Captain Phillips

[Onkel Neal]

I was pretty interested in seeing this but I had suspicions there would be too much "make us sympathize with the Somali pirates" to suit me. Looks like I may be right. (http://www.vulture.com/2013/10/movie-review-tom-hanks-in-captain-phillips.html) :down: Too bad, I like Tom Hanks, and I appreciate films that celebrate good over evil.

On a side note, how ridiculous is it these shipping companies send their crews and cargo into areas of the world where this could happen, and don't provide armed security? Well, I guess the US Navy can always bail them out.

[Jimbuna]

Looking forward to seeing the movie but in real life terms I wonder why the convoy system hasn't been introduced.

Sailing times would be pre-determined and soon known to the pirates but a warship at front and back equipped with a helo or two each should deter any illegal intervention.

[Skybird]

Maybe somebody calculated the costs of convoys against the costs of Atalanta, and the difference financially speaks for Atalanta. Or maybe "convoy" sounds too much like the unwanted w-word, and is against the idea that even pirates are humans and that one must try to understand them when they hijack hostages and lock them away and torture them for months.

But I agree, it is stupid the way they do handle the piracy problem now. It does nothing to defeat pirates, but encourages them, and has fostered them to grow stronger and reach out farther. For what it achieves, even Atalanta is too expensive. Either you kick the bad guy's butt, or you don't. There is no point in trying to make it a pleasant experience for him.

It sounds as if the movie features a solid performance by Hanks.

[CaptainHaplo]

Well ya know what your in for when the review says:

Captain Phillips is not just a liberal-guilt movie. (emphasis added)

I like Hanks as an actor, but I will pass on this one.

[Bilge_Rat]

On the movie, I would not prejudge it. Paul Greengrass is a very good filmmaker who makes a geater effort than most in Hollywood to make realistic movies.

I was very impressed by "United 93". He did not treat the terrorists as cartoon characters, but it did not make them any more sympathetic. He also kept the story small and personal, really only focusing on what was going on inside the airplane.

He managed to turn "Bourne 2 & 3" into something more than average action movies.

His last movie, "Green Zone" left me cold. It was well made, but I thought he tried to pack too much story into it.

Very much looking forward to seeing his new movie.

[Platapus]

Looking forward to seeing the movie but in real life terms I wonder why the convoy system hasn't been introduced.

Sailing times would be pre-determined and soon known to the pirates but a warship at front and back equipped with a helo or two each should deter any illegal intervention.

I am sure the idea of an armed convoy has been discussed. I am also sure the very next question discussed is : Who will pay for it?

The shipping company won't pay for it as they have insurance to cover the losses and the shipping company does not want assume any liability for armed responses, even assuming that armed responses are even legal.

The insurance company won't pay for it as they are amortizing the losses over all their insured accounts. Despite the losses they have to pay out, the insurance companies are still making a lot of money. Besides the insurance company does not want to assume any liability for armed response, even assuming that armed responses are even legal.

Securing the territorial waterways is the responsibility of the government of that territory. The Somali government is not going to pay for a convoy because 1) there really ain't no Somali government, and 2) what there is of a Somali government is probably getting bribes from the pirates.

International waters is a different matter.

So a convoy is a great idea.. as long as someone else pays for it.

[Schroeder]

Another problem would be the delays in the shipping. A ship that waits for a convoy to assemble doesn't make money. It has to sail (preferably 24/7) with minimum downtime for maintenance, loading and unloading.

[Jimbuna]

The convoy sailing times would be notified to shipping companies in advance to help them in positioning their vessels at the correct time.

As far as payments go, there are already enough countries supplying patrol craft so not as many would be needed if a convoy system were to be introduced...each country could rotate with others on a regular basis.

Just a thought.

[Admiral Halsey]

I was pretty interested in seeing this but I had suspicions there would be too much "make us sympathize with the Somali pirates" to suit me. Looks like I may be right. (http://www.vulture.com/2013/10/movie-review-tom-hanks-in-captain-phillips.html) :down: Too bad, I like Tom Hanks, and I appreciate films that celebrate good over evil.

On a side note, how ridiculous is it these shipping companies send their crews and cargo into areas of the world where this could happen, and don't provide armed security? Well, I guess the US Navy can always bail them out.

Funny enough Russia of all countries actually has convoys they escort with their navy in those waters.

[AVGWarhawk]

He’s the Scary Black Man who haunts white America’s most xenophobic dreams.

This is just stupid.

But we understand the greater tragedy of Muse and the Somalis’ lives. We hate the world that fomented this bloody confrontation.

Yes, it's the worlds fault. It always is someone else at fault.

I think Pixar is making a new movie I would like to see. :up:

[Ducimus]

On a side note, how ridiculous is it these shipping companies send their crews and cargo into areas of the world where this could happen, and don't provide armed security? Well, I guess the US Navy can always bail them out.

Of the documentaries I've seen about the Somali pirates, it boggles my mind that they don't put armed security onboard those ships. You have these guys coming at them with speed boats, varying assortment of Kalashnikov's, and RPG's, and their fending them off with water hoses, and loud noise makers.

If I had my way, I'd replace those water cannons with a 30 caliber machine gun.

[Webster]

the most stupid is all they have to do is sail far enough offshore so pirates cant reach them. they stay within sight of land to travel faster and save fuel in calmer waters and in doing so become easy targets. these pirates are in small open boats so sail 15 miles offshore and spend 10% more on fuel costs and problem solved.

if that cost too much then a few 50 cal, 2 on each side bow and stern and 4-8 guys who know how to man them is a cheaper solution. im not saying arm the whole fleet but just the ships that make that crossing. of course if you do that they will shoot women and children for a photo opt and throw the bodies and fishing poles in the shot up boat and scream murder.

[Admiral Halsey]

Of the documentaries I've seen about the Somali pirates, it boggles my mind that they don't put armed security onboard those ships. You have these guys coming at them with speed boats, varying assortment of Kalashnikov's, and RPG's, and their fending them off with water hoses, and loud noise makers.

If I had my way, I'd replace those water cannons with a 30 caliber machine gun.

