erynthered Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 Thanks Nick, great post. I would think that some of these company's have done extensive cost analysis on taking different routes, and then its cost effectiveness to do so. Then in turn paying these payoffs/ransomes to move through the seas being potentially cheaper. While I don't agree with this I can understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PushthePile Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 Thanks Nick, great post. I would think that some of these company's have done extensive cost analysis on taking different routes, and then its cost effectiveness to do so. Then in turn paying these payoffs/ransomes to move through the seas being potentially cheaper. While I don't agree with this I can understand it. I think you are correct in the cost effectiveness of just paying these guys off. The problem is that its become more frequent and its become a cash grab. After this latest iincident, the chances of a real tragedy are possible. I would think they are now being forced into new strategies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted April 16, 2009 Author Share Posted April 16, 2009 The highlighted part is your first clue in regards to the truthiness of the article Ignore the Huff part and check the credential of the journalist. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsWatch Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 It's been reported that guarding against pirate attcks along the coast of Somali is too difficult becuase there are so many ships and too much ocean to cover. But I have to assume while the area the pirates work in is vast, they only sail from a handful Somali ports. So my question is why can't those ports be blockaded to prevent pirate vessels from sailing? Discuss. PTR Somali coast is long, 3,025 km (CIA Factbook), longest on Indian Ocean in Africa with many tiny little ports and harbors. The ships attacking with are small and hard to see unless you know where they are. Remember it takes weeks and months to sail these ships - if every ship had a party of marines those marines would expect to be paid when not in danger and not expecting to help with ship work either. Better to have baited ships with bounties on heads of pirates. Maybe even use the old British trick of dipping bullets in pigs blood but dip the rockets instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dib Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Hillary has the solution. Yes Hillary-"I-bought- a - million-dollar-home-in-new-york-so-i-can-be-a-congressman" says that the U.S. is going to rebuild Somalia. Problem solved. So if I start shooting up 18 wheel trucks maybe Hillary will rebuild our Interstate, and repair bridges? Yes. I meant congressman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Hillary has the solution. Yes Hillary-"I-bought- a - million-dollar-home-in-new-york-so-i-can-be-a-congressman" says that the U.S. is going to rebuild Somalia. Problem solved. So if I start shooting up 18 wheel trucks maybe Hillary will rebuild our Interstate, and repair bridges? Yes. I meant congressman. omg. please tell me your kidding... is that a joke? ....i hope? please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 i can see 1 or 2 things happening in the near future.... 1- the pirates will start to kill their hostages and captured crews either for revenge or to increase their ransoms. in which case they will raise the stakes and i can see "land raids" on their bases. their main base is in haderehad (or however you spell it) where they operate most of their "mother ships" from 2- terrorists are watching this. they see how easy it is for pirates to hijack these ships. the next little skiff/attack boat might not be full of wannabe thugs but full of high explosives and use it to blow up a few tankers/freighters/cargo ships. the consequences of such an easy simple attack would have a SEVERE impact on the global economy, shipping/logistics/trade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 How do you know who's a pirate and who's not? It's not like the pirates have the jolly roger raised on their ships (or do they? ) Don't be silly. Look for the guy with the eyepatch and the parrot on his shoulder! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 I like the idea of a "shipping zone" in which merchant flag countries declare it to be exclusively for heavy shipping and patrolled by a coalition of ships helicopters and gunship aircraft. The ships pick up a small military contingent as they enter the lane to hold off pirate attacks and the area is a free fire zone for non merchant ships or boats. Between radar, satellite, tactically placed navy gunships and helicopter and gunship availability it would take a hell of a lot of work to get a ship. Ships using the lane could be charged for the cost of the military contingent. Hell they do that for some tugboat pilots and guides now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stussy109 Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Insurance costs would skyrocket...having heavily armed guards on board...that is another part of the problem...the reason for so many cargo ships is the cheap cost of goods from china...add the insurance costs and the cost effectiveness of importing goods begins to flatten out, therein destroying a major economic partner in china....over time thats not a bad thing...but it would be a nightmare in the short term i think u could find many retired military/police to sign up for 4 week at sea rotations at 50k/yr. Major ships such as cargo ships and oil tankers would need a maximum of 4-5 heavily armed guys to really secure the ship, at a cost of 200k/yr. If they prevent one hijacking every 5=10yrs, the armed guards have paid for themselves. i would think their is room for an invention here. there is a need for a technology to keep people from boarding ships. How about electric fencing/barb-wire of some sort? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 And imagine how much cheaper that solution would be than, say, a massive multi-national deployment of warships... 5 x .50 cal machine guns = approx $300,000 1 x warship = $tens of millions Lots of dead pirates...Priceless! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dib Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 omg. please tell me your kidding... is that a joke? ....i hope? please? which part? Hillary as a congressman, or we're going to rebuild Somalia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 How realistic would it be for the Navy to assign people to random ships as protection? They could stay on the ships with the rest of the crew as a part of their service to the Navy. The only cost to the shipping company would be the one or two spots on the ship. I can see how giving up space for a non-working member of a crew might be a major expense though. If a soldier just happens to end a couple attempted hijackings, it's going to make the pirates think twice about going after ships. I guess a big part of this would be the number of pirates generally involved in a typical hijacking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 How realistic would it be for the Navy to assign people to random ships as protection? Providing onboard security for private shipping IMO doesn't fall under the Navy's mandate Then there's the issue of using taxpayer money (pay and train the Navy) to provide security to private companies Possible jurisdictional issues there too. These ships sail in international waters. Does an active member of the US military on board make a commercial ship into a US military vessel? If not, then what grounds does the US military have to crew the vessel? And what happens if the pirates should happen to take the ship and the Navy security hostage (or worse)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 It's been reported that guarding against pirate attcks along the coast of Somali is too difficult becuase there are so many ships and too much ocean to cover. But I have to assume while the area the pirates work in is vast, they only sail from a handful Somali ports. So my question is why can't those ports be blockaded to prevent pirate vessels from sailing? Discuss. PTR Mostly because that in and of itself is a form of piracy. Or at least an act of war against a soverign nation. Although there is some wiggle-room there, since Somalia arguably doesn't fit the definition of "soverign nation", seeing as how they haven't had a government for some 15 years. Generally, the best solution to this sort of thing has been convoys for defense combined with operations on land to eliminate the threat (which is likely to take a long time). The problem with armed guards on merchant ships, or arming ships, is that you'll start seeing battles between merchants and pirates who are far better prepared for combat...ultimately leading to pirates avoiding the risk and skipping the whole "hijacking" thing and just blasting the hell out of ships, which is sort-of contrary to the idea of protecting merchant shipping. But ultimately, what navies will try to do is patrol a big-ass area of ocean, because merchant ships will resist convoying (and navies will resist cooperating with each other in convoy), which will be largely ineffective, since the pirates can choose to decline hijacking a ship if any naval vessels are in the vicinity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Better to have baited ships with bounties on heads of pirates. In the World Wars, they were called Q-ships. In the Napoleonic wars and before, I don't know what they were called, but they were tried as well. They usually only worked once. Then the U-boats/privateers/pirates started sinking them on sight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dib Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 I think part of the point we're missing, is that if this is such an impoverished country where are the arms and ammunition coming from? I know AK's can be had for a pittance but where did it all come from to begin with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockpile Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 I think part of the point we're missing, is that if this is such an impoverished country where are the arms and ammunition coming from? I know AK's can be had for a pittance but where did it all come from to begin with? Stark Industries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 I think part of the point we're missing, is that if this is such an impoverished country where are the arms and ammunition coming from? I know AK's can be had for a pittance but where did it all come from to begin with? Dr Evil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Eye patches, peg legs and a parrot sitting on their shoulder are pretty good indications. Don't be silly. Look for the guy with the eyepatch and the parrot on his shoulder! Lana scooped ya dude! I would think the mother ships would be easier to find. They can't all be found but if one is found then bomb the ever living $#!+ out of it. JMO I wonder if the smaller ships could make it back without the mother ship? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts