Author Topic: Piracy questions? (Read 1056 times)

Questor · « **on:** April 14, 2009, 05:17:45 AM »

1) Who is going to pay for the Alabama Maersk incident?

2) Why should the US government be involved in anti-piracy efforts?

3) Why don't the shipping companies defend their ships?

4) Will the US military be in the business of saving the ships of other nations?

Graybeard · « **Reply #1 on:** April 14, 2009, 05:57:49 AM »

1) Who is going to pay for the Alabama Maersk incident?

You, me and every other tax payer in the US.

2) Why should the US government be involved in anti-piracy efforts?

Prolly shouldn't be really but I'd personally like to see a return to the days when messing with a US Citizen or US assets mean a bad case of whumpass was turned loose on the perpetrator.

3) Why don't the shipping companies defend their ships?

Cuz they'd rather buy insurance and not have to take the responsibility.

4) Will the US military be in the business of saving the ships of other nations?

Most likely so, didn't you know we're the world police?

Sourdough · « **Reply #2 on:** April 14, 2009, 06:04:25 AM »

Ditto what GB said

rex6666 · « **Reply #3 on:** April 14, 2009, 06:23:02 AM »

What GB said is what will happen.
I think some other countries should take their turn, rotate warships and
keep a watch on them 24/7.

flintlock · « **Reply #4 on:** April 14, 2009, 06:29:57 AM »

I'd stop this piracy thing...

Take about a dozen of our boys from the armed forces in plain clothes...Put a .50 caliber machine gun on the bow, rear and both sides, concealed...Arm the rest as needed...When a ship tries to take over, do your thing, make sure you sink it...

Don't tell a dang soul...Like the SSS deal...After a few encounters, no problems...

Oldshooter · « **Reply #5 on:** April 14, 2009, 04:26:50 PM »

We dont know what is /was going on behind the scenes. I'm thinking there wont be anything done(about piracy) in the future unless there is an American flag ship involved! The Maersk Alabama incident was fortuitous for Obama. He came out smelling like a rose, it worked and everyone came out ok! There was not much to loose, politically I mean, And No foreign feathers were ruffled. Obama wont risk whatever gains he thinks he has made with the apology tour! So there wont be any land attacks or anything like that!

The shipping companies dont really care, I'm sure they dont want anyone killed, but they just pay a ransom and they go on their way! You would not comprehend what kind of money they make( remember Onassis)
I saw a documentary a while back and the shipping company spokesman said they were more concerned with human casualties than fighting the pirates! They just buy the insurance and pay the ransoms. Then they pass the costs on.

Did you know that they feed the captives very well then send the shippers a bill for the chow?

IF it was too painful there would be a solution. These people(Shipping companies) have a lot of bucks, and a lot of stroke! if you know what I mean.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #6 on:** April 14, 2009, 05:11:17 PM »

In these types of cases I think the government has a role to play with helping to protect US ships. They are operating legally in international waters and if the countries closest to the acts won’t help provide safe traffic, then we really have no choice. This is no different than a plane hijacking. It’s not an offensive action , its defensive on our part. These ships should be able carry arms so they can defend for themselves as well. The issue is many of these foreign countries will not allow armed merchant ships into their ports.

BBF · « **Reply #7 on:** April 15, 2009, 07:54:38 AM »

There are other nations that have ships on patrol and captured pirates.

DDZ · « **Reply #8 on:** April 15, 2009, 10:00:27 AM »

I can't understand why a ship with valueable cargo aboard does not not have armed protection. I'm guessing that these Islamic Terrorists (pirates) don't have very big boats, so why not just some armed people on board? When they try to board the ship, just shoot them. I'm guessing that it will stop after this happens a few times.

