Forbidden Donut

International pirates hold captains ransom all the time, and they almost always turn them over when they receive the money (if they didn't, their kidnappings wouldn't be so financially rewarding).

Its bullshit that they ever get to even board the ships. Blow those fuckers out of the water before they get to your boat.

And what would they do that with exactly? Their man-cannons?

Or we could cut off shipping through the region and watch their money dry up. That's a thought.

Can't be that hard to target these guys' hangouts. Drop a couple cruise missiles and I don't think they're going to bother anyone anymore.

Or follow the Navy's stance.


Anything with 50 yards gets blow out of the water, no questions asked.

This isn't Pirates of the Carribean, mang. They don't all chill in one bar on an island. There are literally dozens of these groups scattered across the water around the coast. And all of them are making more money in one kidnapping than anyone else they have ever met who isn't pirating. Blow up half of them, and I guarantee you the void will be filled by other enterprising young men looking to score big.

I think the reason everyone and their brother is trying to be a pirate is because there is little to no threat of harm involved. Even when they fail, they either get away or they get some jail time. I've seen pictures of these guys captured and they're smiling like nothing's wrong. If they get word that their boys are randomly exploding all over the place, I bet a lot less of them will be down with the pirating gig.

Maybe.

Obviously I'm not entirely serious but it really is very easy and relatively risk free to be a pirate. Rather than pay these guys millions, I would just hire blackwater or a similar security firm to guard my ship. It's obvious our governments aren't willing to take decisive action to protect international trade in the area.

Now there's a viable solution. Why the fuck are boats going by this coast without serious protection on board?

That is not a viable solution. International law prohibits non-military sailors from carrying guns. Some do carry guns, but it is illegal nonetheless. As a result, you won't find legit mercenary firms getting involved, and any individual that does arm themselves can be arrested at nearly any port they arrive in worldwide.

As for bombing them or whatever, that's not really an option either. As has been said, they don't have a pirate island they are hanging out on; think of pirating more like a job. They go home to their families at the end of the night, and they are scattered throughout the civilian population. Not only that, but the organizations are extremely lose. You would have no more success bombing them than you would bombing Al Qaeda on the streets of Baghdad.

That's exactly the PROBLEM that needs to be changed. Just because a law exists does not mean it should. Something obviously has to be done for this part of the world, and as CJ said, if pirating boats started getting the shit shot out of them every time they approached a vessel, this would be dried up by now.

The only thing allowing pirating to continue is red tape bullshit, and that's why they're laughing all the way to the bank. Its disgusting.

I didn't mean to comment on the legality of any of these solutions, just thinking practically. You simply can't destroy them, and you can't really avoid negotiating with them without leading to an international incident. (It's usually bad form to set a "don't negotiate with ____" precedent) So what can you do? The only possible ways to combat this is to grant powers to these ships to defend themselves or to avoid the area altogether, which would cripple regional shipping and trade.

Got another idea?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque

The arms laws exist to help authorities identify long-range pirating vessels (which are pretty much non-existent because of laws like this) and to help protect authorities from drug smugglers.

Now, I am 100% for lifting such restrictions despite the purposes they serve, but I'm kind of surprised that some of you do as well. I'm usually the one defending people's right to defend themselves in the face of many of you defending laws that are intended to protect officers/soldiers from harm. But hey, if I have you on my side on this one, I guess the more the merrier.

From my recollections of the international laws(which I got second hand, and I didn't really care to research further), non-military Sailor's are authorized to carry arms. They're just limited in the degree to which they can be armed. Basically meaning they're limited to small arms. (It's also part of the distinguishing characteristic of a US Navy Warship(USS), and a US Navy (Auxiliary) Ship(USNS) which is crewed by Civilians with only a very small military component on board)

Even then, Shotgun(or handgun) vs RPG's and Assault Rifles is not a fight I'd want to be on the small arms side of.

Have you looked at a map to realize where Somalia is located?

Somalia is the "horn" of Africa. It sits alongside one of the 4 most vital shipping corridors in the world.

The Straights of Malacca(in Indonesia, also another longstanding Piracy hot spot), Straights of Gibraltar(Mediterranean entrance to the Atlantic) , and the Straights of Hormuz(transit point between the Arabian Gulf and the Persian Gulf) being the other 3.

You can't just simply tell international shipping to "stay away" from that area. The alternate route for shipping is going to be a 1,000 mile plus detour for them at best, and could quite possibly lead them through another area that is almost as risky(the Straights of Malacca).

You could potentially do something like the US did in the 1980's during the Iran-Iraq War and queue up civilian convoys with military escorts while they transit through the area, but you'd need more than 2 warships to do that effectively given the volume of shipping passing through there(even looking at US interests alone).

I think the important part of that was "without serious protection on board." He, in another post, also said that it would cripple international trade to simply not travel through that area.

