# Fighting Pirates with Mercenaries - TOLD YOU!



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 23, 2011)

I believe I suggested this some time ago.  Only difference is that I suggested putting a platoon of US Marines on all US-flagged vessels in the area, for a couple of reasons besides fighting pirates.  One would be to project US power and the other would be to encourage US shipping companies to stop flagging their vessels in other nations to avoid taxes/regulations/etc.  But this works too.  The point is still the same; you engage the pirates at the point of contact, you don't go looking for them.  You don't know where they are at any given time, but you know where they will be - they attack ships in the area.  Not enough ships in all the navies of the world to guard every vessel and a huge waste of time.  Searching every suspected ship is an impossible and expensive task.  Put armed guards on the ships and shoot pirates dead on sight.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/08/pirate-fighters-inc/all/1



> The worlds governments are waking up to the sobering fact that the gazillion-dollar warships theyve sent to the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean cant keep up with the regions elusive pirates. The hijackers simple, brutal tactics are too effective. Their business model is too attractive. And theyve got nothing to lose but their lives.
> 
> The days are probably numbered for 10,000-ton Burke-class destroyers chasing down illiterate Somali thugs sailing in souped-up fishing boats called skiffs. The future of the piracy war could belong to Dave and guys like him, standing lonely guard on gigantic, fortified commercial vessels speeding through pirate-infested waters.
> 
> ...


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 23, 2011)

With the reservation of my usual concerns about the military hiring contractors, I'd say good call.  I hope it works without introducing its own ills.


----------



## Stealthy (Aug 23, 2011)

A well placed flare followed by a few warning shots if they continue the advance should be enough to scare off all but the most brazen of pirates. But what I am I saying, I want to help the pirates, that is my dream job so I would deploy multiple tenders and advance on the target ship from many angles splitting up the handful of mercs and ensuring "some" of my trusty swashbucklers make it on board. Then I get those sexy new AR platforms, Ballistic vests and Tacticool gear they were using.

The main advantage the larger ship would have over the trusty little skiffs is a more stable shooting platform allowing longer ranges but I just can't see modern shipping companies consenting to long range preemptive strikes.


----------



## Big Don (Aug 23, 2011)

In Balance of Power, by James W. Huston, the story centers around issuing letters of marque (article I section 8 of the constitution) to the captains commanding Carrier battle groups to combat piracy. As interesting as an idea that is, I'd rather issue them to Private military contractors on a finder's keepers payment plan.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 23, 2011)

Stealthy said:


> A well placed flare followed by a few warning shots if they continue the advance should be enough to scare off all but the most brazen of pirates. But what I am I saying, I want to help the pirates, that is my dream job so I would deploy multiple tenders and advance on the target ship from many angles splitting up the handful of mercs and ensuring "some" of my trusty swashbucklers make it on board. Then I get those sexy new AR platforms, Ballistic vests and Tacticool gear they were using.



Oh, I get it now! "Stealthy."

Can you say _LARPER?_ I knew you could. :lfao:


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 23, 2011)

Stealthy said:


> A well placed flare followed by a few warning shots if they continue the advance should be enough to scare off all but the most brazen of pirates. But what I am I saying, I want to help the pirates, that is my dream job so I would deploy multiple tenders and advance on the target ship from many angles splitting up the handful of mercs and ensuring "some" of my trusty swashbucklers make it on board. Then I get those sexy new AR platforms, Ballistic vests and Tacticool gear they were using.
> 
> The main advantage the larger ship would have over the trusty little skiffs is a more stable shooting platform allowing longer ranges but I just can't see modern shipping companies consenting to long range preemptive strikes.



I agree that the pirates' tactics will evolve in response to the presence of armed guards, but not for awhile.  At first, they'll simply take low-hanging fruit; the ships that don't challenge them when they approach.

As the pirates experience more ships that are armed and fighting back, they will modify their tactics, and your recommendations are sound, so I'm sure they'll try that.  However, the defense will evolve as well.  Potentially with more armed guards, remote-controlled weaponry, etc.  With regard to what will be allowed by modern shipping companies, it all comes down to cost.  When pirate insurance was cheap, they bought that and did not fight back.  When the pirates began to kill and injure the crews and to go back on deals, insurance costs skyrocketed and now the owners are seeking other alternatives.  If the courts of the world condone shooting of pirates outright, then I suspect that's what will be allowed.

