Solution to sea borne and land borne pirates (criminals)

BritinBritain

Per Ardua Ad Astra
Given to me by a very good friend of mine.


This morning Redi Direko ( Radio 702 ) interviewed Prof Paul Moorcroft of the Foreign Policy Institute ( or something like that ) in London. The topic was the 100 ships that were hijacked by Somali pirates last year and what to do. Redi was mystified as to how a super tanker could be hijacked by a dozen men in a small boat until Moorcroft explained that merchant ships are unarmed and helpless no matter what their size. I thought it would be the usual hand wringing "what shall we do" until Moorcroft said "it wouldn't happen if they were armed." Then, in the last two minutes of the interview he agreed with a caller who asked whether a couple of 50 Brownings wouldn't be a good idea. Then he hammered it down more firmly with the remark that a machine gun would undoubtedly be an effective solution against pirates.

Earlier he had explained that the US Navy has done some patrolling but that the area is so big that continuous navy patrols would be unacceptably costly. Also that routing via the Cape is practical but also very costly. The bottom line is that an antidote has to be found to the pirates, and as far as I know this is the first time anyone in that sort of position has had the balls to say that the only practical solution is self defense by Browning.

He pointed out as delicately as he could that merchant ships are not armed because of "legal difficulties" . The only legal difficulty I know of is that the British government for one prohibits ships on the British register from being armed. So the state monopoly of force is so important that they would rather ships are hijacked by pirates that carry arms.

It struck me that merchant ships are in the same position as us. We and both not to take the law into our own hands and defend ourselves. We are to rely on the police ( navy ). And if the police ( navy ) don't arrive we are to give the criminals ( pirates ) what they want without a fight. It also struck me that if it is decided that ships must defend themselves because the navies can't, why can't we defend ourselves because the police can't ?
 
A simple solution would be to have gps trackers on all ships going through that area. When the ships are hijacked. Determine where they are being taken. Launch a rescue mission (Delta, SAS, SBS, Seals) to recapture the crew and ship. THen launch about 50 tomahawk T-LAMS to completely destroy the base of operations. Then publicise all of it to deter attacks in the future. We have better technology, training and resources. Lets use them to put an end to this. NOW.
 
BritinAfrica

There is a article in International Maritime Law the prohibits the arming of Merchant vessels. That's the problem.

The reason for the law does also have some sense, its to stop rival merchant shipping companies from attacking each other, as was done in the 16th Century between the merchant fleets of the Netherlands and Great Britain.

As some companies are more powerful than some countries, I think allowing them to be armed might be very dangerous. This isn't a 2nd Amendment Issue (which only applies to individuals anyway) this is about granting military power to GlobalCorps that already hold too much power in the world IMHO.

A better solution would to delegate security to a 3rd party. For example allow companies to station outside Security Personal like the UN on vessels that are not accountable to the company. This was done in WWII, the USNAVY assigned sailors to man the 5" Gun and AAA emplacements on merchant ships. Therefore each ship had two crews, the civilian crew that operated the ship, and the USNAVY personnel that was in charge of defense.

HokieMSG

The trouble is once the pirates have captured a ship, they have the advantage. As recapturing by force it would almost certainly endanger the hostages (and the rescuers). The best course of action is to ensure that the pirates never get on board.

Also, there needs to be restrictions and penalties to any company that actually pays the ransom. The real way to discourage Piracy is to make sure that its both unprofitable and dangerous.
 
Last edited:
BritinAfrica

There is a article in International Maritime Law the prohibits the arming of Merchant vessels. That's the problem.

I understood that this was the main problem. However, fire hoses is not an effective means of defence. My question would be (to the powers that be) You prohibit the arming of merchantmen then why can't you provide protection?" Which of course is next to impossible and too expensive to maintain a fleet to patrol pirate waters. I understand that there are private companies that offer armed escort through the Straits of Malacca, at a price.

The reason for the law does also have some sense, its to stop rival merchant shipping companies from attacking each other, as was done in the 16th Century between the merchant fleets of the Netherlands and Great Britain.

I dont really think that this would be of concern today.
 
HokieMSG

The trouble is once the pirates have captured a ship, they have the advantage. As recapturing by force it would almost certainly endanger the hostages (and the rescuers). The best course of action is to ensure that the pirates never get on board.

Also, there needs to be restrictions and penalties to any company that actually pays the ransom. The real way to discourage Piracy is to make sure that its both unprofitable and dangerous.

You are absolutely correct that ensuring that the pirates never board the ship is the best way. Until we begin targeting and destroying the pirate bases this cycle will continue. We need to be proactive NOT reactive.
 
Yeah we need to ID the base of operation's then deal with it thru liberal use of high explosives. After thats done we need to put a few destroyers off the coast and allow them to sink any canoe, kayak, fishing trawler, bonca boat, or rubber raft that heads out toward a merchant vessel.
 