I'd buy a couple of old naval guns to put on it as well.(Sure they would be nearly useless against such a small target but its more for a psychological effect on the pirates.)

[Skybird]

the most stupid is all they have to do is sail far enough offshore so pirates cant reach them. they stay within sight of land to travel faster and save fuel in calmer waters and in doing so become easy targets. these pirates are in small open boats so sail 15 miles offshore and spend 10% more on fuel costs and problem solved.

Hm.

http://www.imgbox.de/users/public/images/EbMOrFnFYB.png (http://www.imgbox.de/)


http://www.imgbox.de/users/public/images/12MT3NpyZg.jpg (http://www.imgbox.de/)

And that was just until 2010. I recall to have read some article some longer time ago that the Somali pirates alone now can operate amongst Africa's full Eastern coast and far into the Indian ocean.

You don't solve pirate problems by avoiding pirate ships - they start going after you then. You solve it by confronting them in their harbours and destroying their bases. You fight pirates on their own shore.

[Oberon]

You solve it by confronting them in their harbours and destroying their bases. You fight pirates on their own shore.

With whose money? We've already established that neither the US or EU have the finances for any sustained military operations, nor the social backing for them, and I doubt Russia or China would want to do any heavy lifting for the west, and the African Union has its hands full with various weekly crisis's in Kenya and the like.

[Schroeder]

The convoy sailing times would be notified to shipping companies in advance to help them in positioning their vessels at the correct time.

Won't change a thing. The convoy leaves in 5 days but my vessel must unload tomorrow and will then remain for 4 days in the harbour waiting for the convoy to depart. Logistics aren't that simple. You have your ship in the wrong spot at the wrong time and you can wait for days if not weeks for the next convoy.

[Tribesman]

in real life terms I wonder why the convoy system hasn't been introduced
Jimbuna
It was introduced, costs went up delays increased and the pirates just shifted to beyond the convoy assembly and dispersal area, though there were also a few attacks on the ships waiting in the assembly areas.
Platapus brings up some of the cost and legal issues on armed parties, plus of course the Indians Italians and Russian have all made rather nasty screw ups with armed response against fishing boats. I think the Indians paid up compensation for their murders but the Italians and Russians murders are still ongoing actions.
Putting State forces on merchant vessels brings up lots of complications, even more complications when flagging of vessels is considered.
Putting mercenaries on civilian vessels also brings similar problems, plus has the added problem that mercenaries do seem to tend to be mentally damaged idiots and few merchant captains(or crews) would relish the prospect of having armed mentally damaged individuals cooped up in the limited confines of their ship for any length of time.

the most stupid is all they have to do is sail far enough offshore so pirates cant reach them. they stay within sight of land to travel faster and save fuel in calmer waters and in doing so become easy targets. these pirates are in small open boats so sail 15 miles offshore and spend 10% more on fuel costs and problem solved.

if that cost too much then a few 50 cal, 2 on each side bow and stern and 4-8 guys who know how to man them is a cheaper solution. im not saying arm the whole fleet but just the ships that make that crossing. of course if you do that they will shoot women and children for a photo opt and throw the bodies and fishing poles in the shot up boat and scream murder.

That post makes no sense.

[AVGWarhawk]

I believe the vessels should be armed with the newest technology where real world data on the destructive force of said weapon can be obtained via use of said weapon on pirates and their vessels. :yeah:

[Jimbuna]

Well, looking at that map of a few posts ago....it will soon be a major problem for India and they will probably end up becoming one of the biggest naval contributors.

After that anything can happen.

[Oberon]

India would certainly have an interest in attacking a potential Islamist stronghold, but considering that they have one right on their doorstep I'd wager that they'd restrict their efforts to coastal waters rather than take up the mantle of trade protector of the Indian Ocean. After all, there's the whole Mexican standoff in Kashmir between India, Pakistan and China which could flare up again at any moment.
That being said, things have been very quiet between India and Pakistan of late, perhaps because of all the US forces in Afghanistan, but I wouldn't place my hopes in this being a permanent situation. Decades of hatred don't go away that quickly.

[nikimcbee]

We had a pretty good discussion in the last pirate thread, but I'll say it again: Q-ships.:Kaleun_Thumbs_Up:

[Stealhead]

International sea laws are what keeps the ships from themselves being armed.Now some do employ mercenaries that armed with small arms but this can be wishy washy as well from a legal standpoint depending on whose waters you are in.

The mercs must be boarding ships at sea as having any arms even small arms aboard a civilian vessel is illegal in many nations.


The whole thing is a complex problem in many respects which is why it has not yet been efficiently mitigated and probably never will be.I say this because there has been piracy in South East Asia especially along the Straights of Molucca but also in the South China Sea since the Dutch East India Company days and they have never stopped sometimes they are less active but they have been active for over 300 years.

The other problem is that once you arrest off kill pirates more will replace them.The majority choose piracy because they have no other viable source of income.(not trying to be a liberal bleed heart it is a root cause of the problem plan and simple.)

[Oberon]

The majority choose piracy because they have no other viable source of income.(not trying to be a liberal bleed heart it is a root cause of the problem plan and simple.)

http://www.worldofstock.com/slides/BIN3120.jpg

[Skybird]

That other pirates may come when some pirates get killed, is not really an argument to support a view that one should not care to fight and kill them. It is neither a pointless nor an immoral fight as long as you do not limit yourself by some inner handicap that says: killing 17 pirates is okay, but from the 18th on you have a moral problem. You judge your fight either to be right or wrong, and in case of the first it is okay with your conscience. If the fight's purpose is okay with your conscience, then it does not matter how many enemies you kill. If your conscience says the fight's purpose is not okay, then even killing just one will push you into moral crisis. The number of enemies killed simply is not the argument for or against the case here.

You could as well say you refuse to shoot at some street robber attacking you, or a rapist,m because more may come after them, attacking either you or somebody else.

In the end it costs just pennies and some seconds to machine-produce a bullet or a cartridge. Producing a baby pirate and growing it to a physically strong adult pirate, costs more of both. Now do the math.