As far as tactics go, there really is no other logical way of organizing a defense.  There is too much ocean to patrol to put the navies of the world to effective use, and it's incredibly expensive to put a combat vessel with hundreds or thousands of crew up against a few pirates in dinghies.  As the article mentioned, there's no way to search all the suspect ships, and when an attacked vessel calls for help, it's a rare situation where a warship is close enough to respond in minutes.  And once the pirates board the ship they're attacking, you can't engage them with naval gunfire, helicopter gunships, etc.  You have no alternative but to negotiate or board and go hand-to-hand, with the victim crew's safety in jeopardy.  None of what's been done up until now makes any tactical sense whatsoever, and I'm no military genius, but if I can figure that out, you'd think the morons setting up these defenses could also.

Put small cadres of armed men on the ships.  Engage the pirates at first contact.   Escalate when and if pirate tactics evolve.  This is not rocket science; you guard the bank vault AT the bank vault, because the robbers have to come to you.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 23, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I agree that the pirates' tactics will evolve in response to the presence of armed guards, but not for awhile. At first, they'll simply take low-hanging fruit; the ships that don't challenge them when they approach.
> 
> As the pirates experience more ships that are armed and fighting back, they will modify their tactics, and your recommendations are sound, so I'm sure they'll try that. .



Except that they're not. The main advantage of the skiffs is in speed and stealth-most target ships can make a pretty well insurmountable obstacle if the *crew* practices repelling boarders alond with the armed security contingent. 

One ships crew has even successfully repelled pirates with a firehose. You keep  watch. Prepare to repel boarders. Repel boarders. Won't work every time, but it'll be more successful than not, even without mercenaries on board.

In the end, they'll have to give up the speed of the skiffs for larger platforms, like the ships the skiffs sometimes launch from. Probably won't work-the law of the sea pretty much does condone shooting hostile boarding parties outright. Various authorities like the Coast Guard must be yielded to, and one would be foolish to repel boarders from the Navy of even nearby countries, but unknown and unidentified hostiles can pretty much be used as chum.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 23, 2011)

Elder beat me to it, but aren't the skiffs, if seen ahead of time, pretty much just fish in a barrel until they make it to their target?  I would think that the guards would have a relative advantage from their position above in the target craft.   I am, however, naive to most combat situations that don't involve shooting off-screen to reload, so I might be wrong.  :rofl:


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 23, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Except that they're not. The main advantage of the skiffs is in speed and stealth-most target ships can make a pretty well insurmountable obstacle if the *crew* practices repelling boarders alond with the armed security contingent.
> 
> One ships crew has even successfully repelled pirates with a firehose. You keep  watch. Prepare to repel boarders. Repel boarders. Won't work every time, but it'll be more successful than not, even without mercenaries on board.
> 
> In the end, they'll have to give up the speed of the skiffs for larger platforms, like the ships the skiffs sometimes launch from. Probably won't work-the law of the sea pretty much does condone shooting hostile boarding parties outright. Various authorities like the Coast Guard must be yielded to, and one would be foolish to repel boarders from the Navy of even nearby countries, but unknown and unidentified hostiles can pretty much be used as chum.



Small-unit tactics are the same no matter how they are employed.  One sets different kinds of ambushes and traps based upon the perceived size, strength, and ability of the enemy, taking into consideration the goal (an intact ship and live crew), one's own capabilities, terrain, logistics, and possibility of reinforcement.  Stealthy's point was well-made; when the ships with armed guards are perceived to be more common than not, the pirates will change their tactics.  They could employ more than one of the 'mother ships' they currently use to deploy their skiffs to put more fast boats in the water.  They could even attempt to pick preselected targets and blockade them with many of the larger ships, swaming and overwhelming their defenses (this would require advance intelligence about the incoming vessels and locations of nearby military vessels, etc).  There are many tactics they could try, and manpower seems not to be a major obstacle.  They could even try counterfeit routines where they impersonate law enforcement or various military vessels.  Who knows?  The point is, this is small-unit tactics, and these things have been going on forever.  There is always a way to perform an ambush, and always a way to defend against them.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 23, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Elder beat me to it, but aren't the skiffs, if seen ahead of time, pretty much just fish in a barrel until they make it to their target?  I would think that the guards would have a relative advantage from their position above in the target craft.   I am, however, naive to most combat situations that don't involve shooting off-screen to reload, so I might be wrong.  :rofl:



