Pirates have taken 3 more ships overnight!
- Thread starter Hoggy
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
R@ndom
Enlightened
Linky?
senecaripple
Flashlight Enthusiast
Somali Pirates Hijack Four More Ships
http://abcnews.go.com/US/International/story?id=7331134&page=1
Somali pirates continue to thumb their noses at the world -- hijacking four more ships, even as America's top military commander told ABC News the U.S. is reviewing its options, including whether to go into pirate villages.
Heather Giardinelli's fiance is an engineer onboard the Maersk Alabama.
The pirates have now seized four ships since the dramtic rescue of American Capt. Richard Phillips on Sunday, who was taken hostage during a failed hijacking attempt.
Just as the cheers were dying down for the daring rescue of Phillips that left three pirates dead, Somali pirates swooped down on more victims. This time they struck in the Gulf of Aden along the north coast of Somalia.
Two Egyptian fishing boats were hijacked, according to Egypt's Foreign Ministry, which said the boats carried a total of 18 to 24 Egyptians.
The biggest overnight prize for the pirates were the capture of the Greek freighter M.V. Irene and a Togo-flagged freighter named the Sea Horse, according to NATO officials. The Irene had a crew of 22. There was no immediate information on the Sea Horse crew.
Two words: "Tactical Nuke"
Flying Turtle
Flashaholic
I find it very hard to believe that we don't know exactly where the "mother ships" are located. If they were to accidentally sink the pirating problem would cease.
Geoff
Geoff
TedTheLed
Flashlight Enthusiast
Somalian pirates have dozens of (stolen) ships, and over a hundred hostages (127 last I heard) -- I thought this was well known...?
The "mother ships" are on the coast. Until soldiers raid the coast line, and route the pirates out of their strongholds; the B.S. will continue.
savumaki
Enlightened
Certainly an option; maybe ships on request could be provided with a small team prepared to defend (strongly), they could be offloaded at the next safe port for assignment to the next ship.
It is obvious that a mamby pamby approach will not replace an iron fist.
Sub_Umbra
Flashlight Enthusiast
I have long been interested in this problem, having personally sailed the waters in today's news and other dangerous areas like the Straits of Melaka a few decades ago. Twenty five years ago the Straits of Florida was ranked as one of the top three most dangerous transits in the entire world because of piracy.
The ongoing piracy problem is nothing new. It is also a problem that has been solved before. The quandry cannot be solved at this time because through systemic political failures world wide in the last few decades few countries may act legally and those that may exist in a world where unilateral action is becoming more and more unpopular.
Until I started looking into it I thought that there were no legal impediments to fighting piracy. After all, piracy is a very old problem and it has been soundly dealt with in the past with far less resources than we, collectively, may bring to bear today. It turns out that there are at least a couple deal killers. First of all Somalia is a stateless state so there is no real legal authority to turn a pirate over to who's been caught committing crimes in Somali waters. Also, no country wants to bring a Somali pirate to their own country for trial for an offense that took place thousands of miles away. The Brits have clearly stated that they fear that if they brought a Somali pirate to England for a trial he might apply for asylum straight away. Expensive and counterproductive.
As problematic as the 'stateless state' issue is there are far greater obstacles to stopping modern piracy. Last year Bret Stephens wrote an excellent article entitled, "Why Don't We Hang Pirates Anymore?"
From the article:
Here is a link to a map showing which nations have ratified the U.N.'s loopy Law of the Sea Convention. EDIT: LIGHT GREEN = signed, but not yet ratified. DARK GREEN = ratified. A quick glance will show that it hamstrings nearly all nations who may otherwise play a significant role in ridding the world of the scourge of piracy -- AGAIN!
