Guns on ships

[DammitBoy]

What the hells wrong or so difficult with good old fashioned convoys like they had in WWII?

You would even need much of an escort - one or two ships per convoy of several tanker transports...

 

[richyoung]

what do you think what kind of people will sign on for such a cruise?

I don't know. I lack your ability to read minds.

the ones that know what there skills are worth and would rather get paid to do the dirty work, or the ones that would just love to kill a other human beeing and are willing to pay 5k+ to do so without a jailterm attached to it?

Some people need, and deserve, killing. If they are in the midle of attempted kidnapping and piracy, they have forfieted any humanitarian considerations o ntheir behalf.

the difference is that in one case you pay a third party to protect you intrests, be it simple show of force or if need be by letahl force, while in the other case you let people that are willing to pay 5k or more to take a human life, do just that.

in one case, you pay someone for protection, in the other case you let people pay you in exchange for one or more Human lives.

So the only difference is which way the money goes. How is that a difference?

 

[richyoung]

Holy ****. I can't believe that people are advocating an instant death penalty for pirates.

Being shot dead in the middle of commiting a forcible felony is NOT a "death penalty" - it is a natural hazard of going into that line of work. A hazard that needs to occur far more often. A "death penalty" comes after a trial, not during the commision of the offense.

We either believe in, and live by, and expect, due process or we don't.

We better take all the guns away from the police then - don;t want them handing out an "instant death penalty" if some one shoots at them...

Even if that means an at sea trial, fine. But talk of renting out guns and ammo for idiots who want to kill another human is bull.

Again, so its OK to be PAID to kill people, a la Blackwater, armed security companies, police, army , mercenaries, etc - but not to PAY to do so? What difference, so long as the bad guys die?

 

[richyoung]

What the hells wrong or so difficult with good old fashioned convoys like they had in WWII?

Because you have to wait until you HAVE enough ships for a convoy - and then it all has to go to the same general destination, at the same time, at the speed of the SLOWEST ship in the convoy. If that ship ain't moving., it ain't making money - its LOSING it. Convoys worked in WWII because the destinations were generally all in one port and the loses to UNESCORTED shipping were too high to bear.

 

[bigione]

As a former Navy man I have some questions. The area where this is going on is supposedly three times larger than the state of Texas. I use to fly radar and con an old P2V where we checked out every ship easr of a line from Portugol to the western buldge fo Africa in about ten hours. Isn't that a larger area? Secondly, they fly P3s now and they have greater range and two crews with the capability of midair refueling. I believe we should know which ship is the mother shipand where it is at all times. A silent torpedo and who knows where it came from. It would only take once or twice. Supposedly, the reason they don't carry arms into foreign ports is the paper work creates a several day delay for checking the arms on board which have to be declared.

 

[Hungry Seagull]

Mr Big, I thank you for your service.

Now suppose we work the system for a moment.

I own bigshippingcompany and anchor fatshipbling lines offshore a few miles and have a lighter company ferry cargo to shore. The Lighter company (Smaller ship or barges) is owned by my fatshipbling lines under a different registry known as carrysmallstuff lines.

So, there are no arms aboard carrysmallstuff lines, but the fatshipbling lines sure as hell are armed.

That should work around the declaration problem nicely yah?

 

[Pulse]

Again, so its OK to be PAID to kill people, a la Blackwater, armed security companies, police, army , mercenaries, etc - but not to PAY to do so? What difference, so long as the bad guys die?

none of the jobs and companys you mentioned is hired to kill, they are hired to protect lives, property or the intrests of there employer, this can include the use of deathly force if the situation requires it. i.e: a Ambush, a Pirate attack or possible hostile forces in a area your employer wants cleared.

non of them have killing specified as sole reason to be there, but all have the possbillity of the use of lethal force and that is difference.

also, once you employ a group or company, you can set certain standarts and a ROE.

further, how do you plan on arming that propsed 'hunting' ship?

 

[richyoung]

how do you plan on arming that propsed 'hunting' ship?

Three or four AT missles form the Milan/AT3 class on up, backed by a pair of .50s and small arms should be plenty....

 

[Zoogster]

but from the point of view of Lloyds and the shipping companies, why allow a change in policy that might result in deaths (and again, this is according to their views, not ours)?

