Captain Phillips
 

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. :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.

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.

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.

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

(emphasis added)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

This is just stupid.

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:

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.

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.

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.)

Hm.

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


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

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.

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.

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.

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.

That post makes no sense.

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:

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.

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.