# Somali Pirates



## Archangel M (Oct 16, 2008)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081016/ap_on_re_af/af_somalia_fighting_pirates



> U.S. warships watched a hijacked vessel laden with tanks while other gunboats patrolled the dangerous waters off Somalia, but pirates still seized another freighter this week  and now hold about a dozen despite the international effort to protect a major shipping lane.
> Military vessels from 10 nations are now converging on the world's most dangerous waters, but analysts and a Somali government official say the campaign won't halt piracy unless it also confronts with the quagmire that is Somalia.


 
Im wonder how long its going to be before commercial shipping companies start hiring contractors for security and mounting crew served weapons?

I also wonder..how the hell do these guys get from the little dinghys to the decks of these superships uncontested? Its not like they can swing over from the masts of their tall sail ships.


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 16, 2008)

> "World powers have neglected Somalia for years on end, and now its problems are touching the world, they have started on the wrong footing," said Bile Mohamoud Qabowsade, adviser to the president of Puntland, the semi-autonomous Somali region that is the pirates' base.



So to tie into another thread regarding US interventalism...do we get involved? Or do we just leave them alone and do our best to protect the shipping lanes? US ships only?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 16, 2008)

I believe the last time the US tried to get involved in Somalia, it lead to US troops being hung like sides of beef while crowds cheered.  If they go in again, lets hope the mission commanders prepare properly this time.

As to the pirates, I believe they threaten to use rockets and RPG's on the ships unless they surrender. A few ships are mounting sonic and other NF weapons to discourage them from close approach, but military escorts might be the short term solution.


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 16, 2008)

We wont be able to take control of that quagmire without "invading", locking everything down with martial law, and searching for every weapons cache we can find; and thats just to start. Our "soft sell" "humanitarian warfare" in the 90's plain didnt work. And with what we have on our plate already I dont see it happening. Just pumping in aid wont work either as our last jaunt there showed.

Fund another African nation to do it and were going to get accused of all sorts of evils.

We didnt do what we should have done in Iraq (my amature military opinion), I dont see us having much luck in Somalia unless...well I reserve my opinion on that cause it would just start an argument.


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 16, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> As to the pirates, I believe they threaten to use rockets and RPG's on the ships unless they surrender. A few ships are mounting sonic and other NF weapons to discourage them from close approach, but military escorts might be the short term solution.


 
Youre probably right. Mounting some "big toys" on the decks could help too.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 16, 2008)

Here's a question...and it might be deep enough for another thread.  Suppose we let these private ships hire some mercenaries/contractors and the companies start buying high tech weaponry in order to defend their cargo.

1st of all, is this legal?  2nd of all, does this open a Pandoras box of weapons proliferation?

My first instinct is to let the companies arm the ships and put the pirates in Davey Jones Locker.  On the other hand, I can see a vast black market in weapons growing even larger, with some of these systems falling into the hands of people who don't like us very much.


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 16, 2008)

The merchant marines did it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 16, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> The merchant marines did it.


 
True, but now we have advanced missile systems, EMP, high energy particle weapons, as well as highly portable gunnery systems that are available to the would be merchant marines.  I don't know if we should completely trust some of these companies.  What happens if the company goes belly up...what happens to the weapons?

I can see them going to the person who has the most green no matter who that person is.


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 16, 2008)

Heres an article about the pros and cons:

http://www4.marinelink.com/en-US/News/Article/327958.aspx


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 16, 2008)

The only other option is military. Do we open yet another can of worms?

I have to wonder. The US has had warships doing their best in the area for a while. How much of the shipping benefits us?


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 16, 2008)

maunakumu said:


> True, but now we have advanced missile systems, EMP, high energy particle weapons, as well as highly portable gunnery systems that are available to the would be merchant marines. I don't know if we should completely trust some of these companies. What happens if the company goes belly up...what happens to the weapons?
> 
> I can see them going to the person who has the most green no matter who that person is.


 

I dont know, cant the same question apply to these private military contractors overseas? There has to be some sort of regulation, what it is I dont know.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 16, 2008)

Somalia is I believe one of the largest weapons markets in the world, so the pirates already have access to a huge arsenal.  I recall reading that an AK47 is like $7 there.


----------



## jarrod (Oct 16, 2008)

i'm going to go out on a limb here & suggest that getting involved in another military conflict might not be a good idea right now.

i'm all for private security in this case.

jf


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 16, 2008)

They have vendors that stamp and assemble them on order in local shops.


----------



## MJS (Oct 16, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> So to tie into another thread regarding US interventalism...do we get involved? Or do we just leave them alone and do our best to protect the shipping lanes? US ships only?


 


Archangel M said:


> The only other option is military. Do we open yet another can of worms?
> 
> I have to wonder. The US has had warships doing their best in the area for a while. How much of the shipping benefits us?


 
IMHO, I think that many times we (the USA) stick our nose where it doesn't belong a bit too much.  If this is not directly effecting us, then lets mind our own business and stay the hell out of it.  Many of these countries don't want us there any way, so lets grant them their wish and stay away.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 16, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I believe the last time the US tried to get involved in Somalia, it lead to US troops being hung like sides of beef while crowds cheered.  If they go in again, lets hope the mission commanders prepare properly this time.


 I don't think the blame can be fairly placed on the mission commanders as much as it can be on the National Command Authority at the time. A friend of mine was in Somalia, he was hand picked as one of the first to go, he had a really special MOS..., when he came back, he told us about the idiot ROE they had over there, i.e., weapons slung across the back, muzzle down, (to not look threatening) The Clinton Administration sent troops wanting to look like good guys and wound up looking like morons because they tied the hands of the troops before they even arrived. Which led to the incidents including those in BlackHawk Down





> As to the pirates, I believe they threaten to use rockets and RPG's on the ships unless they surrender. A few ships are mounting sonic and other NF weapons to discourage them from close approach, but military escorts might be the short term solution.


I cannot believe that 1: No one has put this ship on the bottom, or 2: That no special forces team(s) have been sent to retake the ship by force.


----------



## Ninjamom (Oct 17, 2008)

1. Isn't this a _Russian _ship that was captured?  Isn't this a really black eye for _them_.  Shouldn't _they _do something to take their ship back, and unless they publicly ask for our help we stay out of this one?

2.  As to when/if an American ship is ever attacked/captured by pirate vesels: Isn't that what torpedoes are for?


----------



## Twin Fist (Oct 17, 2008)

pirates are a serious problem in the less civilized places. When i was on the boat, there were places we went where we kept the .50 cals manned 24/7


----------



## MA-Caver (Oct 17, 2008)

Where's Captain Nemo's sub the Natulus when you need it? 

Yeah I think we should stay out of there as well, but eventually an unwary U.S. ship is going to get hit bad and the general outcry back home will be for Somalian Pirate blood. Our Navy is going to get sucked into it whether we want it to or not. 
The good thing is that we do have better capabilities on the sea than we do on land. A single carrier based F-18 can resolve a pirate ship/boat without breaking a sweat.


----------



## cdunn (Oct 17, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> The only other option is military. Do we open yet another can of worms?
> 
> I have to wonder. The US has had warships doing their best in the area for a while. How much of the shipping benefits us?


 



MJS said:


> IMHO, I think that many times we (the USA) stick our nose where it doesn't belong a bit too much. If this is not directly effecting us, then lets mind our own business and stay the hell out of it. Many of these countries don't want us there any way, so lets grant them their wish and stay away.


 
Across the coast of Somalia is pretty much the only nautical route that the West has to the Middle East.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 17, 2008)

maunakumu said:


> Here's a question...and it might be deep enough for another thread.  Suppose we let these private ships hire some mercenaries/contractors and the companies start buying high tech weaponry in order to defend their cargo.
> 
> 1st of all, is this legal?


 In some circumstances, it is perfectly legal. In my opinion, a CIWS (the Close IN Weapons System the Vulcan Phalanx 30mm computer guided 6000 round per min Gatling Gun on both sides of the bow would be one hell of a deterrent... 
Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution: Clause 11, (Spelling out the responsibilities of Congress)





> To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water


 so, if Congress authorized the sale of the weapons, and, you can be sure, 10000 other things in the same bill, and made rules about it, totally legal.





> ;[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT] 2nd of all, does this open a Pandoras box of weapons proliferation?


 Well, you can't unring a bell, so, arming or allowing people, and corporations, to arm their ships in the interest of self-defense is only fair. I read a book a few years ago, the author and title escapes me, about a President and Congress who issued a Letter of Marque to the Admiral commanding a Carrier Battle Group, it was an entertaining read. Congress could sell Letters of Marque, and let some companies or individuals go on the offensive.





> My first instinct is to let the companies arm the ships and put the pirates in Davey Jones Locker.  On the other hand, I can see a vast black market in weapons growing even larger, with some of these systems falling into the hands of people who don't like us very much.


----------



## Nolerama (Oct 17, 2008)

I agree with TF that piracy happens everywhere. There are reported incidents in the Caribbean Sea, off the coast of the Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand, and in the Mediterranean. It's like getting mugged in a busy city... And then going back to that same place over and over.

The question is: do you get police escort every time you take that trip? Or do you just carry your own "protection?"

I'm not a fan of PMC's, but this is definitely right up their alley as a security force. Unfortunately, it might also put them at the forefront of another international incident. Maybe they've learned from previous mistakes.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 17, 2008)

Nolerama said:


> I agree with TF that piracy happens everywhere. There are reported incidents in the Caribbean Sea


I blame Disney for that...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 17, 2008)

There is historic precedent.  Jefferson sent what we had as a navy to deal with the Tripoli pirates back in the 1800's. (That's also where youo get that "from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli" bit in the Marine Hymn.

If US interests are impacted, use of US warships to intercept and terminate pirates is appropriate.


----------



## HKphooey (Oct 19, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I believe the last time the US tried to get involved in Somalia, it lead to US troops being hung like sides of beef while crowds cheered. If they go in again, lets hope the mission commanders prepare properly this time.


 

You may want to phrase that Commander in Chief...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 19, 2008)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's the mission commanders who decide on gear needed, and core operations plans?


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 19, 2008)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ambush/etc/cron.html



> Request for armored reinforcements denied
> In a decision that is later highly criticized, US Defense Secretary Les Aspin denies requests from General Montgomery for armored reinforcements, despite support for Montgomery's request from General Colin Powell. Aspin says that he did not want to create the appearance that the US was increasing forces in Somalia at a time when they were trying to reduce military presence. He later concedes,"Had I known at the time what I knew after the events of Sunday, [October 3]. I would have made a very different decision." In December, he is forced to resign.



Who do you think has the strings on the SECDEF?


----------



## Big Don (Oct 19, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's the mission commanders who decide on gear needed, and core operations plans?


To a point. However, there are a whole passel of people above their pay grade who affect what the mission is defined as and what and how they are allowed to act during the mission.


----------



## ganglian (Oct 19, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> So to tie into another thread regarding US interventalism...do we get involved? Or do we just leave them alone and do our best to protect the shipping lanes? US ships only?




Screw that crap, we're americans. Strafe the deck....


----------



## HKphooey (Oct 19, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's the mission commanders who decide on gear needed, and core operations plans?


 
Unfortunately the events that lead up to day were not whole-heartedly supported and the commanders an troups did the best they could with had.   

If you give a carpenter a wrech and a screwdriver, and ask him to hammer a nail you will not get the desired result.

But I guess that is another thread.  Sorry to take this one way from topic.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 19, 2008)

Reference to the historical record shows that there are only really two ways of dealing with pirates.  Either you protect your shipping with sufficient force to send the pirates elsewhere or you effect that goal by using pirates themselves to do the job via letters of marque.

Given that the latter is unlikely to be favoured in this day and age, then it's time to task the navy for the job (oh and give them the funding their role deserves ... sorry, very, very nearly became RN in my youth, does it show  ).