They do not care about deaths, deaths are very cheap, often free. They care about damaged cargo or ships. People on either side shooting causes risk to cargo and ship.
In fact they would be more liable if crew on the boat damaged the vessel or cargo than if the pirates did if the policy does not cover piracy. So bullets from the good guys is a liability, bullets from the bad guys is not.
So no bullets fired from the good guys is the policy.

It is the same concept as employers/companies of cash businesses banning firearms. If they are not held liable for the death of thier employees being robbed and murdered but are liable if an employee who is permitted to have a weapon hurts someone then they have little to lose by banning the weapon. They have a lot to lose by allowing them.
So no guns for employees. Employee deaths are cheap or free. A lawsuit due to an employee hurting someone is expensive.
So a business like Pizza Hut for example would rather have a policy that results in the death of employees they can quickly replace than risk large monetary loss and be liable for employees with weapons.


As far as hiring to kill. That is not sound legaly. You hire random people to ambush pirates that attack a decoy and you open yourself up to problems. Sure everything could work out, but what about when the pirates try to flee and people keep shooting? What about the scout who is unarmed and shot long range? When they claim your hired guy is killing innocent fishermen?
I sure would hate to go down in that ocean, be on a life boat and have your boat full of morons come by when I need rescuing.
They would likely open fire on the starving lost at sea "pirate".

As a former Navy man I have some questions. The area where this is going on is supposedly three times larger than the state of Texas. I use to fly radar and con an old P2V where we checked out every ship easr of a line from Portugol to the western buldge fo Africa in about ten hours. Isn't that a larger area?

It is not that simple. There is a lot of legitimate fishermen in the ocean. In fact a lot of the pirates have networks with legitimate fishing vessels that do make a living fishing. Some of them are actualy fishermen who are also opportunistic pirates. It is a country where things like food are a prized commodity and the sea allows the harvest of a lot of free food.
A lot of the priacy actualy started as a result of other nations like Japan and China coming and violating thier waters and over fishing the water. Since Somalia has no official recognized government with a voice other nations have come and exploited thier territory.
When places like Japan and China excessively harvest the ocean those Somali residents depend on there is very little left to catch, or fish left to reproduce.
Consider Japan for example is known around the world to exploit the sea to any extent other nations and the world will allow. Killing whales, dolphins, shark fins for soup (and tossing the shark overboard) and harvesting vhast areas to complete exhaustion they cannot recover from or take years to recover from.
Somalia has no government to tell it "no".

So many of the original pirates were actualy real fishermen standing up for waters they depend on that thier nation will not. They cannot bully and posture like a nation with a voice and a navy, but they could take over ships.
Many of the ships taken over have been foriegn fishing vessels.
For example:
Chinese: http://eng.wcetv.com/1/2009/04/07/83s12506.htm

24 crew including Vietnamese, Philippine and Japanese citizens

Taiwanese: http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/foreign-affairs/2009/04/08/203363/Taiwan-helpless.htm
Etc etc including many Japanese, Vietnamese and other SE Asian nations exploiting the lack of government laws.
Most of the villages the hijacked vessels are taken to are fishing villages, with simple fishermen competing with these several hundred ton foriegn commercial fishing ships exploiting thier waters. Commercial ships that don't have any of the fishing restrictions they would anywhere else in the world.


But don't worry many of those nations are sending military warships, even peaceful Japan. Of course if you are a US boat Japan won't be helping you:
http://theblackship.com/news/catego...for-antipiracy-mission-off-somalia-in-fe.html

The MSDF vessels will not be able to take action in the event a foreign ship that has no relation to Japanese lives or properties comes under attack by pirates.

Eventualy more lucrative pirates started to attack even tankers and freighters. Pirates not defending any waters or way of life, but seeking to plunder for the sake of plunder (which includes ransoms.) Pirates that saw no difference in hijacking a fishing vessel exploiting Somalia or a tanker/freighter just passing through.

So there is many fishing vessels from Somalia in the same waters. There is fishing vessels of other nations in those waters exploiting the lack of government (no licenses or qoutas on catches.) There is a lot of vessels that are of the same type as the pirate "motherships". You cannot tell they are pirates on radar until they all get into tiny little high speeds vessels and set an interception course with another vessel.

 

[Crashola]

As a former Navy man I have some questions. The area where this is going on is supposedly three times larger than the state of Texas. I use to fly radar and con an old P2V where we checked out every ship easr of a line from Portugol to the western buldge fo Africa in about ten hours. Isn't that a larger area? Secondly, they fly P3s now and they have greater range and two crews with the capability of midair refueling. I believe we should know which ship is the mother shipand where it is at all times. A silent torpedo and who knows where it came from. It would only take once or twice. Supposedly, the reason they don't carry arms into foreign ports is the paper work creates a several day delay for checking the arms on board which have to be declared.

I used to fly P-3s in that part of the world. No doubt there are now P-3s ONSTA in that area around the clock. Spanish P-3s have even thwarted an attempted hijacking of an oil tanker. I think the problem with identifying the threat lies in both the huge number of surface contacts in the area and the diverse types of vessels. For now, all the military can do is react. And as someone noted earlier, U.S.-flagged ships are as rare as hen's teeth in international waters. If there is no major threat to U.S. interests, then there is no motivation to take proactive measures with the pirates. Our military has plenty to keep busy in other parts of the world.

And one minor correction -- the P-3 is not air-refueling capable. But they can shut down an engine and stay on-station for 10+ hours.

 

[shdwfx]

having a bunch of people paying money for the privileg to kill other Humans just strikes me as perverted.

A little, yes. Ok, more than a little.

further, how do you plan on arming that propsed 'hunting' ship?

The 'hunting' cruise ship is a joke. You might argue it is in poor taste, but nobody here is proposing this as a serious solution.

I'll admit, I find the idea hilarious precisely because it is so absurd and a little twisted, but then Far Side humor is right up my alley.

 

[gym]

How is this different than a kidnapping with a ransom demand. After you scrape away all of the superfulous arguments, we have sky martials for planes, and police for our citys, why can't there be a police force, "public or private", that specializes in the protection of shipping. Just because it may be a question of multi jurisdictional legal nonsense. That is what we are talking about, having armed guards. There is interpol and other international agencies. It's really a shipjacking, isn't it? and it's just a matter of time before someone get's killed or blown up, wit a ship full of inflamable cargo, and god knows what. You may want to take care of this before they get on board, and if there is no payoff, it will stop, so just the perception of a more secure enviornment would benefit everyone.

 

[Crashola]

The U.S. military is going to stay hands off unless they are the first responder to a distress call or if it involves U.S. interests. The latter finally happened here. The Navy has people who are very well-trained in hostage situations and clearing vessels. My guess is that they will stall the hijackers in an effort to get them good and fatigued before making any rescue attempt. I can't imagine life on that lifeboat is any fun for any of its occupants. With each passing hour, the hijackers are getting more and more vulnerable. I mean who here would like to be stuck on that boat with crappy lifeboat food, rolling seas, no sleep, while knowing that SEALS are likely lurking nearby?

 

[rainbowbob]

I can see it now.... 'New' African hunting trips....

...funny I tried to start a thread on this yesterday but it was locked as off topic....

And I'll bet this one gets locked too if it continues along the line of "hunting cruises".

 

[Zoogster]

why can't there be a police force, "public or private", that specializes in the protection of shipping. Just because it may be a question of multi jurisdictional legal nonsense.

Governed by the UN of course. Oh that is great let us encourage global government.

Most of the world does not view freedoms the way the US does. First Amendment, Second Amendment etc.
International water police force (that of course will ususaly be too far away in the massive ocean) that imposes that normal lack of rights at sea?
No thank you.

International waters are one of the last free places on earth, and people are changing that. We don't need to encourage them.

 

[richyoung]

I sure would hate to go down in that ocean, be on a life boat and have your boat full of morons come by when I need rescuing.
They would likely open fire on the starving lost at sea "pirate".

Horsepucky. The pirates do not operate from liferafts or lifeboats.

So many of the original pirates were actualy real fishermen standing up for waters they depend on that thier nation will not. They cannot bully and posture like a nation with a voice and a navy, but they could take over ships.

Again - horsepucky. Container ships don;t fish - neither do tankers, cruise liners, etc, etc, etc.

 

[Zoogster]

Again - horsepucky. Container ships don;t fish - neither do tankers, cruise liners, etc, etc, etc.

Perhaps you should read it again. The original increase in piracy was fishermen fed up with several hundred ton foriegn vessels with no limits coming into thier territory and destroying thier way of life.

