Somali Pirates Seize Cargo Ship With 24 Aboard

[Gerald]

NAIROBI, Kenya -- The European Union's anti-piracy naval force says Somali pirates have seized a cargo vessel with 24 crew members aboard.

The owners of MV Polar confirmed early Saturday that pirates control the ship, the EU force said in a statement.

Pirates seized the Liberian-owned ship some 684 miles east of the Indian Ocean island of Socotra. It belongs to Yemen but is close to the tip of northeastern Somalia.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/10/30/somali-pirates-seize-cargo-ship-aboard-1230496049/



Note:Published October 30, 2010

[Platapus]

If the EU has an anti-piracy naval force, why is the headline not

EU Anti-Piracy Naval Forces sink Somali Pirate ship? :damn:

[Oberon]

Because of two letters...

EU

It's like UN :damn:

[Gerald]

It is time that the Naval Forces shows "balls" to make it order and no long-term stories, pirates are already holding several ships hostage..

[Oberon]

It is time that the Naval Forces shows "balls" to make it order and no long-term stories, pirates are already holding several ships hostage..

ROE :damn:

http://www.ask4plastic.com/mimages/Red%20Tape_00755.jpg

[STEED]

It's amazing how these pirates scare the hell out of these idiots who rule us, get in there and kick ass!

[Jimbuna]

It's amazing how these pirates scare the hell out of these idiots who rule us, get in there and kick ass!

http://www.clubpenguinfansite.com/forums/images/smilies/Pirate/111.gif

[Gerald]

Somali pirates usually seize ships using the Gulf of Aden, one of the world's busiest waterways. They earn multimillion dollar ransoms with little risk because Somalia has not had an effective government for 19 years...

[FIREWALL]

It's amazing how these pirates scare the hell out of these idiots who rule us, get in there and kick ass!

What's Amazeing ? AH did it. People or Groups continue to do bad things because, so called,decent, well meaning people ALLOW it.

Who's worse ? Your Rulers or the Pirates.

[Jimbuna]

What's Amazeing ? AH did it. People or Groups continue to do bad things because, so called,decent, well meaning people ALLOW it.

Who's worse ? Your Rulers or the Pirates.

Good/fair point :yep:

[Betonov]

One day they'll try to seize a russian ship, the sailors wont give it without a fight, a russian will get killed and Putin will have a anti-piracy fit that even those, that downloaded a track will feel the pain

[TLAM Strike]

One day they'll try to seize a russian ship, the sailors wont give it without a fight, a russian will get killed and Putin will have a anti-piracy fit that even those, that downloaded a track will feel the pain

Remember this? (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/27/world/africa/27pirates.html)

[Gerald]

Mr.. Mohamed, the Somali diplomat, said: "This is not a Somali problem. This is an international problem. Shipping across this Entire region is imperiled by this. "A true statement hardly strengthens his credentials

[Takeda Shingen]

Who's worse ? Your Rulers or the Pirates.

Hey, that's profound! :up:

[The Third Man]

It's amazing how these pirates scare the hell out of these idiots who rule us, get in there and kick ass!

Agreed, nothing averts force more palpably than superior force.

[TLAM Strike]

Agreed, nothing averts force more palpably than superior force.

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/5420/ss100209charliesheen198.jpg
Tell than to every guerrilla army that ever existed... :03:
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/515/3286dayunderfire4047003.jpg
... and the Japanese... :o

[The Third Man]

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/5420/ss100209charliesheen198.jpg
Tell than to every guerrilla army that ever existed... :03:
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/515/3286dayunderfire4047003.jpg
... and the Japanese... :o

I would have thought better of you. You know superior force is the key to victory.

[Takeda Shingen]

I would have thought better of you. You know superior force is the key to victory.

If that were always the case, the Afghans would be speaking Russian.

[the_tyrant]

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/5420/ss100209charliesheen198.jpg
Tell than to every guerrilla army that ever existed... :03:
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/515/3286dayunderfire4047003.jpg
... and the Japanese... :o

Is that red dawn? I heard that there is a new version coming out
and the second pic is from the pacific right?
anyways, that is why i support brainwashing and mind control research

[The Third Man]

If that were always the case, the Afghans would be speaking Russian.

Much has to do with the political will to use that superior force.

[Takeda Shingen]

Much has to do with the political will to use that superior force.

I don't think the Soviets ever had much lack in political will, especially when it came to their satellites.

[The Third Man]

I don't think the Soviets ever had much lack in political will, especially when it came to their satellites.

