Captain Phillips

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Its the only way to take out baby pirates.

How do you know there are baby pirates?

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Well it certainly worked in the 40's

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]

Just sayin'.

EDIT:
Now this is what I'm talking about!

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Platapus

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]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Just sayin'.

Most effective to boot

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by 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.

Where did i say that nothing should be done? 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.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

@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.

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

How do you know there are baby pirates?

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

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Just sayin'.

EDIT:
Now this is what I'm talking about!

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'.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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

Originally Posted by Webster

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]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

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]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

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]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Just sayin'.

EDIT:
Now this is what I'm talking about!

This is how you fix the problem: