Why doesn’t the U.S. put a Seal Team or similar well armed commando unit on a few of the ships heading through the piratic waters we hear so much about these days in northeast Africa and basically blow the pirates out of the water three or four times. It would seem to me that such action would take some of the luster out of piracy for the individuals involved and cause the incidents to drop off rather dramaticly.
Yes, I know there would be some legal problems with putting armed military men and women on foreign owned ships, but for heaven’s sake, we are the people that invaded Iraq for no apparent reason - legal, smeagal.
If nothing else, what about all those mercenary companies employed in Iraq? Couldn’t we talk the shipping magnets into hiring a few of those units for the trip through dangerous waters?
Clearly, the US Navy completely overmatches the pirates. Therefore it’s a question of politics and/or willpower – probably both. maybe the local governments don’t want to allow us to intervene, and intervention would mean war. Or maybe we’re cautious about being overextended. But certainly, any one of the great powers could deal with the piracy if it chose.
How about a private firm to escort tankers and ships? I saw the news yesterday about a giant oil tanker being hijacked by pirates and thought to myself, what a fine business opportunity that would be. If only I had the money. I definately have the hostility to launch such an endeavor.
It all comes down to cost-benefit analyses. For the merchants, what’s the cost of the security, compared to the cost of the occasional pirate attack? For the pirates, what’s the cost of the occasional sting, compared to the profit from a successful raid?
Shipping has always been about profits. As soon as the pirates significantly threaten profitability then you’ll see well-armed merchants or (para)military escorts.
Besides, Pirates are cool. Nobody really knows why.
Killing the odd pirate won’t solve the problem. They need to be rooted out of their nests and exterminated. Unfortunately, that would require near-genocidal action against large portions of the Somali coast.
The popular, sanitized image of an early 18th century pirate is cool. If you’re ten.
I’m just surprised that whatever member of the Saudi extended royal family owns that supertanker didn’t hire onboard security that would have prevented being taken over by raggedy Somali pirates.
One obvious area of concern (beyond the crew and perhaps – for some companies – greater than the crew) is damage to the ship itself. Earlier in the article it mentions pirates firing RPGs to force the ship to stop so it can be boarded. If someone aboard the oil-laden supertanker starts firing at the pirates, you’re possibly looking at the sinking of a hundred million dollar ship plus its payload.
What has everyone stunned about this latest case is the fact that this ship was hijacked 450 miles off the coast. I doubt anyone was worried about pirates that far offshore.
Oh, and the real answer - merchant shipping is supposed to be neutral. I believe international treaties prohibit a merchant vessel from carrying arms, or it’s no longer neutral
I saw in another thread that Blackwater, at least, is contemplating putting at least one ship to work in the area. From the article, which I can’t find now, the ship itself would not be armed, but the Blackwater crew would carry small arms sufficient to dealing with pirates. I question how legal that would be…
What do mean that merchant shipping is “supposed to be neutral”? Nations can be neutral, or they can be at war (belligerents). Merchant vessels are defined to be neutral or belligerent based on the flag of the nation that they are sailing under.
For example, if the nation of Liberia is not at war with anybody, it is by definition neutral, as is any vessel sailing under a Liberian flag. In WWII, a merchant vessel flying the flag of a belligerent was fair game for being attacked. A vessel flying the flag of a neutral nation was not supposed to be attacked by the belligerents.
Cite? What does the neutrality of a vessel have to do with being armed for self-defense?
The real reason that merchant shipping is not armed is that it doesn’t make much sense for an oil tanker or cargo vessel to get in a shoot-out with a pirate. The pirate has little to lose; the oil tanker or cargo vessel has much to lose.
It might be that too, but the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) mandates that “innocent passage,” which is granted a large number of protections, doesn’t apply to ships with weapons.
Look at Part 2, Article 19, Section 2:
Ships that follow those regulations are granted “innocent passage” status which means basically that they can’t be harassed by the local government. If you lack innocent passage, the government which controls the territorial sea can tax you, board you, regulate you… all things that shippers don’t want.
I just listened to story on NPR driving home tonight. I don’t remember the number exactly but there are thousands of ships in the area where the Saudi tanker was just taken. That would require massive amounts of security to control.
Even if you had some well trained and armed guys on each ship, they need to defend against a small boat that could have a rocket propelled gernade threatening to blow a hole in your 150 million dollar ship and it’s 100 million dollar cargo.
How do you do that? With what weapons?
The ransom asked for is about a million dollars, the insurance companies and owners are willing to pay that to protect the total investment. Like just handing over you wallet to a mugger and writing off the loss of some cash rather than getting hurt yourself.
What WoodenTaco said. And thanks. I knew there was something like that out there, but my expertise is limited to specials from Nat’l Geographic magazine and the Hitler Channel.
There are lots of pirates over in my neck of the woods, too. A big problem with getting rid of them, however, is that they are not solely pirates. There are no “pirate dens” that I’m aware of, where they would hang out between raids and swig rum and sing “Yo ho ho.” They have regular jobs, usually as fishermen. They’ll band together occasionally for a raid. You pretty much have to catch them in the act to know whom to go after.
I just read a thread in MPSIMS where apparently, the Indian Navy sends one pirate ship to Davy Jones’ locker. Which leads me to a few ideas:
Do you have any idea how much it takes to position a SEAL team? They carry quite a bit of equipment and gear, and the price tag per Sailor ain’t cheap (think training). Plus, their travel to and from their moving FOB–the commercial vessel–would be prohibitive. One would have to keep teams leapfrogging from ship-to-ship via helicopter to keep a SEAL team in the geographically “piratical” area as commercial ships moved to and fro out of the hostile area.
Right now, commercial vessels have the ability to sail around the “piratical” area. Yeah, it may cost a few extra thousand dollars in salary/fuel/movement costs, but according to this thread and some others, companies are willing to spend that money for the safety of their crews. Why put yourself in jeopardy if you don’t have to? While you’re in well traveled/well guarded waters, adjust your heading 5 degrees, sail an extra thousand miles, and raise your chances umpteen percent that you’d be safer. Plus, by moving out further to sea, pirates are forced to chase commercial ships farther, taking them away from what shore support they have/need, putting them in a bad position.
I can start to see this becoming a coalition endeavor. The US Navy has scant resources to spend, as does the Indian Navy, the Iranian Navy, and all the other local players in the world. However, given the problem (and strategic implications of the resources that flow from the area), I can see a couple of ships here and there from different nations patrolling the area–say, instead of four or five ships from the US, flood the area with 20 from four or five nations–to put the proverbial “band aid” on the problem. This does not cure the problem however, as the pirates will obviously be able to wait out the Navies. As mentioned before, the pirates really have nothing else to fall back on economically, and they physically are attached to the local area. The only way to actually cure the problem is to go onshore and root out the pirates’ support establishments (i.e., take off and nuke it from orbit). With the War on Terror and our reluctance to get into Somalia, I don’t think that’s going to happen soon either. But, with Camp Lemonier in Djibouti, maybe the US Navy can start posturing a presence to formally collect intel and formulate a ground-based response. I ain’t holding my breath though; they’re still busy keeping an eye on the Soviets and all the other higher-threat worldwide activities going on.
Tripler
“Piratical”: It’s a made up word, but I like it. It’s an adjective. I also think ‘adjective’ is a made up word, but apparently, it’s not.