Loosing freight and ship and paying millions in ransom that get turned into more sophisticated wepaons and boats for the pirates, is worse enough. But to think about the hostages mon th and years of martyrdom, their fear and the psychic as well as physical torturere they get forced to endure, is enough an argument for me to justify any means necessary to fight pirates to their total and complete defeat and annihilation. To me it is a moral principle that your own misery does not justify that you solve it at the cost of hadning the misery over to somebody else. That you got stolen money, does not give you the moral right to steal the compensation from somebody else. That you got mistreated and fate dealt badly with your, does not give you the moral right to do the same to you. That you are starving does not give you a moral right to torture somebody else or to kill him. That may be provoking a thought to some people here, especially social romantics, but I stick to it. Survival instincts may make people to act like in ther latter example, yes. But instincts and morals are two very different things anyway. Nature knows no morals. A predator is a predator, it acts by it's design and by instinct. A slaughterer or murderer is a slaughterer or murderer, he acts beside moral rules. A pirate is a pirate. If they aim at me with their actions and attacks, at my property or at those I love and protect, I reserve the right to fight them off, with lethal force if that is adequate. And that is no moral burden to my conscience at all. A moral burden it will be if I kill accidentally, or kill the wrong one.

[Oberon]

So, in short, nuke Somalia.

[Jimbuna]

Won't change a thing. The convoy leaves in 5 days but my vessel must unload tomorrow and will then remain for 4 days in the harbour waiting for the convoy to depart. Logistics aren't that simple. You have your ship in the wrong spot at the wrong time and you can wait for days if not weeks for the next convoy.

Well it certainly worked in the 40's :O:

[Jimbuna]

We had a pretty good discussion in the last pirate thread, but I'll say it again: Q-ships.:Kaleun_Thumbs_Up:
As did I also.....agreed :arrgh!:

[Skybird]

So, in short, nuke Somalia.

If conventional weapons do not work, yes. And if the costs-effects calculation in your eyes is such that the operation is favourable in your opinion.

If it is not, then you will need to live with growing piracy int he future. And it will spread, and infest more and more places of Africa and SE Asia, like we have seen it spreading and growing in recent years, due to Western indifference and lack of resolve, the modern scourges of the Western world. Because you set the example that piracy is a model that pays off.

Note this, Oberon, what I said on the military options does not rule out to rebalance world affairs and global business in such ways that there is fair trade, social perspective and all that, if this ios the policies somebody wants to try. But the daily news on burning textile factories in Bangladesh, Foxcon suicides and revolts in China and slave work in third world countries in general, supported by our own major producers, does not make me optimistic on that to happen anytime soon. And it is not what in this thread, for the most, has been talked about. When you discuss military ways do not feel provoked when I show you weapons. Talk was about how to fight pirates. I gave my idea on how to fight pirates. In principle it is this: bring the war to them, and destroy their means to act like pirates.

[Tribesman]

So, in short, nuke Somalia.
Its the only way to take out baby pirates.:doh:

[Platapus]

So, in short, nuke Somalia.

From orbit, it is the only way to be sure

[AVGWarhawk]

Its the only way to take out baby pirates.:doh:

How do you know there are baby pirates? :hmmm:

[Platapus]

Well it certainly worked in the 40's :O:

welllll...

From a convoy protection standpoint it worked. But from a shipping standpoint it was not a smooth tactic.

The convoy system was used during WWI and some of the history books I have comment on how much cargo was spoiled. There were similar stories during WWII.

One of the problems is that a convoy moves at the speed of the slowest ship. Different speed convoys helped with this by separating the faster cargo ships from the slower.

But one of the biggest problems was not the convoying across the ocean, the problem was the throughput at the harbours. Harbours were designed to support a steady flow of shipping in and out. What the convoy system does is break up this steady flow and deliver or remove a bunch of ships at one time. This creates not only logistical issues but also adversely affects the cargo and its market.

This put the merchant shipping companies in a quandary.

Trade some positive effect of increased security by participating in a convoy vs a measurable risk of spoilage or adverse effects on the market. and this is not an easy question to answer.

This is one reason that through both WWI and WWII, there was shipping that did not participate in the convoy system.

[Ducimus]

A comparatively inexpensive way to stop Pirates. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESFFFW0B64I)

Just sayin'.

EDIT:
Now this is what I'm talking about!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuCXwH0qspk

[Jimbuna]

welllll...

From a convoy protection standpoint it worked. But from a shipping standpoint it was not a smooth tactic.

The convoy system was used during WWI and some of the history books I have comment on how much cargo was spoiled. There were similar stories during WWII.

One of the problems is that a convoy moves at the speed of the slowest ship. Different speed convoys helped with this by separating the faster cargo ships from the slower.

But one of the biggest problems was not the convoying across the ocean, the problem was the throughput at the harbours. Harbours were designed to support a steady flow of shipping in and out. What the convoy system does is break up this steady flow and deliver or remove a bunch of ships at one time. This creates not only logistical issues but also adversely affects the cargo and its market.

This put the merchant shipping companies in a quandary.

Trade some positive effect of increased security by participating in a convoy vs a measurable risk of spoilage or adverse effects on the market. and this is not an easy question to answer.

This is one reason that through both WWI and WWII, there was shipping that did not participate in the convoy system.

Fair points.

One problem shouldn't be the lack of armed escorts, there are sufficient enough these days considering the number of countries piracy affects.

[Jimbuna]

A comparatively inexpensive way to stop Pirates. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESFFFW0B64I)

Just sayin'.

Most effective to boot :)

[Stealhead]

That other pirates may come when some pirates get killed, is not really an argument to support a view that one should not care to fight and kill them.

Where did i say that nothing should be done?:hmmm: I never once said that one should do nothing I merely stated the it was a complex problem.Case in point the pirates that have operated in South East Asia for hundreds of years.

The problem is that no one really wants to deal with the problem they would rather do more or less what is being done now with naval forces and some shipping companies using the mercs.But it seems clear that this does not seem to stop the flow.

I think that the reality is most nations and companies are willing to just deal with them and pay when they must.Because no one wants to actually go into Somalia and truly deal with the problem via any means.

@Ducimus second video that is a Russian Kord 12.7x108mm MG.

Looks like they also sometimes are choosing to fight even against military forces.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jwidx05ZdbU

[Ducimus]

@Ducimus second video that is a Russian Kord 12.7x108mm MG.



Well I knew it wasn't shooting any NATO sized rounds. My thought being, mount a weapon like that, and ventilate the pirates boat/skiff as they approach. The large report, and violence of action something like that can deliver would be one hell of a deterrent, assuming the gunner can manage the recoil and still get rounds on target.

I really think that piracy needs to be made so incredibly dangerous, and the odds of success so small, that eventually they'll give up and find a new line of work, because dying isn't much of a living.

[Tribesman]

How do you know there are baby pirates? :hmmm:

Well we don't, but you have to kill everyone anyway just in case there are some.


A comparatively inexpensive way to stop Pirates. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESFFFW0B64I)

Just sayin'.

EDIT:
Now this is what I'm talking about!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuCXwH0qspk
Inexpensive?
So lets take a busy month in pirateland, say 1800 ships just using the gulf of aden for the canal, add on a couple of thousand ships in coastal trade, a few thousand taking the southern route.
Put just four mercenaries on each boat and that's a hell of a big expensive wage bill even without all the overheads.
Now if you add the many many thousands of fishing vessels in the red sea and Indian ocean which are also subject to attack that "inexpensive" solution becomes a truly astronomical cost.
Just sayin'.

[Webster]

Inexpensive?
So lets take a busy month in pirateland, say 1800 ships just using the gulf of aden for the canal, add on a couple of thousand ships in coastal trade, a few thousand taking the southern route.
Put just four mercenaries on each boat and that's a hell of a big expensive wage bill even without all the overheads.
Now if you add the many many thousands of fishing vessels in the red sea and Indian ocean which are also subject to attack that "inexpensive" solution becomes a truly astronomical cost.
Just sayin'.


that make no sense at all

[Tribesman]

that make no sense at all
That's OK , you showed in post#12 that you had problems with geography and numbers so its not unexpected.

[Stealhead]

I really think that piracy needs to be made so incredibly dangerous, and the odds of success so small, that eventually they'll give up and find a new line of work, because dying isn't much of a living.

There in lies the problem for many of them there is no other viable income it is be a pirate or starve so they really are not that concerned with the prospect of death or imprisonment.

You could try and make it more difficult but that would cost a lot of money.I have a feeling that many of these shipping companies have considered costs and have come to the conclusion that simply dealing with the pirates is more cost effective.

Even the US Navy which is the largest has many other problems to deal with and places to have strength readily available so even the largest navy in world is not able to deal with these pirates at without leaving another place exposed.I also suspect that the pirates if a sizable increase in counter piracy where to occur they would simply lay low for a while.This is exactly what the pirates in South East Asia have done for years.

[Ducimus]

There in lies the problem for many of them there is no other viable income it is be a pirate or starve so they really are not that concerned with the prospect of death or imprisonment.

You could try and make it more difficult but that would cost a lot of money.I have a feeling that many of these shipping companies have considered costs and have come to the conclusion that simply dealing with the pirates is more cost effective.

Even the US Navy which is the largest has many other problems to deal with and places to have strength readily available so even the largest navy in world is not able to deal with these pirates at without leaving another place exposed.I also suspect that the pirates if a sizable increase in counter piracy where to occur they would simply lay low for a while.This is exactly what the pirates in South East Asia have done for years.

Honestly, I consider somali pirates in the same category as murders and rapists - a complete waste of oxygen. Every breath they draw, they're stealing oxygen from someone. I find the idea of paying them one red cent repugnant. For one, they get their way, and for two, it only encourages them to do it some more. Of all the idea being tossed around from convoy's, to naval patrols, to research being done in high tech incapacitating sound machines, i still think the bullet is the most economical means of dealing with them. I see it in terms of a choice. Shipping companies can either pay millions in non lethal feel good research and ransom fee's, or they can pay some armed guards salaries.

[Armistead]

Honestly, I consider somali pirates in the same category as murders and rapists - a complete waste of oxygen. Every breath they draw, they're stealing oxygen from someone. I find the idea of paying them one red cent repugnant. For one, they get their way, and for two, it only encourages them to do it some more. Of all the idea being tossed around from convoy's, to naval patrols, to research being done in high tech incapacitating sound machines, i still think the bullet is the most economical means of dealing with them. I see it in terms of a choice. Shipping companies can either pay millions in non lethal feel good research and ransom fee's, or they can pay some armed guards salaries.

Exactly!

Just arm all the crew and hire a few guards.

[Oberon]

If conventional weapons do not work, yes. And if the costs-effects calculation in your eyes is such that the operation is favourable in your opinion.

If it is not, then you will need to live with growing piracy int he future. And it will spread, and infest more and more places of Africa and SE Asia, like we have seen it spreading and growing in recent years, due to Western indifference and lack of resolve, the modern scourges of the Western world. Because you set the example that piracy is a model that pays off.

Note this, Oberon, what I said on the military options does not rule out to rebalance world affairs and global business in such ways that there is fair trade, social perspective and all that, if this ios the policies somebody wants to try. But the daily news on burning textile factories in Bangladesh, Foxcon suicides and revolts in China and slave work in third world countries in general, supported by our own major producers, does not make me optimistic on that to happen anytime soon. And it is not what in this thread, for the most, has been talked about. When you discuss military ways do not feel provoked when I show you weapons. Talk was about how to fight pirates. I gave my idea on how to fight pirates. In principle it is this: bring the war to them, and destroy their means to act like pirates.

