Pirates: Here's an idea- lets let them experience a live fire exercise.

Surfing around today, I read a great article in the Canberra (Australia) Times about the major difficulties Somali pirates are presenting to commercial shipping transiting the Red Sea and Indian Ocean.  These ships are coming under increasing harassment from fast boats equipped with rocket propelled grenades and heavy weapons.  The pirates use speed boats and heavy weapons to approach commercial ships then board them, demanding ransom.   

Navies ranging from the US and British to the Chinese have put warships in the area to help protect merchant ships, but given the long coast line of Somalia and the large area of ocean involved, direct protection seems difficult.

Current international law prevents merchant vessels from defending themselves with deadly arms.   The pirates however have no problem going to sea with AK-47's and RPG's.  The latest thought from the great minds at the UN is to use naval vessels to blockade harbors where pirates might take hostage vessels. There are not many. This is possibly a good strategy.  However, I think there is a much better one.

Let Merchant Vessels Carry Arms.

Spanish galleons in the 1500's carried gold.  They also carried cannon.  The goal was to transport goods without harassment, but if it came...you could at least defend yourself.    Pirates won many of those battles because they used fast attack ships and bloodthirsty crew whose only mission was taking the ship and its' cargo. 

Pirates today would prefer to hold a ship hostage then take ransom from a shipping company and vessel owner.  International law today prevents merchant ships from carrying arms.   I think that's  misguided.

Lets either give merchant vessels moving through known pirate areas guns and heavy weapons or provide them with national marines and troops who are expert at defending attacks.  It seems to me that the moment that merchant vessel defense becomes a naval responsibility, most of this piracy will end.   Helicopter gunships deployed from merchant vessels will be highly deterrent.

So far, the risk assessment seems to be on the pirates side.   Attack, knowing that the victims have no more than water cannon, or stand down knowing the target has devastating weapons and helicopters that are likely to kill you.

When you live in a country with no formal government nor control of the national landscape, versus taking hostage of fat, commercial pigs whose owners will pay you to release them, this seems like a simple commercial decision.

Like the 1500's...a navy of greater will and determination will need to come fix this problem.

Eric

Add Freightdawg.com to your social bookmarks!

Comments

[jim in maryland]

a ship alone on the high sea's should have a small armorey under control of the ships master. the laws need to be modified so that this is allowed. when a ship enters the 12 mile limit All arms should be locked up till they leave...seems simple to me. as for the UN protecting anybody. you must be joking.I wouldn't be suprised if some middle level UN people aren't involed in the same sindicates that are putting on these attacks.

[John Bennett]

Current international law does NOT prohibit merchant ships from protecting themselves with deadly arms. Any such prohibitions arise from various national laws, which are not consistent around the world. The Administrations of many countries do not allow firearms on board their flag vessels. Additionally, many coastal nations don't want or don't allow firearms, so what do you do with your guns when you get to ports in their countries? The so-called experts are divided over whether mariners' use of firearms would increase the risk, by causing pirates to ratchet up the violence. And perhaps the shipowners would rather accept the risks of things as they are than pay for the weapons and the training that their crews' would need.

[Eric]

Jean, Im not worried about guns on Eastradicalistan vessels. First you can buy more guns on the street in America than they can put on the boat. Second, I'd be more worried about a nuke aboard ship than anything else.

I just think a few potshots back in the other direction would be a good thing.

I'm a southern boy who just thinks a that if you can put a gun rack in the pick up truck, why not on your containership?

[Jonathan]

Agreed.
Everyone has the rights to life, liberty, and property. The right to have something without the ability to keep it from those who would take it from you is a poor right indeed.... The right to life must be protected, and the only way it can be protected against some who would take it is deadly force. Those who would deny individuals the right to defend themselves would deny their freedom to live.

[Jean Poole]

Dawg,

As a long term fan of domino-effects and slippery slopes (and Bilderbergers and Illuminati) ... I'm just not comfortable with some East Radicalistan flagged ship coming in to US waters with an on-board armory - in the same way I felt a great unease when the merchant arm of the Chinese Navy tried to buy territory in Long Beach. Yeah, pirates piss me off but I don't think the answer is necessarily arming merchant vessels. An International Escort Fleet (overseen by the UN maybe) but financed by flag states in proprtion to their percentage of the vessel totals transiting designated hazardous waters perhaps....

[Josh Gauci]

As you know the ocean is a big place. Short of moving a massive fleet into that area, I do not think blockading the ports would make much sense. Like pirates of old, they will just move their base to a different location.

I am not sure why they do not allow weapons on commercial vessels. It is not like oil tankers would start installing 16 inch guns if it was lifted. (Could be cool to see though) Give them a couple assault rifles and kevlar vests. It would help deter some of the assaults.

For high value cargo, put a private military force on there. It is cheaper than delaying delivery and paying ransom.

Josh
www.fr8mvr.com