But Afghanistan wasn't one of their political sats. Nor is it ours. Today we send UAVs and hope to win.

But it is a hot war.

[Takeda Shingen]

But Afghanistan wasn't one of their political sats.

I think that the Soviets would have disagreed, especially given the pleas from the DRA.

Nor is it ours. Today we send UAVs and hope to win.

Tricky to invade a sovereign nation such as Pakistan without permission. Especially when Pakistan did not attack the United States.

But it is a hot war.

Yes.

[The Third Man]

Tricky to invade a sovereign nation such as Pakistan without permission. Especially when Pakistan did not attack the United States.



That is an Obama manifestation. Attacking Pakistan; No neocon boogie man involved.

[Takeda Shingen]

That is an Obama manifestation. Attacking Pakistan; No neocon boogie man involved.

And what is your opinion of the incursion?

[The Third Man]

And what is your opinion of the incursion?

Incursion? Please be more specific.

[Takeda Shingen]

Incursion? Please be more specific.

The incursion into Pakistan. Or, if your prefer, the preemtive nature of this new war. Your general feelings on foreign involvement and nation building. Consider the floor your's.

[The Third Man]

The incursion into Pakistan. Or, if your prefer, the preemtive nature of this new war. Your general feelings on foreign involvement and nation building. Consider the floor your's.


I don't want to take over Af or Paki-stan. The US has never been an imperial nation, beyond popular thought from those who nation's have been.


Obama is now waging a war he wants to lose. By crossing borders he has shown nothing less.

[Takeda Shingen]

I don't want to take over Af or Paki-stan. The US has never been an imperial nation, beyond popular thought from those who nation's have been.


Obama is now waging a war he wants to lose. By crossing borders he has shown nothing less.

Okay, what I am really interested in is your view on the so-called Bush Doctrine, of which Obama's war is a philisophical continuation.

[The Third Man]

Okay, what I am really interested in is your view on the so-called Bush Doctrine, of which Obama's war is a philisophical continuation.

What do you think is the 'Bush Doctrine'? I don't have any view concerning that. Please enlighten me. Is it like the Roosevelt Doctrine after the Pearl Harbor attack?

[Takeda Shingen]

What do you think is the 'Bush Doctrine'? I don't have any view concerning that. Please enlighten me. Is it like the Roosevelt Doctrine after the Pearl harbor attack?

I am disappointed; you know exactly to what I refer. I was hoping for a civil exchange of ideas, but you choose to play games instead.

[The Third Man]

I am disappointed; you know exactly to what I refer. I was hoping for a civil exchange of ideas, but you choose to play games instead.

Second chance. I am more than happy to a fair exchange. But I don't know what you see as the Bush Doctrine. Really. I call it looking out for the citizens and supporting the US Consitution. Is that the Bush Doctrine?

If so ..........

[Takeda Shingen]

Second chance. I am more than happy to a fair exchange. But I don't know whar you see as the Bush Doctrine. Really. I call it looking out for the citizens and supporting the US Consitution. Is that the Bush Doctrine?

If so ..........

Ah, I see now. No, I am not refering to the expanded role of the executive branch, nor am I refering to the constitutionality of military action. I am interested in your philisophical view of foreign intervention. As an extention of that, what do you feel is America's place in this world?

My view is that The United States of America is not the world's police force. The impact of our latest round of foreign intervention has been negligible; Islamic extreemists still threaten our transportation infastructure (as illustrated several days ago), Al Qaeda still remains organized enough to recruit actively and spread propaganda, and Osama bin Laden has not been brought to justice. Instead, we have spent billions of dollars and the lives of too many servicemen chasing phantoms and making new enemies, now in the name of nation building and globalism. It is past time to bring troops home. Recall them all. Other nations have elected leaders, as well as economies and budgets. Let those leaders use the two latter items to serve their own needs. As such, I oppose the doctrine of intervention shared by both progressives and neo-conservatives.

I referred to it as the Bush Doctrine due to the fact that it was most recently illustrated by the war on terror. I feel it is a poor term, but also thought that by using it, you would know exactly what I was talking about.

[TLAM Strike]

Is that red dawn? I heard that there is a new version coming out
and the second pic is from the pacific right?
Yea the first is from Red Dawn. Don't know where the second one is from, I just snagged it off google images.

I would have thought better of you. You know superior force is the key to victory. Actually I'm a strong believer in the doctrines of attrition and maneuver warfare. I prefer smaller fast moving units to strike at an enemy's C4 systems to disrupt operations along with interdicting strikes to destroy enemy supply lines to isolate and neutralize enemy forces with out actually engaging them.

[The Third Man]

Yea the first is from Red Dawn. Don't know where the second one is from, I just snagged it off google images.

Actually I'm a strong believer in the doctrines of attrition and maneuver warfare. I prefer smaller fast moving units to strike at an enemy's C4 systems to disrupt operations along with interdicting strikes to destroy enemy supply lines to isolate and neutralize enemy forces with out actually engaging them.

But only overwhelming force can achieve maneuver fast moving units to strike. Either all in or don't go in.

[Sledgehammer427]

But only overwhelming force can achieve maneuver fast moving units to strike. Either all in or don't go in.

I have to disagree. When I think of Overwhelming force, I think of something like an elephant or a bear, wonderfully powerful, but one can easily be taken down with a gunshot, or even a spear in the right spot.

I think that you are being too general about fighting a war. I would assess the situation and plan for that situation than sending every tank and soldier I have.
I agree with TLAM. It's better to disrupt your enemies logistics and isolate them than to go for sweeping, epic, all-out battles. While the latter is like a punch or a headbutt, which can be parried and even used against you, the former is akin to coming up from behind and strangling your victim to death. It's less showy, but guess who won't have bruises on their knuckles?

[TLAM Strike]

But only overwhelming force can achieve maneuver fast moving units to strike.

Hardly, smaller units are harder to detect, require less transport and logistical support. Thus are capable of bypassing enemy defenses and striking at critical targets.

You are thinking of maneuver in terms of German panzer divisions, I'm thinking of maneuver like the British SAS.

[Oberon]

I prefer smaller fast moving units to strike at an enemy's C4 systems to disrupt operations along with interdicting strikes to destroy enemy supply lines to isolate and neutralize enemy forces with out actually engaging them.

http://www.subvertednation.net/images/sun-tzu.jpg

是故百戰百勝，非善之善者也；不戰而屈人之兵，善之善者也。 :yep:

For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.

Or as Sabaton put it:

"To win but never fight, that's the art of war." :rock:

[Raptor1]

Special forces and guerrilla are only useful on their own against an unprepared enemy; if the enemy can properly defend his rear areas, he can inflict very high casualties on small, cut off and unsupported units. While such tactics can be quite useful in support of conventional forces, I don't think you can reliably win a large conventional war by just attempting to raid enemy rear areas with small units...

[the_tyrant]

Special forces and guerrilla are only useful on their own against an unprepared enemy; if the enemy can properly defend his rear areas, he can inflict very high casualties on small, cut off and unsupported units. While such tactics can be quite useful in support of conventional forces, I don't think you can reliably win a large conventional war by just attempting to raid enemy rear areas with small units...

Don't believe the commies. With out the nationalists, or the red army fighting against the main opposition, the guerrilla armies would have been destroyed

[Raptor1]

Don't believe the commies. With out the nationalists, or the red army fighting against the main opposition, the guerrilla armies would have been destroyed

What are you talking about?

[Dowly]

Wether to use small force or a large one is quite heavily influenced by the terrain on where the battle will be fought. It didn't take but few smaller units to cut and isolate the entire russian 44th rifle division on Raate road during Winter War in a terrain that suited this kind of warfare.

[the_tyrant]

What are you talking about?

Commies like to glorify their contributions to WWII
especially partisans and guerrilla
Even now, the Chinese textbooks says the communist partisans killed around 1.2 million Japanese troops.:rotfl2:

[TLAM Strike]

Special forces and guerrilla are only useful on their own against an unprepared enemy; if the enemy can properly defend his rear areas, he can inflict very high casualties on small, cut off and unsupported units. While such tactics can be quite useful in support of conventional forces, I don't think you can reliably win a large conventional war by just attempting to raid enemy rear areas with small units...

You are partially correct but I don't think you are not thinking on a vast enough scale. If the enemy begins defending its rear areas, attack the MSRs feeding them, if they defend them attack the production facilities that build the supplies or the ports that bring them in, if they defend them attack the raw materials that get shipped there, defend that attack the people who work in the factories and so on. Make it so the enemy has to defend all of its own territory to the point where there needs to be a group of troops on every street corner depleting their front line forces at the same time as you sow discontent over both the war and military "occupation" (Martial Law) in the civilian populous.