Norm1057 · « **Reply #9 on:** April 15, 2009, 10:45:00 AM »

It's not that most countries wont allow armed merchant ships into port, but they also outlaw private vessels from defending themselves. This is not a new problem on the seas.

no guns here · « **Reply #10 on:** April 15, 2009, 11:10:56 PM »

If it were up to me (and most are thankful that it's not), I would open a VERY big case of "whumpass" on the Somali pirates. I would trace their movement with UAV's, then I would level their home port with distinctly non-surgical B-52 strikes. Those of you with certain experience in WWII, Korea, Vietnam and DS know what large scale aerial bombing can do... A three-ship cell of B-52's fully laden with 500 lb. bombs can turn the targeted area into a veritable "moonscape". Piracy cannot be condoned or permitted in any way, shape or form. I would arm every vessel transiting the region. I would change the ROE for the US Navy in that region. They would board and search every vessel possible. If fired upon, the orders would be for mandatory "shoot to kill and/or sink". I would get rid of all non-lethal attempts to stop or to turn the pirates away. They would be fired upon. Any vessels found harboring pirates or controlled by pirates would be summarily scuttled. The pirates would then be hung and buried at sea. I would detail the NSA to track and chain the cell phone usage of the pirate "lords" and then we would start putting JDAM's through their windows. The consequences of piracy must be death and destruction such that no one would risk such punishment. The consequences must be terrible, swift and ruthless.

NGH

Oldshooter · « **Reply #11 on:** April 16, 2009, 01:12:17 AM »

We can only wish NGH!!

That our President would see the light!

45-70.gov · « **Reply #12 on:** April 16, 2009, 04:58:46 AM »

Quote from: Questor on April 14, 2009, 05:17:45 AM

1) Who is going to pay for the Alabama Maersk incident?

2) Why should the US government be involved in anti-piracy efforts?

3) Why don't the shipping companies defend their ships?

4) Will the US military be in the business of saving the ships of other nations?

-----------------------------------------------------
1] don't matter it was money WELL spent
2] yes.because we need and want trade........start by demanding all ship ARM THEMSELVES
forbit trade like we do with CUBA any country that won't allow armed ships in
3] they are stupid.......and that would take power away from the government so laws against that
4] when its convenient.....after all it may be good prevention...good excuse to kill pirates

williamlayton · « **Reply #13 on:** April 17, 2009, 04:21:09 AM »

Where are most ships registered? NOT IN THE U.S.
Why?
What types are we talking about arming if they are not U.S. registered?
Blessings

kitchawan kid · « **Reply #14 on:** April 17, 2009, 05:21:09 AM »

I maybe wrong,but was our goverment formed to #1 to protect our borders #2 protect our shipping from piracy?

45-70.gov · « **Reply #15 on:** April 17, 2009, 06:05:15 AM »

Quote from: kitchawan kid on April 17, 2009, 05:21:09 AM

I maybe wrong,but was our goverment formed to #1 to protect our borders #2 protect our shipping from piracy?

isn't the 2nd amendment a right the constitution describes as granted by god to ALL men

yet we don't defend that RIGHT to bear arms from being taken from mariners

EVERY CONTRY FORBIDING SELF DEFENCE SHOULD BE CONCIDERED A REPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT

Cabin4 · « **Reply #16 on:** April 17, 2009, 07:28:58 AM »

Quote from: williamlayton on April 17, 2009, 04:21:09 AM

Where are most ships registered? NOT IN THE U.S.
Why?
What types are we talking about arming if they are not U.S. registered?
Blessings

Since the US has no authority to force any ship to arm itself including those USA flagged, the right could only extent to USA flagged ships. Again, the issue is, many foreign ports, will not allow an armed merchant ship to port in their country. I'm in favor of allowing USA flagged ships to arm. Legislation should be passed now, allowing ships to carry arms and let the shipping lines decide if and where they want or can deploy it. Doing this helps focus the attention on the next aspect of this issue. After the legislation passes, if a US flagged ship is taken over by pirates and the steam ship line elected not to allow their crew to arm, the blood & responsibility will be on their hands. If the ship was destined for a port that forbid armed merchant ships, the blood will be on their hands. Maybe both will be true.

We should have legislation that enables and protects USA flagged merchant ship lines to arm themselves. What they do after that and how they comply with country port specific maritime laws is up to them.

gypsyman · « **Reply #17 on:** April 17, 2009, 07:35:44 AM »

Since these foreign ports, are making money either way. Our ships are either delivering something they need, or picking up what they want to sell. The can live with our ships being armed, or have somebody else's ships picking up or delivering. I have a feeling they would understand. I truely believe, even in this world wide mess of an economy, they need us, a hell of a lot more, than we need them. gypsyman

Oldshooter · « **Reply #18 on:** April 17, 2009, 08:35:46 AM »

A couple of points to understand, if I may:

We have very few American flag ships in the Merchant Marine I mean very few there is virtually no American Fleet! Maersk is foreign owned. Not sure why they are flying American Flags onboard, it is not the Norm and Not Economically prudent!

