NationStates Jolt Archive

Yar har har! The pirates strike again! Shiver me timbers!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081118/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_piracy_saudis

ATHENS, Greece – Saudi Arabia's foreign minister condemned the "outrageous" hijacking of a Saudi oil supertanker by Somali pirates and said Tuesday that his nation would join the international effort to eradicate piracy.
The MV Sirius Star was seized Saturday far off the Kenyan coast and was being taken to the Somali port of Eyl, one of the African country's main pirate ports.
In the Saudi government's first public comments on the attack, Prince Saud Al-Faisal said piracy is a complex problem that requires an international response.
"This outrageous act by the pirates, I think, will only reinforce the resolve of the countries of the Red Sea and internationally to fight piracy," he said during a visit to Athens. "Piracy is against everybody. Like terrorism it is a disease that has to be eradicated."
The tanker's owner says the ship is fully loaded with crude — a cargo worth about $100 million. Its owners say the ship's 25 crew members are safe.
Saud said Saudi Arabia would join an international initiative against piracy in the Red Sea area, where more than 80 pirate attacks have been registered this year.
Last month, the U.N. Security Council unanimously approved resolutions calling on nations to send naval ships and military aircraft to Somalia's coastline, and allowing foreign powers to enter Somali waters to fight piracy.
"This is an initiative in which we are going to join and so are many other countries of the Red Sea," Saud said. He did not elaborate.
A NATO flotilla of seven ships — destroyers from the U.S. and Italy, frigates from Germany, Greece, Turkey and Britain — and a Russian missile frigate are already fighting piracy around Somalia. NATO, however, says its priority is escorting World Food Program ships that deliver basic rations for 3 million hungry Somalis.
India says it is sending warships to the area, and South Korea is considering dispatching vessels.

NSG, do you think that after centuries of piracy will a true international effort erradicate this practice? I don't think so, but who knows...

Piracy... it'll be around forever.

Well it is slightly outrageous. How did they board the thing for starters?! It's almost the same size of an aircraft carrier. Also it does hold "a quarter of Saudi Arabia's daily output" according to the BBC.

Piracy on the seas will always be there. There is no truly effective way to patrol all the oceans all the time against pirates.

There are too many pirates to hunt them all down.

Londim I dont think that the tanker was able to effectively protect itself from AK47 and RPG7 armed pirates.

Well it is slightly outrageous. How did they board the thing for starters?! It's almost the same size of an aircraft carrier.

Almost? Try three times

Piracy on the seas will always be there. There is no truly effective way to patrol all the oceans all the time against pirates.

That's my same take on the subject. But the Saudi PM seems to believes that by an international effort, the practice can be erradicated. So, we'll see what happens. I don't think it can happen.

The French sent in commandos to capture the pirates who took the people aboard a French yaught hostage.

Londim I dont think that the tanker was able to effectively protect itself from AK47 and RPG7 armed pirates.

True. I almost have to give credit to the pirates for hijacking the tanker and getting to it by a 5m speedboat.

Almost? Try three times

Whoa...Now thats impressive.

That's my same take on the subject. But the Saudi PM seems to believes that by an international effort, the practice can be erradicated. So, we'll see what happens. I don't think it can happen.

Even if all the navies of the world were drafted in, it would still be about cost effectiveness, priorities for the naval forces. There are thousands of ships out there. They can't all be protected.

True. I almost have to give credit to the pirates for hijacking the tanker and getting to it by a 5m speedboat.



Whoa...Now thats impressive.



Even if all the navies of the world were drafted in, it would still be about cost effectiveness, priorities for the naval forces. There are thousands of ships out there. They can't all be protected.
how DID they do it?

it doesnt seem possible.

i, for one, welcome our new piratical overlords

This thead bring up the fact that piracy of the high seas is a growing probolem one that governments are hard pressed to provide an effective solution to. Whilst commercial shipping is a massive industry with thousands of vessels on the oceeans these commercial vessels are almost defenceless against the moderm pirate armed with Sovet era infantry weapons and the cheap fibreglass hulled raider craft.

Ashmoria an RPG7 will hole a tank most commercial vessels hulls cannot withstand such an attack and even a heavy machine-gun can do serious damage to the exposed superstructure of a modern commercial ship. The threat of such force is enoug to coerce many ships crews into surrender some ships have fought off pirates using high pressure water hoses but commercial shipping is still allmost defenceless. As the pirates are operating from Somalia where the ex Soviet weapons mentioned are reasonably common and not in the hands of an organised miliatary the threat of heavily armed pirate vessels is for the moment here to stay.

NSG, do you think that after centuries of piracy will a true international effort erradicate this practice? I don't think so, but who knows...

Piracy will be around as long as people ply the high seas. Throughout the millenia of our species ability to transport valuable goods across water, pirates have sought to acquire this wealth. It is one of the endemic non-state problems in the international system, and it is uniquely difficult to confront because of how diffuse it is. We, in the civilized world, can seek to contain it and its effects, but we'll never get a 100% success rate, because pirates are too small and speedy for our system.

I've long made the comparison of terrorism to piracy, we'll never be able to eliminate either, but we can minimize the effects, and go about our daily lives without worrying about it. Although, the problem of Somali piracy has gotten so severe that perhaps enforcing a greater naval security zone in the area would be a good idea.

Seeing how sloooooow such monsters move, and how well the pirates seem to be equipped, I'd say it ain't impossible (if only because they did pull it off!).

Maybe it's time to ask the Saudis to write a check for better safeguarding their ships. After they've written a check to get their ship back.

Anyway, seeing how piracy has increased in that particular region, this was sooner or later bound to happen.

http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-36429.html#backToArticle=591244

Oh, and Somali pirates have also captured a wheat transport heading to Iran off the coast of Yemen today. Must be their lucky month.

That's my same take on the subject. But the Saudi PM seems to believes that by an international effort, the practice can be erradicated. So, we'll see what happens. I don't think it can happen.

"International effort" in this case means he'll call his good friend W, who will deploy a carrier group to get it back, and probably bomb the fuck out of some Somalis while he's at it.

"International effort" in this case means he'll call his good friend W, who will deploy a carrier group to get it back, and probably bomb the fuck out of some Somalis while he's at it.

Yeah, and contaminate half the sea in the process. It's a 10 million dollar in oil, mammoth taker.

I've long made the comparison of terrorism to piracy, we'll never be able to eliminate either, but we can minimize the effects, and go about our daily lives without worrying about it. Although, the problem of Somali piracy has gotten so severe that perhaps enforcing a greater naval security zone in the area would be a good idea.

Piracy is the best of a very short list of options to earn a living in Somalia. An effective government and a legitimate economy would go much further in reducing piracy than boosting naval presence.

Its 2.5 Million square miles of Ocean. Impossible to fully patrol.

Something seems off here. We have long known this area to have pirating tendencies, so why haven't we sent cruisers to the area to try stop these pirates? After all, I do believe this constitutes a threat to national security. These people are more than likely tied in with the warlords of Somalia, or with groups like Al-Qaeda. They get these big shipments of oil, or grain, or people, and either will sell what they steal to third parties, or they will give it back once a demand of money from the host has been met. With this money, there is furthered attacks, increase in arms and munitions, and so forth.

So here is what I am going to predict: Countries will continue to allow this process to continue until there is a very dire need to make it stop. Perhaps a tanker with radioactive material, or the like, is taken over. Then people will see it as a dire situation, and then boom, there will be military action against Somalia, both land and sea. Why? There will be a push to make Somalia into a stable country, with a stable government. Of course, we know this will fail, but those in office would like to have an ally right there. Sudan, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia are nearby. All have been key in promoting terrorism in some way. Furthermore, companies would love to build on the cape of Africa, because so much shipping does go through there via the Red Sea.


This is all likely my imagination, but I could honestly see this happening.

Something seems off here. We have long known this area to have pirating tendencies, so why haven't we sent cruisers to the area to try stop these pirates? After all, I do believe this constitutes a threat to national security. These people are more than likely tied in with the warlords of Somalia, or with groups like Al-Qaeda. They get these big shipments of oil, or grain, or people, and either will sell what they steal to third parties, or they will give it back once a demand of money from the host has been met. With this money, there is furthered attacks, increase in arms and munitions, and so forth.

So here is what I am going to predict: Countries will continue to allow this process to continue until there is a very dire need to make it stop. Perhaps a tanker with radioactive material, or the like, is taken over. Then people will see it as a dire situation, and then boom, there will be military action against Somalia, both land and sea. Why? There will be a push to make Somalia into a stable country, with a stable government. Of course, we know this will fail, but those in office would like to have an ally right there. Sudan, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia are nearby. All have been key in promoting terrorism in some way. Furthermore, companies would love to build on the cape of Africa, because so much shipping does go through there via the Red Sea.


The oil tanker was taken in an area far away from where the other hijacks had occurred. The pirates have in fact already hijacked military equiptment and still to this day hold a vessel ransom filled with Tanks and other military gear.

The oil tanker was taken in an area far away from where the other hijacks had occurred. The pirates have in fact already hijacked military equiptment and still to this day hold a vessel ransom filled with Tanks and other military gear.


Well piss. There goes part of my prediction.

With that in mind though, it does seem odd that no one is seriously doing anything about it.

how DID they do it?

it doesnt seem possible.

For all their size, those ships typically have a very small crew.
The Knock Nevis/Jahare Viking, the largest ship ever built to date, had a crew of 40 during its service.

So, with enough Somali's with AK-47's, it really wouldn't be that hard once you figured out a method for getting up the side. They probably used grappling hook guns or something like that.

how DID they do it?

it doesnt seem possible.

big ship doesn't automatically mean lots of crew.

big ship doesn't automatically mean lots of crew.

Nor it means top security.

For all their size, those ships typically have a very small crew.
The Knock Nevis/Jahare Viking, the largest ship ever built to date, had a crew of 40 during its service.

So, with enough Somali's with AK-47's, it really wouldn't be that hard once you figured out a method for getting up the side. They probably used grappling hook guns or something like that.

Plus it was filled with oil so probably riding very slow and low in the water.

With that in mind though, it does seem odd that no one is seriously doing anything about it.

Perhaps they're waiting for the W to do something about it.:rolleyes:

Piracy is the best of a very short list of options to earn a living in Somalia. An effective government and a legitimate economy would go much further in reducing piracy than boosting naval presence.

And we're supposed to do that, how? Look at all of the foreign humanitarian and military interventions in Somalia--none of them have had even a mote of success. In the current international environment, such interventions will be even less possible than they would have been, say, six years ago. There's no magic pill to straighten out Somalia, and that's why a boosted naval presence in the area is the best way to go. It keeps us out of internal Somali politics, and it serves, to a degree, as a deterrent against further piracy.

Maybe the US could send in a carrier?

Maybe the US could send in a carrier?

A carrier would be too much. An Amphibious Assault Ship, configured for close air support would probably be the best bet in this instance.

Maybe the US could send in a carrier?

I think the US should stay out of this.

And we're supposed to do that, how? Look at all of the foreign humanitarian and military interventions in Somalia--none of them have had even a mote of success. In the current international environment, such interventions will be even less possible than they would have been, say, six years ago. There's no magic pill to straighten out Somalia, and that's why a boosted naval presence in the area is the best way to go. It keeps us out of internal Somali politics, and it serves, to a degree, as a deterrent against further piracy.