Yeah we need to ID the base of operation's then deal with it thru liberal use of high explosives. After thats done we need to put a few destroyers off the coast and allow them to sink any canoe, kayak, fishing trawler, bonca boat, or rubber raft that heads out toward a merchant vessel.

Maybe thats where a big gun Battleship would be a good idea with their 16 inchers. I think that would convince the pirates that piracy is not a healthy occupation.
 
Don't even need a battle wagon for that. Just a couple vessels with 76mm Naval guns could turn the vessels these pirates use into a floating pile of tooth picks within about 30 seconds.
 
I dont see why a few 50 cal MGs would be problematic. A 50 cal on a ship is a defensive weapon. I can also see very slim chance that see merchents will fight each other on the open seas like 400 years ago(than again, we still have pirates like 400 years ago:) )
 
Concerning the arming of Merchant Ships, this is what a recent Norwegian Merchant Marines Sailors Union said about this. Mind you these are their opinion not mine and I don't agree with all of it (although on #2 and to a degree on #3 they do have a point).

1. Merchant Sailors are not trained to use weapons.
2. They are not hired in a security capacity, their job is only to run the ship.
3. The ship and cargo belong to their employer both of which is insured, they will not put their life on the line to defend other peoples property.
4. Firing upon pirates will escalate the violence.

Concerning the wars between companies.

Consider the following:

1. The power of Globalcorps is getting increasing larger. Some companies have more power than some entire countries do. De Beers control of certain African countries is such an example.

2. Their are fewer national resources to exploit, and greater demand.

3. There are already private Mercenary companies around the world who will work for anyone if the price is right.

4. This sort of thing has happened before in world history...for pretty much the same reasons the control of resources (tea, spice, silk, opium, slaves, gold, etc).

5. Companies have engineered wars for the sake of doing business.

Now I am not saying not to arm merchant ships, only don't assume that such a scenario isn't impossible, I think it is possible, perhaps not today but in the not-so-distant future. As SHERMAN stated, who would have thought 10 years ago that pirarcy would be a global problem again after a 180 year absence.

The reason is Capitalism is at its heart all about insatiable greed, I have never seen a GlobalCorp act with restraint when their is money to be made. Sooner or later if it was profitable to sabatoge the competition, they would do so. Therefore I suggest caution if we procede down this road.

And to BritinAfrica, consider that the original purpose of a military naval vessel, before fighting other nations, was to fight piracy. Therefore the expense in using the navy to fight pirates shouldn't be a factor, as its the NAVYS original mandate.
 
Last edited:
And to BritinAfrica, consider that the original purpose of a military naval vessel, before fighting other nations, was to fight piracy. Therefore the expense in using the navy to fight pirates shouldn't be a factor, as its the NAVYS original mandate.


It shouldn't be a factor, but the area's required to be patrolled are so vast and I really don't see any government tying up numerous naval vessels for long periods of time on anti piracy patrols.

Personally I don't see any problem with stationing military personnel on commercial ships to man 50 cal Brownings who are paid for by the owners of the vessels. The cost of those personnel would be negated by lower insurance premiums.
 
Heres a novel idea, since I seem to be the mil-forums warmonger I can say this.
You want to get rid of the pirate problem? simple, kill the pirates. Use the navy of your country for what it is intended for.
 
Heres a novel idea, since I seem to be the mil-forums warmonger I can say this.
You want to get rid of the pirate problem? simple, kill the pirates. Use the navy of your country for what it is intended for.

Easier said than done. You have to find them first. The Ocean is a rather big place and once the hijack a ship you are just as likely to kill civilians.
 
Heres a novel idea, since I seem to be the mil-forums warmonger I can say this.
You want to get rid of the pirate problem? simple, kill the pirates. Use the navy of your country for what it is intended for.

Wolfen, I'm going to 1 up you here as the warmonger. Lets use our fleet of B52's in a role similar to the linebacker campaign during Vietnam. Carpet bomb any costal facility that might be used to harbor pirates. Once a ship is taken we should be able to track where it is. Then bomb the snot out of that location, once we have retaken the ship and rescued the crew. Sooner or later they are going to figure out that it doesn't make sense to keep doing it.
 
Easier said than done. You have to find them first. The Ocean is a rather big place and once the hijack a ship you are just as likely to kill civilians.

Well since we know teh basic area they operate in, that should narrow it down by a few of the seven seas
 
Wolfen, I'm going to 1 up you here as the warmonger. Lets use our fleet of B52's in a role similar to the linebacker campaign during Vietnam. Carpet bomb any costal facility that might be used to harbor pirates. Once a ship is taken we should be able to track where it is. Then bomb the snot out of that location, once we have retaken the ship and rescued the crew. Sooner or later they are going to figure out that it doesn't make sense to keep doing it.

I was being nice and humane when I said use Navy's, Personally if they used a MOAB, I wouldn't shed any tears, but my lack of caring about the enemy is one reason they don't let me play anymore.
 
Back
Top