Big ocean, big waves.  Skiffs bob up and down.  They move fast, they come in from behind and alongside to avoid detection as long as possible.  Goal is to make it alongside.  They have small arms and some rocket-propelled grenades, which they do use, since they don't have to worry about sinking such large vessels with them (but they have started fires on tankers, etc).  A single skiff should be easy pickings, but multiple skiffs coming from multiple angles can overwhelm a crew of four armed guards, especially if they've been successfully distracted by one of them acting as bait.  Effective non-sniper rifle range from a vessel is about 100m in good conditions, so you have a small window to engage unless you're employing heavier weaponry to defend.


----------



## CanuckMA (Aug 23, 2011)

One word: Phalanx

Mount one at the bow and one at the stern. Have popcorn already microwaved to watch the show, because the show won't be long enough to microwave a bag of popcorn.


----------



## Big Don (Aug 23, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> One word: Phalanx
> 
> Mount one at the bow and one at the stern. Have popcorn already microwaved to watch the show, because the show won't be long enough to microwave a bag of popcorn.


As big as the ships are, you'd probably have to mount one on each quarter. 
Lease the weapons and operators to whoever wants them. For Christ's sake charge a lot, the country needs the money.


----------



## granfire (Aug 23, 2011)

Big Don said:


> In Balance of Power, by James W. Huston, the story centers around issuing letters of marque (article I section 8 of the constitution) to the captains commanding Carrier battle groups to combat piracy. As interesting as an idea that is, I'd rather issue them to Private military contractors on a finder's keepers payment plan.


LOL, throw back...


----------



## cdunn (Aug 23, 2011)

Big Don said:


> As interesting as an idea that is, I'd rather issue them to Private military contractors on a finder's keepers payment plan.



Um, that would be how letters of marque actually work in the real world. Too bad it's considered a war crime.


----------



## granfire (Aug 23, 2011)

cdunn said:


> Um, that would be how letters of marque actually work in the real world. Too bad it's considered a war crime.


ah, it's been done before.
You just have to give it a clever name and a charter.....

I think it was called Privateer....


----------



## Big Don (Aug 23, 2011)

cdunn said:


> Um, that would be how letters of marque actually work in the real world. Too bad it's considered a war crime.


Finally after the Congress of Paris at the end of the Crimean War, seven European nations signed the Paris Declaration of 1856 renouncing privateering, and forty-five more eventually joined them, which in effect abolished privateering worldwide.[SUP][29][/SUP] The United States was not a signatory to that declaration. 
It isn't, it might be considered an act of war, if, the privateers attacked vessels from other nations, but, Somalia and Indonesia, where the majority of modern pirates ply their trade, aren't much of a threat...


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 23, 2011)

granfire said:


> ah, it's been done before.
> You just have to give it a clever name and a charter.....
> 
> I think it was called Privateer....



Only one problem with this plan - privateers expect to make a profit.  These pirates are dirt poor.  I don't think privateers will sail on the sole promise of beaten up, barely seaworthy small boats and a handful of knockoff AK-47s probably manufactured decades ago.


----------



## cdunn (Aug 23, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Only one problem with this plan - privateers expect to make a profit.  These pirates are dirt poor.  I don't think privateers will sail on the sole promise of beaten up, barely seaworthy small boats and a handful of knockoff AK-47s probably manufactured decades ago.



In theory, you can pay a bounty to the marque-granted privateers to drag other pirate boats in to a court of law. Where the problem with letters of marque happens is that they ceed the property of the ships to be reprised against to the privateer - And the Law of The Sea states that only a ship in government service may haul a ship back to the courts, which are to determine penalties against the pirates AFTER their trial. The question as to if a ship holding a letter of marque is in government service is, as far as I can tell, open, but the practice of pre-rewarding the privateer booty seized from the pirates is clearly illegal.