There is no reason why the lighter mobility doctrine can't be transitioned in to a conventional force. The Air Mobile forces in Vietnam are a prime example of this doctrine where you have regiment sized units that can bypass terrain and enemy strong holds to strike at critical targets. Another example is the MAGTF which is highly flexible and mobile and capable of most any mission and incorporates infantry, armor, aircraft (and by due to its amphibious nature warships).

[Raptor1]

You are partially correct but I don't think you are not thinking on a vast enough scale. If the enemy begins defending its rear areas, attack the MSRs feeding them, if they defend them attack the production facilities that build the supplies or the ports that bring them in, if they defend them attack the raw materials that get shipped there, defend that attack the people who work in the factories and so on. Make it so the enemy has to defend all of its own territory to the point where there needs to be a group of troops on every street corner depleting their front line forces at the same time as you sow discontent over both the war and military "occupation" (Martial Law) in the civilian populous.

Even if you succeed in getting it all worked out, you become a nuisance, not a genuine threat to the war. Sure, you might blow up some supply convoys, sabotage some factories and port facilities, destroy some raw materials and kill some factory workers, but while this has some short-term effects, you won't really do enough damage to any one of these to actually cripple the enemy war effort (And your units will still be taking heavy casualties). Unless, of course, you have some ridiculously large number of special forces that you somehow managed to get behind enemy lines and then supply and coordinate.

The morale effects of such raids, of course, exist, but they can backfire completely against a determined enemy.

Oh, and don't forget that while you're devoting your resources to doing all this, the enemy divisions might be making mincemeat of your front lines.


There is no reason why the lighter mobility doctrine can't be transitioned in to a conventional force. The Air Mobile forces in Vietnam are a prime example of this doctrine where you have regiment sized units that can bypass terrain and enemy strong holds to strike at critical targets. Another example is the MAGTF which is highly flexible and mobile and capable of most any mission and incorporates infantry, armor, aircraft (and by due to its amphibious nature warships).

A large conventional unit attempting to pass through the lines to attack somewhere is much more liable to being detected, both before and on the way there. Airborne and airmobile forces can be shot down by aircraft and SAM sites, ground units counterattacked and destroyed by mobile reserves. And these forces would still fighting at a disadvantage because they don't have heavy equipment or easy resupply. Amphibious assaults are another matter entirely, of course.

I'm not saying special forces, guerrilla, airmobile units and the like are useless, they are far from it. But if you devote all your resources to try to raid the enemy army's command and logistics without actually engaging and defeating it, you won't be achieving much.

Commies like to glorify their contributions to WWII
especially partisans and guerrilla
Even now, the Chinese textbooks says the communist partisans killed around 1.2 million Japanese troops.:rotfl2:

What does that have to do with anything I've said?

[Gerald]

I agree that rapid small units are important, and also has a lower radar signature, which means a better "invisibility"..

[TLAM Strike]

Oh, and don't forget that while you're devoting your resources to doing all this, the enemy divisions might be making mincemeat of your front lines. Well this would not be the entire army.... just read on... :hmmm:



A large conventional unit attempting to pass through the lines to attack somewhere is much more liable to being detected, both before and on the way there. Being detected and having the enemy being able to react to it is two different things. As I specified a while back a primary target is the enemy C4 systems. If the enemy's ability to communicate and coordinate its army is broken then if one unit detects the attack but is unable to relay that information then the larger defending force can be bypassed.

Airborne and airmobile forces can be shot down by aircraft and SAM sites, ground units counterattacked and destroyed by mobile reserves. And these forces would still fighting at a disadvantage because they don't have heavy equipment or easy resupply. Its not a question of not having heavy equipment or lack of supply. Such items do fit within the doctrine on a larger scale, a mobility focused mechanized division would for example not have large numbers of hard to transport and supply MBTs but rather lighter APCs with ATGM launchers or ATGM teams.


I'm not saying special forces, guerrilla, airmobile units and the like are useless, they are far from it. But if you devote all your resources to try to raid the enemy army's command and logistics without actually engaging and defeating it, you won't be achieving much. Its less about the use of those specific units and more the general mind set. Lighter, rapid deploying units over heavy mechanized units. Air dropable armor over ones that need to be transported by ship or to an airbase. At sea smaller faster multi-purpose vessels.

Think of it as structuring all units like the Army's Stryker Brigades, capable of getting anywhere in the world in 96 hours and equipped to handle any mission required.