They are not all one giant group. Eventualy others saw it was a potentialy profitable business and began to pirate just to pirate.
But even those people often have support from the fishermen, and most of the vessels targeted have been fishing vessels.

The word is out that capturing large ships and ransoming them back is very profitable. So people previously never on the oceans are now becoming pirates.

The massive spike in piracy and the local support of the piracy still began as a result of fishing competition. With no government to stick up for them the pirates were a form of vigilante for profit. They targeted vessels seen as criminals by Somali fishermen. In the absence of a Government or a navy the pirates became the militia.

Then as often happens in real life something started for a percieved helpful purpose became more and more self serving. With new pirates concerned purely with personal gain and no idealogy who would strike at any vessel they could.

 

[TRGRHPY]

richyoung: You can't tell the difference between self-defense and killing others for profit and entertainment? You can argue that some who work in private security are bloodthirsty, but not the majority of them, and they still work off of ROE. You're talking about letting people pay you for the sole opportunity to kill another individual...with no ROE, no disclipline, and you think that someone paying $5k a day isn't going to break the rules so they can get their moneys worth? You're talking about a lynch mob with guns and a "shoot on sight" mentality....only for profit and entertainment. If this is what you're advocating, then I say moral compass is extremely ______ up.


We don't let people pay to be police officers for a day. So your assessment of "well we're allowed to protect ourselves from armed carjackers" is a complete perversion of what you're advocating.

Even if I grant you the notion of arguing "an eye for an eye", the pirates still haven't killed anyone, so it's a moot point. And when I said "trial at sea", I was referring to having an actual trial, similar to an Courts Martial, an actual legal proceding. NOT a lynch mob.


These pirates, as horrible as their crimes are, do go out of their way to not harm the sailors. They realize that as soon as they start doing so, that the outrage will grow to the point of just shooting them out of the water. They want money and thats it. I just saw an article that states that there hasn't been a sailor killed by pirates yet. Will it happen? Maybe, and if that happens then we'll worry about changing policy then. But so far the only death of a civilian happened today because the French made a decision to rush them and a firefight broke out. I tell you what, I'd rather my sons be held hostage and taken care of for six months rather than have a dead child and an insurance check.



And Zoogster is right on with his analysis of the insurance companies. They are not going to cover damage and death as a result of gunfire. Your own homeowners insurance doesn't cover this because it is not considered at accidental occurence, but rather in intentional act. Intentional acts are not covered by insurance.

 

[gym]

So what is wrong with stopping them if they are just opportunists, a bunch of terrorists? Call them what you will, that's all they are, they aren't using the money to feed the starving and aids ridden masses, they are just a bunch of hoodlums, who are the toll keepers of the high seas, only they keep the tolls. Let the shipping companies pay the ransoms and pass it on to the public. Those are public companies at least some have to be, like dryships. I Only know some because I used to trade them. They have a responsibility to their stock holders, which is another story in itself.

 

[Zoogster]

Call them what you will, that's all they are, they aren't using the money to feed the starving and aids ridden masses,

A quick correction.
Actualy Somalia is primarily Muslim and has one of the lowest HIV/AIDs rates in Africa.
Muslims stone promiscuous people and have a strong cultural taboo on casual sex, so they don't live long to have many partners and spread infection. Virgin wives are also sought, meaning the women they ususaly marry have not had a sexual relationship before being married.
A women having sex before marriage may ruin her ability to marry because men will not want to marry her. (Which is why rape is often a major weapon.)

Ironicly it is primarly the Christian populations dying of HIV because they don't enforce morality in the brutal way the Muslims do.
That is why HIV rates in places like the religious Middle east and Muslim Africa are lower than the rest of the world, including the USA.

As a result in places like Africa it is quite likely Muslims will be the majority because they are dying off slower than the rest.

 

[Jeff White]

Foreign policy is not on topic at THR. I had to delete several posts full of macho chest thumping about hunting pirates. I'd like to remind everyone where you are at. Here at THR we have discussions that promote the responsible use of firearms. Juvenile posts about taking cruises to hunt pirates is not promoting the responsible use of firearms. There are plenty of other places on the internet where you can sit behind your monitor and make silly, juvenile comments like that...you can't do it here. I have a list of all the members who participated in that little escapade, you can consider this your formal warning.