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 ?
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 ?