[Webster]

its high time they start using machine guns on those ships to kill every unannounced boat daring to go near a ship in those waters or at least transfer the cargo to a well armed cargo carrier.

a message needs to be sent load and clear that you WILL die if you go after ships



if it were up to me i would station a US navy ship nearby and send helicopter gunships to any vessel in need of help with orders to kill every person and sink those pirate boats.

very quickly it will be known you cant attack the ships anymore and the pirates will have to find a new way to make money

[Task Force]

We need to go to the old way of "Killing pirates by hanging, or other means"

[Webster]

We need to go to the old way of "Killing pirates by hanging, or other means"


my way you kill the pirates AND destroy their boat so they run out of both and it limits their ability to continue. the pirates are dead and the leaders lost their boat so it hurts them too.


i understand those poor bastards are starving and just trying to survive and in most cases are doing it just to feed their family but the ones in charge also need to be targetted somehow

[Gerald]

Trade ships are well aware that they can risk problems in these waters, and sure they would be able to have light weapons in self-defense, and the pirates know that the ships have some form of defense, so perhaps they are reluctant to attack

[TLAM Strike]

its high time they start using machine guns on those ships to kill every unannounced boat daring to go near a ship in those waters or at least transfer the cargo to a well armed cargo carrier.

a message needs to be sent load and clear that you WILL die if you go after ships



if it were up to me i would station a US navy ship nearby and send helicopter gunships to any vessel in need of help with orders to kill every person and sink those pirate boats.

very quickly it will be known you cant attack the ships anymore and the pirates will have to find a new way to make money

Not so easy in real life. Earlier this year there was a cargo ship being chased by a small boat. The small boat called the cargo ship telling it in broken English to stop and they were going to board them. The crew freaked out and called the Navy.... the small boat was a Yemeni coast guard patrol boat looking for contraband... ;)

[TLAM Strike]

Trade ships are well aware that they can risk problems in these waters, and sure they would be able to have light weapons in self-defense, and the pirates know that the ships have some form of defense, so perhaps they are reluctant to attack

There are a verity of countermeasures short of small arms or heavy weapons available to merchant vessels today...
http://img542.imageshack.us/img542/18/antipirateship.jpg

[Webster]

Not so easy in real life. Earlier this year there was a cargo ship being chased by a small boat. The small boat called the cargo ship telling it in broken English to stop and they were going to board them. The crew freaked out and called the Navy.... the small boat was a Yemeni coast guard patrol boat looking for contraband... ;)


yes but in that case it was announced but if the boat isnt clearly marked they must do so or its their own fault.

plus ships shouldnt be that close to land anyway IMHO

[Gerald]

@TLAM Strike! Yes, there was a lot of "candy" but companies may want to avoid the cost, so then there will be no upgrade on the ship

[the_tyrant]

What does that have to do with anything I've said?

you see, we think guerrilla are so tough mainly because of commie propaganda. they are not that good in real life

[Takeda Shingen]

you see, we think guerrilla are so tough mainly because of commie propaganda. they are not that good in real life

Then why have we been having such a hard time with them?

[the_tyrant]

Then why have we been having such a hard time with them?
well that is because of the odd political situation in the US
I mean, think about it:
the IJA lost more than a million men to frontal warfare, they lost less than 50000to guerrillas
the nazies lost the war because of the frontal war, not partisans

[Raptor1]

Well this would not be the entire army.... just read on... :hmmm:

I didn't mean it would strip the frontline and thus put you at a disadvantage, I meant it in the sense that the enemy might well force you to fight on his own terms if you don't engage him directly.


Being detected and having the enemy being able to react to it is two different things. As I specified a while back a primary target is the enemy C4 systems. If the enemy's ability to communicate and coordinate its army is broken then if one unit detects the attack but is unable to relay that information then the larger defending force can be bypassed.

But you're relying on the fact that you've disrupted the enemy's communications so thoroughly that it cannot react at all, while if the enemy was properly managing and guarding its communication centers, the whole thing falls apart.


Its not a question of not having heavy equipment or lack of supply. Such items do fit within the doctrine on a larger scale, a mobility focused mechanized division would for example not have large numbers of hard to transport and supply MBTs but rather lighter APCs with ATGM launchers or ATGM teams.

Certainly it is a question of heavy equipment and supply, since if you have neither you are fighting at a distinct disadvantage. For example, you might put your light division anywhere in friendly or enemy territory, but it will not be able to fight that effectively if it's faced by a heavier formation.


Its less about the use of those specific units and more the general mind set. Lighter, rapid deploying units over heavy mechanized units. Air dropable armor over ones that need to be transported by ship or to an airbase. At sea smaller faster multi-purpose vessels.

