Question re: Somali pirates

[erynthered]

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.

[PushthePile]

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.

[PromoTheRobot]

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

[BillsWatch]

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.

[dib]

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.

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

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?

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

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

[tennesseeboy]

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!

[tennesseeboy]

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.

[Stussy109]

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?

[tennesseeboy]

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!

[dib]

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?

[shrader]

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.

[/dev/null]

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)?

[DC Tom]

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.

[DC Tom]

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.

[dib]

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?

[rockpile]

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.

 

[/dev/null]

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

[Steely Dan]

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?

[GoodBye]

Lana scooped ya dude!

Great minds think alike!

[DC Tom]

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?

 

To begin with? Well, in 1947, Mr. Kalashnikov...

 

 

Seriously, it's not even that the weapons can be had for a pittance so much as they're ubiquitous. With everything the Soviet Union exported to the Third World during the Cold War, you probably couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting a 30-year old Soviet-made weapon in Sub-Saharan Africa.

[tennesseeboy]

To begin with? Well, in 1947, Mr. Kalashnikov...

 

 

Seriously, it's not even that the weapons can be had for a pittance so much as they're ubiquitous. With everything the Soviet Union exported to the Third World during the Cold War, you probably couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting a 30-year old Soviet-made weapon in Sub-Saharan Africa.

My favorite T-shirt:

 

http://www.cccp-shirts.com/popup_image.php...or=&pID=286

 

Having had people try to kill me with that thing in three different countries, I gotta admit to some admiration for it.

[DC Tom]

My favorite T-shirt:

 

http://www.cccp-shirts.com/popup_image.php...or=&pID=286

 

Having had people try to kill me with that thing in three different countries, I gotta admit to some admiration for it.

 

Of course, military geek that I am, I look at that and say "Isn't that a -74?" I didn't think the -47 had a removable stock...I will concede, though, that you would know better than I.

 

And I have to get me one of those t-shirts. It'd probably put me on some sort of terrorist watch list...but hell, I probably am already.

[tennesseeboy]

Of course, military geek that I am, I look at that and say "Isn't that a -74?" I didn't think the -47 had a removable stock...I will concede, though, that you would know better than I.

 

And I have to get me one of those t-shirts. It'd probably put me on some sort of terrorist watch list...but hell, I probably am already.

nobody thinks I'm a terrorist when i wear it...just an old fat half blind guy in a black t-shirt! The one I have is from Ukraine and is the traditional AK 47. Got to fire on in Kiev..nice to be on the other end of those f-ers.

[shrader]

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)?

 

Your 3rd point was the big issue sticking out in my mind when I was tying that up. I guess they could claim that the US has the right to protect US based ships, but I don't know how these things work and whether or not that's a legit claim.

 

As for whether or not it would fall under the Navy's mandate, I would think that protecting American's at sea would be an appropriate task for the Navy. Getting involved with any private shipping industry definitely has it's issues, but it might be worth some thought for any type of ship involved with humanitarian aid.

[DC Tom]

Your 3rd point was the big issue sticking out in my mind when I was tying that up. I guess they could claim that the US has the right to protect US based ships, but I don't know how these things work and whether or not that's a legit claim.

 

As for whether or not it would fall under the Navy's mandate, I would think that protecting American's at sea would be an appropriate task for the Navy. Getting involved with any private shipping industry definitely has it's issues, but it might be worth some thought for any type of ship involved with humanitarian aid.

 

Not US-based. US-flagged. Big difference. The Maersk Alabama was Danish-owned, I believe, but US-flagged.

 

The nearest relevent historical precedent w/r/t what the US Navy will and will not protect, however, is probably the "Tanker War" during the Iran-Iraq war: tankers through the Straits of Hormuz were reflagged with an American "flag of convenience", so as to take advantage of the diplomatic and military protection of the US.

[BillsWatch]

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?

 

Black market selling of food from UN mostly.

[Heels20X6]

The solution is simple...just fill the coastline with the pirate's mortal enemy, the NINJA.

 

http://www.realultimatepower.net/index4.htm

[The Senator]

I wanted a voice of authority on this subject, so I went to...

 

Mike Leach

[Scraps]

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.

 

How is this relevant to the current situation?

[DC Tom]

How is this relevant to the current situation?

 

It's 200 years of naval history shows that when you start trying to use armed merchant ships to trap commerce raiders, it doesn't work?

[BillsWatch]

The biggest problem is when they DO catch them often they let them go over jurisdiction matters.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090418/ap_on_re_af/af_piracy

Seven Somali pirates were detained, but they were soon released because "NATO does not have any detainment policy," Fernandes said. The seven could not be arrested or held because they were seized by Dutch nationals and neither the pirates, the victims nor the ship were Dutch, he explained.

 

What message does this send to pirates? Sort of like NFLPA and players holding out with all of the player apologists.

[IQ]

Hey Nick, any truth to the assetions in this piece. Doesn't seem to me to be supported by any facts whatsoever. But I figured I would ask.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/...o_b_155147.html

 

 

Good link. If you guys haven't read it, then do. I'm glad there are some intelligent folks on this list that can look at the situation in an unbiased manner and figure out the WHY.

 

For those who aren't going to read, long story short: many countries and corporations were dumping nuclear waste of Somali shores which affected local fishermen and they started out as sort of a defense militia. Unchecked fishing depleted food for these same people which as you can imagine has downstream effects on the economy and food supply chian.

 

Over time the defensive tactics evolved and the profiteering element interceded as well.

 

The solution is not KILL or blow people up as some idiots have alluded to on this thread, its to understand the problem and fix the initiating injustice.

[Scraps]

It's 200 years of naval history shows that when you start trying to use armed merchant ships to trap commerce raiders, it doesn't work?

 

 

You consider the U-boats of WW-I and WW-II to be analogous to the Somali pirates? Are either the Somali pirates or the U-boats 'commerce raiders' as the pirates and Privateers were some 200 years ago?

[Scraps]

Good link. If you guys haven't read it, then do. I'm glad there are some intelligent folks on this list that can look at the situation in an unbiased manner and figure out the WHY.

 

For those who aren't going to read, long story short: many countries and corporations were dumping nuclear waste of Somali shores which affected local fishermen and they started out as sort of a defense militia. Unchecked fishing depleted food for these same people which as you can imagine has downstream effects on the economy and food supply chian.

 

Over time the defensive tactics evolved and the profiteering element interceded as well.

 

The solution is not KILL or blow people up as some idiots have alluded to on this thread, its to understand the problem and fix the initiating injustice.

 

I can believe that one or the other of those is happening but I have a hard time understanding why countries would pollute Somali waters with toxins and fish those same waters for food to feed their own people.

 

How do either of these offenses justify the capture of tankers, freighters or yachts which are neither dumping toxins nor fishing?

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

which part? Hillary as a congressman, or we're going to rebuild Somalia?

both...

[DC Tom]

You consider the U-boats of WW-I and WW-II to be analogous to the Somali pirates? Are either the Somali pirates or the U-boats 'commerce raiders' as the pirates and Privateers were some 200 years ago?

 

I wouldn't say "analogous" as much as I would say "strikingly similar".

 

I also suspect, at this point, that the similarity is beyond your comprehension.

[IQ]

I can believe that one or the other of those is happening but I have a hard time understanding why countries would pollute Somali waters with toxins and fish those same waters for food to feed their own people.

 

How do either of these offenses justify the capture of tankers, freighters or yachts which are neither dumping toxins nor fishing?

 

The Somalian coast is huge. There is plenty of room to dump and fish. I'm no expert on the situation but I'm sure both the fishing and dumping are done covertly and not by the same ships.

 

And you are right--it doesn't justify holding hostage passing ships, but my point was to present that one wrong precipitated the second and the solution to these problems is to find the root cause of the issue rather than respond arbitrarily to the second wrong of piracy (in complete absentia of addressing the first wrong).

[BillsWatch]

And you are right--it doesn't justify holding hostage passing ships, but my point was to present that one wrong precipitated the second and the solution to these problems is to find the root cause of the issue rather than respond arbitrarily to the second wrong of piracy (in complete absentia of addressing the first wrong).

 

That is like saying you shouldn't shoot armed rioters breaking into a store because in past some other urban dwellers were poorly treated. Each should be treated separately.