# Couple of pirate questions

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-of-pirate-questions/473300>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [November 18, 2008, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-of-pirate-questions/473300 "2008-11-18T16:39:25Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 16\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\
**Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-of-pirate-questions/473300/21 "2008-11-19T12:49:35Z")

</div>

> [@Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](#):
>
> The US and its allies [are doing something](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27644333/)about the problem:
> 
> Why are the other 10% traveling outside the corridor? I dunno.

During the World Wars, there were always some ships traveling alone, outside of the convoy system, even though that greatly increased the danger to them. Again, I’m not sure exactly why.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\
**Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-of-pirate-questions/473300/22 "2008-11-19T13:02:08Z")

</div>

> [@Tripler](#):
>
> 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.

I’m not so sure the pirates can “wait them out.” Such a strategy would involve being aware of the naval presence and lying low; but the navies could simply suddenly move into the area without publicity. Since the pirates lack aircraft carriers and satellite reconnaissance, their first indication of a naval ship’s presence would be via eyeball, wouldn’t it? At which point, the Navy can do what it does best.

This can be repeated in an irregular pattern indefinitely – all navies are already paying for training runs, right? – and the pirates will be unable to operate without frequently running afoul of serious ship-killing hardware. That’ll take the “low risk” part of the piracy equation away.

The Indian Navy has shown us the way.

> [@Tripler](#):
>
> 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.

Dear God, I hope pretty much everything out there is considered higher-threat than the _Soviets._

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\
**Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-of-pirate-questions/473300/23 "2008-11-19T13:31:12Z")

</div>

> [@WoodenTaco](#):
>
> 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:
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > _2. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities:  
> > (a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;  
> > (b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;  
> > (c) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State;  
> > (d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal State;  
> > (e) the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft;  
> > (f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device;  
> > (g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;  
> > (h) any act of wilful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention;  
> > (i) any fishing activities;  
> > (j) the carrying out of research or survey activities;  
> > (k) any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal State;  
> > (l) any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage._
> 
> 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.

Your cite is for passage of a foreign ship in the territorial waters of a coastal state. You’ll note that it prohibits all kinds of things, including fishing and research. With respect to weapons, it prohibits “exercise or practice with weapons” but does not specifically prohibit the carrying of weapons for self-defense. Paragraph (f) prohibits “launching, landing or taking on board of any military device,” but again, does not appear to prohibit simply transiting through with weapons for self-defense.

However, this ignores the larger point, which is that your cite only applies to passage through territorial waters. Do you have a cite that prohibits weapons for self-defense in international waters?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\
**Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-of-pirate-questions/473300/24 "2008-11-19T14:04:45Z")

</div>

> [@Sailboat](#):
>
> During the World Wars, there were always some ships traveling alone, outside of the convoy system, even though that greatly increased the danger to them. Again, I’m not sure exactly why.

It is easy to find a convoy (relatively speaking). But, once located, it is likely that another ship will be sunk before the destroyers drive off the attacker. Convoying makes sense in a cost/benefit analysis.

It is difficult to find a single ship in the ocean. However, it is almost a certainty that once located by a belligerent your ship will be sunk. The trade-off between low probability of discovery and almost certain destruction once discovered makes sense to some shippers.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![DesertDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desertdog/32/11503_2.png) [@DesertDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DesertDog)\
**Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-of-pirate-questions/473300/25 "2008-11-19T14:52:40Z")

</div>

> [@DrFidelius](#):
>
> It is easy to find a convoy (relatively speaking). But, once located, it is likely that another ship will be sunk before the destroyers drive off the attacker. Convoying makes sense in a cost/benefit analysis.
> 
> It is difficult to find a single ship in the ocean. However, it is almost a certainty that once located by a belligerent your ship will be sunk. The trade-off between low probability of discovery and almost certain destruction once discovered makes sense to some shippers.