----------



## granfire (Aug 23, 2011)

well, then there is that option of a well placed shot below the water line....Davy Jones' Locker....


----------



## Big Don (Aug 23, 2011)

Part VII _Article100



			Duty to cooperate in the repression of piracy
		
Click to expand...

_


> All States shall cooperate to the fullest possible  extent in the repression of piracy on the high seas or in any other  place outside the jurisdiction of any State.


 Anyone that disagrees with suppression of piracy, is acting contrary to the Law of the Sea.





> _Article105
> 
> Seizure of a pirate ship or aircraft
> _ On the high seas, or in any other place outside the  jurisdiction of any State, every State may seize a pirate ship or  aircraft, or a ship or aircraft taken by piracy and under the control of  pirates, and arrest the persons and seize the property on board.  The  courts of the State which carried out the seizure may decide upon the  penalties to be imposed, and may also determine the action to be taken  with regard to the ships, aircraft or property, subject to the rights of  third parties acting in good faith.


 That would seem to indicate we could LEGALLY use the US Navy, and perhaps a MEU and seize what the pirates have, and disburse it as we see fit.


----------



## cdunn (Aug 24, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Part VII _Article100
> Anyone that disagrees with suppression of piracy, is acting contrary to the Law of the Sea. That would seem to indicate we could LEGALLY use the US Navy, and perhaps a MEU and seize what the pirates have, and disburse it as we see fit._


_

Yes, so long as the disbursal is done by standing law. You can put all the destroyers and cruisers you want in the ocean to hunt pirates. Be prepared to pay about 35-50 million per year per ship, plus fuel, salary, ammunition, and combat benefits. What you can't do is... issue letters of marque and start up your own piracy operation to prey on the pirates._


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 24, 2011)

Again, the issue is that it is inefficient and ineffective to search for small pirate skiffs with gigantic US Navy vessels; not that it should not be done.

Scenario 1: Here's a big huge ocean.  Go search for little boats that might or might not contain pirates.  Good luck.
Scenario 2: The pirates are after only one thing - cargo vessels.  Put armed guards on the cargo vessels.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40528.pdf

This is pure logistics.  I do not understand how anyone could possibly think you could effectively patrol 242,000 square miles of ocean where pirate activity occurs with a small contingent of our Navy, as opposed to putting security forces where the pirates will always attack.  Why look for them when they will ALWAYS come to you?


----------



## cdunn (Aug 24, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Again, the issue is that it is inefficient and ineffective to search for small pirate skiffs with gigantic US Navy vessels; not that it should not be done.
> 
> Scenario 1: Here's a big huge ocean. Go search for little boats that might or might not contain pirates. Good luck.
> Scenario 2: The pirates are after only one thing - cargo vessels. Put armed guards on the cargo vessels.
> ...



Well, I thought the issue at hand was that there are people out there we have to extract terrible, terrible vengance on! Bad people have to suffer hideously, and actually protecting the merchantmen is a secondary consideration. 

The actual "best" solution to the problem is a strong Somali government rooting them out at the shoreline, and wiping out the economics that makes it a preferable "career".


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 24, 2011)

cdunn said:


> Well, I thought the issue at hand was that there are people out there we have to extract terrible, terrible vengance on! Bad people have to suffer hideously, and actually protecting the merchantmen is a secondary consideration.



I certainly have no problem sending pirates to Davy Jones' locker.  But you have to catch them first, and since they come to the ships, it seems simple and reasonable to wait for them to come to you so you can shoot them and sink their boats.  Not rocket science.



> The actual "best" solution to the problem is a strong Somali government rooting them out at the shoreline, and wiping out the economics that makes it a preferable "career".



Small unit tactics.  This type of situation resembles an ambush.  There are many ways to avoid an ambush or to win an encounter.  The first is, as you have said, eliminate the source.  They come from the Somali coast.  But as you note, the Somali government is weak - practically non-existent to be honest - and they cannot control their own port security.  Nor do we have the manpower to patrol the coast of the entire nation; small boats can launch from practically anywhere, you're not talking about deep-water ports here.  If you can't stop an ambush at the source, you can plot their route and ambush them instead.  The problem with that is that we're talking about water here.  No natural terrain, no route they must take in order to reach you.  It would still be worth putting some thumbtacks in maps to determine point of origin and point of contact for as many attacks as possible; if a pattern emerges, then an ambush at that site would be a lovely use of a small US Navy vessel. However, barring that, the best thing to do is to know you're going to be ambushed and be ready so that you're not surprised when it happens.

