Pirates and Idiots

Status
Not open for further replies.
I understand there's a mob at Crib Point - Victoria - Australian looking to sell an old Australian Oberon class pig-boat. Torpedoes might be harder to come by, but a whole look of fun looking!
 
It's just not fair to them to shoot at them with big bad evil scary guns. We should just let them have their way and rape our ships.
Click to expand...

Far less simple than the mindset which is present in anti-gun restrictions at home.


Insurance policies limit what people can and cannot do. Violating the policy can void the insurance claim. If you resist pirates and that is against the terms of the insurance then any and all damage is not covered by them. Additionaly they can drop all coverage of you, and in many lines of work and business you need insurance to have a license and legaly operate.
So lose your insurance, and you lose your ability to even operate.

So insurance policies are extremely powerful.

Insurance companies look at everyone as numbers. Certain actions give more predictable numbers than others.
Self defense could result in no damage, no hostage taking, and even reduce the amount of future piracy. It could also result in an expensive hole from an rpg in the side of the ship, paid for by the insurance company.
Currently surrendering to the pirates causes no damage to the ships, making insurance liable for no damage. Whether anyone is harmed, or other things take place matters less than the numbers. They are not insuring crew lives, they are insuring the ship.
Whether people or businesses are secure in thier property matters far less.


Further, many of the restrictions on arms are due to internationly imposed restrictions on small arms.
Restrictions produced in the UN, EU, and by various agreements between rulers of peasants throughout the world.
The US government itself is a very active participant in working to curb the flow of arms to mere common people. The premise is often to keep them out of the hands of criminals, terrorists etc
In reality it is just to make various regions of the world easier to control, both by thier own governments or invading occupying forces.
Disarmed populations are easier to control with armed forces.

(Our own ITAR system has been abused to include small arms export restrictions. Restrictions then enforced by agencies such as the ATF. Restrictions in place to keep small arms from leaving America and going to regular peasants, who may resist tyranny.)


The laws imposed to that effect end up impacting many segments of the international community. Including shipping in international waters.
This may actualy lead to the UN and similar bodies imposing more laws and projecting more control over the seas and oceans. Creating international law outside of national borders that will set a precedent for restricting you and I even in international waters.

So this could become a great way for the UN to establish that it sets binding laws even in international waters on all matters. The type of laws that could eventualy make it illegal for you to exit US territorial waters with "small arms" and enter international controlled waters.
Currently it is illegal to export without going through an official process already. So leaving the waters to go to a nation without declaring the firearms and taking the legal steps is already restricted by relatively recent restrictions.
However such UN changes could make it illegal to even go fishing at sea in international waters with small arms.

Laws that can then be enforced by our very own Coast Guard (now part of the Dpartment of Homeland Security) if they find you in violation.

Antis have had some trouble quickly removing our rights through our legal system. Removing them through international pressures and treaties though may be much more effective.

Rulers do not like commoners with small arms, period. So international support always will exist, and always has existed. Rulers are in agreement that the peasants should not have items which could harm thier armed forces.
It has just not been feasible to implement such legislation before the structured global government network we have now.
 
Last edited:
This thread makes me sad. Not because of the topic or the content but because so much of the spelling and grammar is so lazy as to be near offensive.
 
well im an offender when it comes to spelling and grammar. but then im not writing to tell people about their spelling and grammar. As a context this is a very good thread. So much to hear and learn on this subject. Pirate hunting Someone get a boat. Shieeet id be dow for it. MA DEUCE no problem.
 
When did the average human stop taking measures into his/her owns hands, such as using real tools for self defense.

The solution is to put a few armed Soldiers with real hardware on deck. $50,000 in arms can prevent these hijackings. Mount a .50 M2 on each side, and a squad of Soldiers with AK47s, RPKs, M49s, M4s, and bolt action hunting rifles.

Anyone without authorization to board gets shot if they get within a 1/2 mile.
 
Wow,Zoogster nailed it!
''Rulers do not like commoners with small arms, period. So international support always will exist, and always has existed. Rulers are in agreement that the peasants should not have items which could harm thier armed forces.
It has just not been feasible to implement such legislation before the structured global government network we have now...''
 
The Pirates in Somalia have stolen 150 million from people this year alone. The Pirates in Washington have stolen trillions.

jj
 
Its not that hard, someone make an escort company. Free markets and all.