Military options, in Somalia, are not feasible, for multiple reasons.
Let's start with an operation to hit the pirates bases, first you need to find them, and then you need to destroy them. Not particularly difficult, but then you'll need to do the same thing all over again in about a fortnight because the next wave of pirates will have set up new bases in a new area, and you'll have to continue this for an indefinite period of time. No-one in the west can afford such an operation right now, the US might be able to, but it's pretty broken at the moment and I don't think anyone in America would agree to military action against...well...anyone, after the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. The EU is similarly broken and would be lucky to agree on what to have for lunch, let alone a sustained offensive, and Russia and China don't really care enough at the moment, particularly since a lot of the Somalian pirates are carrying weapons saying 'Made in Russia' or 'Made in China'.
So, that's out.
So let's go to the other end of the spectrum, and take the General Ripper approach and nuke 'em. We'll use America in the scenario since they have the most active nukes (officially), and theirs are more likely to actually hit Somalia, whereas Chinas would hit the Pacific Ocean and Russias would probably hit Washington. Somalia has a coastline of 627,00km2, it's the 37th biggest coastline in the world. The W88 warhead has a yield of about 455kt, at airburst height it would have an air blast radius of about 90km2, and a thermal radiation range of 251km2. So, saying that you'd like to turn the entire coast of Somalia into a sea of radioactive fire, you would need approximately...2500 W88 warheads, or about half of the entire US arsenal of nuclear weapons. That's just for the coastline alone.
Of course, once you've done that then every other nation in the world will be queueing up to declare war on you, so those other 2500 warheads are probably going to get used pretty quickly and then you'll have very little country left at the end of it.

This is not Warhammer 40k, nukes are very rarely an option, not because of their destructive power (which is more limited that people realise) but because of the political side-effects of using one in a multi-nuclear environment.

So, if you can't hit them from the coast, and you can't nuke them, and let's face it, any land based attempt is just going to be another Afghanistan, and political suicide. What's left to do?

Exactly what they are doing right now.

Sod all.

Aid missions won't work, military options won't work, either on land or sea, so you just have to factor in a loss ratio based upon a rate of possible piracy action in the area. Warships might get lucky from time to time and catch some pirates or sink them, and they might lob a TLAM into a pirate base from time to time to generate some good headlines, but to actually stop it dead...not possible.

[nikimcbee]

A comparatively inexpensive way to stop Pirates. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESFFFW0B64I)

Just sayin'.

EDIT:
Now this is what I'm talking about!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuCXwH0qspk

This is how you fix the problem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLj3aYPXEEo

[Stealhead]

Honestly, I consider somali pirates in the same category as murders and rapists - a complete waste of oxygen. Every breath they draw, they're stealing oxygen from someone. I find the idea of paying them one red cent repugnant. For one, they get their way, and for two, it only encourages them to do it some more. Of all the idea being tossed around from convoy's, to naval patrols, to research being done in high tech incapacitating sound machines, i still think the bullet is the most economical means of dealing with them. I see it in terms of a choice. Shipping companies can either pay millions in non lethal feel good research and ransom fee's, or they can pay some armed guards salaries.


You are greatly underestimating the costs of employing a PMC to perform such duties it is pretty far from cheap.Which is why they are not employed on every single vessel and sometimes the international law of the sea prohibits such activities in the first place.Now that might seem stupid but the those international sea laws happen to prevent a lot of conflicts and other costly situations.Another issue is liability in the case there is a mistake is made if the crew or PMCs where to kill or cause damage to non pirates it would then cost them millions of dollars in liability.The latter is highly likely to occur even modern navies with all of their very high tech equipment and aircraft can not be sure what a given vessel may or may not be and there are plenty of harmless vessels out there.

I am just trying to point out that the problem is not as silly solved as it may seem and in fact many of the non lethal methods have actually proven highly effective so they are not a waste of money in fact they are often cheaper because the regular crew can often employ them.

[nikimcbee]

Most effective to boot :)

Actual footage, or GWX deck gun footage?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IldNCez8KeI

Where's the red triangle?:/\\k:

[Admiral Halsey]

I still say arming the ships with some old 5 inch naval guns would do the trick.

[Tribesman]

Honestly, I consider somali pirates in the same category as murders and rapists - a complete waste of oxygen. Every breath they draw, they're stealing oxygen from someone. I find the idea of paying them one red cent repugnant. For one, they get their way, and for two, it only encourages them to do it some more. Of all the idea being tossed around from convoy's, to naval patrols, to research being done in high tech incapacitating sound machines, i still think the bullet is the most economical means of dealing with them. I see it in terms of a choice. Shipping companies can either pay millions in non lethal feel good research and ransom fee's, or they can pay some armed guards salaries.

Exactly!

Just arm all the crew and hire a few guards.

I still say arming the ships with some old 5 inch naval guns would do the trick.

gunz gunz gunz.:doh:
If guns on board would solve the problem and be cost effective don't you think the shipping companies would have all adopted it by now?
After all they are only in it for the money so their interest is purely on cost and efficiency

[Admiral Halsey]

gunz gunz gunz.:doh:
If guns on board would solve the problem and be cost effective don't you think the shipping companies would have all adopted it by now?
After all they are only in it for the money so their interest is purely on cost and efficiency

I only suggested using old 5 inch naval guns for psychological reasons. Unless they're using something larger then a speedboat they're pretty much useless.(Still they would make them think twice before attacking hopefully.)

[AVGWarhawk]

gunz gunz gunz.:doh:
If guns on board would solve the problem and be cost effective don't you think the shipping companies would have all adopted it by now?
After all they are only in it for the money so their interest is purely on cost and efficiency

Perhaps there is a international law concerning arming merchant ships? Why else would they not arm the vessel?

[Ducimus]

You are greatly underestimating the costs of employing a PMC to perform such duties it is pretty far from cheap.

Well, originaly i said, "comparatively inexpensive." Compared to convoys and naval patrols, it is the least expensive option.


I am just trying to point out that the problem is not as silly solved as it may seem and in fact many of the non lethal methods have actually proven highly effective so they are not a waste of money in fact they are often cheaper because the regular crew can often employ them.

The world never is a simple place, and living within it is never without its risks. In terms of international law, i think it better to be judged by a court, then being held captive in somalia or dead. As non lethal goes, I am not a fan. I view it as some bleeding heart BS because someone is afraid they might hurt some scumbag even though their being attacked.

To the point, regardless of motive, someone attacking you with weaponry as somali pirates do, I view a matter of life or death. You have two options, defend yourself to the utmost of your ability or die. Being captured and subjected to the hands of some somali warlord is not even an option to me.

[Skybird]

To the point, regardless of motive, someone attacking you with weaponry as somali pirates do, I view a matter of life or death.
^This.

