Poll: Somalian pirates = guns on merchant ships?
- Thread starter WolfThomas
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Actually a thought has occurred to me, theres about 200 hostages to different nations currently held by Somali pirates, if we do start blasting them, they may carry hostages, which would make it more difficult.
I think they should have some sort of trained security force onboard if passing through pirate waters, not just firearms for the crew.
And about the movement sensing turret thingy-ma-bob: shoots anything that comes past in the night? Romantic pleasure cruise turned bloodbath much?
And about the movement sensing turret thingy-ma-bob: shoots anything that comes past in the night? Romantic pleasure cruise turned bloodbath much?
They actually don't need to be armed with lethal shots. They could just be water-cannons. But I imagine that some rules exist about how close ships can get to each other on sea.Bernzz said:
It's more likely to just get the ship's crew killed.
Short of putting a squad of professional soldiers on every ship, there isn't really an effectve way to deter these people.
Coming from Somalia, sailing several hundred miles into the open ocean in an often tiny little open boat, the prospect of being shot at when they get there probably isn't much of an issue.
Since the pirates tactics work mostly around sneaking up on ships in small boats that don't show up on radar having a big gun on board would probably be counter productive. It'd be the first thing any attackers would move to take control of, then they're both on your ship and a lot better armed than they were ten minutes beforehand.
Short of putting a squad of professional soldiers on every ship, there isn't really an effectve way to deter these people.
Coming from Somalia, sailing several hundred miles into the open ocean in an often tiny little open boat, the prospect of being shot at when they get there probably isn't much of an issue.
Since the pirates tactics work mostly around sneaking up on ships in small boats that don't show up on radar having a big gun on board would probably be counter productive. It'd be the first thing any attackers would move to take control of, then they're both on your ship and a lot better armed than they were ten minutes beforehand.
I agree with the first reply so much, I initially mistook his name for captain obvious 
Nevertheless: despite patrolling naval vessels, its still happening, so I think the ships that need it should maintain an armed guard. Perhaps a few .50 calibres wouldn't go amiss, they should be able to halt speedboat attacks.
Nevertheless: despite patrolling naval vessels, its still happening, so I think the ships that need it should maintain an armed guard. Perhaps a few .50 calibres wouldn't go amiss, they should be able to halt speedboat attacks.
Baaad idea.. I'd rather have several gunship in the area as they could deal with the pirates with almost no risk whatsoever.
Fire arms are a bad idea, considering the fact that the reprecautions will be severe once the pirates manage to get onboard and out-gun the crew.
Fire arms are a bad idea, considering the fact that the reprecautions will be severe once the pirates manage to get onboard and out-gun the crew.
More costly than issuing weapons to civilian crews and training them in thier use? More costly than the loss of cargo and the hefty ransoms demanded by the pirates?BrynThomas said:
A convoy system is the only viable solution, short of genocide in Somalia's costal areas. Somali pirates don't dare come anywhere near military vessels. With organized convoys only 1 or 2 military ships could effectivly protect a much larger number of civilian merchantmen. In addition not only would this be a more effective deterrent (the gurentee of facing trained military personell with access to enormus firepower when piracy is attempted is why the pirates bug out as soon as they hear a warship is near thier target, unless they have hostages) but more effective in combat. The armament of such ships is heavier, more accurate and more likley to be used effectivly than dishing out firearms to civies.
Simply have prearranged assembly points where ships group up into convoys with warships take them past the danger zone then everyone can go thier seperate ways. While this might slow down shipping in the area a bit its more desireable than losing the ship, cargo and crew to pirates.
The problem with this is that pirate waters are not marked on any known charts. They do not float markers saying, "Yarrrr... Beware all who enter." Guns should be allowed and simply kept in a locker when not needed. There is no way to know where the pirates are, and that is the problem. You can guess as to where they might be, and you can develop a general area of operation, but there is no real way to know whether you would need a weapon or not.Cpt_Oblivious said:
I'm all for more naval patrols myself. The U.S., U.K., France, Germany, etc. all have cargo/oil ships that pass through dangerous waters, and they all have the capability to divert a ship or two to guard their container ships if need be. Pirates are pretty much defenseless against a destroyer. What are they gonna do? Throw grenades at it? Shoot it with an RPG? That's like throwing rocks at a tank. It won't end well for the rock thrower. The main problem arises when the pirates actually do get their hands on a ship and crew. I believe there should be more maritime hostage rescue training than there is as well.
I'm sorry but this made me laugh. Do you know how much it costs to operate a destroyer?Bob_Marley42 said:
Weapons don't neccessarily have to be issued to the crewman on a vessel by any government or company. Even if they were, it would not cost nearly as much as routing a military vessel to accompany convoys every time they pass through dangerous waters. It costs about $35,000,000 per year to operate a Spraunce class destroyer.
http://everything2.com/title/Spruance%2520Class%2520Destroyer (annual operating costs for a Spraunce class destroyer)
That's just a single destroyer alone, and that's probably a very optimistic figure. Do you realize what that adds up to over an undetermined amount of time?
Arming crews is the cheaper alternative.
Having said that, I'm all for maritime patrols by a naval task force, but convoying is not a viable option as far as costs are concerned. We need a 'neighborhood watch,' not babysitters.
The ships are already there, its simply retasking them to convoy duty rather than patrols. By the time patrol vessels arrive to assist it is often too late to interdict the pirates.
We have already seen that the patrols with the current force levels are ineffective. Convoying represents an opportunity to better use the forces already in place. The other realistic option is to deploy more warships to the area. Which is even more expensive.
Sadly the international community shut down all the proper mercenary companies like Sandline and Executive Outcomes. Blackwater has nothing on those guys. They were offering an unarmed ship with an unarmed MD500 helicopter as protection. The mercs from the '90s didn't bother with that crap. They had Mi24s and attack aircraft. If this world still had a real mercenary presence we could get these companies to pay for thier own protection rather than having to deploy state owned naval assets.
We have already seen that the patrols with the current force levels are ineffective. Convoying represents an opportunity to better use the forces already in place. The other realistic option is to deploy more warships to the area. Which is even more expensive.
Sadly the international community shut down all the proper mercenary companies like Sandline and Executive Outcomes. Blackwater has nothing on those guys. They were offering an unarmed ship with an unarmed MD500 helicopter as protection. The mercs from the '90s didn't bother with that crap. They had Mi24s and attack aircraft. If this world still had a real mercenary presence we could get these companies to pay for thier own protection rather than having to deploy state owned naval assets.