Build a ship that is armed and can service a chopper. From the pictures Ive seen, a .50 cal will tare there "ships" apart. Maby have a 30mm cannon incase something a little bigger comes along, and your good to go.
 
It seems that in a lot of places, pirates and narcotics smugglers may not necessarily be after ransom of a crew, they're after the ship itself. They could give a crap about ransom so they just tie weights to the crew/passengers and roll them over the side.
 
All of the high-quality consumer goods coming from Somalia. I know it's a status symbol to have "Made in Somalia" on the tag of your shirt but I'm willing to sacrifice some style points to do the right thing.

Also, lay off the Somalian .308 surplus. I know it shoots better than that Lithuanian crap, and it's cheaper, and cleaner, but you don't want that blood on your hands, man.

And - lastly - boycott Somalian food. Hey, if THEY can do it, you can do it.

Let's band together, folks.
 
I have read that the major players in maritime insurance, such as Lloyd's of London, etc. do not allow armed resistance if pirates want to board your ship.
Click to expand...

Isn't this similar to the advixe routinely given to hijacked planes before 911?

Ok well let the stupid Saudis continue to defend their 100k+ Oil tankers with hoses, and grease just dont cry next time one of them gets jacked to us.
Click to expand...

I think the cost of a supertanker is closer to a 100 million +, and that doesn't include the cost of the oil it transports.

If we send troops to recover that big floating fortune we should get at least a 70% finders fee of the cargo.
Click to expand...

Actually, if I understand Maritime law correctly, if you rescue the boat you can claim salvage rights and get the whole thing.....cargo and ship.

Wow,Zoogster nailed it!
''Rulers do not like commoners with small arms, period. So international support always will exist, and always has existed. Rulers are in agreement that the peasants should not have items which could harm thier armed forces.
It has just not been feasible to implement such legislation before the structured global government network we have now...''
Click to expand...

That's certainly true, but so is this:

They are not insuring crew lives, they are insuring the ship.
Click to expand...

Unless someone, either the ship's owners or the insurance companies (either of which is highly unlikely) is held responsible for the crew physical safety, the driving force behind such "policies" will continue to be the value of the ship, not the humans driving it. I find it somewhat analgous to the "police don't have an obligation to protect you" but we're going to prevent you from carrying/having a gun to protect yourself.
 
Love your logic, JohnKSa. Reminds me of the kid that was asked if playing video games made him violent and he replied that he wish that were true, because if it were then playing Monopoly would make him a millionaire.
 
Just my thought about the current trend of the piracy. As long as there's demand for their good there will always be pirate around. Also the insurance company's policy has also encourage them as well!
 
What if a terrorist gets a hold of one of these loaded tankers, and then threatens to ram it in to the coastline? If they planted bombs on board, then you lose either way. Either oil spill here, or oil spill there. Seems like a pretty effective weapon to me.

I am sure that making anti-gun or anti-piracy legislation would fix the problem though. :)
 
What if a terrorist gets a hold of one of these loaded tankers, and then threatens to ram it in to the coastline? If they planted bombs on board, then you lose either way. Either oil spill here, or oil spill there. Seems like a pretty effective weapon to me.
Click to expand...

They wouldn't be able to make it to shore before they were blown to pieces by some country's navy's aircraft or vessel.
 
Easy solution: Mount some twin M2HB's loaded with a mix of tracers, incendiary rounds, and AP bullets on each ship
 
I am in, $1000 a day, tax free, and they pay for food ammo and of course lodging. A dozen men with 50's should do it. To protect a Billion dollar ship full of crude. That's petty cash to these guys. I'm sure thet are already hiring on through the usual contractors. Two shifts should do the trick. By the way those ships run between a half billion and up for a supertanker. I don't think they would even blink for another 50 grand per day.
 
BTW: Blackwater has a ship headed to Somalia to do exactly what some of the members here have proposed. I guess corporate security is allowed to do what the private citizen ie ships CPT cannot?
Click to expand...

I suppose that is certainly one solution, since you cannot have any firearms on board a ship (otherwise it couldn't dock in most foreign ports). Hell of a lot more expensive than just have a few well-trained and well-armed guys on board, though.

The protection ship can just break off right before docking, I suppose. On the other hand, I hope they are ready because its likely the pirates will try to attack with as much force as possible to disable the protection ship.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Pirates firing machine guns tried to board a U.S. Cruise Ship
2
Replies
47
Views
2K
Stevie-Ray
Stevie-Ray
Back
Top