Yes, Western involvement in internal Somali politics is part of the problem. If we stopped paying the Ethiopians to do our dirty work whenever Somalia starts to erect a government we don't like, maybe the situation would stabilize of its own accord.

Yes, Western involvement in internal Somali politics is part of the problem. If we stopped paying the Ethiopians to do our dirty work whenever Somalia starts to erect a government we don't like, maybe the situation would stabilize of its own accord.

Yes because Muslim governments are famous for their stability.

Yes, Western involvement in internal Somali politics is part of the problem. If we stopped paying the Ethiopians to do our dirty work whenever Somalia starts to erect a government we don't like, maybe the situation would stabilize of its own accord.

Except in the case of the Islamic Courts, Somalia was presented with a disparate series of loosely linked local councils, who lacked any significant unified policy goals or program. Their own local proposals were quite broad, ranging from tolerable to Taliban-like fundamentalism. Likely, the Islamic courts would have devolved into a substantial mess of internecine violence, fueled by local and regional squabbles. The Islamic Courts were not a solution, and that should be pretty clear.

The problem with using naval force in this area is that there is a lot of shipping in Somali waters that has nothing to do with piracy or worse the pirates disguise themselves as fishemen to avoid detection. The other problem is that the only navy with anywhere near enough ships to deal with this is the US Navy it is not just in Somali waters that the pirates strike the tanker was taken several hundred miles south of Mombassa the Kenyan capital.

Yes because Muslim governments are famous for their stability.

It's more about let the Somali deal with their waste, you know. International involvement could only lead to unnecessary trouble.

Except in the case of the Islamic Courts, Somalia was presented with a disparate series of loosely linked local councils, who lacked any significant unified policy goals or program. Their own local proposals were quite broad, ranging from tolerable to Taliban-like fundamentalism. Likely, the Islamic courts would have devolved into a substantial mess of internecine violence, fueled by local and regional squabbles. The Islamic Courts were not a solution, and that should be pretty clear.

Yes, so we should just gun down the locals and make them start over. Nobody knows how to govern the Somalis like an Ohioan.

Yes, so we should just gun down the locals and make them start over.

That's absolutely not what I'm proposing. I'm not happy that the Ethiopian intervention had to occur, but it likely helped in controlling future violence and discord.

Nobody knows how to govern the Somalis like an Ohioan.

And Somalis are somehow magically different from Ohioans?

I actually have significant experience in the area. Columbus is one of the most common destinations for Somali refugees, and we have a large population of them here. I've done work with a local NGO that was set up to help them develop their own businesses, foster their own cultural heritage and improve education. I've worked closely with Somalis, I've heard their opinions on their homeland first hand, what they think drives life in Somalia, and what they think needs done. The Somalis I've worked with are some of the most decent and hard working people I've ever met, and they appreciate every success they gain in life in ways that I only wish I could appreciate for myself.

So, yes, an Ohioan such as myself would have a significant amount of ability judge what Somalis want, and how they might best govern themselves.

Yes, so we should just gun down the locals and make them start over. Nobody knows how to govern the Somalis like an Ohioan.

We should go even farther and start the whole Continent over. Its a complete mess from top to bottom.

to be honest to end piracy off the Somali cost we will need to land troops and engage pirates at land. the US is a bit tied up at the moment. I say France and Germany go.

That's absolutely not what I'm proposing. I'm not happy that the Ethiopian intervention had to occur, but it likely helped in controlling future violence and discord.



And Somalis are somehow magically different from Ohioans?

I actually have significant experience in the area. Columbus is one of the most common destinations for Somali refugees, and we have a large population of them here. I've done work with a local NGO that was set up to help them develop their own businesses, foster their own cultural heritage and improve education. I've worked closely with Somalis, I've heard their opinions on their homeland first hand, what they think drives life in Somalia, and what they think needs done. The Somalis I've worked with are some of the most decent and hard working people I've ever met, and they appreciate every success they gain in life in ways that I only wish I could appreciate for myself.

So, yes, an Ohioan such as myself would have a significant amount of ability judge what Somalis want, and how they might best govern themselves.

That's great that you've done all that work, but my point (inelegantly expressed, I'll admit) is that this practise of picking winners in national governments from halfway across the planet has got to stop. The possibility of a violent breakdown of the ICC vs. the certainty of continued violence and chaos doesn't, to my mind, make much sense in justifying the shattering of a home-grown experiment in governance.

1. The US (or any other nation's) Navy can't shoot at suspected pirate boats until they are actually engaged in piracy. Shooting first and asking questions later is not an option.
2. Once a ship is taken by pirates, it's up to the flag nation what should happen next - the US Navy can't just board and take it back without permission.

I think the US should stay out of this.

Even when its American trade and (potentially, for now) American citizens who are involved?

Even when its American trade and (potentially, for now) American citizens who are involved?

Most affected vessels are not US flagged. The US Navy cannot get involved without the permission of the flag nation.

It's also logistically impossible to escort every ship, unless you want them to form up in convoys.

It is beacause of flag of conveinince, a vessel may be owned by a company for example in America but it is registered in a country where doing so is cheaper for example Panama (less tight saftey regulations may also be a factor) but beacause of this the ship may be relavant to American interests but if it is hijacked it is the problem of the Panamanian goverment.

Most affected vessels are not US flagged. The US Navy cannot get involved without the permission of the flag nation.

It's also logistically impossible to escort every ship, unless you want them to form up in convoys.

In international waters all navies are allowed to intervene to stop piracy. regardless of flag of the ships.

It is going to put a real damper on International Talk Like a Pirate Day if I have to learn Somali :(

Actually: CTF-150 (http://www.cusnc.navy.mil/command/ctf150.html)

The most laudable contemporary use of warships I know of. How about increasing that kind of presence, seeing as there are more than enough cruisers at disposal. This will probably be the case as soon as losses in oil and military equipment surpass the costs of such a military presence. If piracy is so lucrative nowadays, it should be made dangerous as well.

It is going to put a real damper on International Talk Like a Pirate Day if I have to learn Somali :(


haha :D

Londim I dont think that the tanker was able to effectively protect itself from AK47 and RPG7 armed pirates.

Why on earth not ? It carried a $ 100 million dollar cargo. Hell, it carries that daily. Why are there no weapons ? Why is there no small battlecruiser accompanying it ? The thing is big enough to carry a few apache helicopters on deck. The cost of those + pilots is neglible if they are used on a few hundred trips.

In international waters all navies are allowed to intervene to stop piracy. regardless of flag of the ships.

Not exactly.

By the time a ship gets there after a distress call, the ship is already captured.

Hostages.

You can't board the ship without the permission of the flag nation at that point - if hostages are killed and you didn't have permission to board, you're in trouble.

Piracy is flourishing because:

1. The law is an ass.
2. Most nations and companies are more than willing to pay ransom.
3. It's against international law to bomb the pirate bases (at least for the US to do it - there would be an international outcry about how we indiscriminately bombed innocent people).

That's great that you've done all that work, but my point (inelegantly expressed, I'll admit) is that this practise of picking winners in national governments from halfway across the planet has got to stop. The possibility of a violent breakdown of the ICC vs. the certainty of continued violence and chaos doesn't, to my mind, make much sense in justifying the shattering of a home-grown experiment in governance.

Past experiences in the region, though, are what give us the responsibility to try to minimize negative outcomes, and from my personal experiences, and my professional and academic expertise in governance issues, the ICC was inevitably set on a course for a more structured and more violent civil war in the country.

I have less of a problem in foreign interference in this case, than I would in other situations around the world, because of the very unique case of Somalia.

Not exactly.

By the time a ship gets there after a distress call, the ship is already captured.

Hostages.

You can't board the ship without the permission of the flag nation at that point - if hostages are killed and you didn't have permission to board, you're in trouble.

Piracy is flourishing because:

1. The law is an ass.
2. Most nations and companies are more than willing to pay ransom.
3. It's against international law to bomb the pirate bases (at least for the US to do it - there would be an international outcry about how we indiscriminately bombed innocent people).

1. the US didn't ratify UNCLOS so doesn't apply to US.
2. the US should enforce civil fines for any company paying ransom = to 4000% the ransom amount for any company with operations in the US. And frozen assets if they cant pay.
3. Has that stopped us before??? Even Obama will do it if it suits his needs. The most Dovish American president is likely equal to the most hawkish EU leader.

And if Saudi wants it then its a US need. cheaper oil is always good.

2. Most nations and companies are more than willing to pay ransom.


That's the major problem there. As far as I can see all the pirates have managed to do to capture a slow moving easily trackable target.

Even when its American trade and (potentially, for now) American citizens who are involved?

Yes, even when there are American citizens involved and the greater ineterests of the American nation are at risk. Let the Somali deal with the Somali.

Pirates will forever be a scourge on the seas. No matter how many Pirates you stop, more will rise somewhere else.

NSG, do you think that after centuries of piracy will a true international effort erradicate this practice?
No. Do I think that patience is running out as regards not shooting on sight Somali and Yemenese pirates? Yes.

Clearly this means we need to have Ninja on board every ship in the region.

But seriously, shouldn't there be like a contingent of marines on board high-risk targets like oil tankers?

Let the Somali deal with the Somali.
Aye, what an incredible success this will be. Their 'government' doesn't control the capital ffs. That'd be as silly as letting the Iraqi government do anything in its current state.

No. Do I think that patience is running out as regards not shooting on sight Somali and Yemenese pirates? Yes.

What about those in the sea of China?

Aye, what an incredible success this will be. Their 'government' doesn't control the capital ffs. That'd be as silly as letting the Iraqi government do anything in its current state.

The Iraqi government has been very successful in selling oil. They have a budget surplus and don't know what to do with the money. (though they aren't giving us back any of the money in aid we have been giving them)

What about those in the sea of China?
I doubt that the Chinese Navy is soft when it comes to piracy.

I doubt that the Chinese Navy is soft when it comes to piracy.

last i Heard it is summary execution. and one of the few Chinese foreign polices the US supports.

I doubt that the Chinese Navy is soft when it comes to piracy.

They may not be soft but piracy in that area happens quite often.

They may not be soft but piracy in that area happens quite often.

not as important of a sea lane for the US. so less need for US intervention.

The Iraqi government has been very successful in selling oil.
So? I could do that.

"Sup chaps, we have oil, you want some?"
"Aye, please"
"Ta mate"
*budget surplus*
They have a budget surplus and don't know what to do with the money.
Keep it in a bank. A safe one. The price of oil is dropping and is going to stay low for a while.
(though they aren't giving us back any of the money in aid we have been giving them)
Aye well until the people of Iraq are all better off in terms of their basic infrastructure than they were in 2001, I doubt that'll be forthcoming.

last i Heard it is summary execution. and one of the few Chinese foreign polices the US supports.
Aye that's piracy for you.
They may not be soft but piracy in that area happens quite often.
Not on anything any rich, white countries care about.

not as important of a sea lane for the US. so less need for US intervention.

China and Japan deal with that. No need for the US to worry about it.

I think the US should stay out of this.Good, we don't want to help you bastard Europeans out anyway!! :mad:


:D :D

Yes, I'm joking.

China and Japan deal with that. No need for the US to worry about it.

you leaving out Korea. The south alone has a navy comparable to the Japanese.