I suspect our reasons for supporting this are very different. You do it in the interest of liberty and equality as ideals. I'm a bit more pragmatic, which affords me the freedom to say that in x situation y is a good thing, while in z situation it could use some tweaking.

Arming boats which travel that area is a fairly cheap and practical way to combat the problem. Another solution is to divert our coast guard to that area and be able to respond quickly to distress calls, as well as act as deterrents to pirates. But that would cost us, the US taxpayer, a shitload, while letting captains arm their crews is free.

It would also be a violation of international law to have state vessels entering Somalian waters without their consent.

So basically we've crippled, through international agreements, the world's ability to deal with pirates, because if you deal with pirates, the world will treat you like you're pirates. Cause you're pirates.

Great...
/bonus: it was done to deal with the pirates.

So, Blackwater is perfect for the job then? /laugh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":lol:" border="0" alt="laugh.gif" />

Anunes, this me agreeing with you thing has got to stop. Its just odd.

Also, am I the only one here that knows Blackwater has a ship operating in that area for the sole purpose of defending vessels from pirates? Or at least they did before they converted to "Xe" and dropped their mercenary army for hire role.

Pussies caved I tell you.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/blackwater-gunboats-will-protect-ships-1024582.html

My understanding is that the shipping companies found the price for hiring them (blackwater) was a bit on the high side.


It would also be a violation of international law to have state vessels entering Somalian waters without their consent.

A majority of the attacks take place outside of Somalian waters. Apparently the U.S. Navy is not legally allowed to blast pirates on sight. As a matter of fact since they are not terrorists nor a military the Navy is VERY limited in what they are allowed to do when they come across some confirmed pirates. I think a minor navigation error on the part of a destroyer could take care of most of the problem. Ooops Captain we seem to have struck something in the water. It's just a matter of finding them in all that open ocean.


I vote for Q-ships licensed to open fucking fire!

For those of you who do not know what a Q-ship is I shall provide a handy link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-ship

The pirates' friends are coming in with their own stolen ships and hostages to help protect them. Real cool how this is escalating =\.
http://patdollard.com/2009/04/pirates-rece...-human-shields/

I love pirates.

the movie or the baseball team?

Dead people don't take hostages. That's my take, and its not likely to change. Set up some international law allowing for ships to properly defend themselves, and the problem is gone.

Fuck, put a saw at each end of the boat. Hell, they could give me a saw and I'd take an end. If a line across the water doesn't turn them away, peppering the boat bloody well should.

i don't think shooting anyone at will is ever the answer. i hate that attitude.

And you'll likely never be in a position to have to make the decision whether to do so or not. Makes it a pretty easy attitude for you to hate.

Edit: Also, you selling me that card or what, ebolsssss?

no one has the right to morally judge shooting someone on sight, especially not without knowing why someone is doing something. you're suggesting preemptively killing someone. it shows how much you know about the world.

i don't know if i'm going to go to the lan or not yet.

Exactly. Though I LOVE the S.A.W. because of it's relatively light weight I would not recommend it. Go for the Browning M2 .50 caliber. Nothing says I love you like the Ma Deuce. Good penetration of light armored targets. Selective fire, semi or full auto. And a range well over 2000 meters. The S.A.W. just can't compare. Maybe use it as a mobile system aboard ship with A couple of hard mounted M2's.


Maximum effective range: 2000 meters with tripod mount
Maximum range: 4.22 miles (6.8 kilometers)

Normally, I'd be 100% on this side of any discussion. In this case I'm more like 75%/25%... We're talking about a speed boat strapped to the teeth with weapons and people coming up to your ship at high speed. The pirates aren't just in fishing boats sailing around or something. And a warning shot is and always has been a universal signal to turn around and/or identify yourself or risk being ripped to pieces indiscriminately. So it's not really shooting on sight, it's shooting after a very clear warning was given and ignored.

There is one alternative that isn't any less morally reprehensible, which is to not negotiate for anybody's life any longer. No ransom, no money, no benefit. They'll slow down with this stuff as it becomes less lucrative and more risky, and pretty much for no other reason.

LOL @ the stupid pirates on this one.

If the US plays its cards right, few to none of the ships that go out there to "render assistance" to that motorized lifeboat are going to make it back to land under Pirate control.

In particular the "mother ships" in this case.

Nothing like concentrating most of you assets needed to continue your ongoing acts of Piracy in one small area, along with most of your hostages. Makes rescuing the hostages, and disabling those piracy related assets that much easier. Of course, I guess that depends on exactly how stupid the pirates are about certain things as well.

If they do certain things, it'll make it very hard for the US Navy to do much of anything. However, most of those certain things they'd have to do to thwart the US Navy if it's being clever... Are pretty much things only the US Navy does because everyone else decided its too dangerous/difficult to do. The Navy simply decided it the pay off from knowing how/being able to do it was very worthwhile from a tactical standpoint(as it makes you hard to mess with).