In the more general sense, Somalia is a strategic issue for us, but we've been badly burned there.  The Al-Shabab Islamist movement has linked up with AQ (as I said they would too) and is now in control of major segments of the country.  They offer the Somalis a choice that many are glad to take - they wipe out the warlords in exchange for conversion to Islam and agreeing to follow Sharia law.  Remember this; no matter how bad Islamists are, they bring peace to the nations they conquer.  Not freedom, not the kind of society most of us would want to live in, but peace, because the destroy anyone and anything that disagrees with them.  When you're living in a war-torn and starving nation, peace may seem preferable, even if you lose your freedom (which most of them don't have anyway).  We have limited influence with the Somali government, but mostly, we've ignored them.  We do so at our own peril; not just because Somalia is a haven for pirates, but because it will also soon be another Afghanistan, a haven for terrorists-in-training.  With Al-Shabab all chummy with AQ, we've got storm clouds on the horizon.  I have said this before; no one listens.  We'll listen when we're attacked by terrorists trained in Somalia, and then it will be "Why didn't we do anything about it if we knew?"  Mainly because we're idiots, that's why.


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 24, 2011)

hell, a few .50 cal mounts will take care of the problem....and they come in remotely operated versions now i think


----------



## Big Don (Aug 24, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> hell, a few .50 cal mounts will take care of the problem....and they come in remotely operated versions now i think


A bunch of rednecks with shotguns, a few kegs of beer and your problem would be solved for the price of beer and ammo...


----------



## Carol (Aug 25, 2011)

Big Don said:


> A bunch of rednecks with shotguns, a few kegs of beer and your problem would be solved for the price of beer and ammo...



Rednecks at sea????

I think that just sent my brain in to a state of cognitive dissonance.


----------



## Big Don (Aug 25, 2011)

Carol said:


> Rednecks at sea????
> 
> I think that just sent my brain in to a state of cognitive dissonance.


*cough* Jarheads *cough* same thing


----------



## cdunn (Aug 25, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I certainly have no problem sending pirates to Davy Jones' locker. But you have to catch them first, and since they come to the ships, it seems simple and reasonable to wait for them to come to you so you can shoot them and sink their boats. Not rocket science.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We're basically in agreement here, I was mostly being sarcastic. The over all problem is more complex than simply putting guns on boats though, I agree,  and it does devolve to the "Afghanistanization" of Somalia. When you're destitute and desperate, and a minor risk gets you a million bucks, and you don't even have to kill anyone to get it... Well, shiver me timbers, laddy, and raise the Jolly Rodger.

Oh, and stack up FBI/CIA dentention centers in Somalia, too, it's the new home of extraordinary rendition. (For which Obama and Bush should BOTH face trial.) We're a known source of corruption and bribery in what passes for government there. So, have some more strikes.


----------



## Senjojutsu (Aug 25, 2011)

Big Don said:


> A bunch of rednecks with shotguns, a few kegs of beer and your problem would be solved for the price of beer and ammo...


A bunch of Rednecks against the most famous Somalian Pirate FATBEARD and his crew of killers is no contest!

Let's all sing Fatbeard's pirate ditty:






BTW love this episode show's ending.  An effective use of violence!

And always remember G-I-N-G-E-R-S can't be pirates!


----------



## granfire (Aug 25, 2011)

Carol said:


> Rednecks at sea????
> 
> I think that just sent my brain in to a state of cognitive dissonance.



Lassie. we do have ocean front, you know, that is not in Arizona....and an odd fascination with things that go boom...and we like to put our kill where nobody can find it (unless it's a price buck, then we stuff and mount it...)
I can only see pluses right here. 
Might have to forego the beer for the after hunt party...stick with sweet tea for the pregame show, but it's all good. Seagram's makes some good stuff.


----------