We have even less American Crews, Some American Officers, but few of them also. These Days If you capture a ship with an American Flag you will have a Greek or Spanish Captain and a Filipino crew!

And they are getting fewer as I type this!

Even the Exxon Valdez is flying a foreign flag now. As is most of the Exxon Fleet, what is left of it. Exxon decided they never wanted to see the "double crosses" on National TV again. There may not be any left I have not been there for a few years now!

This may be why no more "American" ships have been boarded by Pirates

beerbelly · « **Reply #19 on:** April 17, 2009, 09:32:40 AM »

Many of these ships are owned by Americans, but are flagged in another country. The reason for this is excessive government regulations and taxes. It just cost to much and is to much hassle to fool with the U S Government.
Beerbelly

williamlayton · « **Reply #20 on:** April 17, 2009, 10:20:47 AM »

Especially when it comes to crews and regulations concerning them.
Blessings

Oldshooter · « **Reply #21 on:** April 17, 2009, 11:27:38 AM »

American crews are 2 to 3 times more expensive!

45-70.gov · « **Reply #22 on:** April 17, 2009, 11:51:25 AM »

Quote from: gypsyman on April 17, 2009, 07:35:44 AM

Since these foreign ports, are making money either way. Our ships are either delivering something they need, or picking up what they want to sell. The can live with our ships being armed, or have somebody else's ships picking up or delivering. I have a feeling they would understand. I truely believe, even in this world wide mess of an economy, they need us, a hell of a lot more, than we need them. gypsyman

can't add much to that ... boy cot is a powerful tool

going un armed is insanity

torpedoman · « **Reply #23 on:** April 17, 2009, 03:52:35 PM »

Obama never had anything at risk here. You never heard that he authorized anything until it was all over and good. If bad the skipper of the bainbridge or the senior seal would have been at fault

burntpowder · « **Reply #24 on:** April 17, 2009, 05:41:36 PM »

Just got done looking at charts of that region. A vessel transiting through there will be in danger for two to three days. Longer if they're slow. Paying for an armed force, at union scale, for the duration of a whole voyage isn't cost effective, because you would be paying a team of about 12 to 15 people 24/7 for weeks! Plus food, laundry, benefits etc. Quarters for the team would be a problem since most commercial ships have limited crew quarters. Also many countries don't allow armed merchant ships in their waters or ports. International/Maritime treaties would have to be changed. I don't have a traffic count through there but it has to be one of the most heavily traveled regions on Earth. That would make putting US military teams onboard very expensive. Best way to do this is Private Enterprise, contracting with shipping companies for groups to board in the Red Sea and off load off shore near Kenya. You would have to rotate teams on a regular duty routine, say two round trips, and two weeks off.

mirage1988 · « **Reply #25 on:** April 17, 2009, 06:19:37 PM »

I bet the outcome would have been different had the captain had a concealed carry permit.

Everyone I talk to, even my screwed-up, pro-union, democratic inlaws that voted for osama agree that the guys on the ships should at least have the choice to be armed.

I think that most of the nonmilitary seaman are probably liberals, you wouldn't catch my ass out there with no means to defend myself!

My father in law is a staunch democrat-truck driver-all american-pro union also has a ccw permit. Seems he doesn't really trust the osama supporters either?

williamlayton · « **Reply #26 on:** April 18, 2009, 12:12:48 AM »

Mirage
Most of the crews of these vessels are not what you would call upstanding, lawabiding, orderly folks. They could hardly qualify for a CCW, which carries no weight on the high seas.
I cannot speak for the officers of these vessels. Perhaps another can.
Maritme sailors are not now what they once were. Like many, the Americans either priced theirownselves out of the market OR the owners turned too using scab labor and transferred flags too countries with little or no rules.
Blessings