Inaccurate assessments on the capabilities and effectiveness of a particular private security company aside, I'd think it would likely be prohibitively expensive to put a security team that was big enough and well armed enough to do the job on each and every ship that travels through that area. After all only a tiny fraction of the huge number of ships that transit the area every day are attacked.

No one is paying to have them on every ship.
You, the ship owner are paying to have them on your ship, if you want them.
If the cost of security outweighs the risk of losing your ship, then you don't
need security.

Besides, I doubt tax-funded missile cruisers, helicopters and marines are
much cheaper to say the least.

Exactly. Which is why you don't see security on these ships.

Then if they don't think they need security; why give it to them?

If you don't buy locks for your doors, you can't complain if you are robbed.


ed: we can do some math here....How many ships sail through there per
month and how any are pirated each month?
What is the average cost to a shipping company per ship pirated?

It might not be realistic to do convoys. I don't know the exact numbers so I don't know how feasible it is. It could be hundreds of ships per day in both directions. It might just be a handful. Seems like it would be a massive effort to coordinate something like that.
I'd wonder how many ships and of what type all of them sent. From what I've read it's a token effort compared to the combined naval resources of the participating countries.

What do you think of the idea of sending a "boatload" of warships into the area. I mean so many to the point of obvious overkill. A Carrier group from each country, a slew of destroyers, air recon, etc. Throw everything at them, show them it's game over and it won't be tolerated. The sooner the better.

Some might argue that it's cost prohibitive to send that many resources. But the question needs to be asked; How much will it cost if we don't do it? There should be a sense of urgency to get this done. Every ransom paid is funding the construction of an enemy force. The stronger we make them, the tougher it will be to eliminate them. They're going to start buying more sophisticated weapons and very soon we're going to have a real war with real casualties.

That could be a possible solution. Or, it's quite possible the 4 pints of ale I just drank is just making me want to go out and bomb the living shiznit out of some pirates.

:D:rotfl:

Here is an interesting link i came across, it also has a list of the top 20 "non lethal" methods to deter pirates -
http://gcaptain.com/maritime/blog/

Here are the suggestions - (Check out the "Dazzle Gun")
http://gcaptain.com/maritime/blog/an...iracy-somalia/

Number 1 "Denial Of Ransom" has got to be the most serious contender here. In relation to the list that is. :hmmm:

Would likely result in some crewmembers getting killed, or some ships getting scuttled.

A 100 000 DWT tanker getting scuttled would make for a mess of epic proportion...

It isn't an offence , its just that each area of territorial waters has different firearm laws that go with their country , so you noy only have to comply with all the different laws in the ports you are stopping at you also have to comply with those of all the territorial waters you pass through . So a ship on a standard voyage might have to follow dozen different sets of laws and get a dozen different sets of paperwork if it wants to carry weapons .
Its OK if you are off on a cruise in your own boat and you have the time for all the papework or if you are on a regular commercial A-B run , but for most commercial traffic it just gets too complicated .

@ Tribesman: Thanks for the clarification on that; I was aware that there were restrictions but as you put it, it would be a bloody nightmare to have your comercial crew armed.

@ Etienne: Valid point you make there about scuttling of a ship on that scale, if one reads the BBC reports about the attempted boarding of the American flag ship “Liberty Sun” yesterday, this was the apparent only intention of the pirates. (Kill the crew and scuttle the ship in revenge for the recent fatal shooting of their fellow Beardies)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7999350.stm

@ all: Looks like the UN are paying this issue some lip service! - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8001102.stm

Let’s us see what the next course of action is that the international community decides to take to tackle this issue.
Quite honestly, I would not fancy my odds being a Somali pirate at the moment!

France – 14
USA – 4

…and counting :arrgh!:

The bottom line here has got to be adherence of the fundamental principle that people must face up to the consequences of their actions.

The sooner these people are educated/informed to this fact the sooner they can make an informed choice fully in the knowledge of the risks they are taking should they fail to heed the lesson.

This has all the makeings of a Movie\ Tv series or Video game. :hmmm:

I totally agree with this. Diplomatic efforts should be focused on making naval security firms permissable in as many nations as possible.

Quite frankly, convoys are not a workeable option. Modern trade is heavily dependant on "just-in-time" delivery. It saves on storage and demurrage costs and makes products cheaper. Unless you're all willing to pay a few more dollars for "pirate-safe" products, this isn't going to happen. And then of course there is the cost of operating and maintaining the escorts, which would be astronomical.
Convoys are too expensive and inflexible to be conducive to modern trade whether they use a relay system or anything else.
Arming merchants presents a similar problem in that lots of nations won't allow armed merchants into their waters or ports. Naval gunnery is a difficult art to learn and can be highly inaccurate unless some sort of fire control is used. Shipping companies are not going to buy FCS systems, nor are they going to train crews to operate naval artillery.
Even if they did, someone would have to be on watch for the pirates, which would probably mean permanently increasing the crew roster. No shipping company would like that plan.

Private security firms avoid these problems. They are very flexible and effective. They are already well-trained, and the small arms they would bring aboard would be more than enough to stop a handful of a$$holes in a motorboat. They could be embarked and disembarked almost on demand. They could even avoid a lot of weapons controls because there would only be a need for them at a few ports, thus making the problem more manageable.
Of course, the conduct of private military contractors has been questioned many times, but I am of the opinion that this has more to do with unfair press coverage than anything else. That's another post entirely but I'd be happy to argue on behalf of the PMCs. I had the priviledge of working with Blackwater employees in Iraq and I was very impressed with them. Much moreso than I was with our own troops.:shifty: