Pirates? Just pay the ransom!

[thardey]

A platoon is a lot of troops! But, isn't this a job for a Blackwater-type outfit (or whatever their new name is)? Let private industry pay for it. Give me eight or so ex-Marines, a decent sonar system, and some .50 caliber MGs mounted on each side, and you've got yourself a welcoming party.

One way or the other, somebody is paying. Either we do nothing, and insurance pays, which means that private industry pays, which means that we pay -- or we put the military on/near/above/below the cargo ships to protect them, which means the government pays, which means that we pay. Or we let the private industry arm and train themselves, or hire security, which means that they pay, which means that we pay.

So, anyway we slice it, somehow, I end up donating to the cause. I would just as soon donate in a way that doesn't end up in the pirate's pockets! (unless it's a grenade down the pants.)

 

[Archangel M]

We tried to fix Somalia. UN resolutions out the wazoo, it got a bunch of US servicemen killed and their bodies dragged through the streets. No more. Somalia can kiss my smelly crease, it's not happening. I pity the people of Somalia who did not ask to be born into the lawless society they have, but it is 100% their own problem now.

If you think our little jaunt over there in the 90's was a serious attempt to "fix the problem"...I think you are seriously mistaken.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Nope.

The key to the pirate's ability to gain control of these ships is that they appear out of nowhere, they overhaul the cargo vessel, and they use or threaten to use RPGs and machine guns while boarding. US jets cannot detect or engage pirates in small skiffs prior to their being too close to get to in time to stop.

This is pure boarding party repulsion. Classic, and exactly what US Marines were trained for. Close in, short range weapons, and the occasional need for hand-to-hand combat. This is a human problem, not a technology problem.

We had missiles that could target the *** of a flea when I served back in 88...I'm pretty sure we got the tech to blow a tiny pirate boat out of the water from the air today.

Even so, other than genocide, there's no 100% full-proof measure to stop these pirate attacks but I think having an air craft carrier parked off the horn for a bit launching routine air patrols could have a positive effect on reducing the attacks.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If you think our little jaunt over there in the 90's was a serious attempt to "fix the problem"...I think you are seriously mistaken.

I'm not mistaken - it was a serious attempt. We were mistaken thinking it could be fixed, as was the UN, under whose auspices we were there.

http://www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/Missions/unosomi.htm

http://www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/Missions/unosom2p.htm

 

[Bill Mattocks]

We had missiles that could target the *** of a flea when I served back in 88...I'm pretty sure we got the tech to blow a tiny pirate boat out of the water from the air today.

The problem isn't hitting them so much as finding them before they are too close to the hull of the cargo ship they intend to board.

Even so, other than genocide, there's no 100% full-proof measure to stop these pirate attacks ...

Yes, there is, and I've explained it patiently. Marines on board will stop every single pirate attack on the ships they're deployed on.

...but I think having an air craft carrier parked off the horn for a bit launching routine air patrols could have a positive effect on reducing the attacks.

Not even a tiny little bitty bit of a positive effect. Not even the slightest of effects. What it does is take a very expensive and valuable flattop out of commision and place it on 'gunboat diplomacy' duty in waters off a coast of people who could not care less that there is an aircraft carrier out there.

You won't have more than a few minutes notice that any cargo vessel is under attack, and by the time you scramble jets, even with pilots on condition one standby (which they can't keep up forever), by the time they get there, the pirates will have boarded - who you gonna sink then?

We do not have to hunt pirates. We know where they will go. Wait for them there. They will come to you. Or not, in which case you've won.

 

[MJS]

Just park an Air Craft Carrier in the area for a while. Naval jets will have little problem reaching ships in need in a short time and can devastate pirate "ships" without much effort.

While getting ready for work this morning, they were talking about the latest attempted hijack. They were saying something like 1.2 million mi. of water in that area, so there would have to be a huge number of ships in the area to cover all that.

But, your idea, IMO, would eliminate alot of that. A carrier or two, with jets on it, in set areas, when the distress call comes in, off they go.