----------



## elder999 (Oct 26, 2008)

Contractors called on for maritime security



> NAIROBI, Kenya  Blackwater Worldwide and other private security firms  some with a reputation for being quick on the trigger in Iraq  are joining the battle against pirates plaguing one of the world's most important shipping lanes off the coast of Somalia.
> The growing interest among merchant fleets to hire their own firepower is encouraged by the U.S. Navy and represents a new and potential lucrative market for security firms scaling back operations in Iraq.
> But some maritime organizations told The Associated Press that armed guards may increase the danger to ships' crews or that overzealous contractors might accidentally fire on fishermen.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 27, 2008)

maunakumu said:


> Here's a question...and it might be deep enough for another thread. Suppose we let these private ships hire some mercenaries/contractors and the companies start buying high tech weaponry in order to defend their cargo.
> 
> 1st of all, is this legal? 2nd of all, does this open a Pandoras box of weapons proliferation?
> 
> My first instinct is to let the companies arm the ships and put the pirates in Davey Jones Locker. On the other hand, I can see a vast black market in weapons growing even larger, with some of these systems falling into the hands of people who don't like us very much.


 
I am not certain but I believe I heard somewhere that it is not legal, possibly dependant on how close you get to a counties coastline. 

Also I believe ever since 'Executive Outcomes' many have been a bit nervous about mercenaries in things related to Africa


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 27, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> I also wonder..how the hell do these guys get from the little dinghys to the decks of these superships uncontested? Its not like they can swing over from the masts of their tall sail ships.


 

*knock* *knock*
*Sailor:* Who is it? 
*Voice:* [pause] Flowers. 
*Sailor:* Flowers for whom? 
*Voice:* [long pause] Plumber. 
*Sailor:* I don't need a plumber. You're a pirate, aren't you? 
*Voice:* [pause] Candygram. 
*Sailor:* Candygram, my foot. You get out of here before I call the Russian Navy. You're a pirate, and you know it. 
*Voice:* Wait. I'm only a dolphin. 
*Sailor:* A dolphin? Well...okay. [opens door]


----------



## elder999 (Oct 27, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> I am not certain but I believe I heard somewhere that it is not legal, possibly dependant on how close you get to a counties coastline.
> 
> Also I believe ever since 'Executive Outcomes' many have been a bit nervous about mercenaries in things related to Africa


 

It's entirely legal to deploy security personnel, and bear arms on the high seas-on both commercial and private vessels.Entering port can be a bit sticky, but there are usually procedures for this. For example, while firearms are generally illegal in Mexico, especially as a foreigner, when I sail into a Mexican port, I can declare my firearms and have them remain stowed onboard.


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 17, 2008)

Nobody light a match! Perhaps this will be the catalyst that will put a tougher stance as opposed to the seeming tolerant stance against those pirates? 


> *Somali pirates seize supertanker loaded with crude
> *
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081117/ap_on_re_af/ml_piracy
> ...


----------



## grydth (Nov 17, 2008)

To me, the question of the Somali Pirates is a 2 part inquiry.

First, is it any business of ours? No, we are not the world's (extremely unappreciated) policeman. If the pirates are pretty much preying on Russian arms shipments or Saudi and Iranian oil ships, perhaps those nations should get a warship force out there to address the problem. If our interests are not significantly involved, then action should be limited to "Oh, that is _such _a shame", followed by a switch to the sports page to address vital topics like the upcoming Giants-Titans game this weekend.

Second, *if* it is our business, then the pirates must be speedily exterminated - yes, that means killed - with overwhelming force. One ship hijacking was foiled by a Spanish helicopter buzzing the pirates and dropping smoke cannisters(!) upon them. While I applaud their courage, I don't mean we should employ *the usual half measures*, which endanger our troops and leave the enemy intact to buccaneer another day. The aircraft should use live munitions and kill from a range which presents the minimal danger to our forces. Announce a zero tolerance zone and sink anything bad that sails into it. Target their port installations and support areas. Set maritime ambushes. While the usual screams for pirates rights will be heard - there is always sympathy for the devil - they should be told to commit a hermaphroditic act. Once their boats no longer return, booty stops being taken and a few Blackbeards are killed on shore, the rest will get the message and turn to land based violent crime upon each other.


