Pirate surprise!


PDA






SSN Vet
March 24, 2010, 10:20 AM
Well imagine that.... a merchant ship with a small security detachement handilly repels borders with small arms. I can't believe it :rolleyes:
----------------------
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8584604.stm

'Pirate' dies as ship's guards repel attack off Somalia

A suspected pirate has been shot dead as private guards repelled an attack on a cargo ship off Somalia, in what may have been the first such incident.

The EU naval force (Navfor) says the suspect was found dead by a team from an EU warship which was responding to a distress call from the cargo ship.

Guards aboard the Panamanian-flagged MV Almezaan had returned fire after the ship was attacked, it added.

Six other suspected pirates were detained by a Spanish Navfor ship.


The ESPS Navarra found one pirate mother ship and two skiffs. The mother ship was destroyed after the suspects were taken into custody, Navfor said.

Navfor spokesman Cmdr John Harbour told the BBC News website that he believed there was strong evidence to prosecute the six suspects detained.

"All the evidence suggests that there was a fire-fight," he said.

Bullet-holes were found in the skiffs in which they were found, he added.

The owners of the cargo ship, which was en route to Mogadishu, were contacted and asked to comply with any subsequent prosecution, Cmdr Harbour said.

The waters off Somalia are among the most dangerous in the world for shipping, despite patrols from Navfor and other foreign naval forces.

'Small-calibre gunshots'

The Navarra received a distress signal early on Tuesday from a merchant ship off the Somali coast and sped to the area, Navfor said in a statement.


Pirates had launched an attack on the MV Almezaan. This was successfully repelled by members of an "armed private vessel protection detachment" on board the ship, who returned fire.

A second attack was also repelled and the pirates fled the area, Navfor said.

A helicopter from the Navarra sighted the suspected pirates' boats and ordered them to stop, firing warning shots when they refused to do so.

When a team from the Navarra boarded the vessels, they found three suspected pirates in one skiff and three in the second, along with the body of a fourth man.


The body was transferred to the Navarra and an investigation indicated that the individual had died from small-calibre gunshot wounds, Navfor said.

A number of suspected Somali pirates have been killed by international forces during rescue operations but this is thought to be the first time private security guards have killed a pirate in defence of a ship.

Pirates are known to use fire-arms and rocket-propelled grenades in their attacks on ships but rarely harm the crews of vessels they capture.

Several organisations, including the International Maritime Bureau (IMB), have expressed concern that the use of armed security contractors could encourage pirates to be more violent when taking a ship.

Somalia has not had a functioning government for nearly two decades and analysts believe that attacks on shipping will continue as long as there is no central government capable of taking on the pirate gangs.

If you enjoyed reading about "Pirate surprise!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
19-3Ben
March 24, 2010, 10:27 AM
Good!!! Self-defense is not limited to joe civilian getting mugged in the supermarket parking lot. People should have the right to defend themselves from unprovoked violent attacks at sea as well.

Thank you for posting!

Ok so if you were to be hired as a private security officer on board a ship like this, which guns would you bring?
I'd probably want an AK of some kind. I'd get one with chrome lined bbl, and I'd duracoat it. I'd also want a Mossberg/Remington mariner type 12ga.

wishin
March 24, 2010, 10:44 AM
It appears that the UAR is hiring private security contractors on their ships. They gave a good accounting of themselves.

meytind
March 24, 2010, 10:48 AM
Several organisations, including the International Maritime Bureau (IMB), have expressed concern that the use of armed security contractors could encourage pirates to be more violent when taking a ship.


Exactly what they say happens when civilians carry guns, yet here it looks like the pirates are dead/captured, and the cargo is intact. The fact that self defense is looked down upon by a large part of the world is the reason we're in our current predicament.

bikerdoc
March 24, 2010, 10:49 AM
Think Blackwater contractors

doubleh
March 24, 2010, 10:53 AM
Deleted

SlamFire1
March 24, 2010, 11:00 AM
Heard the liberal press complaining that killing pirates will just make said pirates nastier.

DMK
March 24, 2010, 11:03 AM
Anybody know what weapons were used?

SSN Vet
March 24, 2010, 11:03 AM
which guns would you bring?

as with any engagement at sea.... think "long legs"

My wife and I went out for a day charter on a well known sailboat, (well know in Maine at least, as the owner has built several schooner rigged boats and sailed them around the world), and I asked him about security concerns. His answer... .30-06.

I think BARs would serve well, with some kind of bull pup for CQC should they actually get on board.

ny32182
March 24, 2010, 11:15 AM
None of us are there of course, but I'd think if you did have armed security on board, repelling these pirates would be pretty damn easy, *given that you saw them coming*, which might not always be the case I guess...

I mean really, we are talking about guys trying to climb from a rocking raft onto a huge reatively stable ship with a multi-acre deck. They have iron-sighted AKs that they are shooting from... once again... a rocking small boat, at an elevated position. They are going to have a near zero chance of hitting anything before they get on board. This seems like shooting fish in a barrel to anyone defending with a scoped bolt gun from the deck of the ship.

So if I were outfitting a security crew, I'd put spotters with scoped rifles on the front, back, left and right as the first layer. (Add mounted MGs here if allowed by law, but probably isn't) If these guys fell asleep and let pirates get on board undetected, I'd take some guys with ACOG-equipped M4's as backup. If you could keep them at a distance on the ship, once again you'd be at a large advantage vs. someone with ironsight AK and probably minimal skill in using them.

It is all easier said than done I'm sure.

wishin
March 24, 2010, 11:26 AM
If the security guys are on the ball it could be like shooting fish in a barrel, I would think.

heron
March 24, 2010, 11:35 AM
Heard the liberal press complaining that killing pirates will just make said pirates nastier. Well, I'm sure the dead ones will at least smell nastier . . .

HoosierQ
March 24, 2010, 11:36 AM
I would think a weapon capable of shooting incindiary grenades would be a good thing for this kind of anti-piracy self defense. Having owned a boat, the darned things are pretty much floating gas tanks. I think the M-16 with the built in M203 grenade launcher would be an ideal anti-piracy weapon for repelling boarders and then some sort of short QCB weapons for fighting aboard should it come to that...handguns even in the hands of some of the crew.

Piracy today is easy for these guys because people don't or can't fight back. It would go from easy to very hard if ships could defend themselves. Unlike the days of the Spanish Main (when some pirates had capable ships of more or less military caliber), a bunch of Somali Pirates are never going to get their hands on a Arleigh Burke class destroyer with which to ply their illegal trade.

ForumSurfer
March 24, 2010, 11:54 AM
The fact that self defense is looked down upon by a large part of the world is the reason we're in our current predicament.

Amen, brother.:cool:

which guns would you bring?

As if anyone needs to ask? You are on a large, stable platform that moves up and down. The pirates are on smaller, faster, less stable platforms that move up and down...firing most likely ak's that they aren’t trained on. I’ll take a large caliber, magazine fed, dead accurate rifle with a helluva scope/night vision setup right up until they get on the boat, at the very least 308 or higher. I’d rather have 300 win mag, or preferable 50BMG and a good shooter. If you can engage the hostiles before they can even hit you, well you can afford to make many hits and misses before they get close. Hopefully, their buddies falling down dead before they ever get close would discourage any further hostilities. But if they get on board, it’s m4’s and side arms…the captain gets an 870 marine magnum, just because every captain should be given the chance to go down fightin if it all goes bad.

