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.

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

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

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

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.)

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

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

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.

^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.

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

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.


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

Its never a simple place, but you are trying a very over simplified solution.

Whereas the reality is the "bleeding heart BS" is really about avoiding the cost of hurting the innocent.

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!:

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

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

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.

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