Pirates yet again with an American ship

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

A Letter Of Marque authorizes a private ship of war to act against a *nation*, not an amorphous group of individuals. A Privateer is expected to pay for its operation through capture of enemy goods and ships...I find it hard to believe a privateer Q-ship could be funded on prize money from the capture of 4-man Zodiac boats....

Many of them couldn't make it acting just against a particular nation and ended up turning pirate (more targets, no franchise fees).

Probably not a good idea.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

A little short-sighted--you're not going to stop attacks by further funding additional attacks which could be more violent.

For sure.

 

[mikea]

Amen. This is the only way to solve the problem. Wipe them from the face of the earth without mercy....

I'm getting the impression that these goofs are depending on the big bad United States Navy not shooting. They know (hope) that it's easier to pay them off than deal with the backlash after blowing them to bits. They hope that when they're not wetting their pants.

That's why they have been doing so well and making such profits. The ship owners will drop $millions to get it over with rather than deal with blood.

Consider that they dragged the captain back into the life boat right in front of the battleship.

If the Navy would make it clear that if the captain is harmed the pirates are going to be too small to be fish food...

...I have a feeling that the USN Captain can't get that permission.

If they could the word would go out real fast to stay away from U.S flagged ships.

 

[Gary]

If it stops the attacks, who cares?

Seems to me that bribery is not a sustainable method in this situation. But then we did pass two separate bail-out programs so maybe it would work.

But... the Somali situation is a difficult one. Hijacking a relatively large ship, hundreds of miles off-shore is not an operation conducted by a desparate man trying to feed his family. It does take a certain amount of organization, equipment and financial backing, and if past history is an indicator, does reap a significant reward. The fact that no real government exists, allows an organization to conduct this. In a way, the Somali pirates are the ultimate capitalists.

Gary

 

[tdager]

I think some firepower is appropriate. But given that piracy is about 1/2 of one percent of a problem I am sure the real issue has been ROI by the shipping companies on defensive systems. IOW they are will to accept the losses as a cheaper alternative to increasing armament systems.

I recognize and understand the NUMBERS side of what you are saying...however that does not take into account the human side of things.

ROI should NOT be used as a means to place the crew of these vessels in harms way with little to defend themselves with but water hoses.

 

[tdager]

Once again simple approaches are not always effective in a complex world.

And this trite statement-dejuer is quite overplayed.

Sorry, but no matter how "complex" often times the best answer IS the simple, straight forward response.

 

[tdager]

If those motherships are in some nations territorial waters then an act of war will have just been committed. It is a very complex issue that requires complex solutions. Just look back tot he 80's to see what we had to do in the relatively small waters of the Straits of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf to protect oil ships. The cost of that was enormous and was only undertaken because of the serious threat to our national survival had we had oil supplies cut off.

Then I ask...have we let the "system" become more important that the people it was meant to serve?

Act of war between whom? Somali? Yeah right.

Sorry but I am tired of lawyers and overly complicated laws hamstringing us. Hell battle field commanders now consult their shooters AND their freaking lawyer on actions to take. That is simply ridiculous.

 

[Ghery]

Put me in charge and the ROE are simple. See target, destroy target. Collateral damage? Can't be helped some times.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

ROI should NOT be used as a means to place the crew of these vessels in harms way...

I'm pretty sure that's the kind of decision that likely gets made for these crews almost daily, with regard to issues that don't have anything to do with piracy whatsoever.

 

[RotorAndWing]

The solution for this is really very simple. After enough bodies are found floating after the "pirates" attempt an attack, this will stop.

"Cry Havoc and unleash the dogs of war".

 

[ReverendSlappy]

And this trite statement-dejuer is quite overplayed.

Sorry, but no matter how "complex" often times the best answer IS the simple, straight forward response.

Often times, yes. This time, I don't think so.

Then I ask...have we let the "system" become more important that the people it was meant to serve?

Act of war between whom? Somali? Yeah right.

Sorry but I am tired of lawyers and overly complicated laws hamstringing us. Hell battle field commanders now consult their shooters AND their freaking lawyer on actions to take. That is simply ridiculous.

In this case, a "complicated" response is likely to be the best one. Because...

Put me in charge and the ROE are simple. See target, destroy target. Collateral damage? Can't be helped some times.

The solution for this is really very simple. After enough bodies are found floating after the "pirates" attempt an attack, this will stop.

"Cry Havoc and unleash the dogs of war".

Much like most of what the TSA does, a simple "blow 'em outta the water" tack doesn't amount to much more than a meaningless feel-good exercise. Just a game of Whack-A-Mole writ large.

