NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8084098.stm

As it says, HMS Portland caught a boatload of pirates and a load of weapons. But due to their ROE, had to let them go.

So, what are the consequences of changing the ROE, and what would be the results? Would such a move ever make it through?

Personally, I think the ROE should be changed to allow the navies operating to intern any suspected pirates despite whether they were caught in the act or not, then taken for trial. I don't think it will reduce piracy at all, (that seems to only come from Somalia's tribal elders,) but its more a retribution.

rofl

Just shoot the fucking bastards.

Just shoot the fucking bastards.

So... nice of you.

Just shoot the fucking bastards.

Ideally, Yes, I wish.

Realistically, Trial, where they are found guilty and sentenced to death, by walking the plank! yarrr!

So... nice of you.

They forfeit their rights, in my opinion, by doing what they do.

They forfeit their rights, in my opinion, by doing what they do.

You sound like the old me. :p


But, they do help with global warming...

You sound like the old me. :p

NSG changed you, RoI.

NSG changed you, RoI.

I know, I kinda miss the old me, but 'tever.

Hang them. Every ship needs a gallows installed for this kind of situation.

Hang them. Every ship needs a gallows installed for this kind of situation.

Nah. Need a plank to walk.

This is good. This my be the way to beat them. All you have to do is write down all their names. Then write those names on the side of a torpedo. Then load that torpedo on a submarine that will be their shadow for the rest of their short ass life. (however long it takes them to attemp a hijacking)

Intern them, give them a fair trial, and apply the sole appropriate sentence for Piracy if/when they are found guilty - hang them.

Intern them, give them a fair trial, and apply the sole appropriate sentence for Piracy if/when they are found guilty - hang them.

Or skip the internment and trail and hang them.

This is good. This my be the way to beat them. All you have to do is write down all their names. Then write those names on the side of a torpedo. Then load that torpedo on a submarine that will be their shadow for the rest of their short ass life. (however long it takes them to attemp a hijacking)

Assigning one submarine to one little boat doesn't seem very cost-effective to me, but I give you credit for the presumption of innocence.

Tagging the boat with some kind of beacon would have been a clever move. Even if the beacon only works for a week or so, and even if it only has a range of a few kilometres ... pretty good chance to catch them trying to take a ship.

You sound like the old me. :p




Aw, our lil'RoI is growing up :D

Aw, our lil'RoI is growing up :D

Damn strait- I've got an National Insurance Number and everything.:p

Damn strait- I've got an National Insurance Number and everything.:p

Next step, Vote like I did yesterday :P

(Or get a job, which would put one over on me :$)

Assigning one submarine to one little boat doesn't seem very cost-effective to me, but I give you credit for the presumption of innocence.

Tagging the boat with some kind of beacon would have been a clever move. Even if the beacon only works for a week or so, and even if it only has a range of a few kilometres ... pretty good chance to catch them trying to take a ship.

Well I don't see how cost factors in. The subs are already out to sea. This seems to be the biggest event on all the seas for the time being. And it's better than a hostage rescue situation that can drag on and on. I like the idea of a homing beacon. (unless the pirates detect it's presence)

Next step, Vote like I did yesterday :P

(Or get a job, which would put one over on me :$)

Or both. :p

I'm not sure what the problem is. They weren't committing an offence, so how can you charge them on suspicion of what they might do in the future? If there were guns and things on-board, then sure, but otherwise just being in a boat is not cause for arrest.

I'm not sure what the problem is. They weren't committing an offence, so how can you charge them on suspicion of what they might do in the future? If there were guns and things on-board, then sure, but otherwise just being in a boat is not cause for arrest.

They found and destroyed guns.

They found and destroyed guns.

Now, see, that's the part about this I don't understand.

If they were carrying weaponry like that, then that should have been probable cause enough to allow an arrest, for at least to look into the possibility they were illegally carried.

As such they could be detained, and upon investigation into their personal history they could find evidence of their past crimes and then charge them with those as well.

That's the way this should have gone, in my opinion.

Now, see, that's the part about this I don't understand.

If they were carrying weaponry like that, then that should have been probable cause enough to allow an arrest, for at least to look into the possibility they were illegally carried.
'Illegally carried' according to whose laws?

'Illegally carried' according to whose laws?

International laws, of course, or the laws of the country whose oceans those caught are caught in.

Well I don't see how cost factors in. The subs are already out to sea. This seems to be the biggest event on all the seas for the time being. And it's better than a hostage rescue situation that can drag on and on. I like the idea of a homing beacon. (unless the pirates detect it's presence)

I should probably leave this alone, since I made quite an ass of myself talking about submarines over on the new forum. But this thread deserves a bump.

I'll just go with a disclaimer: I know shit-all about submarines. Now that's out of the way ...

The submarines may in fact be at sea somewhere, but putting them in or around Somali waters and tasking them with tailing boats would count as combat duty and the crews would be entitled to combat pay.

It might seem to some that I side with the pirates. I don't. My concerns about the cost of operations to stop them is this: whatever precedent is set dealing with Somali pirates who are clearly doing what they do for money, is then a possible incentive for others to tie up navies for paramilitary reasons. Economic terrorism, essentially. Bleeding the relatively rich nations which can afford anti-piracy operations, at very little cost to terrorists.

There are plenty of poor people in coastal regions of the world, and widely scattered at that. The Somali experience shows that it's almost impossible to stop the flow of money -- what works for ransoms would work as well for terrorism funding.

We have to consider how well military force will scale in the future, and start developing a more cost-effective way to deal with piracy. For instance, smaller boats and technology to detect small boats which seems bizarrely lacking in the floating castles built for naval engagement. Even since the USS Cole incident ... seems the USN put a lot of effort into stopping small craft, but detecting them beyond the range they pose an imminent threat, not so much. They call in the Coast Guard -- classic bailiwick failure.

Perhaps navies could learn something from the idea of "motherships" ... it's certainly not a new idea but seems to have been somewhat forgotten since aircraft took the role. Modern warships do have small subsidiary boats, but I'm not aware of any that are purpose built as an aircraft-carrier is for aircraft.



Nearly finished ... I have to display some more ignorance about submarines. They just seem to be getting bigger and bigger. Don't they have a useful role without dozens of crew and the capability to sink aircraft carriers?

Mini subs, as used in WW2, not to send against capital ships but for precisely the kind of role you envision, Dragontide. They needn't even be small, the core idea is that of a small crew to reduce running costs and make assigning a sub to tail a suspicious boat more economically viable.

International laws, of course, or the laws of the country whose oceans those caught are caught in.International law generally says that if a vessel is in international waters then its home nation's laws apply on board... and Somali law (to the extent that this exists...) is apparently quite relaxed about the possession of firearms.

Perhaps navies could learn something from the idea of "motherships" ... it's certainly not a new idea but seems to have been somewhat forgotten since aircraft took the role. Modern warships do have small subsidiary boats, but I'm not aware of any that are purpose built as an aircraft-carrier is for aircraft.Well, the Royal Navy has (or is that just "had", now? I'll have to check...) some 'Assault Ships' and 'Commando Carriers' that would function as motherships for landing-craft (some or all of which could presumably be replaced by comparably-sized patrol/pursuit craft for such missions...) as well as helicopters... and which could carry really useful numbers of marines, not only for boarding parties but also for cutting-out expeditions and other operations against the pirates' bases...