Also, the fast passenger ships that were pressed into service for transports (like the _Queen Elizabeth_) were much faster than their escorts and it was deemed safer to let them race alone rather than plod along with the merchantmen.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\
**Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-of-pirate-questions/473300/26 "2008-11-19T15:54:10Z")

</div>

> [@DrFidelius](#):
>
> It is easy to find a convoy (relatively speaking). But, once located, it is likely that another ship will be sunk before the destroyers drive off the attacker. Convoying makes sense in a cost/benefit analysis.
> 
> It is difficult to find a single ship in the ocean. However, it is almost a certainty that once located by a belligerent your ship will be sunk. The trade-off between low probability of discovery and almost certain destruction once discovered makes sense to some shippers.

Perhaps a little off topic, but this convoy stuff is interesting.

I might argue it’s the other way around-in atlantic ocean terms, a convoy isn’t much bigger than a single ship. But you might have 80 single ship sailings or one convoy.

So even if you have a quarter the chance of discovering a single ship as a convoy, you’re still going to find 20 single ships or one 80-ship convoy.

Presumably, you’ll lose more ships in a convoy-target rich environment and all that. But not twenty times as many.

Also (as seen in WWII), there was some dispute over where to put our destroyers-in “hunter groups” trying to find submarines, or escorting convoys. We pretty quickly figured out that it was way better to put them around the convoys-it guarantees any sub trying to attack has to go where the destroyers are. Far better to do that than hoping to have the double coincidence of having a sub and a DD in the same place at the same time.

And the numbers seem pretty terrible for shipowners-all I can find easily is WWI statistics, but the loss rate for independent sailing is 5-10%, when the loss rate in a convoy is almost always less than half a percent.

> **[Losses in Convoy vs Independents](http://www.gwpda.org/naval/stats006.htm)**
>
> GWPDA Maritime War Section -
> Convoys, Losses in Convoys, U-boats.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\
**Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-of-pirate-questions/473300/27 "2008-11-19T16:14:28Z")

</div>

> [@DrFidelius](#):
>
> It is easy to find a convoy (relatively speaking). But, once located, it is likely that another ship will be sunk before the destroyers drive off the attacker. Convoying makes sense in a cost/benefit analysis.
> 
> It is difficult to find a single ship in the ocean. However, it is almost a certainty that once located by a belligerent your ship will be sunk. The trade-off between low probability of discovery and almost certain destruction once discovered makes sense to some shippers.

Not true. John Keegan has shown (and doubtless the idea is not original with him) in _The Price of Admiralty_ that convoy decreased the chances of location by searching submarines. The ships in a convoy appear to make a large target, but in reality the ocean is very freaking large indeed and, by clumping a lot of ships into one (relatively tiny) area, the convoy system dramatically decreased the number of ships exposed to detection. Instead of 50 chances to see a single ship at a time, you have one (only very slightly larger) chance to see 50 ships at once – followed by 49 chances to waste your time seeing nothing.

The Germans overcame this in WWII to a degree by using long lines on U-Boats as barriers to detect a convoy and then using radio to coordinate a massed attack. Although they had quite a few successes with this tactic, a large number of convoys slipped through unsighted and unmolested.

Incidentally, convoy is essentially an _offensive_ practice – it doesn’t guarantee protection of the merchant ships, but it does guarantee there will always be a sub-hunting force near any sinking, thus exposing the subs to a lot more attacks than would otherwise be the case.

There’s a lot more detail in the book; I recommend it.

edit: didn’t see \*\*whorfin’s \*\*post as I composed this.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Pushkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ee59a6/32.png) [@Pushkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pushkin)\
**Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-of-pirate-questions/473300/28 "2008-11-19T16:33:20Z")

</div>

> [@DrFidelius](#):
>
> It is difficult to find a single ship in the ocean. However, it is almost a certainty that once located by a belligerent your ship will be sunk. The trade-off between low probability of discovery and almost certain destruction once discovered makes sense to some shippers.

So, not just a strategy for the board game Battleships then?