Fighting against pirates armed with medium MGs, rockets, assault rifles and pistols by using water hoses or sound phalanxes, is somewhat missing the point.

And the words of some I think British general are on my mind: "Of course we could have turned and run away. But why dying tired?"

The pirate who escapes will come back to haunt another victim. If you take him out, he won't. Good for you, good for the potential future victim. It cannot be disputed that your interest to stay free and unharmed ranks higher than that of the armed and attacking pirate to capture you and your ship and goods, having you at the mercy of his hands, fearing for your life, getting imprisoned for months if not years, getting tortured, humiliated, raped, traumatized.

[Armistead]

I still say arming the ships with some old 5 inch naval guns would do the trick.


You could install a few computer chain guns, one gunner.:yeah:

[Tribesman]

Perhaps there is a international law concerning arming merchant ships? Why else would they not arm the vessel?
You can go back to any of the previous Somali pirates topic for all the complications of international maritime law.
But another problem is domestic laws.
Say you have a Greek containership insured in London with Maltese registration an Indian crew and Danish officers doing runs out of Oman through Suez to Hamburg.
How many different countries laws come into effect?
Gets real complicated very quick doesn't it:yep:
Now add on board some Australian mercenaries working for a French firm operating out of the Maldives.


Well, originaly i said, "comparatively inexpensive." Compared to convoys and naval patrols, it is the least expensive option.



Any figures to back that up?
Its a pretty tall claim considering the sheer volume of shipping in the area.

The world never is a simple place, and living within it is never without its risks.
Its never a simple place, but you are trying a very over simplified solution.

As non lethal goes, I am not a fan. I view it as some bleeding heart BS because someone is afraid they might hurt some scumbag even though their being attacked.
Whereas the reality is the "bleeding heart BS" is really about avoiding the cost of hurting the innocent.

[AVGWarhawk]

You can go back to any of the previous Somali pirates topic for all the complications of international maritime law.



No I don't. Of course there is Maritime Law. My post was not really a question. If by law the vessels could be armed I'm certain they would be loaded for bear. Or pirates. :arrgh!:

[Webster]

That's OK , you showed in post#12 that you had problems with geography and numbers so its not unexpected.

lol, the only problem I have is I forget to ignore trolls like you who argue just to argue because you have nothing better to do.

carry on with yourself being counter to logical reasoning

[Mr Quatro]

The movie might be good and worth watching, but like all movies they have departed from the actual truth of Captain Phillips being a hero. In fact he says in his book that he was no hero, but the media took off with the title.

He was no hero and in fact the crew says that he was to blame for being that close to the pirates ability to capture a ship.

He was told to go out 600 to 1,200 miles farther out than the route he took with emails and even by his own officers.

'Captain Phillips' crew members claim mariner to blame for pirate ordeal in lawsuit (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/captain-phillips-crew-members-claim-mariner-hero-50m-lawsuit-article-1.1478527)


New York Daily News ·
Several of the former crew members of the real-life "Captain Phillips" are telling a much different tale than the…


He says that he was not use to taking orders and that his shipping route was to save the company fuel.

[Tribesman]

lol, the only problem I have is I forget to ignore trolls like you who argue just to argue because you have nothing better to do.

What a silly comment.

carry on with yourself being counter to logical reasoning
Young man, you displayed no logic and no ability at reasoning.
Your posts were devoid of anything resembling fact and when called on the rubbish you wrote you just spouted more nonsense as a troll:down:
Its amazing how some people respond with emotional rubbish when they are shown to be not making sense.

[Jimbuna]

Can we try to stay on topic without resorting to insults and personal attacks.

[Onkel Neal]

What a silly comment.


Young man, you displayed no logic and no ability at reasoning.
Your posts were devoid of anything resembling fact and when called on the rubbish you wrote you just spouted more nonsense as a troll:down:
Its amazing how some people respond with emotional rubbish when they are shown to be not making sense.


You have a lot of talent at turning any topic into a contentious discussion.

[Tribesman]

You have a lot of talent at turning any topic into a contentious discussion.
It all depends on the subject and the particular arguments being made in the discussion
Post#12 had no bearing on reality and the suggestions of adding 18,000(+extras) a day per ship to the cost of shipping does nothing to address either the problem or the underlying problem coming out of Somalia(and Yemen)which we are all paying for.

[Ducimus]

I love my ignore list. It keeps me out of so many damn pointless arguments with people who are simply not worth the time to bicker with and need to be dropped into the "phuckit bucket". Originally said list had but one name on it. Over the years said list has grown to ten names of varying stripes; and has saved me from countless forum infractions. I would encourage it's use to others.

[AVGWarhawk]

It all depends on the subject and the particular arguments being made in the discussion
Post#12 had no bearing on reality and the suggestions of adding 18,000(+extras) a day per ship to the cost of shipping does nothing to address either the problem or the underlying problem coming out of Somalia(and Yemen)which we are all paying for.

Glad that is cleared up. I did hear the movie was not that bad.

[Tchocky]

Convoys aren't feasible due to the nature of modern commerce. The same goes for putting armed guards on every ship. If it was suggested to have an armed guard on every freight truck, I'm sure the cost objection would come up sooner - yet it's exactly the same principle here!

Shipping companies operate on very tight schedules and very tight profit margins. Because all of us like free Super Saver Delivery (use the SUBSIM link!).

The insurance aspect is also frightfully complex - it often is simpler and cheaper to pay a ransom. You might say that it makes the problem worse, and you'd be right.

Here's the thing - the problem of piracy is not for the shipping companies to solve. Take precautions yes, and be safe. But correcting the issues of a failed state with rampant piracy isn't your issue. It's for the wider community.

If we're posting armed guards on ships we may as well hand out letters of marque.


A note for the thread and forum at large - increasing your textual levels of visceral hatred doesn't count as argument. There's a reason "shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out" isn't carved in the halls of academia.

[Tchocky]

Can we try to stay on topic without resorting to insults and personal attacks.

Jim, we can always try!

