I heard about this this morning…and I haven’t seen anything more. It is a Maersk owned ship, but USA flagged-with 20 American crewmen on board. My questin: will Maersk pay a ransom? Or will something else be tried?
I though the combined naves of the world were patrolling the area-how did they get caught?
It’s a big ocean.
Somebody please feed the hamsters!
From the linked (in post #2) article:
The pirates reacted to the patrols by seizing ships deeper in the Indian Ocean, IIRC.
Recent report indicates that the crew has retaken control of the ship, capturing one pirate, and throwing 3 overboard. One can only hope the captured pirate is hanged by the neck until dead.
Yay! Good for them!
Better yet, held hostage and persuaded to confess the location of the mother ship. I’m sure the USN would have a plan of action from there.
No plank?
As I understand it, they just wait until the patrol ships finish patrolling and then move in on a ship, because they know the response time is like, forevah, for them to get back. There just aren’t enough patrols to adequately protect all the ships. I’d be scared to death to be in a ship in that area. This is the sixth hijacking in a week? What the FUCK!
My understanding is that merchant ships arent allowed to be armed with any significant weapons. They are just allowed some non-lethal countermeasures. This more or less makes them tempting targets on the sea. I imagine if these international treaties were changed to allow a couple .50 guns then the pirate problem would clear up.
You probably dont want these things docking with big guns, perhaps crews can dismount them and lock them up when in port.
A 19th Century fiction, I’m afraid.
I don’t know just who you think it would be that wouldn’t allow merchant ships to be armed.
Unless it’s the insurance company that has a policy on the ship. They would be concerned, because a big merchant ship is so vulnerable to cheap, readily available weapons now. If the merchant ships started mounted .50 machine guns, the pirates would respond by carrying shoulder-fired weapons that could damage (or even sink) a ship. (Like the Argentines used against British warships during the Fauklands war.)
And you don’t want to be on a ship filled with tons of flammable oil when the pirates start firing those at you. Nor do you want to be the one insuring that ship, either. From an accounting viewpoint, it’s much cheaper to just pay the ransom rather than risk having a multi-million dollar ship & cargo destroyed.
It’s not immediately clear how pirates would profit from sinking a ship.
I find this incredibly ironic. (source)
Somali pirates violently captured a ship which contained humanitarian aid in the form of food for the starving peoples of Somalia. Classy.
It shows the world and other vessels if you don’t let them board you will be sank…
Going into a port with arms could get the ship and or ship’s crew confined. Also I imagine the US Coast Guard or th ABS would go ballistic.
You do not think ships are subject to laws and regulations of the countries whose flags they fly, plus the countries whose territorial waters the visit, plus international laws of the sea? Why would you think that?
The ports concerned. I don’t think the US would want armed Chinese ships sailing into the Port of Oakland.
Also, those weapons would end up in the hands of pirates who successfully raided the ships.
I love this because it’s a very American solution… more guns! If every merchant ship on the ocean was armed even minor misunderstandings could turn into pitched battles and some of those weapons would inevitably fall into the wrong hands at some stage. Would the US be happy if armed Iranian ships could roam around off the East coast?