 

[MJS]

Nope.

The key to the pirate's ability to gain control of these ships is that they appear out of nowhere, they overhaul the cargo vessel, and they use or threaten to use RPGs and machine guns while boarding. US jets cannot detect or engage pirates in small skiffs prior to their being too close to get to in time to stop.

This is pure boarding party repulsion. Classic, and exactly what US Marines were trained for. Close in, short range weapons, and the occasional need for hand-to-hand combat. This is a human problem, not a technology problem.

Maybe what they need is someone to serve as a lookout. It shouldnt be that hard to see these boats approaching. If a call can be put out that the ship is under attack, I don't see why jets couldnt arrive in time.

 

[celtic_crippler]

The problem isn't hitting them so much as finding them before they are too close to the hull of the cargo ship they intend to board.

Point taken. It will take more than just a single strategy I think, I was suggesting but one that I feel would have a large impact.

Yes, there is, and I've explained it patiently. Marines on board will stop every single pirate attack on the ships they're deployed on.

Deploying military personel on a civilian ship? That could set a precedent leading to other types of businesses demanding military assistance... not sure I like where that goes (possibly another thread)...BUT... I can see your point and agree that it would go a long way in taking care of it.

Not even a tiny little bitty bit of a positive effect. Not even the slightest of effects. What it does is take a very expensive and valuable flattop out of commision and place it on 'gunboat diplomacy' duty in waters off a coast of people who could not care less that there is an aircraft carrier out there.

Well I guess somebody aught to tell the Joint Chiefs that their past strategies involving placing Carriers in areas of conflict is dead wrong. Who knew? Those stupid old fuddy duddies....

You won't have more than a few minutes notice that any cargo vessel is under attack, and by the time you scramble jets, even with pilots on condition one standby (which they can't keep up forever), by the time they get there, the pirates will have boarded - who you gonna sink then?

Other pirates? %-} Arrrrrr
Boats got more resources than just jets. Do you disagree that it would be a good idea to go ahead and post more Seals in the area?

We do not have to hunt pirates. We know where they will go. Wait for them there. They will come to you. Or not, in which case you've won.

No argument from me there! As Barney Phife would say, "Nip it in the bud!"

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Deploying military personel on a civilian ship? That could set a precedent leading to other types of businesses demanding military assistance... not sure I like where that goes (possibly another thread)...BUT... I can see your point and agree that it would go a long way in taking care of it.

We have done so before. In WWII, it was not uncommon. But as far as demanding - I would prefer if we did the demanding, and the civilian ships did the paying for the assets. That should keep 'demands' for military troops on civilian assets down.

Well I guess somebody aught to tell the Joint Chiefs that their past strategies involving placing Carriers in areas of conflict is dead wrong. Who knew? Those stupid old fuddy duddies....

Aircraft carriers are absolutely good things to have - as well as destroyers and frigates and so on. They serve a purpose. In the case of aircraft carriers, their purpose is to project military power inland from sea and to protect naval assets from opposing navies and incoming air power. It's a great tool, this is just the wrong job for it.

Other pirates? %-} Arrrrrr
Boats got more resources than just jets. Do you disagree that it would be a good idea to go ahead and post more Seals in the area?

Seals are great - I have trained with them and I have huge, big-time respect for them. Would not want to make one mad. They're truly dangerous individuals. No doubt they would do a fantastic job. That said, they're a much more finite and expensive resource than Marines. Overkill in the routine 'stop the pirate from boarding' mission. Great for rescue ops such as the one they just performed so ably.

I'd also consider Army special forces, but let's face it, Marines are tasked with being sea-going infantry. No point in making dogfaces seasick when you got jarheads who already got all the pukey out of their systems.

 

[CoryKS]

I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Game over man. Game over!

 

[celtic_crippler]

I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Naw...too much effort. Let's just stop sending aid.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Maybe what they need is someone to serve as a lookout. It shouldnt be that hard to see these boats approaching. If a call can be put out that the ship is under attack, I don't see why jets couldnt arrive in time.

"remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away...."

 

[Sukerkin]

I hadn't realised just how interesting this thread had gotten. Most insightful and entertaining posting on a serious issue, gentlemen. My compliments.

I most strongly agree that the most cost effective way of deterring these pirates is the provision of Marine contingents on ships sailing through the danger zone. After all, it is one of the main tasks for which such forces were created (the primary one being to project military force onto an enemy ship and prevent same).

In times gone by, it was not unknown for private exploratory scientific or trade endeavours to hire a Marine unit to defend them on their travels. It sounds like an idea whose time has come again.

 

[arnisador]

I read a commentary article suggesting a Sky Marshall style program with Sea Marshalls randomly assigned to ships...I think that more certainty is needed, because I doubt that the pirates will be scared off--they'll need to be shot off.

 

[AoCAdam]

If it ceases to be profitable, they will cease the activity.

This is the only real solution I see available. If the Pirates no longer profit from hijacking ships they will cease to do it.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I haven't visited this department in a while, so forgive me if this has been dealt with. Anyway, the pirate siezure of the US merchant ship Maersk Alabama has been in the news all week. As everyone knows, the ship was attacked and boarded by Somali pirates in the Indian Ocean. The American crew resisted and the pirates fled on a lifeboat, taking the ship's captain hostage. The US Navy came to the rescue and the the situation was eventually "resolved" with one pirate taken prisoner and the rest killed. And, thank God, both the captain, crew, and ship all safe.

OK, "happy ending" right? Well what caught my attention was the reported reaction of shipping companies. When several representatives of shipping companies were inteviewed they expressed concern and unease over the violent solution to this hostage/ransom situation. Their reaction was fear that this could lead to "an escalation of violence in the region" and that financially it was wiser for them to continue to negotiate and pay the ransom (often in excess of a million dollars) in such situations.

When asked why they didn't arm their ships, they responded that that might just provoke the pirates, increasing their losses and endangering their crews. This in turn would leave them open to liability (lawsuits?) from the crew or their families. And, since many of these companies are not US based, they don't feel that they can depend upon the US Navy to intervene. So these companies would rather just pay out their ransoms as a cost of doing business.

So how do you guys feel about this as a defensive strategy/ Don't arm your crew or pay for professional security forces on your ships. Just pay a cool million or two to any rag-tag bunch of out of work Somali fisherman that happen across your path. Personally, I feel that kind of thinking would make a lot of folks consider a career in piracy!

Guess we've FORCED the shipping companies to defend themselves at this point......THEY'RE WELCOME!

 

[sgtmac_46]

Now, if I were a smart Somalian pirate, I'd be forming a 'anti-piracy' company and offering my services to accompany ships passing through the region and fighting off pirates as required. I'd make a pretty penny, I'd be friends with the US Navy, and if it so happened that my pirate friends and I split the 'payment' after unsuccessful 'pirate' attacks, who's to know? But that's just me, I'm sneaky like that.

A little 'protection' in exchange for payments.....I wouldn't be surprised if it's been offered.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Unfortunately, as was said a number of times during this crisis, arming the ships is actually more costly to the shipping companies than paying the occasional ransom due to the increased insurance costs for armed ships. Further, many ports simply won't allow armed ships to dock and unload, either. I don't see this issue resolving until there is actually a stable, functioning government in Somalia.

That was the case until very recently.....now I don't think they have a choice but to deal with it. We've upped the ante.

As to a functioning stable government in Somalia, that's not likely any time soon......and a taller order than stopping the pirates.

I really hope the government isn't dumb enough to try and engage in an other Somalia nation building session......we should have learned a lesson from last time.

What is called for are a few Punitive Expeditions on the Somalia coast where the pirates are operating from.......leave the internal problems of Somalia to Somalis.

 

[arnisador]

Guess we've FORCED the shipping companies to defend themselves at this point......THEY'RE WELCOME!

It's not that simple. We don't allow armed vessels in our own ports! They should arm themselves, but can they?