Edit: I should be clear by stating that I'm all for an increased naval presence there, and even arming some of the merchant ships seems to make sense. But my point is that if anybody thinks that a bunch of pirate casualties is going to somehow stem this particular tide, I think they'd wind up being mighty disappointed: These folks are already prepared to die.

 

[wabower]

An economic geography professor once lamented that we were doomed to failure when trying to make decisions rationally and legally and based on "western values" when we were dealing with people whose only basis for authority was who has the biggest stick.

 

[Ddayle]

So what if the ships are in Somali terittory? Declaring war on the US because we stepped in to stop piracy would play into our hands. find the mother ship.. duh no brainer, you look for and follow the skiff,s. A UAV will do that & we have them in the aera now. sink the mother ship & they steal another, so? sink it too. No mother ship = no way to operate that far off shore.And the reason their family are starving is not because there is no food aid,but because thier tribal conflicts interfere with distribution of the supplies. Teddy R had it right, talk softly & carry a BIG stick. DAveR

 

[ReverendSlappy]

An economic geography professor once lamented that we were doomed to failure when trying to make decisions rationally and legally and based on "western values" when we were dealing with people whose only basis for authority was who has the biggest stick.

That's actually a really good point to keep in mind with regard to a lot of things. But I think that since in this particular instance, we're talking about "crimes of commerce", as Henning mentioned, the calculus is somewhat different.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

So what if the ships are in Somali terittory? Declaring war on the US because we stepped in to stop piracy would play into our hands. find the mother ship.. duh no brainer, you look for and follow the skiff,s. A UAV will do that & we have them in the aera now. sink the mother ship & they steal another, so? sink it too. No mother ship = no way to operate that far off shore.And the reason their family are starving is not because there is no food aid,but because thier tribal conflicts interfere with distribution of the supplies. Teddy R had it right, talk softly & carry a BIG stick. DAveR

There's also the small matter of the fact that there is no Somali authority that could declare war on us or anybody else anyway. So yeah, big whoop if somebody there did.

Still, the question (in my mind, anyway) is, what is the most effective means by which to end, for all intents and purposes, this phenomenon? Satisfying as it may be to see, I'm simply unconvinced that just blowing stuff up and hoping that they're consequently turned off to the idea is the answer in this case.

 

[Ddayle]

Simple truth, w/o motherships the skiffs range is limited to coastal waters. 200-350 miles off shore is not only out of any territorial waters but also out of range. DaveR

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Simple truth, w/o motherships the skiffs range is limited to coastal waters. 200-350 miles off shore is not only out of any territorial waters but also out of range. DaveR

That's true. But, sink one mother ship? Coupla days/weeks/months later, you're gonna have to sink a brand new one. Wash, rinse, repeat, ad infinitum, and all the while they're still gonna be taking boats.

 

[Ddayle]

That's true. But, sink one mother ship? Coupla days/weeks/months later, you're gonna have to sink a brand new one. Wash, rinse, repeat, ad infinitum, and all the while they're still gonna be taking boats.

Great! except as i noted w/o a mothership they WILL NOT be taking ships(the pirates use boats, their victims are in ships, not boats). Is there a down side to my plan? i have seen none so far. DaveR P.S. it acttually sounds like a great training oppertunity for our navy, free targets to test weapons systems against. DR

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Great! except as i noted w/o a mothership they WILL NOT be taking ships(the pirates use boats, their victims are in ships, not boats). Is there a down side to my plan? i have seen none so far. DaveR P.S. it acttually sounds like a great training oppertunity for our navy, free targets to test weapons systems against. DR

Yeah, there's a downside. It costs a lot of money and -- most importantly -- doesn't solve the problem.

 

[wabower]

Yeah, there's a downside. It costs a lot of money and -- most importantly -- doesn't solve the problem.

Which is exactly what we've got now. Giving them free rein is a better answer?

 

[Ddayle]

I will have to disagree, Slappy , no mother ship, no off-shore piracy.How much does a few 5 inch shells cost? We pay to have our navy at sea training, with or without pirates to target. The problem of their starving family has to be addressed as a completely separate issue. DaveR

 

[wabower]

Each merchant ship should be provided with a laser sighting device that can be trained on the mother ship and the signal relayed to a UAV operator. Pffft!

 

[Henning]

Sorry - should have specified "in general."

Correct, there is nothing under the sun that will stop piracy, there will always be someone willing to try. I have no concern about stopping piracy, I just want to stop the pirate coming alongside.