The world is far better equipped to deal with piracy today than at other times in our past when piracy was defeated. The one thing we lack is the political will. On the world wide stage our politicians just can't seem to remember how piracy has been defeated in the past. Today's problem is a political problem -- the goof balls at the UN wrote some stupid, unworkable language into the UNLOTC and most of the world's politicians signed off on it. The current pirate problem should be resolved legally, with violence if necessary, as it was 200 years ago, but the gloves can't legally come off soon. It's up to the Pols -- not the navies.
Stephens closes the article succinctly by adding:
Another interesting article regarding the difficulties involved in overcoming the current pirate trend. In a nutshell it touches on the legal problems with arming merchant sailors and also mentions how, for example, it's a poor idea to arm crews on ships with volatile cargos...
The ongoing piracy problem is nothing new. It is also a problem that has been solved before. The quandry cannot be solved at this time because through systemic political failures world wide in the last few decades few countries may act legally and those that may exist in a world where unilateral action is becoming more and more unpopular.
Until I started looking into it I thought that there were no legal impediments to fighting piracy. After all, piracy is a very old problem and it has been soundly dealt with in the past with far less resources than we, collectively, may bring to bear today. It turns out that there are at least a couple deal killers. First of all Somalia is a stateless state so there is no real legal authority to turn a pirate over to who's been caught committing crimes in Somali waters. Also, no country wants to bring a Somali pirate to their own country for trial for an offense that took place thousands of miles away. The Brits have clearly stated that they fear that if they brought a Somali pirate to England for a trial he might apply for asylum straight away. Expensive and counterproductive.
As problematic as the 'stateless state' issue is there are far greater obstacles to stopping modern piracy. Last year Bret Stephens wrote an excellent article entitled, "Why Don't We Hang Pirates Anymore?"
From the article:
Here is a link to a map showing which nations have ratified the U.N.'s loopy Law of the Sea Convention. EDIT: LIGHT GREEN = signed, but not yet ratified. DARK GREEN = ratified. A quick glance will show that it hamstrings nearly all nations who may otherwise play a significant role in ridding the world of the scourge of piracy -- AGAIN!
The world is far better equipped to deal with piracy today than at other times in our past when piracy was defeated. The one thing we lack is the political will. On the world wide stage our politicians just can't seem to remember how piracy has been defeated in the past. Today's problem is a political problem -- the goof balls at the UN wrote some stupid, unworkable language into the UNLOTC and most of the world's politicians signed off on it. The current pirate problem should be resolved legally, with violence if necessary, as it was 200 years ago, but the gloves can't legally come off soon. It's up to the Pols -- not the navies.
Stephens closes the article succinctly by adding:
Another interesting article regarding the difficulties involved in overcoming the current pirate trend. In a nutshell it touches on the legal problems with arming merchant sailors and also mentions how, for example, it's a poor idea to arm crews on ships with volatile cargos...
Last edited:
BentHeadTX
Flashlight Enthusiast
I personally think it is funny as hell
OK, you cruise your boat near Somalia and don't have any weapons of any type, after all...if you ignore the situation you won't get caught up in it, right?
A small boat arrives on the horizon with a few guys with AK-47s and a few RPGs. That can't be aimed at you, right?
A little boat hundreds of miles off the coast of anything and you are cruising in say...a giant container ship. And those guys take over your ship?
Ahahahaha! Classic! Not sure but it does not make any sense to me. Now if I was going anywere near those shores, I would have a 50 cal loaded on 4 points of the ship and my own RPG rounds. Heck, I might even throw small torpedoes on the thing to play a little video game for real.
I've been to Somalia myself complete with body armor and automatic weapons. Back then we never fooled ourselves where we were and how to deal with any theatrics.
Maybe we should see what Tom Jefferson did about the pirate problem back in his day. Better to be tried by 12 then carried by 6.
OK, you cruise your boat near Somalia and don't have any weapons of any type, after all...if you ignore the situation you won't get caught up in it, right?
A small boat arrives on the horizon with a few guys with AK-47s and a few RPGs. That can't be aimed at you, right?
A little boat hundreds of miles off the coast of anything and you are cruising in say...a giant container ship. And those guys take over your ship?