I wonder if any of the pirates might try a protection racket or dob in their erstwhile colleagues on a rival ship for a bit of money from the shipping companies.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\
**Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-of-pirate-questions/473300/29 "2008-11-19T16:38:54Z")

</div>

> [@robby](#):
>
> Your cite is for passage of a foreign ship in the territorial waters of a coastal state. You’ll note that it prohibits all kinds of things, including fishing and research. With respect to weapons, it prohibits “exercise or practice with weapons” but does not specifically prohibit the carrying of weapons for self-defense. Paragraph (f) prohibits “launching, landing or taking on board of any military device,” but again, does not appear to prohibit simply transiting through with weapons for self-defense.
> 
> However, this ignores the larger point, which is that your cite only applies to passage through territorial waters. Do you have a cite that prohibits weapons for self-defense in international waters?

Note that cruise ships routinely have skeet/trap shooting off the stern.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Hi\_Neighbor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hi_neighbor/32/494_2.png) [@Hi\_Neighbor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hi_Neighbor)\
**Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-of-pirate-questions/473300/30 "2008-11-19T17:00:46Z")

</div>

I thought that pirates were starting to make a comeback, but it appears that [a suspected pirate “mother ship” has just been sunk](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27766333/).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\
**Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-of-pirate-questions/473300/31 "2008-11-19T17:02:13Z")

</div>

Have the pirates actually shot up any ships? It would seem that sinking a tanker would not only cost them the tanker but the oil spill would result is a public outcry and possibly them being hunted down. It would surely be bad business.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![WF\_Tomba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d9b06d/32.png) [@WF\_Tomba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WF_Tomba)\
**Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-of-pirate-questions/473300/32 "2008-11-19T18:29:38Z")

</div>

More Somali pirate news:

[Somali pirates transform villages into boomtowns](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081119/ap_on_re_af/af_pirate_boomtown;_ylt=AtuWeyyMGbgXYtQ3QCsBtlMiANEA)

> [@](#):
>
> Somalia’s increasingly brazen pirates are building sprawling stone houses, cruising in luxury cars, marrying beautiful women — even hiring caterers to prepare Western-style food for their hostages.
> 
> And in an impoverished country where every public institution has crumbled, they have become heroes in the steamy coastal dens they operate from because they are the only real business in town.

Although I think the writer may have meant _seamy_. Neither humidity nor eroticism are generally associated with coastal villages in Somalia.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\
**Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-of-pirate-questions/473300/33 "2008-11-20T00:25:11Z")

</div>

> [@Sailboat](#):
>
> During the World Wars, there were always some ships traveling alone, outside of the convoy system, even though that greatly increased the danger to them. Again, I’m not sure exactly why.

Smugglers?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Henrichek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/5daacb/32.png) [@Henrichek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Henrichek)\
**Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-of-pirate-questions/473300/34 "2008-11-20T01:07:53Z")

</div>

This isn’t done due to the catastrophic effects it would have on global warming, as shown by [this chart](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/04/FSM_Pirates.png).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Snnipe\_70E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5a626/32.png) [@Snnipe\_70E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snnipe_70E)\
**Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-of-pirate-questions/473300/35 "2008-11-20T02:49:27Z")

</div>

> [@Sailboat](#):
>
> During the World Wars, there were always some ships traveling alone, outside of the convoy system, even though that greatly increased the danger to them. Again, I’m not sure exactly why.

Trolling.

Send a single ship out. If it is not attacked send the convoy to follow. If it is attacked divert the convoy.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\
**Post date:** [November 20, 2008, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-of-pirate-questions/473300/36 "2008-11-20T03:11:05Z")

</div>

> [@Snnipe\_70E](#):
>
> Trolling.
> 
> Send a single ship out. If it is not attacked send the convoy to follow. If it is attacked divert the convoy.

I’ve never heard that explanation. Plus, we had a far better way to know where the attackers were-their own reports (and some traffic analysis, long-range air search, and the like)

> **[Ultra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra)**
>
> Ultra may refer to:

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/couple-of-pirate-questions/473300.md?page=1)