BHP FAN
March 24, 2010, 11:55 AM
I think a Barrett .50 would punch some holes in a pirate boat,and out reach a RPG.

ForumSurfer
March 24, 2010, 12:04 PM
I think a Barrett .50 would punch some holes in a pirate boat,and out reach a RPG.

Absolutely the best bet. But maybe a smaller caliber would be more ideal since possessing a 50 cal will land you a felony in many ports of call. You'd need to check the local ports and figure out what is the biggest round you can take without going to local prison.

Vern Humphrey
March 24, 2010, 12:08 PM
Heard the liberal press complaining that killing pirates will just make said pirates nastier.
It's been my experience that killing bad guys just makes them deader.

Gouranga
March 24, 2010, 12:48 PM
Wow, someone actually used common sense and armed the ships. I think in the short run, yes this will make the pirates nastier. It will also make the prospect of going after these ships much riskier and less profitable.

I just do not get the liberal press' stance that we need to make things easier for criminals so they don't get meaner.

Zack
March 24, 2010, 01:08 PM
:rolleyes: Imagine that. Guns saved a ship!

I would have a stock pile like in King Kong when they opened the seat and a bunch of Tommy guns where in there. I would not want to be at sea with just "one for per person"

gym
March 24, 2010, 01:18 PM
So they don't want to piss off the other Pirates? Or they will do what? Bring their Parrots with them next time?
I sure would not want to anger anyone trying to kill me. This is the thinking that allows this kind of nonsense to continue. Obviously if you kill a bunch of them, the rest will have to find a new line of work, unless the politicians have a better idea, like paying them millions of dollars that isn't theirs.

fireman 9731
March 24, 2010, 01:35 PM
Good riddance!

I wonder how much money you could make being part of a "armed private vessel protection detachment".... Sounds like fun to me!

Arkady
March 24, 2010, 01:47 PM
Barrett? Nah.

Mount a couple of M2HBs, and have a few rifleman handy. I very much doubt that the average Somali pirate can out-range a belt fed .50, and it's heavy enough to make plenty of holes in their boats. Rifleman can take care of anything that gets inside the range of where the M2 can be depressed. An AT-4 or similar would be handy if they bring the mothership in too close.

NMGonzo
March 24, 2010, 01:58 PM
Heard the liberal press complaining that killing pirates will just make said pirates nastier.
I am a liberal.

I believe that more armed response teams should be allowed to liberally pour lead into the situation.

Make it rain.

Guiding101
March 24, 2010, 01:59 PM
Above there was talk of "outranging an RPG". I really doubt the pirates are lobbing RPG rounds at the ship containing what they are hoping to steal. I have to go +1 on the M-16 and gernade launcher. The belt fed 50 as well. While the merchant ship is a stable platform, it could be tough timing the up, down motion of said pirates bobbing craft, even more so under pressure, with AK rounds zinging over your head. I have to vote high capacity millitary weapons that can send large quantities o lead down range.

NMGonzo
March 24, 2010, 02:03 PM
Amen, brother.:cool:
As if anyone needs to ask?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/M249mg.jpg

Both platforms are moving.

A Ma Deuce is hard to move around.

M249 fires enough bullet fairly inexpensively.

Make it rain.

DoubleTapDrew
March 24, 2010, 04:07 PM
Several organisations, including the International Maritime Bureau (IMB), have expressed concern that the use of armed security contractors could encourage pirates to be more violent when taking a ship.

Idiots. Maybe they should just take their cargo and valuables to shore and give it to the pirates in advance so the skinnys don't have to get in their little boats and incercept them, that much work could irritate them and cause them to be more violent as well. :rolleyes:

Coming home a few men short, or not at all, is the best deterrent.

USAFRetired
March 24, 2010, 04:18 PM
I've always thought it would fairly simple to rig some old fire-fighting turrets on the stern and plumb in some diesel from the engine room. Attach a propane torch.....

That would put the kibosh on a hostile boarding party real quick.

Vern Humphrey
March 24, 2010, 04:35 PM
Both platforms are moving.

A Ma Deuce is hard to move around.
Those are conditions under which the Ma Deuce shines. Remember, she was used for defense on the B17 -- a faster moving platform than any ship --with considerable success against Nazi fighters, which were faster than any pirate vessel.

LemmyCaution
March 24, 2010, 05:30 PM
It'll end in tears.

A couple of points:

1: The calls for long range weaponry are out of line, unless you intend to draw first blood. Which sort of begs the question of who is the aggressor here. Somali pirates rely on looking exactly like fishing boats that frequent the area. One can't simply blast any small skiff out of the water on a whim. In this case, it isn't self-defense, if you are shooting first.

2: Until there are enough mercenaries shipboard that the pirates stand a better than even chance of meeting armed resistance, mercenaries will not have a deterrent effect. In the short term, the pirates will definitely up the ante in terms of the violence of their attacks, with resultant loss of life on the good guys' side, over property. I don't see this as a particularly desirable outcome.

3: Even at the point where mercenaries act as a deterrent for large ships that can afford them, the pirates will just move to smaller vessels with smaller budgets, with a greater level of violence than is being used now- think 'dead passengers and crew, with the boat and cargo sold at port.' Picking the low hanging fruit, is what it's called.

Fortunately, the people who make these decisions have been, until now, the more rational sort who think about the unintended consequences, rather than getting all sweaty and excited over the possibility of indignantly wasting some disposably sub-human brown people. Which is about the level of discourse here.

Vern Humphrey
March 24, 2010, 05:33 PM
1: The calls for long range weaponry are out of line, unless you intend to draw first blood. Which sort of begs the question of who is the aggressor here. Somali pirates rely on looking exactly like fishing boats that frequent the area. One can't simply blast any small skiff out of the water on a whim. In this case, it isn't self-defense, if you are shooting first.
No, it's called "firing a shot across the bow" -- the traditional method of warning a suspect vessel not to come any closer.

2: Until there are enough mercenaries shipboard that the pirates stand a better than even chance of meeting armed resistance, mercenaries will not have a deterrent effect. In the short term, the pirates will definitely up the ante in terms of the violence of their attacks, with resultant loss of life on the good guys' side, over property. I don't see this as a particularly desirable outcome.
Why do you call armed seamen "mercenaries?"
3: Even at the point where mercenaries act as a deterrent for large ships that can afford them, the pirates will just move to smaller vessels with smaller budgets, with a greater level of violence than is being used now- think 'dead passengers and crew, with the boat and cargo sold at port.' Picking the low hanging fruit, is what it's called.
Which is why smaller ships should be armed as well. And the Ma Deuce makes an excellent weapon for a small ship.

Palehorseman
March 24, 2010, 05:46 PM
Simple solution to the matter of legality, the US should just issue a Letter of Marque authorizing US flagged ships to engage the pirates in reverse piracy, seize their vessels and all items found aboard.

The US constitution specifically allows a Letter of Marque to be issued.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-letter-of-marque.htm

Of course if the pirate's vessels were sank and their crews eliminated, no vessels or items could be seized.:D

gym
March 24, 2010, 05:47 PM
You must always take appropriate action when anyone shoots at you. Giving them money is not a smart idea, it only encourages more people to join the pirates and soon you have an army instead of a small group. So it's not an option to do nothing. We have seen how well that has worked in the past. If someone knows there is a good chance that they will get killed trying to steal, they are less likelly to try in the first place. It's like paying someone not to rob you, "paying protection", "extortion". That's a bad idea, and never works in the long run. That's why we don't "negotiate with terrorists". You will always lose in the end. Better to take a stand and put an end to it.