Ahahahaha! Classic! Not sure but it does not make any sense to me. Now if I was going anywere near those shores, I would have a 50 cal loaded on 4 points of the ship and my own RPG rounds. Heck, I might even throw small torpedoes on the thing to play a little video game for real.
I've been to Somalia myself complete with body armor and automatic weapons. Back then we never fooled ourselves where we were and how to deal with any theatrics.
Maybe we should see what Tom Jefferson did about the pirate problem back in his day. Better to be tried by 12 then carried by 6.
Last edited:
baterija
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2008
- Messages
- 1,053
Outstanding post Subumbra. I knew enough about the loopy laws to want to post something pointing back to the legal hurdles but not enough to do the job you did. The law basically requires you to send hostages over to the pirates before firing upong their ship. Loopy is the appropriate word.
Anyone who heard the Navy statement directly will note the repeated emphasis that lethal force was used because of imminent danger to Captain Philips. They didn't use lethal force because they were pirates, they shot them because they were threatening the life of the Captain and use of force was therefore justified. It's a fine legal line, but shows the limitations on naval forces in combatting the scourge.
Anyone who heard the Navy statement directly will note the repeated emphasis that lethal force was used because of imminent danger to Captain Philips. They didn't use lethal force because they were pirates, they shot them because they were threatening the life of the Captain and use of force was therefore justified. It's a fine legal line, but shows the limitations on naval forces in combatting the scourge.
Diesel_Bomber
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2006
- Messages
- 1,772
A shame, really. This is very simple and should be handled precisely how any mugger should be handled, scaled up appropriately. Done right, there won't be any problems with trying the survivors, only hauling off the scrap metal after the fish have eaten well.
:buddies:
:buddies:
There have been other posts like this here and on other forums. The problems are basically these:
- Companies are or at least have been willing to pay ransoms for many reasons. That set bad precedent (gee, ya think?).
- Many companies do not want to arm freighters due to liability problems.
- Not all crews are willing to take up arms.
- There are legal limits on how a ship can be armed and how they can respond.
- There are substantial limits in maritime law, international treats, etc. to keep from going back to "gun boat diplomacy." There are even laws regarding an armed ship masquerading as a freighter to be used to sucker in pirates -- you have to give them warnings and can't just blow them out of the water, etc.
Eventually a lot of that should change if this crap keeps up but for now arm chair quarterbacks won't change things too much, and it does look like one major league naval power is going to take on the brunt of the protection/rescue detail. Want to guess who that'll probably be? But if for whatever reason the public relations aspects of this end up going south, there won't even be Predator over flights being authorized, not to mention that the resources for this are needed elsewhere.
Somalia has not had any real form of government in many years. That combined with crushing poverty and a lot of war lords has made it a breeding ground and haven for pirates. The average Somali probably has a lot to deal with just keeping alive. It's not fair to think of it like the entire country is one great pirate hoard. Also there are other countries in the area where pirates are based. Actually this has been going on for quite a few years and it is also happening in several other parts of the world.
- Companies are or at least have been willing to pay ransoms for many reasons. That set bad precedent (gee, ya think?).
- Many companies do not want to arm freighters due to liability problems.
- Not all crews are willing to take up arms.
- There are legal limits on how a ship can be armed and how they can respond.
- There are substantial limits in maritime law, international treats, etc. to keep from going back to "gun boat diplomacy." There are even laws regarding an armed ship masquerading as a freighter to be used to sucker in pirates -- you have to give them warnings and can't just blow them out of the water, etc.
Eventually a lot of that should change if this crap keeps up but for now arm chair quarterbacks won't change things too much, and it does look like one major league naval power is going to take on the brunt of the protection/rescue detail. Want to guess who that'll probably be? But if for whatever reason the public relations aspects of this end up going south, there won't even be Predator over flights being authorized, not to mention that the resources for this are needed elsewhere.