Think of it as structuring all units like the Army's Stryker Brigades, capable of getting anywhere in the world in 96 hours and equipped to handle any mission required.

Sure, lighter units might be more strategically mobile, but they lack the heavy equipment required to fight a land war against a properly equipped enemy. You might get a light brigade anywhere in the world in 96 hours, but it won't be properly equipped to fight an enemy with superior firepower in the open.

you see, we think guerrilla are so tough mainly because of commie propaganda. they are not that good in real life

I never said I thought guerrilla are "so though". In fact, I specifically said guerrilla forces aren't very useful on their own.

[tater]

Non-lethal anti-piracy stuff. Meh. 20-30mm CIWS optimized for small surface craft. Done.

[the_tyrant]

I never said I thought guerrilla are "so though". In fact, I specifically said guerrilla forces aren't very useful on their own.

yeah, i got carried away, I agree with you

[Takeda Shingen]

well that is because of the odd political situation in the US
I mean, think about it:
the IJA lost more than a million men to frontal warfare, they lost less than 50000to guerrillas
the nazies lost the war because of the frontal war, not partisans

That does not explain Vietnam. Guerrillas are poor at direct warfare, but exceedingly good at what they are designed for.

[the_tyrant]

That does not explain Vietnam. Guerrillas are poor at direct warfare, but exceedingly good at what they are designed for.

Its the politics that made the US lose, not the commies.
The press defeated the US army, it is Americas greatest enemy.
if the us had Kim Jiong Il and Joseph Goebbels doing the press, the IJA training the army in modern warfare tactics(kill all, take all, burn all) and maybe better psyops the Americans could have won

[Raptor1]

Its the politics that made the US lose, not the commies.
The press defeated the US army, it is Americas greatest enemy.
if the us had Kim Jiong Il and Joseph Goebbels doing the press, the IJA training the army in modern warfare tactics(kill all, take all, burn all) and maybe better psyops the Americans could have won

Anyone trained by the Imperial Japanese Army in modern warfare tactics shouldn't be surprised when he gets crushed by just about anyone... :shifty:

[Takeda Shingen]

Its the politics that made the US lose, not the commies.
The press defeated the US army, it is Americas greatest enemy.
if the us had Kim Jiong Il and Joseph Goebbels doing the press, the IJA training the army in modern warfare tactics(kill all, take all, burn all) and maybe better psyops the Americans could have won

Maybe I'm remembering my history classes wrong, but there was a hell of a lot of scortched earth going on in Vietnam. If favorable press coverage was able to root insurgents out of holes, Osama bin Laden would have been captured in 2003. No, the US was defeated by a very determined and well-equipped guerrilla insurgency. The media did not launch the Tet Offensive, nor did they lead the Nixon Administration to the conclusion that the war was unwinnable and the beginning of Vietnamization.

[the_tyrant]

there is a huge chance that i got my Von Clausewitz wrong but this is my opinion:
You see, the Vietcong were fighting total war. However, the US is not fighting total war
As we could see from the dirty little wars in Africa, many things that the us deems is a crime against humanity is considered to be a tactic or weapon(for example: mass rape, genocide)
Also, the american population could not take as much loss as the North Vietnamese.
A quote from The Influence of Sea Power on History:""Twice," says Arnold in his History of Rome, "has there been witnessed the struggle of the highest individual genius against the resources and institutions of a great nation, and in both cases the nation was victorious.""
however, the US did not use its full potential

However, this grinds down to moral beliefs, I believe that the ends justify the means. Not sure about you guys though

[Takeda Shingen]

Ah, I see what you are getting at now, but I completely disagree. Classical military theory and doctrine were ineffective against modern insurgent warfare. The US military in 2003 found iteslf between a rock and a hard place; traditional theory, personified by Carl von Clausewitz, called for a reduction of the enemy's capacity through absolute warfare (von Clausewitz never used the term 'total war'). However, in the case of modern Islamic insurgency, such tactics only served to create more insurgents. As such, the US military was forced to adopt new methods to counter the insurgency, thus creating a further separation between the practical modern war and a theoretical view of the Napoleonic battlefield.

In short, the theories of Carl von Clausewitz are not as relevant as they used to be, as absolute warfare is a poor method of counter-insurgency.