 

[Henning]

I'm getting the impression that these goofs are depending on the big bad United States Navy not shooting. They know (hope) that it's easier to pay them off than deal with the backlash after blowing them to bits. They hope that when they're not wetting their pants.

That's why they have been doing so well and making such profits. The ship owners will drop $millions to get it over with rather than deal with blood.

Consider that they dragged the captain back into the life boat right in front of the battleship.

If the Navy would make it clear that if the captain is harmed the pirates are going to be too small to be fish food...

...I have a feeling that the USN Captain can't get that permission.

If they could the word would go out real fast to stay away from U.S flagged ships.

I don't get what that has to do with anything.... My bet is that someone from FBI Hostage Rescue or similarly trained has been put onboard that Naval ship. Their pretty good at what they do.

 

[Henning]

Seems to me that bribery is not a sustainable method in this situation. But then we did pass two separate bail-out programs so maybe it would work.

But... the Somali situation is a difficult one. Hijacking a relatively large ship, hundreds of miles off-shore is not an operation conducted by a desparate man trying to feed his family. It does take a certain amount of organization, equipment and financial backing, and if past history is an indicator, does reap a significant reward. The fact that no real government exists, allows an organization to conduct this. In a way, the Somali pirates are the ultimate capitalists.

Gary

Very Correct. It is the act you get when there are so many desperate people that you have enough even some with a high degree of skill to get together, all with no better option..

 

[mikea]

I don't get what that has to do with anything.... My bet is that someone from FBI Hostage Rescue or similarly trained has been put onboard that Naval ship. Their pretty good at what they do.

Absolutely correct. They had Clint VanZant a former FBI hostage negotiation guy on "All Things Considered." He said it's a perfect hostage negotiation situation. We want the captain. The pirates want freedom. Everybody could be happy.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102977467

The CEO of a company that ransomed its tanker:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102977470

 

[Henning]

Fact of the matter, the only practical way to deal with piracy is at the point of initial attack. All of you who are talking about surveillance and military yada yada, fuhgeddaboudit, we do not have the resources, nor should we spend the resources to do this, and even then, it would be reactionary striking, no proactive. It appears that y'all think that the seas in that area are devoid of anything but merchant vessels and pirates. Nothing could be further from the truth, there's thousands of fishing boats just like the "Motherships" with tender vessels working the nets and other catch. It's so crowded you often have to pass close aboard (for a ship that's within 1/2 mile at sea, with a tug and barge in littoral waters sometimes I'm within 100 yards) making your way through them (they have right of way, though will typically work with you). They're all out there too, you gonna track every one of them?

 

[Anthony]

Privateers. It worked before it will work again. A U.S. flagged ship held hostage is a disgrace.

 

[Henning]

Privateers. It worked before it will work again. A U.S. flagged ship held hostage is a disgrace.

??? Can you show me the efficacy of Privateers or how that model would fit in todays circumstances? You think the Privateers would be satisfied with crappy vessels? A US Flagged ship is not being held hostage, a US Citizen is.

 

[Anthony]

??? Can you show me the efficacy of Privateers or how that model would fit in todays circumstances? You think the Privateers would be satisfied with crappy vessels? A US Flagged ship is not being held hostage, a US Citizen is.

Henning as all things maritime you are correct, but an American hostage is a disgrace.

 

[Cliff]

If I were the "man in-charge" in the White House, I would place 3 or 4 US Marines on our US civilian ships, and have them carry shoulder fired weapons similar to a SAM. After a couple of incidents, I guarantee the pirates would get the message not to hijack another vessel with a US flag on it.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Which is exactly what we've got now. Giving them free rein is a better answer?

First off, they don't have free reign. There are large spheres of their operational area being patrolled by an international fleet of the most modern, most deadly order.

And yet... Look what happens.

I will have to disagree, Slappy , no mother ship, no off-shore piracy.How much does a few 5 inch shells cost? We pay to have our navy at sea training, with or without pirates to target. The problem of their starving family has to be addressed as a completely separate issue. DaveR

The 5" shells cost next to nothing. Getting the ships there to send those 5" shells downrange onto the right target costs a lot.

Each merchant ship should be provided with a laser sighting device that can be trained on the mother ship and the signal relayed to a UAV operator. Pffft!

Again, it's still one big game of Whack-A-Mole. Except with LGBs: Doesn't matter how big the explosion is... if they can get their hands on another vessel, all sinking one does is move the problem to another.


Henning's right: Giving these ships point defense is about the best one can do. And, no matter how you slice it, that's no panacea (edit: and if Henning's right, in a lot of cases, they've probably got that already anyway).