Which isn't to mention the "fun" to potentially be had with an EMP in this situation specifically if the US was so inclined to demonstrate that the capability does exist, and that we have it in a weaponized (non-nuke) form... As this is almost shaping up to be an "ideal testbed situation" for them to conduct such an experiment as no truly civilian parties would be directly and negatively impacted by it(beyond the hostages, who aren't going to be terribly upset about property damage). Though the concern then becomes how the pirates would react to the electrical and electronic systems on their ships suddenly failing.

You read my post, and only took from it the parts you didn't like. As has already been mentioned, you failed to note that I mentioned a clear warning before opening fire.

Overall, your view is coming off as naive. Especially when you say things like "it shows how much you know about the world." -.-

So what do you think of roadblocks in Iraq again? ;x
..sry for the derail so here I'll add something:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle6073928.ece

I'm very happy Sarkozy has balls, but I wish it would have turned out better.

Many of the people here have not been exposed to the things SOME of us have been exposed to.

Ask me if I am willing to shoot a 10 year old.

I don't think you and Brian should suppose that you've been exposed quite so much more than Tom (or anyone else for that matter) without further knowledge of what they've been exposed to.

QFE

I said that in my opinion, his view was naive, not that I've been exposed to more then he has.

There's a whole lot of weird flying around in this thread...

There's a middle ground here. Like: It's reasonable to know not to approach another vessel in open water, and quite easy to avoid. Attacks also very rarely incur collateral damage because it's in the middle of the water. It's less reasonable to put roadblocks up arbitrarily and use that as an excuse when people who shouldn't get shot get shot.

I should think that being exposed to more than other people, and that changing your answer to "would you shoot a 10 year old" would normally be called "desensitization" and is generally viewed as a bad thing. And naivety is a pejorative for "compassion". Which I'd call a good thing.

Tom's right. As human beings we should all hate this macho bullshit attitude of "guns solve the problem!" Most problems have very subtle solutions and adding guns to the mix is rarely the right thing to do. Often it escalates the problem. What if they notice a fellow pirate ship getting the shit shot out of it? Maybe next time they'll fire rockets from further out, or in response to the warning shot. "That'll teach these ships to fire at us! Explain 300 dead sailors to the media!" style. I kind of hate when situations as nuanced as this one gets no more thought devoted to them than to come up with what kind of gun is best to mount on the ships...

But coming up with a real fix to the problem is hard. Maybe tolls getting paid to Somalia by ships passing through (effectively letting the pirates win) would assuage the economic troubles that foster pirating? Things have to change for this to stop. Look at any other desperate group of people, and the laws that do nothing to stop them. We could round up every cartel member in South America in one afternoon, and by morning they would all have replacements. You can't kill desperate...

Nothing you said changes my outlook on this matter.

Shoot back. I'm sure the pirates are watching themselves on TV (if they have one) laughing their asses off at the fact that ships keep coming to them like pigs to the slaughter and nothing can be done because of red tape bullshit.

And don't give me the bullshit slippery slope we become what we fight argument either. Any ship ignoring a line of .50 cal slicing across the water gets blown out of said water. The pirates can try to shoot missiles from out of range, but good luck since for the most part they're using RPGs.

I do not advocate violence as the answer to everything (recall my posts on the man who shotgunned down the guys robbing his neighbor), but I find people who advocate violence as the answer to NOTHING very annoying.

This thread has gone off topic. I stated my opinions related to a solution to THIS problem, and got attacked as if I pen the same solution to everything. We are talking about this particular issue here, not any other.

The captain was rescued by the U.S. Navy. Presumed SEAL operation killed 3 and they took one into custody.

Good shit! Glad to hear it.

If you perceived that as an attack then you're probably a little touchy about the subject matter.

On a somewhat related note violence is the answer to nothing, since all it does is spawn more violence. But in a micro-sense it can temporarily solve a problem... I find that there is usually a more elegant solution that doesn't involve dead parents/husbands/children.

Besides, it'll always be easy for the pirates to one-up the ships they are jacking because they *operate outside of the law*.

/biggrin.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin.gif" />

the captors were taken out by snipers. awesome!

The pirates would have to spend a shitload of money to get said equipment and would have to make the decision to put themselves in a way more dangerous situation if we shot known pirate ships within some range and with some warning. One-upping the US Navy will not lead to any sort of life path for these guys.

Well, I'm sure that as pirates they'll have a difficult time coming up with ideas for ways to get large sums of money... /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />

We shouldn't be forcing anyone to put themselves in a dangerous situation unless they're actively engaging us. Our response here probably was okay, though it could've been resolved in a better manner.