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 17, 2008)

grydth said:


> To me, the question of the Somali Pirates is a 2 part inquiry.
> 
> First, is it any business of ours? No, we are not the world's (extremely unappreciated) policeman. If the pirates are pretty much preying on Russian arms shipments or Saudi and Iranian oil ships, perhaps those nations should get a warship force out there to address the problem. If our interests are not significantly involved, then action should be limited to "Oh, that is _such _a shame", followed by a switch to the sports page to address vital topics like the upcoming Giants-Titans game this weekend.
> 
> Second, *if* it is our business, then the pirates must be speedily exterminated - yes, that means killed - with overwhelming force. One ship hijacking was foiled by a Spanish helicopter buzzing the pirates and dropping smoke canisters(!) upon them. While I applaud their courage, I don't mean we should employ *the usual half measures*, which endanger our troops and leave the enemy intact to buccaneer another day. The aircraft should use live munitions and kill from a range which presents the minimal danger to our forces. Announce a zero tolerance zone and sink anything bad that sails into it. Target their port installations and support areas. Set maritime ambushes. While the usual screams for pirates rights will be heard - there is always sympathy for the devil - they should be told to commit a hermaphroditic act. Once their boats no longer return, booty stops being taken and a few Blackbeards are killed on shore, the rest will get the message and turn to land based violent crime upon each other.


Piracy like terrorism is a hydra, kill one two more take it's place. Besides the profit$ made from a piracy are FAR too lucrative to be thwarted by the chance of being blown out of the water... just as it was back in the days around the Caribbean and all that gold being shipped back to Europe. 
It is in our best interest to fight them because allowing them to prey upon other foreign shipping gives them the wherewithal to attack American (and British) shipping. Pirates don't care what flag you fly under... its whats ye got in your cargo matey, aye that's what's important! 
True we should have a small fast attack destroyer out cruising around or even a frigate but the area where the pirates are at is a pretty big area and thus would need the presence of more than one country to make a big enough threat to the pirates to halt their activities. 
There are probably other reasons why not as well.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 17, 2008)

Hmm, I'm not sure circumstances are quite the same nowadays, *Caver*.  

Piratical behaviour persisted in it's time of fame (or infamy) because it was supported by warring states.  We, the British, had 'our' Pirates out there with Letters of Marque and so did the French, the Dutch and the Portuguese.

When that time of usefulness to foreign policy ended, so did the 'heyday' of the pirate.

I do agree tho' that unless the full force of naval power is thrown against these modern-day murderers then the effect will be minimal.  It is only because there is no policy advantage in it right now that it is not done.  When it becomes necessary then the pirates will be swept from the seas with relative ease - satellite surveillance with AWACS and a carrier group with freedom of engagement would do the job quite nicely.


----------



## grydth (Nov 17, 2008)

Disagree. The world has suffered plagues of both terrorism and piracy before, They were only stamped out by the resolute and very violent actions of governments who determined the scourges were no longer bearable. Whether it was Thuggee or Tripoli or Werewolves or The Caribbean, it wasn't ended overnight - but *it was ended *and with extreme prejudice.

The Somalis are apparently thinking professionals. Once boats stop returning and the few that do come back empty handed, it'll stop. Once they find that they can't even die fighting bravely against weapons that target them from out of the sky or far across the ocean, they'll return to domestic robbery. The survivors, that is.


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 17, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Nobody light a match! Perhaps this will be the catalyst that will put a tougher stance as opposed to the seeming tolerant stance against those pirates?


 
As long as they don't try to drive the damn thing into something, they've got at least that much more class than the *******s they stole it from.


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 17, 2008)

BBC Video on the hijacking of the supertanker... 
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=10716615&ch=4226714&src=news


----------



## TimoS (Nov 19, 2008)

I've got a simple solution for these: hire an ex Navy SEAL into each ship as a cook, preferably someone with a ponytail and who has about two facial expressions: with and without a hat  Worked quite well on Under Siege, after all 

Seriously though, I was listening to radio this morning on my way to work and they were wondering how did those pirates get on board the supertanker in the first place? It displaces huge amounts of water so I would imagine it would be very hard for anyone to come close to such a ship when it's moving.


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 19, 2008)

Gutsy move to be sure but probably seized while the ship was at anchor off shore. But a clue is found here  in a snippet of the news article (below - bold underlined are mine) 


> Given that the pirates are well armed with *grenades, heavy machineguns and rocket-launchers*, most foreign navies have steered clear of direct confrontation once ships have been hijacked, for fear of putting hostages at risk. In most cases, the owners of hijacked ships are trying to negotiate ransoms.



Now they're demanding $250 million for the oil tanker. The Saudi government refuses to negotiate with terrorist and pirates but say that the owners of the ship have the final word on it. Stupid I know, but it's how they run things over there. 

However this headline is encouraging. 



> *Indian navy destroys pirate boat, more ships taken*
> 
> 
> By Abdi Sheikh        Abdi Sheikh               2 hrs 8 mins ago
> ...



So yeah attack their bases if known but finding the head of the pirates is going to be tough unless they're already known and tend to be at one place. I'm all for tomahawk (non nuclear of course) missiles fired at the bases to wipe them out as they're found, but then there's collateral damage to consider since the pirates wouldn't be stupid enough to not hang out where there are innocent civilians in large numbers.


----------



## TimoS (Nov 19, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> So yeah attack their bases if known but finding the head of the pirates is going to be tough unless they're already known and tend to be at one place.



True, something like that might be a good idea, but apparently it's not going to be easy:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7735144.stm



> These days, there is no question of a bombardment of the port of Eyl, the main pirate base on the Somali coast. That might be the most effective response but it would require a UN Security Council resolution.
> There is a resolution (1838, passed in October) which authorises the use of "necessary means", meaning force if need be, to stop piracy in international waters. There is also another resolution (1816) which allows anti-pirate operations within Somali waters, but only with the agreement of the Somali transitional government.


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 19, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> *The Saudi government refuses to negotiate with terrorist *and pirates but say that the owners of the ship have the final word on it. Stupid I know, but it's how they run things over there.


 
Professional jealousy?


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 19, 2008)

CoryKS said:


> Professional jealousy?


:lol: probably


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 10, 2009)

> *5 Somali pirates drown with ransom share*
> 
> By MOHAMED OLAD HASSAN, Associated Press Writer        Mohamed Olad Hassan, Associated Press Writer               37 mins ago
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090110/ap_on_bi_ge/piracy
> ...



Well seems that Davy Jones is alive and well after all and still taking on new mates and plunders... arr... thar be justice for ye. 
You get the image of these guys with bags of gold and refusing to let them go and the bags dragging them down to the depths below. Just makes ye wanna laugh don't it? iratesku


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 10, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Somalia is I believe one of the largest weapons markets in the world, so the pirates already have access to a huge arsenal.  I recall reading that an AK47 is like $7 there.



Yeah, mine cost me a lot more, and isn't as good as the ones they get for 7 bucks.  Stupid regulations.  Grumble Grumble.  

At least I bought mine when they were only around 200 as opposed to now when they are closer to 900.

As far as stopping them... While I'm certain there are weapons that can be brought to bear against those pirate ships with longer ranges and more accurate abilities than their RPGs... maybe they should just divert their shipping lanes away from Somalia?


----------



## TimoS (Jan 10, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> maybe they should just divert their shipping lanes away from Somalia?



Easier said than done. To do that, they would basically have take a long detour and go around Africa. Take a look at this map of Africa

http://www.globe-images.net/africa/africa-image.jpg

The Somali pirates operate around the Horn of Africa and as you can see, there isn't that much open sea there. Also note that e.g. the now released Saudi tanker was attacked about 800 km off the coast


----------



## arnisador (Jan 10, 2009)

Old methods may be the only ones that work here...execute pirates when they are found at sea. I don't have a better idea.


----------



## Randy Strausbaugh (Jan 10, 2009)

Make 'em walk the plank.
String 'em from the yardarm.
Arrrr!


----------