Somalia has not had any real form of government in many years. That combined with crushing poverty and a lot of war lords has made it a breeding ground and haven for pirates. The average Somali probably has a lot to deal with just keeping alive. It's not fair to think of it like the entire country is one great pirate hoard. Also there are other countries in the area where pirates are based. Actually this has been going on for quite a few years and it is also happening in several other parts of the world.
Stop sending them food. :shrug:
This is interesting http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-04/14/content_11184581.htm
This is interesting http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-04/14/content_11184581.htm
I've never been on one of those giant freighter vessels. Does anyone know the mechanics of attacking and boarding one of those ships? How the heck do those pirates get up on the deck? It doesn't seem like an easy thing to do considering how tall the walls of the ships are above the water.
I believe Somalia has 1800 miles (@3000 km) of coastline.
Lightraven
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 1,170
According to NBC news:
Grappling hook launched(?) over the stern, pirates climb up. Not too different than what was happening in the 17th century (and earlier). They said barbed wire along the deck edge of one ship thwarted one attempt.
Another is to have two pirate boats snare a ship with a rope strung between them. The ship drags the two pirate boats along either side, they grapple the gunnels (side edges) and board.
I'm more confident now that the U.S. will protect it's own citizens and ships, but not necessarily the rest of the world.
Grappling hook launched(?) over the stern, pirates climb up. Not too different than what was happening in the 17th century (and earlier). They said barbed wire along the deck edge of one ship thwarted one attempt.
Another is to have two pirate boats snare a ship with a rope strung between them. The ship drags the two pirate boats along either side, they grapple the gunnels (side edges) and board.
I'm more confident now that the U.S. will protect it's own citizens and ships, but not necessarily the rest of the world.
jtr1962
Flashaholic
Short term solutions:
1) Equip these vessels so the crews can lock out the pirates should they board. That would include using bullet-proof glass.
2) Arm the crews if possible (but others have pointed out the problems with that).
3) Arm the ships with more than water cannons. Again, there are a host of legal problems with doing so.
4) Avoid sailing in waters known to be pirate-infested. Problem is the longer route increases the costs of shipping.
Long term solution:
Repower these large merchant ships with nuclear reactors. The main reason they get pirated is that they're slower than what the pirates are using (I believe typical maximum speeds are in the 15-18 knot area), even though their range is much higher. Now if you can make these vessels capable of 35-40 knots and essentially unlimited range, it'll take a lot longer for pirate vessels to overtake them, if at all. A nuclear-powered ship also has a lot of economic advantages, with low fuel costs and faster transit times being the primary ones. And you can justify having much higher security on board, including an armed detail to guard the reactor(s).
Downsides? At present a good number of ports would refuse to accept nuclear-powered vessels. But that could always change. And of course the cost of refitting these vessels would be enormous, even though long term these costs would be recouped.
1) Equip these vessels so the crews can lock out the pirates should they board. That would include using bullet-proof glass.
2) Arm the crews if possible (but others have pointed out the problems with that).
3) Arm the ships with more than water cannons. Again, there are a host of legal problems with doing so.
4) Avoid sailing in waters known to be pirate-infested. Problem is the longer route increases the costs of shipping.
Long term solution:
Repower these large merchant ships with nuclear reactors. The main reason they get pirated is that they're slower than what the pirates are using (I believe typical maximum speeds are in the 15-18 knot area), even though their range is much higher. Now if you can make these vessels capable of 35-40 knots and essentially unlimited range, it'll take a lot longer for pirate vessels to overtake them, if at all. A nuclear-powered ship also has a lot of economic advantages, with low fuel costs and faster transit times being the primary ones. And you can justify having much higher security on board, including an armed detail to guard the reactor(s).
Downsides? At present a good number of ports would refuse to accept nuclear-powered vessels. But that could always change. And of course the cost of refitting these vessels would be enormous, even though long term these costs would be recouped.