But all these nations are capable of handling the piracy issues in the sea of China to the point where it doesn't bother US interest. If it began to affect US trade and US interest your damn Skippy we would be there.

Good, we don't want to help you bastard Europeans out anyway!! :mad:


:D :D

Yes, I'm joking.
I think the correct term is Euro-wankers :D

Should have had Steve Zissou on that boat.

I think the correct term is Euro-wankers :DNever herad that term, actually. :p
Thanks for the info. ;)

I think the correct term is Euro-wankers :D

for that remark I declare.


The UK is not Euro wankers.
At worst they are rulers of Europe and creme of the European crop.
At best they are really North Americans via their connection with Canada and the US. From this point forward all US negotiations with the EU shall be through the UK only.

for that remark I declare.


The UK is not Euro wankers.
At worst they are rulers of Europe and creme of the European crop.
At best they are really North Americans via their connection with Canada and the US. From this point forward all US negotiations with the EU shall be through the UK only....Right. :p

for that remark I declare.


The UK is not Euro wankers.
At worst they are rulers of Europe and creme of the European crop.
At best they are really North Americans via their connection with Canada and the US. From this point forward all US negotiations with the EU shall be through the UK only.
I'm sorry, but the only thing with 'creme' in it is women's shampoo and other bathing and beauty goods. I am frankly insulted.

I think the correct term is Euro-wankers :D

Just like Americans are Merkins (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/merkins) :-P

It's funny to see how Saudi Arabia compares piracy to terrorism when in reality, Saudi oil money funds terrorism. As a Somali, all I can say to the Saudis is :p
If you have no functioning government and every man in the country is armed to teeth, what would you do to survive? I don't approve their actions but that doesn't mean that I don't understand what motivates these young Somali men to do the unthinkable.

That's my same take on the subject. But the Saudi PM seems to believes that by an international effort, the practice can be erradicated. So, we'll see what happens. I don't think it can happen.

If by international effort you mean a naval task force intending to shell all known pirate havens/ports in the area to rubble, then maybe it would work.

Patrolling the coasts and blockading the ports might also work, if you're willing to sink the Somalian fishermen too.

Or you could adopt a policy of sinking any and all hijacked ships, pirates and crew along with them, if you could manage the stink that would rise from doing that.

Generally though, you want to make piracy unprofitable enough that nobody will take it up. Massive naval presence isn't cost effective. Nobody seems interested in a stable, economically working Somalia. I don't know, encourage the Somalians to take up the drug trade instead?

In this global economic downturn, do we really want to put pirates out of work? How can pirates feed their families if they're dead or in jail?

Instead of less piracy we need more! Ship protection is overrated anyways, just like condoms.

Piracy... not quite as cool as it used to be.

when i first heard about that i though; gee, what a trip. its one of those things though, i'm kinda curious, just what are they actually going to DO with it?

is there someplace they can sail it to, that will purchase its cargo, that has capacity to unload same, and has some reason, or maybe only sufficiently brass balls, to not fear global retaliation?

i'll be curious to see.

Last I head the UK Royal Navy and Elements of the US Navy were tracking the ship.

The international force in this area isn't as soft as people seem to think. It was only a couple of weeks ago when a British Vessel and a Russian Vessel opened fired on and killed some pirates.

The problem is that task force cannot be everywhere at once. Aircraft is what's needed in this area, not strike aircraft, just surveillance and reconnaissance.

(Bring back those cool flying boats dammit! :P)

Actually: CTF-150 (http://www.cusnc.navy.mil/command/ctf150.html)

The most laudable contemporary use of warships I know of. How about increasing that kind of presence, seeing as there are more than enough cruisers at disposal. This will probably be the case as soon as losses in oil and military equipment surpass the costs of such a military presence. If piracy is so lucrative nowadays, it should be made dangerous as well.Okay, so you want to use
http://www.midwaysailor.com/ships/ticonderoga-001b.jpg
to kill
http://www.somalilandtimes.net/199/img/pirates.jpg
?

Okay, so you want to use
http://www.midwaysailor.com/ships/ticonderoga-001b.jpg
to kill
http://www.somalilandtimes.net/199/img/pirates.jpg
?

Well, considering there are similar ship types out there already. :S

I.E the Royal Navy has a Type 42 out there, The French have their equivalent, same with all nations involved.

Well, considering there are similar ship types out there already. :S

I.E the Royal Navy has a Type 42 out there, The French have their equivalent, same with all nations involved.That's still only half the displacement of the cruiser pictured... :-p

Which is still overkill, but I suspect that a relative lack of harbours vs. the extensive coastline to be covered means that they need vessels capable of sustained operations in the ocean - and the new-ish 1500- 2000 tonne corvettes that'd be more-or-less ideally suited for this are still kinda rare.

Seems like the world is ready to take on my evil brethren...

I'm an internet pirate, I have been known to get people's address and steal their booty Yargh!

The MV Sirius Star was seized Saturday far off the Kenyan coast and was being taken to the Somali port of Eyl, one of the African country's main pirate ports.

Maybe solving the problem should start with ruthlessly bombing such ports, until there are no facilities left that can serve any normal sized merchant ship, not even mentioning supertanker.

Olmedreca;14226288']Maybe solving the problem should start with ruthlessly bombing such ports, until there are no facilities left that can serve any normal sized merchant ship, not even mentioning supertanker.

I think you are giving way too much credit to the term port and facilities. The pirates live in a ratty run down village that has wooden fishing piers. The villages have normal people living in then with the pirates living among them in the same way Al Queda lives in Baghdad.

Shelling a village will do nothing and these "Ports" consist of basically natural coves with ancient wooden docks. The ships that are stolen are anchored several miles offshore.

I think you are giving way too much credit to the term port and facilities. The pirates live in a ratty run down village that has wooden fishing piers. The villages have normal people living in then with the pirates living among them in the same way Al Queda lives in Baghdad.

Shelling a village will do nothing and these "Ports" consist of basically natural coves with ancient wooden docks. The ships that are stolen are anchored several miles offshore.

Here's a thought. What about cordoning off the hijacked ship, and then putting mines around it to prevent it from running off. Anyone attempting to leave in the life boats or speedboats who appears to be not the crew gets a summary execution much like how the Chinese navy does it. It's tricky, but not as bad as actually assaulting the boat with a squad of marines if it has a flag belonging to some other nation.

Piracy becomes a lot less appealing when it becomes a choice of surrendering and going to jail for a long time or dying in a hail of bullets.

Here's a thought. What about cordoning off the hijacked ship, and then putting mines around it to prevent it from running off. Anyone attempting to leave in the life boats or speedboats who appears to be not the crew gets a summary execution much like how the Chinese navy does it. It's tricky, but not as bad as actually assaulting the boat with a squad of marines if it has a flag belonging to some other nation.

Piracy becomes a lot less appealing when it becomes a choice of surrendering and going to jail for a long time or dying in a hail of bullets.

The oil tanker is kind of a special situation. Its in essence an environmental WMD and so the entire situation has to be handled very carefully. Shooting first and asking questions later, while it feels good in a cowboy mentality kinda way, is not the right approach here.

Okay, so you want to use
http://www.midwaysailor.com/ships/ticonderoga-001b.jpg
to kill
http://www.somalilandtimes.net/199/img/pirates.jpg
?
They're already doing just that, except it's rather "arrest" than "kill".
Even then, I wasn't being picky about the type of ship used. They could be small coast-guard gunboats like the Icelandic coast guard used to ram British fishing boats with.

They're already doing just that, except it's rather "arrest" than "kill".
Even then, I wasn't being picky about the type of ship used. They could be small coast-guard gunboats like the Icelandic coast guard used to ram British fishing boats with.

Only to get revenge rammed by a frigate!

The oil tanker is kind of a special situation. Its in essence an environmental WMD and so the entire situation has to be handled very carefully. Shooting first and asking questions later, while it feels good in a cowboy mentality kinda way, is not the right approach here.SEALs, anyone?
Or any other variant of them, like DEVGRU, or their French/Spanish/British/Saudi/whoever counterparts.

Gauntleted Fist - Boarding and retaking the captured tanker whilst feasable is very much a last resort it is easer and far less dangerous to those taken hostage for them to be relased via negotiatian in this incident. Direct action is a option if a vessel is of paticular importance but there will allways be more pirates untill there is a way to effectively police the Somali coast. In the case of the Sirius Star and other ships taken for ransom the ship and crew are less likely to be harmed by the pirates for fear of loosing the ransom money. Small tourist vessels by contast are likely to have ther occupants killed and looted as I have mentioned in a previous post French maritime special forces resued civilians from a captured yaught to prevent this.

Gauntleted Fist - Boarding and retaking the captured tanker whilst feasable is very much a last resort it is easer and far less dangerous to those taken hostage for them to be relased via negotiatian in this incident. Direct action is a option if a vessel is of paticular importance but there will allways be more pirates untill there is a way to effectively police the Somali coast. In the case of the Sirius Star and other ships taken for ransom the ship and crew are less likely to be harmed by the pirates for fear of loosing the ransom money. Small tourist vessels by contast are likely to have ther occupants killed and looted as I have mentioned in a previous post French maritime special forces resued civilians form a captured yaught to prevent this.
I was speaking more along the lines of special operations groups that could do it. Not that we should.

I agree Gauntleted Fist having such a group on standby in the area to respond to incidents like this (possibly with UN or simlar approval) would help discourage the pirates with a minimal use of resources.

NSG, do you think that after centuries of piracy will a true international effort erradicate this practice? I don't think so, but who knows...
I think this would be a great employment opportunity for any ex-military that are suitably qualified. I figure a couple SEALS, properly armed, could defend a tanker against untrained pirates. In fact, I think I'll start a security company to do just that... I'll call it Blackwater.

The oil tanker is kind of a special situation. Its in essence an environmental WMD and so the entire situation has to be handled very carefully. Shooting first and asking questions later, while it feels good in a cowboy mentality kinda way, is not the right approach here.
First rule of pirating is not to sink your target. You can't profit from "gold" that's on the bottom of the ocean. It would be easier to defend against attacks from pirates because of that fact.

First rule of pirating is not to sink your target. You can't profit from "gold" that's on the bottom of the ocean. It would be easier to defend against attacks from pirates because of that fact.

In this case, you have a ship that cant be hidden due to its massive size, nor can it run away from an attack. Therefore the only ace in the hole so to speak for ther pirates, is the threat to wreak international disaster costing Billions in cleanup if they dont pay up and insure safe passage of the Pirates.

The chance of failure of a SEAL attack is not commensurate with the high risk of massive environmental damage that could be incurred.

Q ships are what is needed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-ship

This explains much.

Somali Pirates Live The Good Life
Lavish Spending By Sea-Going Bandits Makes Them Heroes To People Of Poor Coastal Villages

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/19/world/main4616998.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4616998

Interesting idea using Q ships in an anti piracy role but it could result in carnage as pirates indiscriminately attack any ship just in case it is armed.

In this case, you have a ship that cant be hidden due to its massive size, nor can it run away from an attack. Therefore the only ace in the hole so to speak for ther pirates, is the threat to wreak international disaster costing Billions in cleanup if they dont pay up and insure safe passage of the Pirates.

The chance of failure of a SEAL attack is not commensurate with the high risk of massive environmental damage that could be incurred.
The key is to keep them from pirating the ships in the first place. They are less likely to sink a ship while it is still a target.