Driftertank
March 24, 2010, 06:04 PM
As a simple matter, the armed vessels will be attacked with greater ferocity and violence, or the attack will be abandoned. The unarmed vessels would likely be seized in the same manner they are now. Either way, given the opportunity, I'd rather shoot back.

As for my weapon of choice in a "repel boarders" situation, I'd say M-14 EBR or similar. The reach and accuracy to respond to an impending threat, and the firepower and portability to meet force on force in the event that the boarders actually make it over the gunwales.

Manco
March 24, 2010, 06:12 PM
Above there was talk of "outranging an RPG". I really doubt the pirates are lobbing RPG rounds at the ship containing what they are hoping to steal.

Sure they do, and what they're trying to steal are entire ships and crews to be held for ransom, which is usually paid by the owner.

I have to go +1 on the M-16 and gernade launcher. The belt fed 50 as well. While the merchant ship is a stable platform, it could be tough timing the up, down motion of said pirates bobbing craft, even more so under pressure, with AK rounds zinging over your head. I have to vote high capacity millitary weapons that can send large quantities o lead down range.

I agree on your weapon selection, the belt-fed .50 (M2) in particular, because it gives crews a range of capabilities and options.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/M249mg.jpg

Both platforms are moving.

A Ma Deuce is hard to move around.

M249 fires enough bullet fairly inexpensively.

Make it rain.

But it doesn't hit hard enough. It would be nice to be able to seriously tear up or sink small vessels at some range, which calls for the M2, which happens to be the usual weapon of choice used by the US Navy to defend against small vessels. However, maybe something like the M249 or M240 could be used when pirates are in the process of boarding and may be out of the M2's gimbal limits; either that or mount M2s so that they can scour the sides of the ship.

It'll end in tears.

Those who can set the consequences and deal out the punishment are in control, and you're suggesting that the pirates should be in control. I think they should face our consequences for their actions.

1: The calls for long range weaponry are out of line, unless you intend to draw first blood. Which sort of begs the question of who is the aggressor here. Somali pirates rely on looking exactly like fishing boats that frequent the area. One can't simply blast any small skiff out of the water on a whim. In this case, it isn't self-defense, if you are shooting first.

Yeah, and I've got a gun that can kill people 100 yards away, which means I'm going to shoot everybody in that radius who could potentially rob me. :rolleyes: In situations such as a pirate attack, long-range weaponry can not only be useful for firing warning shots near suspicious vessels, but destroying "mother ships" that may move in to provide RPG and machine gun fire support for skiffs that are already attacking the cargo ship, making their intentions quite clear.

2: Until there are enough mercenaries shipboard that the pirates stand a better than even chance of meeting armed resistance, mercenaries will not have a deterrent effect.

Armed guards will have a deterrent or rather repellent effect on the ships that do have them.

In the short term, the pirates will definitely up the ante in terms of the violence of their attacks, with resultant loss of life on the good guys' side, over property. I don't see this as a particularly desirable outcome.

So the lives of crews were never really in danger before? If we should be so afraid of what criminals will do in response to self-defense, then you're suggesting that everybody here on this forum should disarm or else criminals might get mad and hurt us. :rolleyes: I, on the other hand, would suggest that everybody arm themselves and kill any criminals who attack them, including pirates.

3: Even at the point where mercenaries act as a deterrent for large ships that can afford them, the pirates will just move to smaller vessels with smaller budgets, with a greater level of violence than is being used now- think 'dead passengers and crew, with the boat and cargo sold at port.' Picking the low hanging fruit, is what it's called.

There's much less incentive for them to do that, and the crews themselves can be trained and armed--think dead, discouraged pirates.

Fortunately, the people who make these decisions have been, until now, the more rational sort who think about the unintended consequences,

No, they're just the kind who will gladly bend over and take it in the rear because they're afraid of "evil" guns.

rather than getting all sweaty and excited over the possibility of indignantly wasting some disposably sub-human brown people. Which is about the level of discourse here.

Weak straw man argument.

Dravur
March 24, 2010, 06:26 PM
rather than getting all sweaty and excited over the possibility of indignantly wasting some disposably sub-human brown people. Which is about the level of discourse here.

I can't believe you said that.. You do realize it matters not what color skin a pirate has. If the Norwegians were hijacking vessels along their coast, my intention of whacking them would be the same. The person made themselves disposable by making themselves a pirate.

1: The calls for long range weaponry are out of line, unless you intend to draw first blood. Which sort of begs the question of who is the aggressor here. Somali pirates rely on looking exactly like fishing boats that frequent the area. One can't simply blast any small skiff out of the water on a whim. In this case, it isn't self-defense, if you are shooting first.


Wow, time to get out the big girl panties. I would take whatever it takes to reach out and touch someone at whatever range needed... including long range. Now, no one here said anything about banging away at the local fisherman. But, if the pirate makes himself known, and is sitting 300 yards out, strafing my ship with machine gun fire, then I want something that will reach out and touch them... Accurately. The first blood line is preposterous. I carry a gun all the time that has a range of about 50 yards accurate. Does that mean I will shoot anyone who comes within 50 yards?

3: Even at the point where mercenaries act as a deterrent for large ships that can afford them, the pirates will just move to smaller vessels with smaller budgets, with a greater level of violence than is being used now- think 'dead passengers and crew, with the boat and cargo sold at port.' Picking the low hanging fruit, is what it's called.

By your logic, we should just wander on in there, give them our ship so they dont harm someone else? by the same logic, should I just give my money to some criminal so he doesn't go pick on someone else? How about I shoot the criminal and then he doesn't bother either of us.

Wow... just wow...

JoeSlomo
March 24, 2010, 06:48 PM
In the short term, the pirates will definitely up the ante in terms of the violence of their attacks, with resultant loss of life on the good guys' side, over property.

It's not about "property".

It is about the right to peacefully traverse the worlds oceans.

It is about the right to defend yourself when being attacked.

The unintended consequence of years of apathy and non-resistance to piracy is the current boom of the piracy trade off the coast of Somalia.

Cosmoline
March 24, 2010, 07:09 PM
the possibility of indignantly wasting some disposably sub-human brown people. Which is about the level of discourse here.

You're the one bringing race into this. I don't give a good gravy if it's Johnny Depp in all his glory. If the jokers are muscling in for attack, you open fire. Pirates are hostis humani generis--the enemy of all mankind. Trying to cooperate with them hoping that nobody will get hurt is modern PC dogma that runs counter to several thousand years of maritime law and wisdom. The way to get rid of them is not to pay them off but to sink their vessels, kill their personnel and if necessary bomb their ports into ash. Otherwise you can guarantee they'll NEVER stop.

Crawford
March 24, 2010, 07:28 PM
First, when at sea, the ship’s captain is responsible for maintaining a standing 24-hour watch / lookout for other vessels. Today, that task is usually fulfilled, not necessarily safely, by maintaining a radar watch. But, as a security detail, you can probably leave the watch function up to the ship’s crew, and station one person on the bridge. All you should have to worry about is training the crew to notify you of any suspicious (or otherwise) boats and having sufficient people on-call to respond.

Second, you cannot assume that all approaching vessels have nefarious intentions. At the least you have to warn them off with radio followed by a bullhorn or other such device (possibly in several languages) as they approach nearer. Then, if you get no response, you need to fire several warning shots “across the bow”, so to speak. To insure that you have gotten their attention, these should either be tracer rounds or rounds from a Very pistol (i.e., flare gun/pistol). In other words, they have probably gotten fairly close to your ship (e.g., within 50 to 100 yards) before you can assume they are evil.

Since the distance is now fairly close, a 30-06 is probably the maximum size rifle round you will need or can reasonably and accurately use on-board a rolling ship. For backup, I would also want a 12-gage shotgun and 45 ACP in case they manager to board. I would guess a team of 4 or 5 guys, each armed with rifle, shotgun, 45 ACP and flare pistol, could cover the 24-hour bridge watch and also provide enough fire power to repel a couple of small craft approaching from different directions. Even the US Army has now determined that automatic fire is a waste of ammunition and ineffective, so semi-automatics such as the M-14 / XM-21, and pump shotguns should suffice. Also, don’t underestimate the effectiveness of flare rounds in scaring off anyone in a small boat. They can often be much more effective than either rifle, shotgun or even grenade launcher

Deltaboy
March 24, 2010, 07:34 PM
They should get some LAWS or a 105mm Recoilless Rifle.

Hatterasguy
March 24, 2010, 07:45 PM
Its better than paying them off, if these moron contry's keep paying they will keep taking ships. If we start shooting back sure some people will die, but the problem will go away.

Back in the old days we would send the Navy and the Marines in to storm the beach and kill them all. These days thats not so PR.

I'd bring ma deuce, no one argues with ma deuce.:D


Although an M14 with a scope would be just dandy to pick these idiots off in their crappy little boats. Hitting moving targets at sea is damn hard, so you would have to just hope to put a bunch of rounds in their boat and hope they make contact.

noob_shooter
March 24, 2010, 08:01 PM
i'm sorry, but no one is gonna come aboard my ship and rob me of my stuff... Either i die or you die... no exceptions. All those cargo ship crews should have @ least 3-4 guns per.

rmfnla
March 24, 2010, 08:28 PM
Good riddance!

I wonder how much money you could make being part of a "armed private vessel protection detachment".... Sounds like fun to me!
It does sound like fun!

How much trouble do you think it would be to organize hunting, I mean fishing charters in those waters?!

IronLance
March 24, 2010, 08:31 PM
Perhaps the ships master heard that the Maersk Alabama repelled boarders the second time someone tried to board them. Back in November, I believe. Pirates tried to board the Alabama several months after the first incident where three of the pirates ended up dead. This time the Alabama replied with gunfire(hired security guards, iirc). Something you didn't hear in the media.

There was an article about it in America's First Freedom magazine.

Uhrmacher
March 24, 2010, 08:38 PM
I've never understood why having small arms aboard merchant vessels is so frowned upon by governments. It seems pretty illogical to have no means of defending a large and valuable cargo when traveling through international waters where the nearest sympathetic "police" force may be days away. I guess the difficulty of reaching any kind of agreement with all of our major maritime trading partners is mostly to blame.

Think about trying to get the UK to agree let a ship that has a few *gasp* handguns on board enter port. Consider the children! :barf:

LemmyCaution
March 24, 2010, 08:39 PM
No, it's called "firing a shot across the bow" -- the traditional method of warning a suspect vessel not to come any closer.

Sure, if you're a sovereign navy. Presumably with Rules of Engagement and some minimal level of accountability. Merchant vessels haven't done this in I don't know how long, for somewhat obvious legal and liability reasons- Oops! My warning shot just ricochet off water and took the top of that fisherman's skull off! My bad! Sorry! See, he wasn't really coming toward me, I was heading toward him! Gee whiz!

Which leads to:

Why do you call armed seamen "mercenaries?"

Because that's what they are. Do you seriously think that any shipping line is going to train their crews in armed defense of a ship? They're going to hire PMCs, which is the PC way of saying mercenary. No shipping company is going to take on the liability concerns of arming and training their crews (see above). No underwriter will insure it, either. Let Xe train them and be liable for their actions. Shipping companies are just not set up to undertake the enormous legal responsibilities and expense involved in making sure that the escalation of force is done within modern maritime law, which is nowhere near what some of you eagerly imagine it is.

Which leads to:

Which is why smaller ships should be armed as well. And the Ma Deuce makes an excellent weapon for a small ship.

Oh, yeah, I'd forgotten that now that we have a socialist government, Obama had introduced the Ma Deuce for Every Home Stimulus Program, ensuring that every man woman and child in the global community was provided a .50 and a lifetime supply of ammunition gratis, c/o Uncle Sugar. Since most of us don't need one, we've all been putting them on eBay to raise a little extra wine change. There's no reason every bass boat in the ozarks shouldn't have a belt fed machine gun with a CIWS fire control system mounted on the deck. If you don't have a bass boat, just put it in your front yard to keep those noisy kids off the grass.:rolleyes:

IronLance
March 24, 2010, 08:43 PM
Uhrmacher,

According to the first article I read about the Somali pirates in America's First Freedom magazine, the British Foreign Office has expressly told their warships not to stop suspected pirate vessels. Who knows, they might even let the bad guys board them and provide a nice tea. :rolleyes:

rondog
March 24, 2010, 08:56 PM
One of these rigs on each corner of the ship would do nicely. BRRRRRRRTTTTT!!!!! Blub, blub, blub.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b150/rinselman/guns/triplemini2.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b150/rinselman/guns/?action=view&current=triplemini2.jpg)

mljdeckard
March 24, 2010, 08:59 PM
Not only is the Ma Deuce idea good, it could be done easier and cheaper with twin Russian 12.7s fore and aft. They were built in these mounts for this purpose.

I know some guys why are probing a business idea for shipping security, specializing in providing weapons and/or guards on ships abroad, and then allowing them to offload their arms to ships in international waters prior to making port anywhere they are illegal. (I have no idea how viable this idea is.)

Crawford
March 24, 2010, 09:01 PM
Uhrmacher said: “I've never understood why having small arms aboard merchant vessels is so frowned upon by governments. It seems pretty illogical to have no means of defending a large and valuable cargo when traveling through international waters where the nearest sympathetic "police" force may be days away. I guess the difficulty of reaching any kind of agreement “with all of our major maritime trading partners is mostly to blame.”

I don’t think governments are the ones responsible for the restrictions. It’s the shipping companies that own the vessels that don’t permit arms on-board. At least in international waters, any vessel can have carry arms. However, most countries do require that they (i.e., all arms) be locked up in a secure gun locker when in port. Typically, most ship owners would rather pay an occasional ransom rather than arm/train the crew and assume all the liability involved with that option. It is only when the ‘occasional’ becomes ‘often’ that they start changing their approach and start seriously looking at other options.

doc2rn
March 24, 2010, 09:06 PM
I would go with a 7.62 belt fed machinegun like the M60 or the MK 48. Plenty of power and easily portable.

ForumSurfer
March 24, 2010, 09:19 PM
1: The calls for long range weaponry are out of line, unless you intend to draw first blood. Which sort of begs the question of who is the aggressor here. Somali pirates rely on looking exactly like fishing boats that frequent the area. One can't simply blast any small skiff out of the water on a whim. In this case, it isn't self-defense, if you are shooting first.

Wouldn't it be better to be prepared with a cost effective, and highly efficient option? If these guys start firing ak's from three to four hundred yards some well placed shots could end it before they ever get closer. If they get in closer, simply use other weapons.

Not only that, you don't need a mercenary to take shots with a 300 win mag. Chances are someone on that boat grew up hunting in Alaska or other regions where they take long range shots. This puts a highly effective weapon in the hands of the crew, not a trained militia.