[the_tyrant]

Ah, I see what you are getting at now, but I completely disagree. Classical military theory and doctrine were ineffective against modern insurgent warfare. The US military in 2003 found iteslf between a rock and a hard place; traditional theory, personified by Carl von Clausewitz, called for a reduction of the enemy's capacity through absolute warfare (von Clausewitz never used the term 'total war'). However, in the case of modern Islamic insurgency, such tactics only served to create more insurgents. As such, the US military was forced to adopt new methods to counter the insurgency, thus creating a further separation between the practical modern war and a theoretical view of the Napoleonic battlefield.

In short, the theories of Carl von Clausewitz are not as relevant as they used to be, as absolute warfare is a poor method of counter-insurgency.

Ok, now I get it. I was forcing classical theory in a different environment. I mistakenly assumed that simply replacing "country" with "Islamic extremists" as the enemy would have worked.
Well, lets just hope that another genius comes up with another great work like The Art of War or On War soon

[Gerald]

Non-lethal anti-piracy stuff. Meh. 20-30mm CIWS optimized for small surface craft. Done. :yep:

[tater]

The US should put such a CIWS system on all US flagged vessels above a certain size that travel in pirate zones. They'd be sat controlled, so the USN turns them on and off remotely. They'd have a sort of negative dead-man switch. USN turns them on, and they automatically turn off in X minutes unless the USN sat keeps them on so a disconnect results in the system being disabled in a few minutes.

The plus to the US is that ships would then WANT to be US flagged, resulting in tax revenue increases.

[Gerald]

Certainly entails costs but you have to think long term, to pay ransom is no solution to the problem

[Diopos]

Certainly entails costs but you have to think long term, to pay ransom is no solution to the problem

Ehmm, nope! As long as the cost (ransom) is not exceedingly high, ship and cargo and owners can live with it. Piracy raises the "insurance" (put in the proper word) for vessel, crew and cargo but in the end the price is payed by the customer in the destination port. Now if/when piracy inhibits these "economics" then you will see a much more aggressive antipiracy policy and campaign.! :yep:


.

[Gerald]

Agree with what you say, customers may pay in the end, but to avoid the need for the special units that are stationed, to avoid unpleasant surprises..

[TLAM Strike]

I didn't mean it would strip the frontline and thus put you at a disadvantage, I meant it in the sense that the enemy might well force you to fight on his own terms if you don't engage him directly. Seems counter intuitive that by not engaging an enemy army directly that they are forcing me to fight on his terms.

I could see a strategy utilizing a major force in such a way, but it would only result in a prolonged war of attrition. A war of attrition against a faster lighter force that can pick and chose its battles is not feasible.


But you're relying on the fact that you've disrupted the enemy's communications so thoroughly that it cannot react at all, while if the enemy was properly managing and guarding its communication centers, the whole thing falls apart. Well then it comes back to flexibility and forcing the enemy to guard against anything again. IF its defended against an attack on the ground then attack from the air, if its defended against air attack then use TBMs, if it has defenses against that jam them. Either the enemy siphons forces to defend those sites against anything or it bunches its C4 with other rear units making more inciting to attack as it would cause more damage.



Certainly it is a question of heavy equipment and supply, since if you have neither you are fighting at a distinct disadvantage. For example, you might put your light division anywhere in friendly or enemy territory, but it will not be able to fight that effectively if it's faced by a heavier formation. A light division doesn't mean it does not have firepower, it means it not mounted on heavy armored vehicles. The HIMARS rocket artillery is mounted on a 5 ton unarmored truck, the M1128 features a 105mm gun capable of enraging enemy armor but is mounted on an wheeled APC. There are missile like the 9M133 Kornet that out range a tank gun (the 9M123 has even more range).

The trick is to have a combat force with the greatest verity of the most powerful weapons on the fastest platforms in every unit.


Sure, lighter units might be more strategically mobile, but they lack the heavy equipment required to fight a land war against a properly equipped enemy. You might get a light brigade anywhere in the world in 96 hours, but it won't be properly equipped to fight an enemy with superior firepower in the open. The whole point is that it would not fight in the open. It would fight in skirmishes of its own choosing depleting the enemy that way.


yes but in that case it was announced but if the boat isnt clearly marked they must do so or its their own fault.

plus ships shouldnt be that close to land anyway IMHO Well the US and CTF-151 can't be everywhere. Local navies and coast guards are necessary to conduct counter piracy operations. Not every navy around there can afford clearly marked ships with well trained multilingual signalmen.

This is the best some of these navies have to use:
http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/9471/osab.jpg

[Raptor1]

Seems counter intuitive that by not engaging an enemy army directly that they are forcing me to fight on his terms.

I could see a strategy utilizing a major force in such a way, but it would only result in a prolonged war of attrition. A war of attrition against a faster lighter force that can pick and chose its battles is not feasible.