[Tribesman]

The insurance aspect is also frightfully complex - it often is simpler and cheaper to pay a ransom.
One aspect of that is if the mercenaries and their weaponry don't have all the correct paperwork for all the states involved(which the vessel must verify itself) the ship is technically smuggling illegal weapons, it is also criminally liable for any use of those weapons during passage, plus the ships insurance is declared invalid.
People are wanting simple solutions, but the truth is that there are not any.
It would be slightly less complex if a nations ships sailed under that nations flag, but more that half the worlds ships sail under foreign flags to reduce costs and avoid their own countries laws.

[Jimbuna]

Jim, we can always try!

Well, my tolerance level is starting to diminish and that may lead to 'actions speaking louder than words' if that is the only way to get through to some people.

[nikimcbee]

Just thought of this, how many ships have been taken that had armed crews on them? (more than just small arms)

So I had two ideas (one of them is old)

I want to add to my Q-ship idea. First, if I was a admiral in [insert navy here] and I wanted my special ops troops to get some real life training and do some good at the same time I would get a Q-ship operation going and start taking these guys out.
Now, first off, this would be a black ops mission.

As I understand it, the Somali pirates monitor shipping traffic, ports in the region, so I would make sure everybody knew I had valuable cargo on my ship, then let them attack me.:Kaleun_Binocular: The idea would be, pirates go out to sea and never return. The poor sods, their boat must have capsized.

Now part two of my idea, so the pirates will figure out something is up at some point, so I think there is someting the shipping companies could do that would be easy and inexpensive. Make the pirates think they are armed. (Maskirovka) mount dummy guns, advertise your ship is now armed.
Now, my idea doesn't work for random attacks, but if they were approaching a ship and thought it was armed to the teeth...:hmmm:

Something like this:
http://bugguide.net/images/cache/XLBZ8LVZZLZRXHTHWHTHXHBHMHDHIHGZIHAH4H8ZHLGZ7LGZIH PZSL6Z8H5ZRLVH0LDHKLAH6HVZILNZ4LWZZLGZXL.jpg
Is that a wasp or a fly? I'd bet if you saw that black and yellow, you'd think twice about messing with it.:know:

Hopefully, you create just enough dought in that pirate ship captain's mind to leave you alone.

[Bubblehead1980]

Just silly ships are not armed and crews not trained to engage pirates.Should be up to each ship and company.Each crew member should have advanced small arms training, should have .50 cal machine guns and even an RPG for extreme emergencies.This is same idiotic concept some gun control loons have about not owning a gun, just calling the police.Well much like the police, the US Navy etc can't always be there to save the ship.Captain Phillip's was lucky it worked out for him, some pirates dead, he lived, world is a better place.

What the pirates do is wrong but it's a symptom of a broken country.Honestly, if the US east coast was in the shape somalia is and had billions worth of shipping cruising up and down the coast, you don't think there would be "Carolinian Pirates?" or "Georgian Pirates"? There would be.Does not mean we cut them a break etc or try to save them, but understanding why is a key part.They are not the manifestation of evil for most part, just impoverished desperate people trying to survive.Does not excuse it, but explains it.

[nikimcbee]

So as anyone seen it yet?

[Onkel Neal]

Just thought of this, how many ships have been taken that had armed crews on them? (more than just small arms)
.

I'm willing to bet: none. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/12/us-somalia-piracy-idUSBRE91B19Y20130212)

In truth, the Queen Mary 2 - carrying 2,500 passengers and 1,300 crew from Southampton to Dubai on the first leg of a world cruise - is not particularly at risk.

The liner is fast, hard to board and - on this passage at least - moderately well armed.

Like many merchant vessels, the QM2 now carries armed private contractors when passing through areas of pirate risk.

Cunard will not discuss precise security arrangements. But contractors on other vessels routinely carry M-16-type assault rifles and sometimes belt-fed machine guns, often picked up from ships acting as floating offshore armouries near Djibouti and Sri Lanka.

Additional lookouts from the ship's regular onboard security force - mostly Filipinos - are also posted on the main deck to give warning of any suspicious craft.

It's really simple, as you suggest, just carry and small security party and the risk diminishes greatly. Seems daft to send a billion dollar ship and crew anywhere near these waters without some common sense security.

[nikimcbee]

You would think this would be "Happy Times" :Kaleun_Cheers: for every private security firm or mercenary service hunting pirates there.

Do something along the Flying Tigers idea.
http://www.sofmag.com/

[Jimbuna]

Vessels like the QM2 must be very tempting when you take into account the amount of high cost merchandise they carry, not to mention the millions of pounds/dollars onboard and the potential ransom for such a huge ship and literally thousands of crew and passengers.

If my source is correct there is usually a detachment equivalent to a platoon 20/30 personnel carrying concealed sidearms and a cache of automatic weapons stored out of sight of the passengers in a secure location which can quickly be utilised in an emergency situation.

[nikimcbee]

I was walking between buildings at work the other day, and I was thinking, is this still a rampant problem there (around Somalia).

[CaptainHaplo]

I love my ignore list. It keeps me out of so many damn pointless arguments with people who are simply not worth the time to bicker with and need to be dropped into the "phuckit bucket". Originally said list had but one name on it. Over the years said list has grown to ten names of varying stripes; and has saved me from countless forum infractions. I would encourage it's use to others.

Sadly, some people insist on quoting pointless people - which means I still end up reading part of the garbage they put out. ARGH! LOL.

[Tribesman]

I was walking between building at work the other day, and I was thinking, is this still a rampant problem there (around Somalia).
As the patrols and convoys cover an area it shifts beyond that area. Likewise with the mercenaries joining ships from a regional port or from the floating armouries, it just gives a handy cut off point for the pirates to adapt to.
One knock on affect of the measures to clear the sea lanes has been the criminals move to attacks on tourists and commerce in neighbouring states instead.

[Red October1984]

This was an excellent movie.

Loved it. :up:

[Sailor Steve]

What was? We were talking about a movie? :o

:O:

[Red October1984]

What was? We were talking about a movie? :o

:O:

Oh...so it's been one of those threads...

