing I have learned, you cannot debate sensibly with anti's, not matter how much logic and or evidence you throw at them.

Although this refers to private firearms the logic is the same:-
Some time ago gun free South Africa were campaigning for people to put "Gun Free Zone" signs in their windows at home, at work and cars, despite being told that this would be an invitation to criminals to murder, raper and steal they insisted that the signs would prevent crime (figure that one out).

Soooooooo, I sent Gun Free South Africa an email with a totally fictitious story, along the lines of :-

"Thank you for your wonderful campaign of gun free zone signs. I put a few around the windows of my home and within 24 hours an armed criminal broke into my home. I challenged him with my Colt 45 to stop, he raised his firearm townards me, so I shoot him dead. One less criminal to worry about. Thank you again for such a wonderful idea."

They still didnt get the point, and neither will those in your post.

Criminals, including pirates love hand wringing bleeding heart liberals, they make their occupations so much safer.
 
Last edited:
My response:

1) Most sailors aren't trained to use weapons. "We're sailors, not soldiers," said one.
A: The scope in which these sailors would learn to use their weapons is limited. They don't have to go through an entire SWAT training program to be able to defend themselves. In most cases if they are successful in sealing themselves in, they won't need to fire a shot. A smart combination of well planned procedures, other ordinances (such as tear gas) and on board training will work.

2) No matter how ships arm themselves, pirates will come back with bigger guns. If you escalate, pirates will escalate more. You can end up with pirates sitting far off and bombarding the ship or raking it with machine gun fire.
A: Not necessarily true. What the corporation can afford will always trump what the pirate can afford. A ship's hull is thick enough to withstand machine gun fire. The forces that the ship's hull has to absorb and deflect on the high seas is immense and therefore standard firearms will not be a threat. RPGs may be a different story. But then, you can't get much ransom from a sinking ship.

3. Arming ships will increase insurance costs, since insurance must now cover a range of liability and death situations.
A: That would rise regardless of whether the ship is armed or not.

4. Most ports won't let an armed ship dock. Period. "Trust me, you aren't sailing into San Francisco with mercenaries carrying RPGs on board." Since a merchant ship may dock at many different ports, carrying weapons would be a problem.
A: You probably won't need armed mercenaries with RPGs on board. One or two security officers with the firearms locked in a safe requiring two keys (one from the Captain, one from the head security officer) will do. With the weapons clearly marked and secured, most ports will probably be able to find provisions for them, especially if the bigger companies demand that they be allowed to arm their ships.

5. The cost of carrying armed private security forces would probably exceed the cost of a potential ransom.
A: Again, a large private security force is not neccessary.

6. Ships carrying chemicals or gas don't want weapons aboard, and don't want to provoke a firefight.
A: This one is indeed tricky and in fact may cost a bit more to secure. It might be required to have a small, armed escort vessel.

7. Shipping companies would rather pay ransom than risk crew members being killed. It's all a matter of liability costs.
A: If so, then they better stop crying about piracy.

8. From a pirate's standpoint: if the crew is a threat, why not just kill them?
A: The ransom for dead people, unless really famous, is not very profitable. Also the recovering of the vessel becomes easier if everyone on board with a heart still beating is a bad guy.

9. If you're going to give guns to your sailors, you must provide weapons training. That would be a huge expense, and increase liability costs. (You don't just give handguns to pilots and think an airplane is safe.)
A: I think this list is starting to repeat itself. Actually, considering the amount of money these companies throw around, the price of a few AR-15s and .45 automatic pistols wouldn't cause anyone to bat an eyelid. The cost for these companies to hire a few specialized personnel to train their crew members and serve as security officers on their ships (1 security officer per ship should be enough really) wouldn't cost a whole lot.

10. Do we want foreign merchant ships sailing into American ports with cannons and machine guns?
A: Again, same question as above. If declared, properly locked and stowed, it should be allowed.

11. Pirates rarely kill commercial crews on large vessels (though yacht owners are frequently killed). Their goal is ransom (whereas on yachts, it's just thievery).
A: Well, arm yachts then. The problem isn't just the killing, it's the business in itself. If you allow it to continue, it will spread like bushfire. You have to end it where it starts. What if hostages are taken and it is apparent that the other party cannot afford the ransom? What do the hostage takers do then? If they let them go, everyone's going to try to sit it out until the hostage takers go home. They'll be left with the decision to kill a hostage. If not the first group, then maybe the second, the third etc.

12. How many sailors are willing to die to protect a rich ship owner's profit?
A: If they know the company won't pay the ransom, they will know they have to fight.