The other alternatives are to keep short range weapons close in case the poo hits the fan or to just let them hijack you and hope they don't kill you.

Fortunately, the people who make these decisions have been, until now, the more rational sort who think about the unintended consequences, rather than getting all sweaty and excited over the possibility of indignantly wasting some disposably sub-human brown people. Which is about the level of discourse here.

Who said that? I personally don't care what color someone is when they are trying to kill me. I hate what these Somali are going through. Most are poor fisherman desperate to feed their families. It's a real tragedy. I won't try to hug the poor guy if he comes at me with the business end of a cold war surplus soviet rifle, however.

Fortunately, the people who make these decisions have been, until now, the more rational sort

How is self defense irrational? Crews have been fighting back, with guns no less for years.

Cosmoline
March 24, 2010, 09:33 PM
Shipping companies are just not set up to undertake the enormous legal responsibilities and expense involved in making sure that the escalation of force is done within modern maritime law, which is nowhere near what some of you eagerly imagine it is.

So I keep hearing. Yet some of them obviously feel differently. And in spite of all the yammering about how it's impossible for a merchantman to defend against these pirates, we see yet another example of how big a lie that is. I applaud them for taking actions to protect their crew and cargo. The pirates are hardly going to be in a position to lodge a court action against anyone.

My warning shot just ricochet off water and took the top of that fisherman's skull off!

These are the "fishermen" with RPG's who are climbing aboard your vessel (ROLLING EYES ICON HERE)

I'd forgotten that now that we have a socialist government, Obama had introduced the Ma Deuce for Every Home Stimulus Program, ensuring that every man woman and child in the global community was provided a .50 and a lifetime supply of ammunition gratis, c/o Uncle Sugar.

I know some folks who have M-2's. The local machine gun club has a bunch, and there are a ton on the surplus market worldwide. I don't see why the security detail of a merchant ship shouldn't be able to get a few for pirates. They're comparatively cheap and will work extremely well against both personnel and small craft.

Ky Larry
March 24, 2010, 10:15 PM
As more ships arm themselves, piracy will become less viable. As the possibility of armed resistance increases, pirates will be less inclined to attack ships. Hoping bad people won't hurt you if you don't fight back is bliss-ninny silliness.
In the movie "The Sand Pebbles" there was a scene where the crew ran a Repel Borders drill. IIRC, the Navy crew was armed with Springfields, 1911s, BARs, cutlas's, Vickers machine guns, shotguns, and steam hoses. This should be enough fire power to defend a ship for the Somali pirates.

SSN Vet
March 24, 2010, 10:16 PM
excited over the possibility of indignantly wasting some disposably sub-human brown people.

Sorry Lemmy... your argument backfires when faced with facts and makes you look like the bigot...

Fact.... >90% of merchant ships are NOT manned by Anglos as you suppose...

Fact.... the majority of merchant ships ARE manned by "brown people" (your words)... as the ships are predominantly crewed by South Americans, Philippinos and other south-east Asians, to be specific.

So by your argument, they should let the "subhuman brown people" be taken captive and if not ransomed, killed. Why bother defending them, since they are not caucasian westerners?

In the world you advocate, anyone who's willing to slit a throat is the king of the world.

NG VI
March 25, 2010, 12:23 AM
Quote:
Which is why smaller ships should be armed as well. And the Ma Deuce makes an excellent weapon for a small ship.

Oh, yeah, I'd forgotten that now that we have a socialist government, Obama had introduced the Ma Deuce for Every Home Stimulus Program, ensuring that every man woman and child in the global community was provided a .50 and a lifetime supply of ammunition gratis, c/o Uncle Sugar. Since most of us don't need one, we've all been putting them on eBay to raise a little extra wine change. There's no reason every bass boat in the ozarks shouldn't have a belt fed machine gun with a CIWS fire control system mounted on the deck. If you don't have a bass boat, just put it in your front yard to keep those noisy kids off the grass.


Way to take his comment as far out of context as possible.

Nicodemus38
March 25, 2010, 12:43 AM
A suspected pirate has been shot dead as private guards repelled an attack on a cargo ship off Somalia, in what may have been the first such incident.

The ESPS Navarra found one pirate mother ship and two skiffs. The mother ship was destroyed after the suspects were taken into custody, Navfor said.

Navfor spokesman Cmdr John Harbour told the BBC News website that he believed there was strong evidence to prosecute the six suspects detained.

"All the evidence suggests that there was a fire-fight," he said.

Bullet-holes were found in the skiffs in which they were found, he added.

the above lines illustrate the problem we have with the forces pretending to deal with the pirates. Once the pirates leave visual contact with the victim, the politics kick in and the pirates become "suspected" pirates, irregardless of crewmen and hulls riddled with bullet holes.
Politics makes it sticky to deal with them, for starters its incorrect to do anything that might offend the underpaid crew who come from that section of the world that can be found on most merchant ships. And then the politicians dont want to kill members of the third world because it most likely would cause trouble for teh donors who claim to be helping the third world.

Back to the naval forces, just last week pirates attacked a scandinavian warship by accident, and got their butts kicked. the warship found the mother ship, and did nothing to it. In proper naval terms they commited a great sin, they let the enemy go free when the enemy was basically dismasted and dead in the water.

until the warships go on a proactive hunting regimine, the pirates will win. its what we discovered with pirates in the 1800s.

Hatterasguy
March 25, 2010, 12:47 AM
Eventualy the problem will get so bad they will be foreced to act.

Right now its cheaper for the big shipping lines to just pay them off, or so they think. Its a very stupid short term solution that will cost them dearly later.

kenno
March 25, 2010, 12:48 AM
Making the Good Guy into the Bad Guy is an old commie ploy. Pirates are not victims, they are part of a world wide criminal network with paid spys in every major port. the people that control the pirates are millionaires who pay the pirates money to capture unarmed civilian ships up to 100 miles off shore, that makes the pirates the mercenarys.
Self defense is not a crime, it is a God given right.

Hardtarget
March 25, 2010, 01:15 AM
Every time this subject comes up some one will point out, ( correctly ), the problem of gun law in various ports. That is always referenced as reason for "no arms" for protection.

I think these ships are big enough to make a large gun vault...all locked up with only two or three with access.Everything is made safe when coming into port. Then, when the ship moves out to sea...be ready to arm the defenders if pirates show up. Remember, all the big ships have radar and should be aware of another ship approaching...even fairly small craft.

Shipping needs to demand the right of self protection on the high seas. Maybe stop delivering to places that refuse to be reasonable.

Or they could demand escort from Navy to bypass the no gun rules from the "idiot rule makers".

Mark

wilkersk
March 25, 2010, 01:16 AM
I think a Barrett .50 would punch some holes in a pirate boat,and out reach a RPG.
I once had the task of sinking a fishing boat that would have otherwise been left adrift in busy shipping lanes (long story for another forum).

I had the pilot circle the boat while I tried our mounted M2 .50cal (too many rounds) and the boat took on water, but didn't sink.

We went back to our ship and picked up a gunner's mate (who was dying to horn in on the action) with a couple of grenades. We dropped 1 grenade down into the cabin and hauled ass. Went back and dropped a 2nd one. After about 10 minutes of circling, the thing finally kind'a healed over and slipped below the surface and went down fast after that.

.50 cal would be a nice ship's self defense weapon. But, no ship self defense force would be complete without something like the Mk-19 grenade launcher.