:arrgh!:

[Tribesman]

This is what is needed.
http://www.advanfort.com/index.php?page=press-materials&panel=counter-piracy-fleet&section=1&title=Counter-Piracy Fleet&subtitle=Seaman Guard Ohio&img=6
Ships like that can make all the difference


Unfortunately....Indian Coast Guard arrests mercenaries.
http://www.thestatesman.net/news/19653-ship-carrying-arms-and-security-guards-detained-coast-guard.html
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/ship-with-armed-guards-detained-in-indian-waters/article5229375.ece
apparently paperwork is a problem and different countries have different laws

[Mr Quatro]

This was an excellent movie.

Loved it. :up:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smartdark/viewpost.gif (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2127301#post2127301)
What was? We were talking about a movie? :o


Oh...so it's been one of those threads...

:arrgh!:

How dare you start talking about the op ... :o

Don't you have a thread, that you yourself started, for movies you can post that kind of stuff in :woot:

These people are in a serious discussion about what do about pirates :arrgh!:

[Tribesman]

How dare you start talking about the op ... :o

Don't you have a thread, that you yourself started, for movies you can post that kind of stuff in :woot:

These people are in a serious discussion about what do about pirates :arrgh!:
From the OP.....On a side note, how ridiculous is it these shipping companies send their crews and cargo into areas of the world where this could happen, and don't provide armed security?
The first reply followed on the content of the OP and it has continued since that.
now it is quite unusual for a thread to stay entirely on the points raised in the OP, but this one seem to have
:woot:

[TorpX]

I saw this at moviefone.com:

Over the weekend, "Captain Phillips (http://www.moviefone.com/movie/captain-phillips/55267/main‎)," a true-life adventure based on the hijacking of a freighter off the coast of Somalia, won rave reviews and a respectable box office. The film was buoyed largely by the praise of Tom Hanks' performance as the titular captain, who in the film is a bastion of heroic stoicism. But not so, say some of the crew members who actually worked with Captain Phillips.

"Phillips wasn't the big leader like he is in the movie," one crew member told the New York Post anonymously (http://nypost.com/2013/10/13/crew-members-deny-captain-phillips-heroism/). According to him, Phillips had a horrible reputation for being "sullen and self-righteous," adding that, "No one wants to sail with him." After the hijacking, 11 crew members sued the freighter company; Phillips was a witness for the defense.

The crew member also points to what he considers to be recklessness on the part of Phillips, who was warned of increased piracy in the area and told to stay at least 600 miles off Somalia's coast (at the time of the hijacking, the boat was 240 miles of the coast). According to this anonymous source, there was not one but two pirate attacks on the ship over an 18 -hour period; only one was depicted in the movie. The first happened during a routine fire drill (in the film it's a security drill). "We said, 'You want us to knock it off and go to our pirate stations?' " the crew member recalled to the Post. "And he goes, 'Oh, no, no, no -- you've got to do the lifeboats drill.' This is how screwed up he is. These are drills we need to do once a year. Two boats with pirates and he doesn't give a s- -t. That's the kind of guy he is."

Sony paid most of the men, although some as little as $5,000, and forced them to sign nondisclosure agreements so that they couldn't speak out against the actual events once the movie had opened.

"They told us they would change some stuff," the anonymous crew member told the post, laughing. He had already seen the movie. "It's a good movie... Real entertaining."


As usual, events have been fictionalized, but then Hollywood is in the fiction business.

[Jimbuna]

I saw this at moviefone.com:



As usual, events have been fictionalized, but then Hollywood is in the fiction business.


Can't say I'm all that surprised.

[soopaman2]

Someone earlier brought up q-ships kinda as a gag.

It got me thinking about maritime law as it is.

Why can a ship not defend itself, why no arms allowed on trade vessels?

Maybe the law should be changed so arms cannot be used offensively or to intimidate, but only to defend themselves.

Why no arms allowed?

It took the military to end this, how many ships being pillaged by pirates are as lucky as the Maersk?... most are just taken...Most are just chalked up as a loss....

What about them?

Captain Phillips was not the brave one on this, the Navy Seals who saved him were.

[Tribesman]

Why can a ship not defend itself
They can.
why no arms allowed on trade vessels?

They are allowed.

[soopaman2]

I understand that tribesman, but the minute these ships reach port, it can and will be a problem in most ports. If it was OK, to hide a recoiless rifle behind a tarp that looks like crates, then it would be done, but it is not, and we got barefoot skinnies stealing millions of dollars of freight with zero impediment.

Problems with armed merchants come when trying to come into port, the UN has silly rules.

They can even be turned away from port.. Which is why most if not all ships go unarmed.

But having a large bore gun, and a few automatic rifles will stop most piracy.

Most of them are barefooted, break some glass on the deck, then shoot them dead, why are merchants unable to defend themselves?

[Bilge_Rat]

them pirates are none too smart...


A Proposed Movie Deal for a Piracy Suspect Has a Surprise Ending: His Arrest


BRUSSELS — The only thing more enticing to a pirate than treasure, according to Belgian authorities, is the chance to see himself in a movie.

A man suspected of being a pirate mastermind arrived in Brussels on Saturday expecting to sign a deal for a movie about his swashbuckling past in the Somali piracy business. Instead, he found himself under arrest, charged with kidnapping, organized crime and, of course, piracy.

Johan Delmulle, a Belgian federal prosecutor, said Monday that Mohamed Abdi Hassan, a pirate leader also known as Afweyne, had been arrested as he left a flight at the Brussels airport. Mohamed Aden, described as his accomplice, was also arrested.




http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/15/world/europe/a-proposed-movie-deal-for-a-piracy-suspect-has-a-surprise-ending-his-arrest.html?ref=world

[Tribesman]

I understand that tribesman, but the minute these ships reach port, it can and will be a problem in most ports. If it was OK, to hide a recoiless rifle behind a tarp that looks like crates, then it would be done, but it is not, and we got barefoot skinnies stealing millions of dollars of freight with zero impediment.

Problems with armed merchants come when trying to come into port, the UN has silly rules.

It isn't the UN "silly rules" which come into play on entering a territory, its each country having its own laws.
I am sure you cannot object to sovereign States making their own laws?:hmmm:

[Jimbuna]

them pirates are none too smart...



Now that made me laugh :)