Screwball Rules of Engagement

Bill Nichols · 02-05-11, 07:50 AM

I just read this story ( http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...pirate-attack/ ) and it really got my dander up!

Here's the short version:

In a statement, the Navy says, "While transiting in international waters, the merchant vessel reported that pirates were attempting to board the vessel. Momsen and Bunker Hill, which were in the vicinity, immediately responded to the Duqm's distress signal and caused two pirates skiffs alongside the vessel with ladders against its hull to flee the area. Momsen and Bunker Hill tracked the skiffs movement and located the mothership that facilitated the attempted boarding of Duqm, towing the two empty skiffs. Consistent with the U.N. Security Council Resolutions on piracy and U.S. rules of engagement, Momsen destroyed the two skiffs to prevent their use for future attacks."

These pirates are caught red-handed, and our ROE only allow us to put holes in their skiffs??? What about the mothership? Did the Navy simply let it go?

What the Navy needs is more warriors, and fewer lawyers. More focus on maritime security, less on political correctness.

God! If I could only be President for a day!!!

UnderseaLcpl · 02-05-11, 08:07 AM

Don't even get me started on ROEs, Bill. Trust me, it gets even worse than this incident would lead one to believe.

02-05-11, 08:08 AM

Quote:

These pirates are caught red-handed, and our ROE only allow us to put holes in their skiffs??? What about the mothership? Did the Navy simply let it go?

What the Navy needs is more warriors, and fewer lawyers. More focus on maritime security, less on political correctness.

God! If I could only be President for a day!!!

Its bugger all to do with political correctness, its to do with the possibility of managing to kill all the hostages that may be held on the mothership.
India showed how easy it is to screw up when tackling a pirates mothership.

Quote:

God! If I could only be President for a day!!!

If you could find a way to determine at sea who on the ship is guilty of piracy and who is an innocent hostage and found a way to board the ship and sieze it from armed men without endangering the hostages then forget about being elected president for a day, stand for the office of god.

Platapus · 02-05-11, 08:33 AM

it would be interesting to find a citation for these rules of engagement.

tater · 02-05-11, 09:58 AM

If innocents aboard drove ROE (they do, now, clearly), then the US subs in the PTO would have had to let most every jap ship go on its merry way. As it was, US submarines killed many thousands of POWs over the course of the war.

If we send boarding parties to clear each ship, then people will get killed who shouldn't (our guys, and possibly hostages, too). Maybe the new normal needs to be the assumption that hostages are already dead and make being a pirate FAR more dangerous than it is now.

What would the mothership do if we pulled nearby, and told them to heave to and be boarded, or we sink the ship, then churn the water like it was the Battle of the Bismarck Sea?

Rockstar · 02-05-11, 01:47 PM

The mother ship has an owner and that owner may not be aware of the ships extra curricular activities. Sink the mother ship you owe the owner a new ship.

Before firing to sink the mother ship they would also need to make sure there are not people on board being held against their will. Attempt to board a suspected mother ship with drugged out pirates and you invite harm to come to your boarding party before they even see the whites of their eyes.

Those skiffs were tracked and it was obvious to everyone nobody was on board so they were sunk without incident. Arbitrarily sinking the mother ship could get real messy.

August · 02-05-11, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockstar

The mother ship has an owner and that owner may not be aware of the ships extra curricular activities. Sink the mother ship you owe the owner a new ship.

That's an interesting concept. Can you show where such a thing is codified in any law anywhere?

Freiwillige · 02-05-11, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockstar

The mother ship has an owner and that owner may not be aware of the ships extra curricular activities. Sink the mother ship you owe the owner a new ship.

Before firing to sink the mother ship they would also need to make sure there are not people on board being held against their will. Attempt to board a suspected mother ship with drugged out pirates and you invite harm to come to your boarding party before they even see the whites of their eyes.

Those skiffs were tracked and it was obvious to everyone nobody was on board so they were sunk without incident. Arbitrarily sinking the mother ship could get real messy.

I look at it like this, If your kid get caught drinking and driving in your car the car gets impounded. It is your responsibility to trust and know who you loan your vehicle to. It is the ship owners responsibility to know who and what is going on with their vessel.

If their ship is being used for Piracy then they deserve the loss just for not being up on what their vessel is being used for.

I say Torpedo Los!

Jimbuna · 02-05-11, 03:15 PM

Why shouldn't it be possible to 'disable' the mother ship if they refuse to be boarded?

August · 02-05-11, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbuna

Why shouldn't it be possible to 'disable' the mother ship if they refuse to be boarded?

Sending it down to Davy Jones Locker would be a form of disabling it I suppose.

Growler · 02-05-11, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Sending it down to Davy Jones Locker would be a form of disabling it I suppose.

Yeah, but then Greenpeace, the EPA, whomever get all bunged up griping you out for it.