LemmyCaution
March 25, 2010, 07:42 AM
Fact.... >90% of merchant ships are NOT manned by Anglos as you suppose...

Fact.... the majority of merchant ships ARE manned by "brown people" (your words)... as the ships are predominantly crewed by South Americans, Philippinos and other south-east Asians, to be specific.

I'm quite aware of this. It wasn't the crews of the ships I was suggesting were eager to waste some 'skinnys,' as it was so charmingly put earlier in the thread. It was all the White Homeland Commandos here on the internet I was accusing of racism, as they sit there at home fantasizing about firing warning shots with a .50 belt fed and taking no prisoners.

The crews of the ships are probably thinking 'Well, it will be a bummer if we get hijacked, but at least we're on the clock.'

They're the ones with some skin in the game. Not the people here. But they're also not trained to handle things like long range defense of a ship, and their employers are not going to make that expense. And the smaller the shipping company gets, the less they're going to invest in defense. But none of them are going to allow their crews to arm themselves, just as no large corporation in the US entrusts company security to the cubicle dwellers. Which is unfortunate, since a crew with small arms would probably be the best defense, so long as the small arms don't come into play until an attack is real, not suspected. Mercs have a bad history of being trigger happy goons who get into the game because the money is great and they get to do things that would land them in prison in places with a more robust criminal justice system.

Long term, mercs shipboard might have a benefit for the large players. Short term, the level of violence in Somali piracy will go up, and the smaller players are going to bear the brunt of it. I'm all for small arms for the crews, however.

I think mercs and crew served weapons are a disaster in the making.

Travis McGee
March 25, 2010, 09:07 AM
Prosecute the survivin pirates with a rope around the neck.

Then feed the sharks.

danprkr
March 25, 2010, 09:18 AM
Absolutely the best bet. But maybe a smaller caliber would be more ideal since possessing a 50 cal will land you a felony in many ports of call. You'd need to check the local ports and figure out what is the biggest round you can take without going to local prison.

It's my understanding that in many ports NOTHING is allowed.

shooter514
March 25, 2010, 11:41 AM
"nothing" is what is allowed in most ports...... only option is to pick up private security in international waters to ride on board/ follow (which broadcasts who has security) they should allow weapons and just have them lock them up when in port.... and to just make them nastier... well this is unfortunately the case but its the wild west out in that part of the world.. so if you kill enough of them and stop paying them big money every time they take over a vessel they will stop...:banghead:

kenno
March 25, 2010, 11:56 AM
I see Lemmy is still on his Saul Alinsky rant, still pushing the Social Justice. Oppressed Brown Races, Hate the Cracker rheteroric.
Some people will say anything just to appear revelant and be the center of attention. Fortunately this site has an 'ignore' function so I will use that and no longer be bothered with his juvenile rants.

gym
March 25, 2010, 12:05 PM
I can't believe that some guys in here would watch as someone fired automatic weapons and RPG's at them. With the hope that the company had the cash on hand and the willingness to pay the ransom. Allowing for the possibility of the pirates putting your ass in a lifeboat or just throwing you overboard. Are you kidding? this is a gun related forum, not ice skating. Most folks here when shot at will shoot back, so what surprises me is that given the circumstances why is there even a debate about this. If someone was shooting at your car with you in it, would you offer them money to stop?

heron
March 25, 2010, 12:07 PM
Here's an article I found just now:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gB7YMEDuCwwY9ncDOtPAkEI4-H2wD9EL0E3G0

Private guards kill Somali pirate for first time

By KATHARINE HOURELD (AP) – 1 day ago

NAIROBI, Kenya — Private security guards shot and killed a Somali pirate during an attack on a merchant ship off the coast of East Africa in what is believed to be the first such killing by armed contractors, the EU Naval Force spokesman said Wednesday.

The death comes amid fears that increasingly aggressive pirates and the growing use of armed private security contractors onboard vessels could fuel increased violence on the high seas. The handling of the case may have legal implications beyond the individuals involved in Tuesday's shooting.

"This will be scrutinized very closely," said Arvinder Sambei, a legal consultant for the U.N.'s anti-piracy program. "There's always been concern about these (private security) companies. Who are they responsible to?"

The guards were onboard the MV Almezaan when a pirate group approached it twice, said EU Naval Force spokesman Cmdr. John Harbour. During the second approach on the Panamanian-flagged cargo ship, which is United Arab Emirates owned, there was an exchange of fire between the guards and the pirates.

An EU Naval Force frigate was dispatched to the scene and launched a helicopter that located the pirates. Seven pirates were found, including one who had died from small caliber gunshot wounds, indicating he had been shot by the contractors, said Harbour.

A statement by the Spanish Ministry of Defense said the warship Navarra had intercepted two skiffs and a larger vessel believed to be a pirate mothership. Spanish forces arrested the six remaining pirates, took custody of the pirate's body and sunk the larger boat, it said.

The two smaller skiffs had many bullet holes in them, the statement said. Spain was trying to reach the Somali government to hand over the body and get the cargo ship's crew to identify the detained suspects as their attackers. Spain was also trying to reach the ship's owner so formal charge of piracy could be laid and the detainees turned over to the Seychelles or Kenya under an agreement the two countries have with the EU.

Sambei said the case could become legally complicated. Investigators would have to establish who had jurisdiction — the flag the vessel was flying, its owners or the nationality of the contractors — and who was responsible for the security contractors in order to set up an independent inquiry, she said.

"The bottom line is somebody has been killed and someone has to give an accounting of that," she said.

Violent confrontations between ships and pirates are on the rise. Crews are becoming increasingly adept at repelling attacks by pirates in the dangerous waters of the Indian Ocean and Gulf of Aden and many ship owners are using private security. But pirates are becoming more aggressive in response, shooting bullets and rocket-propelled grenades at ships to try to intimidate captains into stopping.

Several organizations, including the International Maritime Bureau, have expressed fears that the use of armed security contractors could encourage pirates to be more violent when taking a ship. Sailors have been hurt or killed before but this generally happens by accident or through poor health. There has only been one known execution of a hostage despite dozens of pirate hijackings.

International navies have killed about a dozen pirates over the past year, said Harbour. Hundreds more are believed to have died at sea, either by drowning or through dehydration when their water and fuel runs out, said Alan Cole, who heads the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime's anti-piracy initiative.

Pirate attacks have not declined despite patrols by dozens of warships off the Somali coast. The amount of ocean to patrol is too vast to protect every ship and pirates have responded to the increased naval presence by moving attacks farther out to sea.

Experts say piracy is just one symptom of the general collapse of law and order in the failed state of Somalia, which has not had a functioning government in 19 years. They say attacks on shipping will continue as long as there is no central government capable of taking on the well-armed and well-paid pirate gangs.

Associated Press Writer Daniel Woolls in Madrid contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Now, as to the worry of the pirates' attacks becoming more violent, I have to ask, "How?" In particular, where are they going to get bigger or better boats or weapons? I'd think that they already would have if they could. I doubt they have the money for anything better than what they already use, and bigger vessels would require trained crews (which I doubt they could find) as well as more resources to operate. Using bigger vessels would also slow them down and make bigger targets of them.