13. If ships carried weapons, it might make them a greater target, as pirates seek to steal the weapons, too.
A: BS. People rarely attack targets that are armed and fight back. They look for the easy ones. An AK-47 costs next to nothing in those neck of the woods. They don't need to storm a ship to get a handfull of them.

14. Pirates have been a problem for many, many years, and merchant lines have learned to cope with the threat.
A: Again, then maybe people and the companies should just shut up about it.

15. If a crew member smuggles a weapon into certain port and gets caught, he could spend 5-10 years in a foreign prison.
A: If a crew member rapes a girl while on shore leave and gets caught, he could spend a lot of time in a foreign prison. But we don't advocate sailors to leave their penises behind when they go on a journey.

16. Military vessles are considered "sovereign territory" when visiting foreign harbors, but that courtesy is not extended to civilian vessles. So any weapons possession is subject to local laws.
A: Repeating the same thing.

17. Nervous sailors could accidentally shoot innocent fishermen, who often approach merchant ships offering to sell their catch.
A: Any fisherman who is trying to sell his stuff to a merchant ship in pirate infested waters is probably working for the pirates to get the merchant ship to slow down.

18. In an armed confrontation with pirates, the chance is great that a sailor will be injured or killed. This raises huge liability issues for ship owners.
A: A combination of subjects already covered.

19. Bringing weapons aboard ships is "strongly discouraged" by the United Nations International Maritime Organization.
A: Aren't these the same people who "strongly discouraged" the Belgian Paracommandos from using their weapons in Rwanda? That turned out great didn't it?

20. Many ship owners are less worried about piracy than they are that sailors will kill each other in personal disputes.
A: You don't need a gun to kill someone on a ship. Again, a safe with two keys. One with the Captain, the other with the security officer.

21. A fight with pirates can create an international incident.
A: And boarding and taking hostages on a merchant ship in international waters isn't an international incident?
 
Last edited:
My take (after judging 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 14, 17 to be fairly valid arguments against arming *crew* - not talking security details here - and being totally in favor for not going to arm crews):

In my unit (which, for several different reasons, only was allowed small arms), we had our instructor with a lot of battles on his back and an equal lot of combat experience tell us over and over again: "Carrying arms will make you feel too strong, you will miss the moment to break contact because you will overestimate your fighting chance".

This did not make much sense to us youngsters then, but later, as a photo journalist in many a conflict, I saw the reason and also saw him proved right several times.

I think this holds true for the pirate/merchant scenario as well, lightly armed crew facing heavily armed pirates will probably try to slug it out when they should not, tactically speaking, instead of thinking up other routes that balance cost and risk.

My 2c,

Rattler
 
Like I said, a solid plan must be in place.
Defense is not a random set of activities. Even when a base is under attack, the defending party will know when are where to deploy, when to open fire, when to hold fire and when to pull back to the next defensive point. There is no room for Rambo stuff.
 
My take (after judging 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 14, 17 to be fairly valid arguments against arming *crew* - not talking security details here - and being totally in favor for not going to arm crews):

In my unit (which, for several different reasons, only was allowed small arms), we had our instructor with a lot of battles on his back and an equal lot of combat experience tell us over and over again: "Carrying arms will make you feel too strong, you will miss the moment to break contact because you will overestimate your fighting chance".

This did not make much sense to us youngsters then, but later, as a photo journalist in many a conflict, I saw the reason and also saw him proved right several times.

I think this holds true for the pirate/merchant scenario as well, lightly armed crew facing heavily armed pirates will probably try to slug it out when they should not, tactically speaking, instead of thinking up other routes that balance cost and risk.

My 2c,

Rattler

I agree with 13th & Rattler for the most part, but I disagree with Rattlers point about the risk of slugging it out.

In ambush situation there are 2 choices- take the fight to the enemy or break contact. The thinking goes - can I break contact (as we are fighting on their chosen ground)?

1. Yes - Then break contact
2. No - Take the fight to them as you're already neck deep in it!!

As the ships will not be toting huge arsenals and the crews will have no vested interest in a prolonged firefight, I think the battle would be short - but the crew have to accept that there could be casualties.

As for the legal ramifications, they can be ironed out, after all many yachts do carry small arms and move in and out of ports regularly.

What I really want to know is why has piracy suddenly become a hot button issue? It has been going on for years & no one has demanded that NATO, China or Uncle Tom Cobbley get involved - what has suddenly energised us to to comabt this criminal enterprise? Someone stepping on our turf? Media hooplah? Common sense? Or are the insurance rates too high?