I tell you, ya can't win.

Though, I gotta say it: The Coast Guard's sharpshooters, using a .50, from a helo in flight, are pretty good at disabling go-fasts' engines for their seaborne brethren and sisters to round up... gotta love that.

August · 02-05-11, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Growler

Yeah, but then Greenpeace, the EPA, whomever get all bunged up griping you out for it.

I tell you, ya can't win.

Though, I gotta say it: The Coast Guard's sharpshooters, using a .50, from a helo in flight, are pretty good at disabling go-fasts' engines for their seaborne brethren and sisters to round up... gotta love that.

Jimbuna · 02-05-11, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Sending it down to Davy Jones Locker would be a form of disabling it I suppose.

True but I was thinking more in terms of taking out the prop.

02-05-11, 07:50 PM

Quote:

It is your responsibility to trust and know who you loan your vehicle to. It is the ship owners responsibility to know who and what is going on with their vessel.

So if someone steals your car and kills someone by driving it dangerously you are responsible for the killing?
You think these "motherships" are out on loan to the pirates

Quote:

Why shouldn't it be possible to 'disable' the mother ship if they refuse to be boarded?

That still leaves you with a hostage situation

Gargamel · 02-05-11, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribesman

That still leaves you with a hostage situation

On a disabled ship, that you are now forced to board in order to rescue both the pirates and the hostages.

Sure they can disable it, but then what?

If the navy's aren't goignt o do anything about it, I fully expect the companies that own these ships to start arming them (more than they already are). If they can't trust they're (or the worlds) governments to protect the shipping lanes that are vital to the world economy, and their profit margins, then they'll have to take matters into their own hands.

02-05-11, 07:50 AM	#1
Bill Nichols Master of Defense Join Date: Mar 2000 Posts: 1,502 Downloads: 125 Uploads: 0	Screwball Rules of Engagement I just read this story ( http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...pirate-attack/ ) and it really got my dander up! Here's the short version: In a statement, the Navy says, "While transiting in international waters, the merchant vessel reported that pirates were attempting to board the vessel. Momsen and Bunker Hill, which were in the vicinity, immediately responded to the Duqm's distress signal and caused two pirates skiffs alongside the vessel with ladders against its hull to flee the area. Momsen and Bunker Hill tracked the skiffs movement and located the mothership that facilitated the attempted boarding of Duqm, towing the two empty skiffs. Consistent with the U.N. Security Council Resolutions on piracy and U.S. rules of engagement, Momsen destroyed the two skiffs to prevent their use for future attacks." These pirates are caught red-handed, and our ROE only allow us to put holes in their skiffs??? What about the mothership? Did the Navy simply let it go? What the Navy needs is more warriors, and fewer lawyers. More focus on maritime security, less on political correctness. God! If I could only be President for a day!!! __________________ My Dangerous Waters website:

02-05-11, 08:07 AM	#2
UnderseaLcpl Silent Hunter Join Date: May 2008 Location: Storming the beaches! Posts: 4,254 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Don't even get me started on ROEs, Bill. Trust me, it gets even worse than this incident would lead one to believe. __________________ I stole this sig from Task Force

02-05-11, 08:33 AM	#4
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 18,948 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	it would be interesting to find a citation for these rules of engagement. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

02-05-11, 01:47 PM	#6
Rockstar Rear Admiral Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Zendia Bar & Grill Posts: 11,834 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	The mother ship has an owner and that owner may not be aware of the ships extra curricular activities. Sink the mother ship you owe the owner a new ship. Before firing to sink the mother ship they would also need to make sure there are not people on board being held against their will. Attempt to board a suspected mother ship with drugged out pirates and you invite harm to come to your boarding party before they even see the whites of their eyes. Those skiffs were tracked and it was obvious to everyone nobody was on board so they were sunk without incident. Arbitrarily sinking the mother ship could get real messy. __________________ Guardian of the honey and nuts Let's assume I'm right, it'll save time.

02-05-11, 03:15 PM	#9
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 181,146 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	Why shouldn't it be possible to 'disable' the mother ship if they refuse to be boarded? __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!! GWX3.0 Download Page - Donation/instant access to GWX (Help SubSim)

02-05-11, 09:58 AM	#5
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	If innocents aboard drove ROE (they do, now, clearly), then the US subs in the PTO would have had to let most every jap ship go on its merry way. As it was, US submarines killed many thousands of POWs over the course of the war. If we send boarding parties to clear each ship, then people will get killed who shouldn't (our guys, and possibly hostages, too). Maybe the new normal needs to be the assumption that hostages are already dead and make being a pirate FAR more dangerous than it is now. What would the mothership do if we pulled nearby, and told them to heave to and be boarded, or we sink the ship, then churn the water like it was the Battle of the Bismarck Sea?