While I agree that a Special Forces operation should be a last resort, I'd be extremely surprised if there isn't an operation drawn up by either the Naval Spetznaz, DEVGRU or the Navy SEALs to retake (at least) the MV Faina.

The ship has been fairly static for a long period of time; given access to the blueprints of the vessel and other sources of intelligence the chances of a successful raid should be fairly high.

That said, let's hope for a bloodless solution to piracy in general and these hijackings in particular.

While I agree that a Special Forces operation should be a last resort, I'd be extremely surprised if there isn't an operation drawn up by either the Naval Spetznaz, DEVGRU or the Navy SEALs to retake (at least) the MV Faina.

The ship has been fairly static for a long period of time; given access to the blueprints of the vessel and other sources of intelligence the chances of a successful raid should be fairly high.

That said, let's hope for a bloodless solution to piracy in general and these hijackings in particular.

the solution is level towns villages and cities that let pirates base out of them.
best to use unilateral bombing for this the UN has not balls for this sort of thing.

the solution is level towns villages and cities that let pirates base out of them.
best to use unilateral bombing for this the UN has not balls for this sort of thing.That's really not an option. If you read the article linked only a few posts above, pirates have used their ransom money to build sprawling homes which naturally become the center of communities. While I disapprove of their actions, leveling pirate "havens" is the same as leveling any other village of civilians in Somalia.

That's really not an option. If you read the article linked only a few posts above, pirates have used their ransom money to build sprawling homes which naturally become the center of communities. While I disapprove of their actions, leveling pirate "havens" is the same as leveling any other village of civilians in Somalia.

Community punishment has a rich tradition in Somalia and historically has been the most effective at maintaining order.
The world should not starve because Pirates hide behind villagers. after every bombing drop pamphlets explained we bombed them because they harbored pirates. villages would stop harboring pirates and the life style woudl cease to appear lavish.

Community punishment has a rich tradition in Somalia and historically has been the most effective at maintaining order.
The world should not starve because Pirates hide behind villagers. after every bombing drop pamphlets explained we bombed them because they harbored pirates. villages would stop harboring pirates and the life style woudl cease to appear lavish.

Israel tried that. Didn't work.

Israel tried that. Didn't work.

not enough indiscriminate bombs

Might have to start convoying ships, with a military escort. Like WW2 for protection from subs.

not enough indiscriminate bombs

Realllly? (http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll31/DemonLordRazgriz/neocon.png)

Well, I suppose if your objective is complete eradication of pirates, collateral damage be damned, then it's one way of achieving it. I've said as much myself earlier. But it's the sort of thing that gets you put in jail, or a firing squad, when you've pissed enough enough people.

A simpler way is to adopt an international policy of non-negotiation with hostage takers, and make it publicly known that any piracy attempt will be met with lethal force, even if there will be hostage casualties. If the profit of ransom taking piracy drops to zero, and cargo taken cannot be safely offloaded anywhere, then that kind of piracy simply evaporates.

If all of the world's Navies unite as one fighting Piracy they could demiloshed it.. Also we could bomb the fuck out of countries that support Piracy or have Piracy... Its easy people....

Well, I suppose if your objective is complete eradication of pirates, collateral damage be damned, then it's one way of achieving it. I've said as much myself earlier. But it's the sort of thing that gets you put in jail, or a firing squad, when you've pissed enough enough people.

I don't agree with that "stamp out piracy at all costs" rubbish either. It's putting property before innocent lives.

A simpler way is to adopt an international policy of non-negotiation with hostage takers, and make it publicly known that any piracy attempt will be met with lethal force, even if there will be hostage casualties. If the profit of ransom taking piracy drops to zero, and cargo taken cannot be safely offloaded anywhere, then that kind of piracy simply evaporates.

Who is going to compensate the owners of the ships and cargo, when they're sunk in the process? Without full compensation, the owners will have no reason to announce that their ship was taken.

This "international policy" would be very expensive. And worse, it would be open to horrific fraud, companies with over-insured ships selling the cargo, then claiming the full value as "lost to pirates" who they in fact commissioned.

Who is going to compensate the owners of the ships and cargo, when they're sunk in the process? Without full compensation, the owners will have no reason to announce that their ship was taken.This is something that I feel has been blown out of proportion. Storming a large oil tanker certainly has the risk of civilian casualties, but I think the possibility of the ship itself actually being lost is fairly small. The sheer size of these things means that they're decently hard to sink with small arms, even though (as was pointed out earlier) it's still quite possible to make a mess of the superstructure.

To be sure, large quantities of oil and rocket-propelled grenades are a bad combination, but I think the actual sinking of the ships is a relatively minor concern compared to the larger moral and political implications of storming an oil tanker held by malnourished Somalian pirates when there's a crew at risk.

EDIT: ...I'm a pile of run-on sentences.

This is something that I feel has been blown out of proportion. Storming a large oil tanker certainly has the risk of civilian casualties, but I think the possibility of the ship itself actually being lost is fairly small. The sheer size of these things means that they're decently hard to sink with small arms, even though (as was pointed out earlier) it's still quite possible to make a mess of the superstructure.

Um, I didn't mean sunk by accident, stray bullets. I meant the pirates deliberately sinking them or setting them on fire. Surely that's implicit in taking the ship and it's cargo hostage?

They don't need to do that if holding the crew hostage is sufficient. Once we cross that line and start boarding ships regardless of the death of hostages, they'll sink the boats. Pretty bad when it's an fully loaded supertanker!

To be sure, large quantities of oil and rocket-propelled grenades are a bad combination, but I think the actual sinking of the ships is a relatively minor concern compared to the larger moral and political implications of storming an oil tanker held by malnourished Somalian pirates when there's a crew at risk.

Oh, I agree. The lives of the crew are the most important factor. I'm really arguing with those who think the value of this particular cargo (or the cargo of weapons on the MV Faina) somehow crosses some line where those lives can be risked.

This is a really good interview, from Newsweek. (http://www.newsweek.com/id/169886) After the first two paragraphs, it's all Peter Lehr.

Good perspective, just enough details, and some suggestions about solutions.

I don't agree with that "stamp out piracy at all costs" rubbish either. It's putting property before innocent lives.

Its not just property its trade.
Over 1 billion people require the international food trade to meet their dietary needs. Factor in crude oils effect on food production and failure to eradicate piracy could produce a famine on a scale we have not seen in human history. It is the moral duty of the world to stamp out piracy at any cost.


Who is going to compensate the owners of the ships and cargo, when they're sunk in the process? Without full compensation, the owners will have no reason to announce that their ship was taken.

This "international policy" would be very expensive. And worse, it would be open to horrific fraud, companies with over-insured ships selling the cargo, then claiming the full value as "lost to pirates" who they in fact commissioned.

I suggest they take up compensation with the pirates.

as to the case of a captured ship the safe return of the crew must be paramount so paying a ransom may well be necessary even if unpleasant

for once I'm going to take a right wing view and say gunboat diplomacy may be the way forward.

id take a four pronged approach, firstly I would allow commercial freighters to carry weaponry consisting of rockets and miniguns if they are going into waters that pirates frequent as a deterrent

secondly I'd offer rewards for the capture/killing of the pirates to local people in the areas they operate in and to the crews of freighters

thirdly I'd send a Royal Navy destroyer squadron with a battleship to do a run of the area of coastline the pirates make berth in and blow the hell out of everything that moved then bills the port involved for the shells/missiles.

air support takes care of any pirate establishment inland

I doubt the pirates will have much local support if the port has been rendered useless and innocents are suffering because of there actions.

lastly Id invest international funding into areas that pirates operate out of in an attempt to make local people earn a living in another more productive way

there not even proper pirates anyway, they don't have a distorted west country farmers accent or fly the jolly roger!!!!!!

Um, I didn't mean sunk by accidentAh! Okay then, my apologies! I will chalk up my lack of reading comprehension to 48 hours spent playing Wrath of the Lich King, rather than my inherent and undeniable stupidity. ^_^;

Its not just property its trade.
Over 1 billion people require the international food trade to meet their dietary needs. Factor in crude oils effect on food production and failure to eradicate piracy could produce a famine on a scale we have not seen in human history. It is the moral duty of the world to stamp out piracy at any cost.I can't buy this argument. While I'm fully aware of the world's reliance on Fossil-Fueled Agriculture, it's not a sustainable practice by any means. Many experts argue that we need a return to more conservative methods of farming in order to halt soil erosion and allow the world's water tables to cleanse themselves of pesticides and the products of leaked animal waste.

The Somali pirates aren't doing good things, by any means. That said, as Bunny has pointed out there are costs above-and-beyond the danger posed to these crews. Escalating these standoffs could lead to widespread environmental disasters as pirates scuttle their prizes rather than surrender them, and while I tend to break with environmentalists on many issues I can't pretend that dumping two million barrels of oil into the ocean would be anything short of catastrophic.

Don't know if this has been posted yet. But is seems that an Indian warship destroyed a major priate ship in the Gulf of Aden.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24679306-401,00.html

Its not just property its trade.
Over 1 billion people require the international food trade to meet their dietary needs. Factor in crude oils effect on food production and failure to eradicate piracy could produce a famine on a scale we have not seen in human history. It is the moral duty of the world to stamp out piracy at any cost.

It's the "at any cost" bit I just can't swallow. Or the "stamp it out" bit for that matter.

It needs to be contained, it needs to be kept from getting worse. But piracy has been endemic in the South China Sea for decades ... you want to go stamp it out there too? Or is it only a problem when it's threatening oil and weapons shipping?

The Gulf of Aden is strategically important, it's where shipping going through the Suez canal has to go. And the coast of this notably impoverished and messed-up country (Somalia) is one side of it!

It's a special case, and it deserves a special solution.

If you really want piracy stamped out world wide, what you should be calling for is a rewriting of the law of international waters. Not tackling the problem by collective punishment of some of the most disadvantaged people on earth, by air-strikes.

If you'll apply that method there, you'll also be bombing impoverished islanders in Malaysia, in the Caribbean. Dammit, you'll be bombing North Korea.

I suggest they take up compensation with the pirates.

They have no legal means to do that. The owners do however have the legal right to extract damages from any government whose military does something leading to the destruction of their property.

Don't know if this has been posted yet. But is seems that an Indian warship destroyed a major priate ship in the Gulf of Aden.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24679306-401,00.html

This is indeed very good news.

The motherships are major assets of the pirates. Unlike a land-based community grown up around a pirate lord's ransom money, every crew member can be expected to know that they are involved in a criminal activity. Their ship was apparently given the chance to surrender, chose to fight and was sunk. Yay.

as to the case of a captured ship the safe return of the crew must be paramount so paying a ransom may well be necessary even if unpleasantAt least in the short-term, this will probably be the way of things. For all of the concerns raised over the safety of the hostages, both the foreign governments and the pirates realize that negotiation is the only way everybody gets off with a minimum of bodybags.

for once I'm going to take a right wing view and say gunboat diplomacy may be the way forward.This is where I have to disagree.

id take a four pronged approach, firstly I would allow commercial freighters to carry weaponry consisting of rockets and miniguns if they are going into waters that pirates frequent as a deterrent While security teams are an (admittedly expensive) possibility, going so far as to actually arm the vessels themselves seems both extreme and unlikely. No matter what else, you don't want a gunfight blazing around flammable cargo. At most, I can see the security teams retreating to safeguard the crew and lock down the bridge until help can arrive; a pitched, running battle seems unlikely.

secondly I'd offer rewards for the capture/killing of the pirates to local people in the areas they operate in and to the crews of freightersWhile certainly possible, piracy has apparently raised the standard of living for those in "pirate ports". Additionally, attracting mercenaries and vigilantes can often have an opposite effect from what is desired, especially in already-unstable Somalia.

thirdly I'd send a Royal Navy destroyer squadron with a battleship to do a run of the area of coastline the pirates make berth in and blow the hell out of everything that moved then bills the port involved for the shells/missiles.

air support takes care of any pirate establishment inland

I doubt the pirates will have much local support if the port has been rendered useless and innocents are suffering because of there actions.The Royal Navy doesn't maintain Battleships, while the US Navy's decommissioned BBs will most likely never fire again due to an extensive need to reinsulate all of the wiring on these old monsters. That said, this a wholly unacceptable solution. No matter what wrongs these pirates may commit, it is essentially impossible to justify the wholesale flattening of innocent communities to get at a couple of individuals. Furthermore, the pirates have status as local heroes, which makes it likely that any attempt to punish their communities would lead to increased anger directed at foreign powers.

lastly Id invest international funding into areas that pirates operate out of in an attempt to make local people earn a living in another more productive wayAdmirable, but this is what NGOs have tried to do for years. Without a stable government in Somalia, the standard of living remains low. Part of the reason that these pirates are so beloved is simply because they have succeeded where a succession of domestic and foreign governments have failed: they've breathed economic life into the area. Furthermore, this requires large amount of money to go through nonexistent infrastructure. Who would finance this?

there not even proper pirates anyway, they don't have a distorted west country farmers accent or fly the jolly roger!!!!!!Harrrrrrr.......

It's the "at any cost" bit I just can't swallow. Or the "stamp it out" bit for that matter.

It needs to be contained, it needs to be kept from getting worse. But piracy has been endemic in the South China Sea for decades ... you want to go stamp it out there too? Or is it only a problem when it's threatening oil and weapons shipping?

The Gulf of Aden is strategically important, it's where shipping going through the Suez canal has to go. And the coast of this notably impoverished and messed-up country (Somalia) is one side of it!


The Straits of Malacca are also very strategically important. china has even requested US assistance in aggressively hunting pirates in the south China Sea.


It's a special case, and it deserves a special solution.

If you really want piracy stamped out world wide, what you should be calling for is a rewriting of the law of international waters. Not tackling the problem by collective punishment of some of the most disadvantaged people on earth, by air-strikes.

If you'll apply that method there, you'll also be bombing impoverished islanders in Malaysia, in the Caribbean. Dammit, you'll be bombing North Korea.

Are you a racist its okay to bomb poor people in Africa but not Asians?? China will likely bomb North Korea(or more likely give them some aid to get their pirates under control). And I don't care how poor someone is they are committing a crime by adding and abetting.


They have no legal means to do that. The owners do however have the legal right to extract damages from any government whose military does something leading to the destruction of their property.
I am playing the worlds smallest violin for them. And they do not have the right to get compensation from the government considering the property was destroyed in attempted recovery. If an armed criminal breaks in to your house and the police shoot up the place neutralizing him the police and city are not liable. On the high seas any government has the right to take action against piracy.

Who is going to compensate the owners of the ships and cargo, when they're sunk in the process? Without full compensation, the owners will have no reason to announce that their ship was taken.

Insurance companies usually. It might also encourage owners to pay for armed security on their ships in the future. In fact, what is happening now should be more than enough reason to. Multi-million dollar ransoms are a lot more expensive than armed guards.


This "international policy" would be very expensive. And worse, it would be open to horrific fraud, companies with over-insured ships selling the cargo, then claiming the full value as "lost to pirates" who they in fact commissioned.

Then the company would have to ensure that all the pirates die rather than get captured. Remember, the policy would involve taking the ships back while they are still at sea. Cargo ships as a rule are slow, unwieldy, difficult to offload their cargo without specialized infrastructure and easy to chase down with any air mobile forces in the area, and unless you have heavy ordnance, they are difficult to sink. Damage yes, sink, no.

Are you a racist its okay to bomb poor people in Africa but not Asians?? China will likely bomb North Korea(or more likely give them some aid to get their pirates under control). And I don't care how poor someone is they are committing a crime by adding and abetting.I...ummm...wow.

You're calling him a racist because he doesn't support dropping bombs on the poor? Would you support the US Navy glassing somewhere like Vladivostok or Seattle because criminals happened to live and spend money there? These people can't help that their economies are so savaged that their neighbors turn to illegal activities. If anything, you're advocating a double standard for the poor.

They don't need to do that if holding the crew hostage is sufficient. Once we cross that line and start boarding ships regardless of the death of hostages, they'll sink the boats. Pretty bad when it's an fully loaded supertanker!


Once you cross that line, and do it effectively, piracy drops. Piracy of this sort operates not to steal cargo, but to hold it ransom. If no one pays ransom and the only options are death or jail, the reasons to perform that piracy vanishes.


Oh, I agree. The lives of the crew are the most important factor. I'm really arguing with those who think the value of this particular cargo (or the cargo of weapons on the MV Faina) somehow crosses some line where those lives can be risked.

One could say that letting the weapons go risks even more people than the lives of the crew on the ship.

And this is why hostage taking works. People are afraid to respond, because the hostages are at risk.

But once you say "No more. I don't care if you have hostages. We are going in. They die, you die." the only ones left who have the incentive to take hostages are people who want to kill the hostages to begin with.

Are you a racist its okay to bomb poor people in Africa but not Asians?? China will likely bomb North Korea(or more likely give them some aid to get their pirates under control). And I don't care how poor someone is they are committing a crime by adding and abetting.

It's not OK to bomb people in either place, as collective punishment. It was YOU who claimed that the solution was to go after pirates, or presumed pirates, in Somalia itself. And not by Somali law (it barely exists) but by air-strikes.

It's a violation of national sovereignty. Even in a country like Somalia, where "the government" is barely identifiable, that's an important principle.

I agree that all kinds of shit can go down on the high sea. That's good and bad, but enough force by nations which see piracy as against their own interests can tilt it towards "good."

But really. You think the US should bomb some seaside villages in Somalia? Do you have any idea what a "dick move" that would be?

How about a raid on the pirates base of operations in Somalia. I have read that these people are coming from a specific area in the North of Somilia. A raid to take out pirate mother ships and their boats would be warranted.

How about a raid on the pirates base of operations in Somalia. I have read that these people are coming from a specific area in the North of Somilia. A raid to take out pirate mother ships and their boats would be warranted.

It would take a lot more surveillance and satellite data to identify the pirates point of origin as well as motherships. I don't know if any country has spy satellites over the area, but I'm guessing nobody has flagged it as a priority.

Once you cross that line, and do it effectively, piracy drops. Piracy of this sort operates not to steal cargo, but to hold it ransom. If no one pays ransom and the only options are death or jail, the reasons to perform that piracy vanishes.

You are equating the young punks who go to sea with their masters. That is wrong.

Look at your television set. Those young Somalis (pirates) didn't buy a boat. They're employees.

There will be a lot of them dead, and a lot sunken boats, before every pissed-off young Somali guy gets wise. Crime in any country is the same: you can raise the risks as high as you like, the wages of crime rise too ... and somebody is still desperate enough to try for the prize. More so the worse that person's options are -- so crime occurs worst where there is entrenched poverty and lack of hope. Where there is resentment and a willingness to die because life is so bad.

You can contain crime, ie limit it. And likewise terrorism. And likewise piracy.

We'll get enough of a solution to get piracy out of the news. Then we'll forget it.

One could say that letting the weapons go risks even more people than the lives of the crew on the ship.

We argued that (The NV Faina) through when it happened. Those weapons are worth more to ransom than to sell, I think the conclusion was. Warlords would only pay a fraction of their real worth, due to lack of trained crews or spare parts.

And this is why hostage taking works. People are afraid to respond, because the hostages are at risk.

It works, yes. Because human life is worth more than property.

But once you say "No more. I don't care if you have hostages. We are going in. They die, you die." the only ones left who have the incentive to take hostages are people who want to kill the hostages to begin with.

That might work once. The second time, you "go in" and find that the hostages aren't even on the boat any more. Add to that the boat may be sunk or badly damaged, the cargo destroyed or damaged ... and you've achieved what? You killed some young punks. The hostages are held somewhere in Somalia.

Extremists (and you are one, on many issues) often resort to this idea that there is a "king hit" for some identifiable enemy, that they'll be out of the game and everything will be hunky-dory. It's rubbish. The problem can be contained, but not solved.

A solution looks more like Somalia being stable safe and prosperous, and the shipping industry paying for its own protection on the high seas. Not another bailout! Not another violation of international law!

You are equating the young punks who go to sea with their masters. That is wrong.

Actually, I'm not. Word gets around. Somali piracy is a lucrative business. Once it stops being a lucrative business and an extended, guaranteed death sentence, very few would take it up.

And it doesn't matter where the boss of the pirates hangs out. If he can't make a profit off ransoms, the only other choice is cargo theft, and that opens a whole new can of worms that they certainly aren't in a position to change without building a new port.


Crime in any country is the same: you can raise the risks as high as you like, the wages of crime rise too ... and somebody is still desperate enough to try for the prize.

And what exactly is the prize if ransom is never paid or allowed to be paid?


You can contain crime, ie limit it. And likewise terrorism. And likewise piracy.


This technically isn't piracy. It's hostage taking. Piracy generally involves looting valuables from the ship. Right now, if they can't get a ransom, and they don't have the facilities to offload bulk cargo, assuming they can outrun gunships and destroyers that leaves stealing from the ships safe.


We'll get enough of a solution to get piracy out of the news. Then we'll forget it.

Then it'll come back again, and it'll be on the news again. Half hearted measures never work if you want to put something to a stop.


We argued that (The NV Faina) through when it happened. Those weapons are worth more to ransom than to sell, I think the conclusion was. Warlords would only pay a fraction of their real worth, due to lack of trained crews or spare parts.

Grenade launchers are a lot more damaging than AK-47s if used properly.


It works, yes. Because human life is worth more than property.


Insurance companies beg to differ.


That might work once. The second time, you "go in" and find that the hostages aren't even on the boat any more. Add to that the boat may be sunk or badly damaged, the cargo destroyed or damaged ... and you've achieved what? You killed some young punks. The hostages are held somewhere in Somalia.

Maybe, maybe not. Half the reason why the ransoms are so huge is because they also hold the ship ransom. Taking the crew off to the boonies allows the companies would to write them off as losses and start issuing indemnities for fresh ship crews. Destroying or damaging the cargo to boot, well that will probably earn you no ransom at all even if they were willing to pay in the first place.

You're only hope of a decent ransom then is if you snagged someone rich or related to wealth in the cargo ship.


Extremists (and you are one, on many issues)


Well, I don't believe in half measures, I've just seen too many of them fail to have any stock in them. That isn't to say I don't believe in concepts of fairness and justice, but frankly, half measures tend to encourage the desperate than deter them.


often resort to this idea that there is a "king hit" for some identifiable enemy,


Bollocks. The only "king hit" I have here is profitability. Make piracy based hostage taking unprofitable, and nobody would take it up except the armed version of 4chan.


that they'll be out of the game and everything will be hunky-dory.


Who said anything about that being hunky-dory? The Somalian desperate would just try something else, maybe just as bad or worse. I fully expect it. The question of what they'll do next is a bridge that only trained situational analysts can make I suspect, but it's something to prepare for next.


The problem can be contained, but not solved.

That depends on entirely how ruthless you are.


A solution looks more like Somalia being stable safe and prosperous,


And how would this be done? Please temper your answer by available resources, willingness of other countries to contribute to such a venture, and their probability of not screwing it up.


and the shipping industry paying for its own protection on the high seas. Not another bailout! Not another violation of international law!

Like? Armed merchantmen? On board security crews? That has it's own problems too, and you'll still need to call in naval help if they outnumber you, which given ship crew sizes, they will almost always do.

Bollocks. Awesome. :D :D

Actually, I'm not. Word gets around. Somali piracy is a lucrative business. Once it stops being a lucrative business and an extended, guaranteed death sentence, very few would take it up.

Word gets around ... what, you think those unemployed Somalis trust what they hear from Voice of America? Or do they trust the cash waved in their face?

And it doesn't matter where the boss of the pirates hangs out. If he can't make a profit off ransoms, the only other choice is cargo theft, and that opens a whole new can of worms that they certainly aren't in a position to change without building a new port.

Hang on. You were advocating taking the pirated vessels by force, whether the hostages die or not. So the cargo theft wouldn't be an option.

And what exactly is the prize if ransom is never paid or allowed to be paid?

New issue. How would you stop payment in cash?

This technically isn't piracy. It's hostage taking. Piracy generally involves looting valuables from the ship. Right now, if they can't get a ransom, and they don't have the facilities to offload bulk cargo, assuming they can outrun gunships and destroyers that leaves stealing from the ships safe.

Like the paragraph above, you are trying to move the goalposts.

It remains an option to destroy the cargo and the ship. You advocated storming the ship with military force, regardless of loss of hostage life. I said, the ship and cargo are ransomed as well (and holding to ransom IS an aspect of piracy, it was often done for royalty taken by pirates as you acknowledge below.)

Then it'll come back again, and it'll be on the news again. Half hearted measures never work if you want to put something to a stop.

Whereas massive over-reactions like killing innocent civilians leave the problem entirely alone, because now it's "UN censures US for bombing" on the front page.

Grenade launchers are a lot more damaging than AK-47s if used properly.

Let's not dig that thread up again. I seem to remember quite a few military experts, not you or I, who made the point that the cargo would be ransomed rather than sold.

We should just leave this question until the NV Faina is actually ransomed or taken by force. We don't know what happened to the weapons. It's 50/50 which of us is wrong here.

Insurance companies beg to differ.

Insurance companies offer money in compensation for a life already taken.

That isn't what you are saying. You are saying it's OK to put a life at risk to secure property.

Insurance companies don't pay, when the beneficiary of the policy murders the insured party. Nor should they.

Maybe, maybe not. Half the reason why the ransoms are so huge is because they also hold the ship ransom. Taking the crew off to the boonies allows the companies would to write them off as losses and start issuing indemnities for fresh ship crews

Crew wages would go up. That's inescapable. Insurance costs for shipping would go up.

The shipping industry pays. I'm not going to throw the starving children at you, but I'll remind you that you did just that to me a post or two ago.

Destroying or damaging the cargo to boot, well that will probably earn you no ransom at all even if they were willing to pay in the first place.

It's implicit! The ransoms are higher for expensive cargoes. Of course the pirates are threatening the destruction of the cargo (or black-market sale, which from the owner's point of view is the same thing.)

And they're using the crews being supposedly still on the ship, to prevent the ship being taken by force.

Your solution (take the ships by force) doesn't solve that. Either the crew are still on board, in which case they will die -- yes, after the first one or two military boardings, the pirates will lock them in a steel room with explosives fixed in there, and "deadman switch" or some such device to kill them if the ship is taken. Or else the crew are taken elsewhere and the same method applied to the ship itself.

You're only hope of a decent ransom then is if you snagged someone rich or related to wealth in the cargo ship.

Many sailors are poor, it's true. I'd think you could still raise a million bucks or so from all their families.

Luckily, up 'til now, the ship owners have taken on that responsibility. Who knows, perhaps some of those companies 'pass the hat around' the families of the crew. They don't have to say.

The pirates are ransoming the ships, and using the crew as hostages to keep the ships from being retaken by the obviously superior naval forces in the area.

Well, I don't believe in half measures, I've just seen too many of them fail to have any stock in them. That isn't to say I don't believe in concepts of fairness and justice, but frankly, half measures tend to encourage the desperate than deter them.

So where are the drastic measures which succeed? Can you point to an example?

Of course half-measures half-fail. But if you look at what they were intended to achieve, they usually half-succeed too. There's a point beyond which heavy-handed measures are counter-productive, in that they turn neutrals against the exerciser of force.

Bollocks. The only "king hit" I have here is profitability. Make piracy based hostage taking unprofitable, and nobody would take it up except the armed version of 4chan.

It can be made unprofitable by destroying the assets of pirates (most particularly the motherships) and by driving up the price to the ransomer of labour (sea-going pirates) by killing the sea-going pirates. I think we agree this is a good thing to do.

A degree of risk to hostages I would also accept. But not "whatever it takes to stop it." I think we have to accept that in a case like this super-tanker, the pirates can hurt us more than we can hurt them. They can destroy the ship, the cargo and probably the crew.

It's a huge asset. Such assets have to be better protected on the high seas.

By demonstrating an ability to take a super-tanker, these pirates have demonstrated an opportunity to anyone with a fast boat and some guns to sink a supertanker. Like flying a plane into a big building, this is a huge window of vulnerability in the world economy.

Terrorism isn't profitable. It's completely insane. The real-world equivalent of four4 is exactly what we have to protect against now that the concept has been proven by pirates. Making it unprofitable isn't enough.

Who said anything about that being hunky-dory? The Somalian desperate would just try something else, maybe just as bad or worse. I fully expect it. The question of what they'll do next is a bridge that only trained situational analysts can make I suspect, but it's something to prepare for next.

Perhaps a U.N. mandated force could close their ports. No ships put to sea without inspection. No weapons allowed.

Yes, that's a serious suggestion. It's well short of land intervention, and would allow fishing, coastal and international trade.

That depends on entirely how ruthless you are.

Again, can you give an example of a real problem which was nipped in the bud by extreme measures?

And how would this be done? Please temper your answer by available resources, willingness of other countries to contribute to such a venture, and their probability of not screwing it up.

My case was that there is no solution, only management of a problem.

A stable, safe and prosperous Somalia was given as a condition of a complete solution by your terms (drastic enforcement.) It's meant to show that there IS no perfect solution, as long as wealth is within grasp of desperately poor people.

Of course I want improvement in the lives of Somalis. I don't know how that's achieved, but I'm damn sure it isn't by flying over their country and blowing the fuck out of anyone who looks prosperous. That's like something Pol Pot would do if he had control of the US Air Force.

Like? Armed merchantmen? On board security crews? That has it's own problems too, and you'll still need to call in naval help if they outnumber you, which given ship crew sizes, they will almost always do.

Hey, armed merchantmen is a thought. I like it.

Security crews, yes. Perhaps something like the system of pilots for harbours and difficult passages. They come on board for the most dangerous part of the voyage, then leave when the ship is in safer waters.

I have an idea for authorized shipping lanes, which I may lay out in greater detail if I don't debunk it myself first. Basically: shipping tollways, which an international authority authorizes ships to travel on. Authorized ships would carry a beacon, and a unique password in case of beacon failure. They would be obliged to keep to a course and schedule lodged in advance. Any ships in the tollway which were not authorized would be assumed to be pirates and would be subject to boarding and inspection as if they were in a national maritime zone. As is suggested by the word "tollway" the authorization to sail in those waters would be subject to a fee. In exchange, the ships would be entitled to military protection from pirates.

There would need to be "overpasses" on such a freeway, areas where un-licensed craft could cross them. There would need to be an alternative route in every case, and very likely a "de-militarized zone" between such routes where no craft were permitted unless specifically authorized for it, eg, fishing or scientific research.

And yes, it would increase the cost of shipping overall. That is unavoidable, it will be done by governments fighting pirates, by increased insurance costs for shipping, or by shipping owners employing security teams on ships. A licensing scheme for use of the oceans is simply the fairest way.

Expecting some governments (specifically, those with navies) to protect the high seas from national self-interest will land us back in the days of the privateers. We need a truly international authority to protect shipping, or we need to leave it to the owners of shipping.

This idea of yours that some countries should bomb other countries to protect international trade is nothing more than corporate welfare. It's privatizing the profits and nationalizing the risks, it's a plan which would drive governments broke and leaving them with the blame.

Word gets around ... what, you think those unemployed Somalis trust what they hear from Voice of America? Or do they trust the cash waved in their face?

No silly. Word gets around from Somali pirates who get to witness first hand the new policy. If pirate motherships began exploding with regularity and boarders kept showing up on Somali shores riddled with bullets, don't you think that word would get around?


Hang on. You were advocating taking the pirated vessels by force, whether the hostages die or not. So the cargo theft wouldn't be an option.


Correct. The can of worms I mentioned? That's part of it.


New issue. How would you stop payment in cash?


People have to move in and out for cash transfers. They can be interdicted.


Like the paragraph above, you are trying to move the goalposts.


How so? If by "you cannot eliminate crime", fair enough, you can't. But you can always minimize it, reduce the pool of people willing to take it up. As risks escalate and payoffs drop, so does the pool of pirate employees.


It remains an option to destroy the cargo and the ship. You advocated storming the ship with military force, regardless of loss of hostage life. I said, the ship and cargo are ransomed as well (and holding to ransom IS an aspect of piracy, it was often done for royalty taken by pirates as you acknowledge below.)

You see, here is the question. What would the point be in holding a ship and crew hostage if you won't get paid for it, and you can't won't be able to make off with the cargo?

The pirates are motivated by money. What sort of money can be gotten off taking a ship where no one will pay you, or at least block you from being paid, and you'll be killed before you can make off with the cargo?


Whereas massive over-reactions like killing innocent civilians leave the problem entirely alone, because now it's "UN censures US for bombing" on the front page.

That's why it's easier and less politically sensitive to simply deploy rapid reaction forces to retake pirated vessels as and when they occur. Of course, you would have to negotiate with the flag countries beforehand and come to an international agreement to make the move a sanctioned one.

The Russians got some flak for their actions at the Moscow Theater, but they got the job done. Hostage takers neutralized, explosives not detonated.


Let's not dig that thread up again. I seem to remember quite a few military experts, not you or I, who made the point that the cargo would be ransomed rather than sold.

We should just leave this question until the NV Faina is actually ransomed or taken by force. We don't know what happened to the weapons. It's 50/50 which of us is wrong here.

Fair enough.


Insurance companies offer money in compensation for a life already taken.

That isn't what you are saying. You are saying it's OK to put a life at risk to secure property.

Insurance companies don't pay, when the beneficiary of the policy murders the insured party. Nor should they.

The company or family would be the beneficiary. The one doing the killing would be more likely the hostage takers themselves, or as collateral damage by military assets of whichever government is on the scene. How are the hostage takers/government the beneficiary?


Crew wages would go up. That's inescapable. Insurance costs for shipping would go up.

As if they didn't go up already with multi-million dollar ransoms.


The shipping industry pays. I'm not going to throw the starving children at you, but I'll remind you that you did just that to me a post or two ago.

?????


It's implicit! The ransoms are higher for expensive cargoes. Of course the pirates are threatening the destruction of the cargo (or black-market sale, which from the owner's point of view is the same thing.)

So if they destroy the cargo, there is nothing worth paying the ransom for anymore then is there?


And they're using the crews being supposedly still on the ship, to prevent the ship being taken by force.

Other than as human shields, how?


Your solution (take the ships by force) doesn't solve that. Either the crew are still on board, in which case they will die -- yes, after the first one or two military boardings, the pirates will lock them in a steel room with explosives fixed in there, and "deadman switch" or some such device to kill them if the ship is taken. Or else the crew are taken elsewhere and the same method applied to the ship itself.

It takes a great deal more explosives than what we've seen the Somalian pirates fielding to sink a freighter.

You see, you're using the tactics and motivations of a guerrilla force, that being causing damage/delaying actions to enemy forces, rather than that of a pirate, who's primary motivation would be profit.

Furthermore, if they switched entirely to a kidnap operation, they would still have one little problem. Getting away. Cargo ships carry radio equipment. Actually, anything bigger than a boat these days carries one I suspect. It takes time to round up the crew, and someone is always in the bridge in a properly run ship. A distress signal or panic button equivalent (like they have in banks) is more than enough to announce your location to the nearest military force, who would be able to respond with fast moving transport helicopters.

Can the Somalian pirates make off with the entire crew by then? Maybe, maybe not, who knows? It's a question of practice and training for ship crews and response teams.


Many sailors are poor, it's true. I'd think you could still raise a million bucks or so from all their families.

That would take a lot of sailors. And the payoff would be a lot smaller compared to if you held the ship to boot.


Luckily, up 'til now, the ship owners have taken on that responsibility. Who knows, perhaps some of those companies 'pass the hat around' the families of the crew. They don't have to say.

The ship owners take on that responsibility because generally they're the only ones who can pay that kind of money needed for multi-million dollar ransoms, and have vested interest in the cargo. The crew? Probably not so much.


So where are the drastic measures which succeed? Can you point to an example?

Depends entirely on what you're trying to achieve. Successful (you get away with it) obvious crime (mugging, theft, etc) would certainly come to a halt if you secretly implanted tracking chips in all citizens at birth.

Turning all of Somalia into a graveyard would also put a stop to Somalian pirate actions, as would blockading it.

Or if we want to look at the financial world, one could say the huge bailouts are a drastic measure. Locking local currencies to the American dollar in certain Asian countries helped prevent total collapse during the Asian financial crisis.


Of course half-measures half-fail. But if you look at what they were intended to achieve, they usually half-succeed too. There's a point beyond which heavy-handed measures are counter-productive, in that they turn neutrals against the exerciser of force.

Well, then we're at a disagreement of where that point is, aren't we?


It can be made unprofitable by destroying the assets of pirates (most particularly the motherships) and by driving up the price to the ransomer of labour (sea-going pirates) by killing the sea-going pirates. I think we agree this is a good thing to do.

A degree of risk to hostages I would also accept. But not "whatever it takes to stop it." I think we have to accept that in a case like this super-tanker, the pirates can hurt us more than we can hurt them. They can destroy the ship, the cargo and probably the crew.

Supertankers are a lot harder to destroy than you think. Because of their huge size, they have to withstand a lot of stress at alternating places along their hull from storms in the high seas or they would be torn apart. Grenades, maybe even RPGs, wouldn't be sufficient to do the structural damage you're thinking about.

If they want to set off the cargo on the other hand, well, let's just say that we've not seen a great deal of martyrdom in the Somalian pirates yet.


It's a huge asset. Such assets have to be better protected on the high seas.


Too bad nobody is shelling out for lethal protection levels and security on such ships. But there's the whole arms shipping problem then. You're about as likely to wrangle out an understanding between all major port holding cities as you are for an agreement for immediate military force deployment on pirated vessels regardless of flag.


By demonstrating an ability to take a super-tanker, these pirates have demonstrated an opportunity to anyone with a fast boat and some guns to sink a supertanker.


Taking is not sinking. A handful of thugs with AK-47s can take a supertanker if they do it right. They won't be able to destroy the supertanker though.


Terrorism isn't profitable. It's completely insane. The real-world equivalent of four4 is exactly what we have to protect against now that the concept has been proven by pirates. Making it unprofitable isn't enough.

Actually, no, it's perfectly sane, if your goals are to create an element of strong fear among the civilian populace, forcing a much larger power to capitulate to your goals. It's been a running tactic for as long as there have been major power imbalances and serious axes to grind.


Perhaps a U.N. mandated force could close their ports. No ships put to sea without inspection. No weapons allowed.

Yes, that's a serious suggestion. It's well short of land intervention, and would allow fishing, coastal and international trade.

That's called a blockade. Are we declaring war on Somalia now?


Again, can you give an example of a real problem which was nipped in the bud by extreme measures?

Listed above. But for ruthlessness, hmmm. I know. Stalin. The problem to him was that he was afraid plotters would try to instigate a coup against him or oust him otherwise. The gulags, NKVD and later KGB, kept the populace too cowed to think of rising against him.

What, you didn't say you wanted a nice example.


Of course I want improvement in the lives of Somalis. I don't know how that's achieved, but I'm damn sure it isn't by flying over their country and blowing the fuck out of anyone who looks prosperous. That's like something Pol Pot would do if he had control of the US Air Force.

If you look back, you'll realize I didn't advocate it, but merely pointed it out as a result providing option. Others advocated it, but I didn't. Mine was the boarding and forcible recapture of seized ships.


*snip scheme*

We need a truly international authority to protect shipping, or we need to leave it to the owners of shipping.

People can't even agree on whether to complain about another country in the UN. An international authority and armed force? Not very likely now is it?


This idea of yours that some countries should bomb other countries to protect international trade is nothing more than corporate welfare.

Not my advocation. Look more carefully.

Good, we don't want to help you bastard Europeans out anyway!! :mad:


:D :D

Yes, I'm joking.

Geography check, darling. Saudi Arabia is... tan tan!! IN THE MIDDLE EAST! :p

This is indeed very good news.

The motherships are major assets of the pirates. Unlike a land-based community grown up around a pirate lord's ransom money, every crew member can be expected to know that they are involved in a criminal activity. Their ship was apparently given the chance to surrender, chose to fight and was sunk. Yay.
I never thought I would be cheering on the Indian Navy, but this is great. At least someone in this world CAN act on threats. Not like our CNO, who is probably still trying to figure out what the PR ramifications would be, should we attack...

Pre-conclusion:

Piracy will never be erradicated.
Saudi Arabia is in the Middle East, not Europe.
Somalia's economy is a clusterfuck leading to piracy.
Tankers are easy to take.
The US shouldn't help.
Europeans aren't wankers. Excuses go to the cream filled things of Yootopia.:p
Saudi PM is a dick.

Pre-conclusion:

Piracy will never be erradicated.
Saudi Arabia is in the Middle East, not Europe.
Somalia's economy is a clusterfuck leading to piracy.
Tankers are easy to take.
The US shouldn't help.
Europeans aren't wankers. Excuses go to the cream filled things of Yootopia.:p
Saudi PM is a dick.


1. True
2. True
3. True
4. Very True
5. I suspect they will anyway.
6. Us Europeans are awesome!
7. Yep. :p

Nobody liked the Internet Pirate comment?

I'm losing my touch...

Nobody liked the Internet Pirate comment?

I'm losing my touch...

I missed it.:(

Seems like the world is ready to take on my evil brethren...

I'm an internet pirate, I have been known to get people's address and steal their booty Yargh!

See the above..

See the above..

:eek2:

:eek2:

its always consensual.. non consensual boarding parties aren't any fun.

its always consensual.. non consensual boarding parties aren't any fun.

Forceful boarding can be fun too. Trust me, I know.

Forceful boarding can be fun too. Trust me, I know.

Ah, yes. Forceful boarding from the rear. :D

/sexual innuendo

Ah, yes. Forceful boarding from the rear. :D

/sexual innuendo

You have a gutter mind, VKZ.

I was referring to accorded forceful boarding. When the crew has stroke a deal with the pirates and it seems like the pirates are taking the ship by force. But nothing is further from the truth. That's why I say it's fun. Sheesh.

You have a gutter mind, VKZ.

I was referring to accorded forceful boarding. When the crew has stroke a deal with the pirates and it seems like the pirates are taking the ship by force. But nothing is further from the truth. That's why I say it's fun. Sheesh.

*Beats self with stick*

Zero bad! Zero bad! :(

You have a gutter mind, VKZ.

I was referring to accorded forceful boarding. When the crew has stroke a deal with the pirates and it seems like the pirates are taking the ship by force. But nothing is further from the truth. That's why I say it's fun. Sheesh.

Forceful isn't my style... I lie to take it slow and easy at the beginning.

Forceful isn't my style... I lie to take it slow and easy at the beginning.

Won't the pirates get bored with the slow and easy? I would. I like an increased pace when it comes to the boarding.

I really gotta get this dirty mind looked into. :D

Won't the pirates get bored with the slow and easy? I would. I like an increased pace when it comes to the boarding.

I don't want to hurt anyone...

I don't want to hurt anyone...

Hurt is good, when justified. *nod*

Hurt is good, when justified. *nod*

I still feel bad regardless.

I still feel bad regardless.

I understand. You want to minimize the loss of life.

I understand. You want to minimize the loss of life.

Who's talking about loss of life o.O

Who's talking about loss of life o.O

No choky of hostages, no fun. :D

No choky of hostages, no fun. :D

For a moment I thought we were on a different page.

For a moment I thought we were on a different page.

B, we seldom are. :D

No silly. Word gets around from Somali pirates who get to witness first hand the new policy.

They were at sea. They died. Remember?

If pirate motherships began exploding with regularity and boarders kept showing up on Somali shores riddled with bullets, don't you think that word would get around?

So, instead of sinking them, killing them, taking them prisoner ... you propose letting a few get back to port "riddled with bullets."

Well, that's a new idea.

People have to move in and out for cash transfers. They can be interdicted.

They can't, really.

Somalia has land borders with other poorly regulated (ie corrupt) nations. There is simply no way that you can stop a shipping company from getting cash to an individual in Somalia.

How so? If by "you cannot eliminate crime", fair enough, you can't. But you can always minimize it, reduce the pool of people willing to take it up. As risks escalate and payoffs drop, so does the pool of pirate employees.

It's a very bad way to make piracy (as an industry) impractical, because the pool of unemployed, pissed-off, and almost suicidal potential boarders* in Somalia is big.

Finding the pirate-lords would work better, and it's exactly what would happen if there was an effective system of law in Somalia. No real government wants criminal gangs getting power.

The next best thing (the second-best, compared to attacking their work-force) is to destroy their assets. Boats and weapons.

*term I will use from now on, to distinguish the sea-going pirates from the cowards who command them and receive the ransom to employ the boarders.

You see, here is the question. What would the point be in holding a ship and crew hostage if you won't get paid for it, and you can't won't be able to make off with the cargo?