Just being cynical, after all these years we suddenly get a concscience - seems a bit odd to me.
 
I like the idea of arming pirates. That way it justifies blowing their brains out before they board the ship....
 
We (not us on the forum, but in general society) are acting like this problem will mearly go away with time. Good luck, piracy has been around for a long time.

It seems to me that we have forgotten the value of life. The pirate are rampaging mad men, who don't give a damn about you or your family. They want your cargo, they want your money for your life. The sole reason that these sailors aren't killed is because they're worth more alive then dead and if it for some reason we were worth more dead than alive they would kill without remorse.

Human life is precious, and we cannot just forget about people like we are. Arming sailors would be a good idea. Sure, it may delay the ships coming into port, but the sailors would be alive. Life or get served immediately? I'd choose life and wait a little bit in a port.

Besides, arming sailors is nothing new, they've been armed for ages. Give sailors some M14s, or M16s (not AR-15s because the automatic capability is more useful of an M16). Perhaps put a few 7.62 machine guns. Maybe a one week course on these weapons.

I assure you, if these pirates know you're packing a punch, they're not going to attack.

Value life.
 
No, full auto capability isn't really required.
The idea for the pirates is to live to enjoy the money they get. Besides, if it's full auto fire you want, I'd say a SAW or GPMG would be the logical choice, not an M-16. As for close in stuff, a shot gun will do fabulously.
Also remember that the M-14's full auto capacity is practically useless.
 
Very true, especially about the M14. However there's no real need for machine guns, just automatic assault rifles (personaly).
 
Just saying... don't really see the point in having automatic rifles.
If you're going to fire automatic, you might as well just have a SAW which will do the job much better when the enemy is out in the open. As for close in stuff, a shotgun will do much better.
Any time I'd have my rifle switched to auto is when I'm in a situation where I'd really rather have a shot gun but don't/can't have one.
 
Just to stir the pot abit...

I think you guys failed to mention a important reason against arming the ship. The Crew. Why would the crew of a merchant ship want to risk injury or death for the property (which is insured) of rich shipping magnets? There is no motivation.

This is why I think allowing the hire of private security firms are a better option, they will have better training (most of those guys are ex-military, sometimes ex-SF), better equipment, and they are being well paid to take risks.

What do you think?
 
I'm with the 13th Redneck and others in this thread. I'm glad to see people outside the U.S. who still think it's important to fight when the occasion calls for it. :thumb:

Yes I value life ... starting with my own. If I was crewing one of these vessels, I’d smuggle a handgun aboard. No one would know about it unless we were boarded. If they want to fire me afterward, so be it. At least I'll be alive.

mmarsh, yes, I think the simplest answer is to hire security personnel ... Blackwater in the U.S. being a pretty good example … but hopefully not the only one. No training to deal with ... and they can report directly to the captain of the ship ... or some other representative of the company.


I don’t think it’s worth debating about AR-15s versus M4s versus GPMGs, etc … an excellent weapon would be something like a .300 Magnum rifle with a 3-9X scope. :sniper:

For example: A small pirate vessel approaches a large commercial vessel and one of the pirates’ heads suddenly explodes while still 100-200yards away. I think the consensus among the surviving pirates would be to turn about and consider alternative ways to spend the remainder of the afternoon. :confused:

I heard a statistic that something like $50M US has been paid in ransom in the last few years to the Somali pirates. How much could it cost to hire 2-3 security personnel for their time through the most dangerous waters … a few thousand US$ per trip?? :sarc:


Some people say gun control doesn’t work. I bet the Somali pirates feel it works just fine. :pirate2:
 
Just to stir the pot abit...

I think you guys failed to mention a important reason against arming the ship. The Crew. Why would the crew of a merchant ship want to risk injury or death for the property (which is insured) of rich shipping magnets? There is no motivation.
True,... but several years ago there was a piracy problem in the south China sea, where vessels were being hijacked the crew and ship's safe robbed, and sailed into southern Chinese ports where the cargo was looted and sold. (This was thought to be done by elements of the Chinese defence forces, as there is no other way an uninvited vessel can just sail into a Chinese port, but that's another story)

It all went well for a while until one vessel who for some reason must have failed to comply with the wishes of the pirates, was found drifting at sea. When boarded, the crew (all dead) were found locked in the cable locker. This bought down a lot of diplomatic heat, and the problem seemed to go away, well at least on the scale that it had been previously. This just left the pirates of opportunity. who were very similar to those we read about in Somalian waters in that they were just fishermen who armed with weapons from local wars decided to improve their income.
 
Mmarsh, all that's really required is one or two security officers on board. You don't need to deck out the entire crew.
Like you said, cost would be an issue, and by outfitting each ship with a fireteam or more, you're entering the realm of the rather costly. You could, however, use one guy with the sort of background that security firms would look for supported by a few lower paid security guards. That would be a combination that would work without running the figures off the charts.

A scoped rifle for sniping is generally a bad idea. I don't know how many people could actually hit the head off of a pirate standing/sitting on a speed boat that's bobbing up and down and approaching at high speed. Again, hiring hands that could actually pull something like that off would send the cost soaring. Completely unneccessary. Why spend that extra money when a few shots from an AR-15 could achieve similar results (that is to make the pirates turn around)?
 
It looks like common sense is (finally) prevailing with some people:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103921419&ft=1&f=1004

the_13th_redneck, yes a head shot in rough seas would be a tall order for most ... but some sort of hit on a human target at those ranges is do-able ... and you don't necessarily have to hit with the first bullet fired.

I think a small security team like you describe with one or two skilled combatants backed up by a few others with just the minimum skills required to carry handguns or shotguns would be realistic ... and affordable for significant vessels.

I like the idea of a sharpshooter because ideally you want to foil the attack at as great a range as possible to minimize the danger to the ship and crew under attack. I'm a civilian ... but I've been around firearms my whole life and would be comfortable taking shots on a man-sized target at well over 200 yards once IFF was established.

On the plus side, I would feel as though the pirates have a nearly 0% chance of hitting me firing an AK at the same range from a Zodiac as it pitches to and fro on the water ... might not even hit the side of the ship. I, on the other hand, would be on a much larger vessel with a lot less motion to have to compensate for.

Oh, and I've never been much of a .223 Remington/5.56mm NATO fan. :wink:
 
Last edited:
The ships need security teams with 7.62 machine guns mounted around the ship, put some rounds down at them at 2km's away and it will probably discourage them with their weapons well out of range. I don't know why you want head shots, just shoot up their boat.
 
Oh, and I've never been much of a .223 Remington/5.56mm NATO fan. :wink:
Glad to see it, "Kiddie calibres" should be kept in the nursery for the children to play with.

The ships need security teams with 7.62 machine guns mounted around the ship, put some rounds down at them at 2km's away and it will probably discourage them with their weapons well out of range. I don't know why you want head shots, just shoot up their boat.
You'd only need one I think, two at a stretch.
 
Last edited:
Why on earth would you want to go through the trouble of trying to take a guy out with a sniper rifle if you could spray them with automatic fire from a further range? Actually Wallabies makes a valid point. Bror, it's a stupid idea. I think most people here who know a thing or two about this stuff all agree, it's a stupid idea. If you're really crazy about engaging them at maximum range, get a .50 HMG. But that's a bit too much considering the sort of threat we're dealing with.
Engaging a static, standing human sized target at 200 yards is one thing, engaging a target obscured by bits of the boat's hull on the high seas, bobbing up and down is a completely different proposition. Better to spray the damned thing.
Yeah 5.56mm rounds aren't the most threatening stuff out there but getting shot by one is still going to suck. Especially if you come from a place with no hospitals.
 
We (not us on the forum, but in general society) are acting like this problem will mearly go away with time. Good luck, piracy has been around for a long time.

It seems to me that we have forgotten the value of life. The pirate are rampaging mad men, who don't give a damn about you or your family. They want your cargo, they want your money for your life. The sole reason that these sailors aren't killed is because they're worth more alive then dead and if it for some reason we were worth more dead than alive they would kill without remorse.

Human life is precious, and we cannot just forget about people like we are. Arming sailors would be a good idea. Sure, it may delay the ships coming into port, but the sailors would be alive. Life or get served immediately? I'd choose life and wait a little bit in a port.

Besides, arming sailors is nothing new, they've been armed for ages. Give sailors some M14s, or M16s (not AR-15s because the automatic capability is more useful of an M16). Perhaps put a few 7.62 machine guns. Maybe a one week course on these weapons.

I assure you, if these pirates know you're packing a punch, they're not going to attack.

Value life.

I agree. But I don't think an automatic weapon is required. If you can hit them long before they get to you, and they know it, you already have a deterrent. Maybe it's a Ma Deuce. Maybe it's a Barrett. Hell, I think I could do a decent job with a .30-06 bolt action. The pirates aren't really skilled in shooting, I don't think.
 
Back
Top