I seriously doubt if these pirates are trained or disciplined, or even very organized, and their equipment is whatever they can piece together, cheap or stolen. They are desperate and hungry, and probably almost all illiterate. Note in the article that a lot of them are found dead of illness and accident, without ever becoming involved in actual attacks. I think the fears of increased violence are unfounded. Sure, they could kill hostages, but then their bargaining chips are lost, and the price on their heads goes up accordingly, and I think they know this.

lions
March 25, 2010, 12:29 PM
It was all the White Homeland Commandos here on the internet I was accusing of racism...

How do you know the race of your so-called internet commandos? Or are you just assuming they are white because they made a comment about shooting pirates who deserve to be shot and who also happen to be "brown people"?

You are the one injecting race into this discussion and I think it is quite clear that you are the one with racist notions, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.

shephard19
March 25, 2010, 12:30 PM
How about a MG42 in its modern incarnation the MG3? Portable and plenty of firepower that would probably sink most ships under 70 feet long. Hard hitting round and very high rate(over 1000 rounds a minute) of fire. Would sink most ships under 70 feet long especially the wooden ones the pirates use. AK47s and pump shotguns in case they get on board, because they are cheap,reliable and effective and you could also use the enemys' ammo.

Ky Larry
March 25, 2010, 12:41 PM
Isn't this the same ongoing argument we have between gun owners and anti's? The same basic questions are being asked:Who is ultimately responsible for our safety and wellbeing? Is it right or wrong to use violence to protect ourselves? Do people have the right to meet armed aggression with armed defence? I respect other peoples opinions but I've already made my mind up. I beleive we should all walk softly in the world but there's nothing wrong with carrying a big stick, and being ready and able to use it.
Rant mode off.

ForumSurfer
March 25, 2010, 04:36 PM
Isn't this the same ongoing argument we have between gun owners and anti's? The same basic questions are being asked:Who is ultimately responsible for our safety and wellbeing? Is it right or wrong to use violence to protect ourselves? Do people have the right to meet armed aggression with armed defence? I respect other peoples opinions but I've already made my mind up. I beleive we should all walk softly in the world but there's nothing wrong with carrying a big stick, and being ready and able to use it.
Rant mode off.


^^^^+1

I agree. If it is ok for us to defend ourselves as gun-owners and ccw permit holders, how would you justify not defending yourself against piracy? If a truck load of poor desperate, ak-47 firing, distraught people barreled into your yard, would you let yourself be taken hostage and let the proper authorities sort things out? Myself, and many others would opt to defend themselves.

Yes, a boat in international or foreign waters is different...But defending oneself is not. Giving up, being taken for ransom and hoping the pirate is smart enough to figure out whom to call for ransom requests doesn’t seem like a great idea to me. I really don't see where race played into this at all. I see people with guns, not what color their trigger finger is.
http://ui17.gamespot.com/880/pirate2_4.gif

HexHead
March 25, 2010, 04:42 PM
M1As with incendiary ammo for the "floating gas tank" skiffs.

jobu07
March 25, 2010, 04:43 PM
Looks like the pirates made an attempt at another ship that was prepared to defend itself ;)

http://www.wibw.com/nationalnews/headlines/88242302.html

Suspected Pirates unwittingly target Warship, Naval Force says
(CNN) -- Two skiffs sped toward a ship in the Indian Ocean in an apparent pirate attack Wednesday -- without realizing the target was a Dutch warship, military authorities said.
Reporter: CNN


Font Size: (CNN) -- Two skiffs sped toward a ship in the Indian Ocean in an apparent pirate attack Wednesday -- without realizing the target was a Dutch warship, military authorities said.

The would-be pirates were making a "fast approach" toward the warship when it fired several warning shots, the European Union Naval Force Somalia said in a news release.

The shots "alerted the 'would-be' pirates to the fact that they were trying to attack a well-armed naval warship," the release said.

The skiffs were stopped and boarded by crew members from the Tromp, a warship of the Royal Netherlands Navy. They found ammunition and a rocket-propelled grenade on the skiffs before destroying them, the naval force said.

They detained 10 suspects before releasing them to a third ship that apparently was associated with the group, it said.

The Dutch warship is part of a European Union anti-piracy task force that escorts merchant vessels and ships carrying humanitarian aid and seeks to combat pirates, many of whom are from Somalia. The task force has ships on patrol in the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean.

Madcap_Magician
March 25, 2010, 04:46 PM
Doesn't really take a whole lot of effort to outrange an RPG.

Rifles will do it.

SSN Vet
March 25, 2010, 04:57 PM
I think most of the problems with the United States' dealings with Somaia are related to Slick Willies decision to use the "when the going gets tough, run away" tactic...

These "less than modern" cultures really only understand one thing... FORCE.

They have no fear, nor respect of the international community, because they know the west does not have the sack to do anything militarily on land and they can always cozy up to the Chinese, using them as spoilers should the UN ever decide to pull it's thumb out.

I was trying to look up some stories I had heard about Winston Churchill's experiences fighting the Darvish tribes when he was a young man (he participated in the last calvary charge of the British empire), and wound up reading some extenive articles about Britains experiences in Ethiopia and Somalia.

Let's just say, things haven't changed much over there in the last 100 years.

NG VI
March 25, 2010, 04:57 PM
"The bottom line is somebody has been killed and someone has to give an accounting of that," she said.

Because to her, it doesn't matter that someone was killed because he put the lives of twenty to thirty people who were minding their own business in danger, through a violent attack on them for profit, what matters is that "somebody died". Government truly is a monopoly on the use of force, isn't it?



Violent confrontations between ships and pirates are on the rise. Crews are becoming increasingly adept at repelling attacks by pirates in the dangerous waters of the Indian Ocean and Gulf of Aden and many ship owners are using private security. But pirates are becoming more aggressive in response, shooting bullets and rocket-propelled grenades at ships to try to intimidate captains into stopping.


No, they aren't, that is the exact same tactic they have been using for years. Thye just haven't suffered enough losses yet to dissuade them from going into the piracy gig.

SSN Vet
March 25, 2010, 04:59 PM
They detained 10 suspects before releasing them to a third ship that apparently was associated with the group, it said.

no yard arm, no rope...

not much of a warship is it.

Officers'Wife
March 25, 2010, 05:24 PM
In the 19th century;

We paid tribute to the Barbary pirates and the pirates continued.

Then we destroyed the port of Algiers... The attacks ceased.

Those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.

offthepaper
March 25, 2010, 06:20 PM
I seem to recalll a story of how General Pershing killed a bunch of muslim terrorists in the Phillipines and had them buried and coverd with pig blood and parts, ensuring they would not meet the virgins. One terrorist was spared and instructed to return to his camp and tell the others what he had witnessed. there were no more attacks for decades.

perhaps sned all but one pirate into the shark infested sea and dump some meat parts or blood around them and let the lone survivor watch, send him back to shore and see how the pirates feel about their profession the next day.

Once the make an armed attack on an innocent vessel they have revoked their right to life and should be dealt with accordingly.

Mandolin
March 25, 2010, 06:55 PM
I've got a feeling that, given the opritunity, half of this forum would hop on a boat to go shoot up Somali pirates. Not that there's anythign wrong with that. I'd go.

Driftertank
March 26, 2010, 04:04 AM
Got a gag email from my dad a while back about a cruise doing EXACTLY that....complete with gun rentals and a raffle to get to fire the "Captain's personal quad-fifty mount....


I'd show it here, but none of the pictures show up if I try to copy it, and my Web-fu is weak... :(

Hann
March 26, 2010, 04:18 AM
I've got a feeling that, given the opritunity, half of this forum would hop on a boat to go shoot up Somali pirates. Not that there's anythign wrong with that. I'd go.