 

[Geico266]

If I was the man in-charge in the White House, I would place 3 or 4 US Marines on our US civilian ships, and have them carry shoulder fired weapons similar to a SAM. After a couple of incidents, I guarantee the pirates would get the message not to hijack another vessel with a US flag on it.

Joined in 6/2007 and this is your 1st post? Thought you could sneak in here without a welcome Huh?

Welcome to POA!

 

[jmaynard]

If I was the man in-charge in the White House, I would place 3 or 4 US Marines on our US civilian ships, and have them carry shoulder fired weapons similar to a SAM. After a couple of incidents, I guarantee the pirates would get the message not to hijack another vessel with a US flag on it.

Yeah, but that's too simple for some folks around here.

Welcome to POA.

 

[Henning]

If I was the man in-charge in the White House, I would place 3 or 4 US Marines on our US civilian ships, and have them carry shoulder fired weapons similar to a SAM. After a couple of incidents, I guarantee the pirates would get the message not to hijack another vessel with a US flag on it.

Most US Flagged shipping plying the seas are tugs with barges and oilfield service vessels, not container ships. Where are you going to bunk 3-4 Marines? It's crowded enough with the 6 crew on board. Plus we don't have the Marines to spare riding vessels around the oceans, 99.9% of which will never see a threat. It's a bloody inefficient way of doing things. Much better to arm the vessels and crews themselves and let them fight it out. Besides, Marines spend most of their time at sea throwing up....

 

[Henning]

Yeah, but that's too simple for some folks around here.

Welcome to POA.

Because it's so simplistic as to be non functional. Leave it to the people who actually know how things work....

 

[dmccormack]

A British East Indiaman was to the 18th and early 19th centuries what a cruiser-class vessel was to WWII. No pirate in the 1940's would mess with a PT boat, much less a CA or CL, and no pirate of the 18th century would mess with a 40+ gun vessel that could have easily taken its place in the line.

Further, the East India Company was a few steps beyond Blackwater in its time - it literally ran countries.

So comparing private shipping today to the East India Company the colonial period isn't a really good comparison to make.

You proved my point. Armed merchant ships are unattarctive targets for pirates.

The East India ships proved this, time after time.

And the comparison of the BEIco to BW is ridiculous.

 

[Cliff]

Joined in 6/2007 and this is your 1st post? Thought you could sneak in here without a welcome Huh?

Welcome to POA!

Thanks for the welcome. It's a GREAT board. As a new pilot, read much more than I post.


I guess the pirate issue just kind of gets under my skin.

Our media today, gives credibility to our foes by showing how they can attack us, in this case, one of our US flagged vessels, and then the whole world (with some future foes watching) sees what a handful of thugs in a fishing boat can do to us.

 

[Anthony]

Marines should not be placed on merchant ships. They should be on U.S. Navy vessels disguised as merchant ships. Why is this so difficult to do?

Pirate vessel pulls up along side and tries to board, a few Ma Deuces open up and end of story. Heck, a PT tender and three or four PT's could end this problem.

 

[AuntPeggy]

Re: Winners and Losers

I was just trying to figure out who the winners and losers are in this event.

The pirates are winners. In the end they get a couple of million dollars to split amongst themselves. They get to be heroes in their home port where I understand ladies flock. Our friend Henning has pooh-poohed the downside for them.

The above-mentioned ladies are winners. Enough said.

The shipping company is not a loser. Their losses are covered by insurance. I haven't figured out whether they are winners, though.

The insurance company comes to mind as a loser, but think again. They pay off the pirates, but then they increase insurance rates to everyone in the area. In the long run, their revenues are increased, and are decreased only a relatively little by the payout.

Companies shipping goods through the pirate-infested waters are not losers. They are charged more by the shipping companies to cover their increased insurance costs, but then, those costs are added to the cost of goods sold, making at worst, a zero-sum game. Maybe they make a little more, based upon percentage of cost of goods sold.

Governments get to increase taxes based upon percentages of income. They win.

News media get into a feeding frenzy and increase their market share by covering the story. Mediators and go-betweens have probably become a growth industry. They are winners.

You and I are losers since our cost of goods purchased goes up to cover the insurance losses as trickled through the system. But our cost is spread so thin as to be unnoticible. So it doesn't count.

The crews of ships and the hostages victimized by the pirates are definite losers. PTSD is a real disease that affects crew and hostages. Include their families and friends among the losers. Not a very large constituency.

This problem won't improve until there are lots more losses or lots fewer winners.