And again: how do you STOP the owners of that ship and that cargo, from paying a ransom?

That's the real question you keep trying to dodge. How?

I say you either (a) let the owners pay ransom (and it's not such a dumb idea, you could mark the cash money, you can infiltrate their network of money-handlers with more money, a bit goes a long way in such a poor country), or (b) you pay the owners the full value of their ship, and the other owners of their cargo, and then, as legal owner, refuse to pay ransom, whether it's sunk or not.

You don't just smash it all up, and bugger the consequences for shipping. That just drives the problem underground: ships are taken hostage, ransoms are paid, and the supposed enforcers of a "law of the high seas" never even get told it happened.

The pirates are motivated by money. What sort of money can be gotten off taking a ship where no one will pay you, or at least block you from being paid, and you'll be killed before you can make off with the cargo?

"Block you getting paid" is what I don't believe is possible. You have to show some way that could be done.

The ransoms that are paid are only a tiny fraction of the cost of the cargo. Your harshness in killing the boarders (and driving the boarders to kill the hostages) can be met by harshness on their side: deliberately destroying ships and cargo (and killing hostages at first sign of military intervention.)

That's why it's easier and less politically sensitive to simply deploy rapid reaction forces to retake pirated vessels as and when they occur. Of course, you would have to negotiate with the flag countries beforehand and come to an international agreement to make the move a sanctioned one.

The "flag countries" are often chosen as flags of convenience precisely because they flaunt strict regulation. Perhaps they won't want to be known as "pirate flag" countries, and ships of their flag banned from ports ... but it hasn't come to that yet.

The Russians got some flak for their actions at the Moscow Theater, but they got the job done. Hostage takers neutralized, explosives not detonated.

I was hoping you would cite the Nazis, but that's almost as good.

Yeah, it worked a treat didn't it? Really calmed those Chechyans down. And they never tried it again, oh except at Beslan.

*snip stuff about insurance companies*

You lost that point.

As if they didn't go up already with multi-million dollar ransoms.

Well, exactly. We either let insurance companies handle the risks of piracy, or we advocate for an international regime which makes piracy impractical.

We don't just make the problem go away, by drastic action in cases where it threatens the national interests of nations with navies.

Three solutions: big powers act when piracy threatens their national interest; all nations ignore it and let insurers etc adjust the costs of shipping to account for piracy; all nations act to keep the major shipping lanes open for trade.

The first of those is the least equitable solution. It will favour the strongest nations economically and navally, which is to say the United States predominantly. Unsurprisingly, it's the one you favour.


?????

My apologies. It was greed and death who threw the starving children at me. That comment about anything which threatened "trade" as leading to the greatest famine of all time.

So if they destroy the cargo, there is nothing worth paying the ransom for anymore then is there?

Look, I'll put it as a personal scenario.

There are three parties here. I'm the pirate, you're the owner. I've just taken your expensive antique vase, and I'm holding it up and threatening to throw it on the ground if you don't give me fifty bucks. A cop walks into the room, says "no, this shall not stand" and shoots me, and as I die I throw your vase on the ground, decreasing its value from thousands to almost nothing.

You're fine with that? You just lost thousands of dollars but you'll suck it up because no-one will ever try that again?

That's the situation you are asking the owner of the ship, or the cargo, or the insurer of the ship, the cargo, or the lives on board to accept.

And what I'm saying, what I've said for a while, is that any party who intervenes that way has to compensate you for the vase you could have had back for fifty bucks. Or else, you won't want the cop intervening at all.

When your ship is taken hostage, you'll strike a bargain with the pirate and get it back for much less than its replacement cost, rather than lose it for the warm happy feeling that the pirate didn't get anything.

Other than as human shields, how?

As human shields. That's all.

It takes a great deal more explosives than what we've seen the Somalian pirates fielding to sink a freighter.

Um ... really? I'd think a RPG round, packed down near the screws would do it. If not, two, three or a dozen.

And a ship full of oil -- you'd just have to breach the two layers of hull and set it on fire.

You see, you're using the tactics and motivations of a guerrilla force, that being causing damage/delaying actions to enemy forces, rather than that of a pirate, who's primary motivation would be profit.

Furthermore, if they switched entirely to a kidnap operation, they would still have one little problem. Getting away. Cargo ships carry radio equipment. Actually, anything bigger than a boat these days carries one I suspect. It takes time to round up the crew, and someone is always in the bridge in a properly run ship. A distress signal or panic button equivalent (like they have in banks) is more than enough to announce your location to the nearest military force, who would be able to respond with fast moving transport helicopters

As I understand it, military vessels arrive pretty quickly and follow the seized vessels.

Those boarding craft are fast, though. Keeping track of them might allow you to intercept them with a military ship, before they make shore ... probably not, though. More likely you'd have a nasty choice between firing on them (possibly killing hostages) or letting them land.

The ship owners take on that responsibility because generally they're the only ones who can pay that kind of money needed for multi-million dollar ransoms, and have vested interest in the cargo. The crew? Probably not so much.

Well, the cargo is usually insured separately. The owner would not be responsible for loss of the cargo to pirates, but they'd still want their ship back.

Don't rule out personal ransoms. People will sell their house to save a family member, and while a lot of sailors are from poor countries, and paid poorly, the ransoms of twenty sailors could easily come to a million dollars ($50,000 each.)

It's less, I will grant, than what the ship, cargo and crew can be ransomed for.

Depends entirely on what you're trying to achieve. Successful (you get away with it) obvious crime (mugging, theft, etc) would certainly come to a halt if you secretly implanted tracking chips in all citizens at birth.

Turning all of Somalia into a graveyard would also put a stop to Somalian pirate actions, as would blockading it.

Or if we want to look at the financial world, one could say the huge bailouts are a drastic measure. Locking local currencies to the American dollar in certain Asian countries helped prevent total collapse during the Asian financial crisis.

Drastic measures perhaps, but not drastic in the sense of killing a bunch of people to stop one of them.

But I realize now that I was attacking g&d's idea, not yours.

Well, then we're at a disagreement of where that point is, aren't we?

We still are, yes.

When the pirates took a ship full of weapons, I was pretty sure that was an accident, and one which they would regret. It drew a lot of attention to a nice little racket they had going there, extracting ransoms. Suddenly they had possession of a whole lot of weapons nobody wants to see introduced to Somalia.

But they didn't take a supertanker by accident. It's starting to look more like terrorism, the deliberate attraction of attention and the creation of economic uncertainty. Provoking action by powerful nations.

They're either making mistakes from cockiness, or they have some other agenda than making money from ransoms. It's rather perplexing.

Looks a bit like terrorism, I must admit. Those boarders went out of their way to take a very big ship with a disproportionately small crew.

Supertankers are a lot harder to destroy than you think. Because of their huge size, they have to withstand a lot of stress at alternating places along their hull from storms in the high seas or they would be torn apart. Grenades, maybe even RPGs, wouldn't be sufficient to do the structural damage you're thinking about.

They wouldn't just be lobbing RPG's at the thing. They could place several, and from inside the hull. I'd say they could get it sinking with that sort of explosive ... and they might have access to better explosives too.

The only bright side is that oil is lighter than water. Breaching the double hull would be fairly easy, but a lot of the oil has to come out before it will sink. And fucking up the coastline of Somalia with lots of oil doesn't seem like a win in anybody's book.

If they want to set off the cargo on the other hand, well, let's just say that we've not seen a great deal of martyrdom in the Somalian pirates yet.

Crude oil isn't all that explosive. It IS hard to extinguish once alight.
They could breach one side of it, set the oil alight, and still escape to the other side, surrendering.

Too bad nobody is shelling out for lethal protection levels and security on such ships. But there's the whole arms shipping problem then. You're about as likely to wrangle out an understanding between all major port holding cities as you are for an agreement for immediate military force deployment on pirated vessels regardless of flag.

Exactly why I suggested security teams going on board at sea, and leaving at sea.
That doesn't even need to be subsidized by any government or international agency, it's just a private security arrangement with the ship owner.

Taking is not sinking. A handful of thugs with AK-47s can take a supertanker if they do it right. They won't be able to destroy the supertanker though.

They can set it on fire. They can run it aground. And yeah, I think they could start it sinking, with quantities of low-grade explosive which could be ferried over from a mothership.

By the time they were captured or killed, it might still be possible to salvage the ship. That isn't true of the freighters they generally take though. They could sink them.

Actually, no, it's perfectly sane, if your goals are to create an element of strong fear among the civilian populace, forcing a much larger power to capitulate to your goals. It's been a running tactic for as long as there have been major power imbalances and serious axes to grind.

I mean that terrorism does not need to be profitable. It's insane in the sense that you can't defeat terrorism, by making it "unprofitable."

I suppose most terrorists are sane by a measure of lives lost. Even a suicide bomber tries to take more than one life.

That's called a blockade. Are we declaring war on Somalia now?

It's a bit extreme perhaps. But foreign navies are already operating within their territorial waters. It's only a blockade if it prevents trade ... do they even have a navy? If not, it's hard to see that it makes any difference beyond stopping pirates going ashore.

Listed above. But for ruthlessness, hmmm. I know. Stalin. The problem to him was that he was afraid plotters would try to instigate a coup against him or oust him otherwise. The gulags, NKVD and later KGB, kept the populace too cowed to think of rising against him.

What, you didn't say you wanted a nice example.


Even better than the Moscow Theater. Stalin cemented the premium example of Communism into something hardly preferable to Fascism. What an utter fuckup.

His ruthlessness achieved ... what? Keeping himself in power?

If you look back, you'll realize I didn't advocate it, but merely pointed it out as a result providing option. Others advocated it, but I didn't. Mine was the boarding and forcible recapture of seized ships.

Yeah, OK. But that could result in civilian casualties (the crew.) And that could result in a crisis for shipping through that area, as crews refuse to sail there.

People can't even agree on whether to complain about another country in the UN. An international authority and armed force? Not very likely now is it?

It's the protection of international trade. If piracy is sufficient threat, then yes the UN could write rules for international waters. It's precisely because it benefits all nations that it has a chance, and the most likely opposition is from the most powerful nations who would see it as limiting their power to do what the like on the high sea.

The UN has mandated force in many cases. It really shits me that the US either vetoes or gets alongside so many nations to defeat on the floor the strongest measures proposed by the UN, and then US citizens mock it for being powerless. The Security Council ought to go: then we'd see a bit of action!

Not my advocation. Look more carefully.

Um. That was greed and death, you're right.

I can imagine a fry-cook on a pirate mother-ship who isn't aware that they're engaged in piracy, but I'll allow that degree of risk to innocents. Sink it!

There are no less than twenty-three sexual innuendoes hidden in the above post.

Bah, you won't read it even so. I admit it. It's totally un-sexy.

There are no less than twenty-three sexual innuendoes hidden in the above post.

Bah, you won't read it even so. I admit it. It's totally un-sexy.

Bunny-sama's giving us sexual innuendos?!:eek:

Sugoi!!:D

Bunny-sama's giving us sexual innuendos?!:eek:

Sugoi!!:D

You are now on my ignore list.

You are now on my ignore list.

Erm... why? :confused:

You are now on my ignore list.

Oh.:(

I have myself on ignore. Just let me know if i say anything interesting.

And thanks to the magic of Weebl, the Somalian pirates now have their own shanty (http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/Somalia/).