I'd go but you'd have to pay me. I don't work for free. ;)

Gryffydd
March 26, 2010, 04:56 AM
It was all the White Homeland Commandos here on the internet I was accusing of racism
Wow, I didn't know THR membership was limited to white people.

Manco
March 26, 2010, 07:52 AM
It was all the White Homeland Commandos here on the internet I was accusing of racism

That's not only a serious accusation and a huge assumption on your part, it is ironically by far the most racist-sounding statement in this thread I've seen yet. :scrutiny:

Officers'Wife
March 26, 2010, 11:45 AM
It never ceases to amaze me how stopping the most heinous of criminal activity is often decried as racist. Do these people not realize by defining these acts as the quality of a race is in itself a racist statement? Someone with understanding please explain this to me.

Vern Humphrey
March 26, 2010, 05:55 PM
The ultimate racists are those who go around convincing minorities that they can't make it on their own -- they need Big Government to "help" them. And in return, they must faithfully serve the Left. Those who disagree (like Justice Thomas) must be drummed out of their race.

Bovice
March 26, 2010, 06:05 PM
I'd go if ammo was provided free of charge. Sounds like a good time.

Manco
March 26, 2010, 09:09 PM
I think most of the problems with the United States' dealings with Somaia are related to Slick Willies decision to use the "when the going gets tough, run away" tactic...

The ramifications have been even greater. According to Osama bin Laden himself (in a series of old interviews), the "Blackhawk Down" scenario utterly convinced him that US military forces had poor morale (they killed hundreds while losing only 18, but fled in defeat anyway--in his view abject cowards in comparison to the Soviets he had fought), and that the country was a "paper tiger" that was no more a "superpower" than the USSR had been, and not any more stable as a nation, for that matter. His perception of the country as being amazingly and unexpectedly weak is what gave him and his organization the confidence to set in motion spectacular attacks, such as 9/11, that were aimed at causing the USA to literally collapse into 50 separate states. Previously, he was said, by others who were close to him, to live in fear of the United States, convinced that they would one day kill him.

I think it's fair to say that like us our enemies respect strength and have nothing but contempt for weakness. And like I said earlier, the one who sets the consequences for the actions of others and deals the punishment for disobedience is the one who is in control. If we choose to live in fear of others and do as they say in order to avoid punishment, then they are our masters. The same principle applies across the whole spectrum of humanity, including whole countries, terrorists, and pirates.

Hatterasguy
March 27, 2010, 02:47 AM
Well said!

We could solve this problem in a week if we really wanted to. Park a fleet offshore and turn this port into a gaint sea of fire. Problem solved.

I'd go on a cruise to help fight them off, just as long as ammo was provided. Sounds like it would be fun.

gym
March 27, 2010, 11:14 AM
Bin Ladin has announced "open season" on Americans if we convict the terrorist leader in Gitmo. he came out with a statement yesterday or the day before stating that they will kill aany americans the see. So knowing that their are ties between most of these guys, it would be in everyones best interest to shoot back at any threat as soon as it becomes a threat. You just can't sit back and hope they let the hostages go, that's becoming a rarity.

Vern Humphrey
March 27, 2010, 11:54 AM
But remember what Uncle Herbivore says, "Do not seek to intimidate others . . . stark terror is much more effective."

RebelKangaroo
March 27, 2010, 12:38 PM
From someone much more eloquent and well spoken then I will ever be:

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
   For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
   You will find it better policy to say: --

"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
   No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
   And the nation that plays it is lost!"
-Rudyard Kipling

That said, I think its about time to put Q-ships back into play.

Kingofthehill
March 27, 2010, 12:44 PM
It could be like a "Kill a Pirate Cruise".... id hang out if i was able to kill these SOB's .... could be a fun cruise.

JOe

cambeul41
March 27, 2010, 12:46 PM
I was considering the significance of this very poem just this morning.

Thanks for posting it.

http://www.frfrogspad.com/profound.htm#Dane-geld

SN13
March 27, 2010, 01:01 PM
LemmyCaution,

You're the only one in this entire thread who has made any racial comments, or racist comments, or any comments referring to race.

Also, I'll take an AK and a sidearm.

xcgates
March 27, 2010, 02:10 PM
I don't know if this thread has drifted too far off track already, but here are some of my thoughts.

Sure, you can have all the range you want, but from what I understand, the majority of the time the pirates sneak up undetected, and latch on quick. The reason being that the best option for the captain of a large vessel is to run up to full speed if he suspects pirates. This is because large vessels are able to cut through the seas at a higher sustained speed than the small vessels used by pirates.

Things may have changed since I last read about this stuff, and don't get the idea that I am against arming the crews. But weapons won't change things all by themselves, there would have to be a change of mind, including a constant watch.

kenno
March 27, 2010, 02:21 PM
It could be like a "Kill a Pirate Cruise".... id hang out if i was able to kill these SOB's .... could be a fun cruise.

JOe

What an excelent idea!

Onward Allusion
March 27, 2010, 02:57 PM
<sarcasm>This will surely escalate the violence. The merchant ships should comply with the pirates in order to avoid all bloodshed. They should leave it to the governments to protect these ships!</sarcasm>

It's about F-ing time, I would say. The merchant ships should have RPGs for the pirate motherships.:cuss:


SSN Vet (http://www.thehighroad.org/member.php?u=24082)
Pirate surprise!
Well imagine that.... a merchant ship with a small security detachement handilly repels borders with small arms. I can't believe it :rolleyes:
----------------------
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8584604.stm

p35
April 7, 2010, 05:43 PM
The other day they were interviewing the captain of the Maersk Alabama (IIRC- the one that got captured and then rescued by the Navy) on NPR. He described a chase lasting a couple hours at least while he sped up and tried to maneuver to swamp the boat as it came alongside- ultimately they got on with a long ladder. Four of them in a small outboard. Apparently once they get on board the first move is to link up with the mothership for more troops and weapons.

A couple things struck me: First, he said that the pirates will back off if you look like too tough a target and try it on the next ship. They had hose and flares going at the boat trying to just scare them off. Some tracer rounds, even if they missed, would have added greatly to the deterrent effect IMHO. Second, all it would take would be a .30 cal AP round or two hitting the outboard to enable the ship to outrun the pirates while they sat there figuring out how to row back to Somalia. A .50 would be even better, but let's remember that an M2 with ammo weighs better than a hundred pounds and the sailors would be trying to run all over the deck of a big ship with it (assuming they don't have a bunch of them) to keep the pirates in the line of fire. My vote would be an M14 loaded with AP.

gym
April 7, 2010, 06:54 PM
Much like "carjackers". They aren't giving up their career, just choosing their targets better. I had one walk right into my PPK's in 1983, excuse himself and go hold up the cab behind me. Even told me to have a nice day, with an emergency services van 100 yards away with a bunch of officers standing around talking. Two guys on a crotch rocket. They were gone in a flash in traffic. My auto leasing guy was jabbering away about the new car, never saw a thing till I told him to be quiet for a second. After a few seconds of thinking about it, after they left, I realized that stopping to explain what just happened to the cops, while the cab, “who was held up”, actually left, would be more trouble than it was worth. I am sure this type of thinking is similar to these "pirates". If they get it, fine if not, "next". The moral of the story is, that anything of value is subject to being taken if not protected, it doesn’t matter what it is. And being aware of your surroundings is the best advise of all.

If you enjoyed reading about "Pirate surprise!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!