That's the point, you can't pick and choose your battles because the enemy will force you to fight. If the enemy decides to roll his armoured and mechanized divisions on your capital and supply centers, you either stand and fight or be overrun and lose.


Well then it comes back to flexibility and forcing the enemy to guard against anything again. IF its defended against an attack on the ground then attack from the air, if its defended against air attack then use TBMs, if it has defenses against that jam them. Either the enemy siphons forces to defend those sites against anything or it bunches its C4 with other rear units making more inciting to attack as it would cause more damage.

Yes, but you're not relying on the fact that the enemy is defending his rear areas, since that doesn't have any effect if you fail to engage him. You're relying on the fact that the enemy communications are disrupted in the first place, and to such an extent that he cannot react at all.

Even if you do manage to disrupt enemy communications that much and push your unit through the lines to whatever objective it was supposed to go, you still haven't done anything to prevent being counterattacked and obliterated by mobile reserves once the enemy recovers his communications to any extent. Not unless, of course, you actually exploit the disruption by engaging the enemy while he's out of communications.


A light division doesn't mean it does not have firepower, it means it not mounted on heavy armored vehicles. The HIMARS rocket artillery is mounted on a 5 ton unarmored truck, the M1128 features a 105mm gun capable of enraging enemy armor but is mounted on an wheeled APC. There are missile like the 9M133 Kornet that out range a tank gun (the 9M123 has even more range).

The trick is to have a combat force with the greatest verity of the most powerful weapons on the fastest platforms in every unit.


Yes, you might put some fancy weapons on light units, but you're still at a disadvantage compared to heavier units. An MLRS can put twice as many rockets in the air as the HIMARS, a light APC or a vehicle like the M1128 isn't nearly as likely to survive a hit as a main battle tank.

Also, while your units have better strategic mobility, your operational mobility is still much more restricted by your supply lines than how light your units are. Especially if you're going about dropping these units behind enemy lines, in which case your supply is anything but guaranteed to get through.


The whole point is that it would not fight in the open. It would fight in skirmishes of its own choosing depleting the enemy that way.

Fine, go ahead and refuse to fight in the open, you might inflict some casualties on the enemy and preserve your fighting strength. But when he overruns your supply depots, airfields and ports because you couldn't defend them in a pitched battle, that'll have little consequence.

[Gerald]

Seems counter intuitive that by not engaging an enemy army directly that they are forcing me to fight on his terms.

I could see a strategy utilizing a major force in such a way, but it would only result in a prolonged war of attrition. A war of attrition against a faster lighter force that can pick and chose its battles is not feasible.


Well then it comes back to flexibility and forcing the enemy to guard against anything again. IF its defended against an attack on the ground then attack from the air, if its defended against air attack then use TBMs, if it has defenses against that jam them. Either the enemy siphons forces to defend those sites against anything or it bunches its C4 with other rear units making more inciting to attack as it would cause more damage.



A light division doesn't mean it does not have firepower, it means it not mounted on heavy armored vehicles. The HIMARS rocket artillery is mounted on a 5 ton unarmored truck, the M1128 features a 105mm gun capable of enraging enemy armor but is mounted on an wheeled APC. There are missile like the 9M133 Kornet that out range a tank gun (the 9M123 has even more range).

The trick is to have a combat force with the greatest verity of the most powerful weapons on the fastest platforms in every unit.


The whole point is that it would not fight in the open. It would fight in skirmishes of its own choosing depleting the enemy that way.


Well the US and CTF-151 can't be everywhere. Local navies and coast guards are necessary to conduct counter piracy operations. Not every navy around there can afford clearly marked ships with well trained multilingual signalmen.

This is the best some of these navies have to use:
http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/9471/osab.jpg to secure the region

[Gerald]

Somali pirates are reported to have received a total of $15m (£9m) in ransom money to release two ships.

They are believed to have been paid a record $9m (£5.6m) for Samho Dream, a South Korean oil tanker, and $7m (£4.3m) for the Golden Blessing, a Singaporean flagged ship.

"We are now counting our cash," a pirate who gave his name as Hussein told Reuters news agency. "Soon we shall get down from the ship."

The ships' release was not confirmed.

The Samho Dream supertanker was hijacked in the Indian Ocean in April and its crew of five South Koreans and 19 Filipinos were taken hostage. It was carrying crude oil from Iraq to the US.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11704306

Note:6 November 2010 Last updated at 14:54 GMT