You do realize they were nowhere near Somalia - they were sailing from India to Oman. Nor have most of the recent attacks been near that coast. PDF
Yes, operations will cost money. But most of that money has already been spent building the navies. It is a matter of stating this is where they need to be stationed.
I am still waiting for someone, anyone to address the main issue I raised in the Pit. If this is not why we built navies, then why the hell do we have them? Seems we might as well dry dock them until the economy recovers and save the operational costs. I am sure laying off 400,000 plus sailors won’t have any adverse affects.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
A democratic form of government, of course.
[/QUOTE]
Yep. AMISOM The US left Somalia and gave up on it. Fortunately, not everyone else did.
At least the EU is trying to implement something. Supposed we have task forces also out of the Fifth Fleet, but I haven’t found any specific info. But it obviously ain’t enough.
We could employ a lot more than 400,000 people for what it takes to keep the Navy afloat. Militaries are very inefficient jobs programs, with what goes to weapons and matériel and maintenance.
Keep up with the times, Jack. Haven’t heard that they aren’t ready for democracy, because they will probably just elect the Communists…errrr…Muslims? America is about protecting people from democracy these days. Freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose!
I don’t think you get how convoys work. Every ship in a convoy having to leave Norfolk and make way for Singapore ALL AT ONCE is what a convoy is. If the area where ships need to be convoyed to and from is the Suez Canal to the Gulf of Aden, you’ve just moved the start and end points from Norfolk to Suez and Singapore to the Gulf of Aden. Instead of merchants idling in Norfolk or Singapore waiting for a convoy to form up, they’ll be waiting at the Suez and Gulf of Aden. Escorts and a proper amount of vessels to be worth forming a convoy and escort don’t magically appear every time an individual ship wants to transit hostile waters. Losing only a few hours is very much a best case scenario.
Which would also cost huge sums of money. And more likely than not result in a ship no one is interested in hiring or buying since it would cost more to run and probably carry less cargo. And still probably wouldn’t even stop the pirates, since small pirate boats are going to be faster than a hulking freighter.
That would be a bad idea. First off, it just enforces the fact that a few pirates with heavy weapons can bring some of the mightiest countries to their knees with a few raids on shipping lanes. Secondly, these are pirates. They kill and rob at gunpoint for a living. How do we know they will keep their word? In fact, they probably won’t. They will get the money and maybe be placid for a little bit, but then I believe someone will decide to take the money and rob more ships for more profit. And we will probably just pay a higher price if no one is willing to intervene.
Personally, I would say the best option at this point is UN-sanctioned action against the Somali pirates, or perhaps something through NATO or another major alliance that holds some clout. Either way, this cannot be allowed to go on.
Hopefully, the US will use its large amount of clout now to actually get something done!
The obvious and cheap solution is that with satellite surveillance we probably know exactly which ports the pirates are operating from. The Navy justs sits offshore and uses helicopters to blow up anything bigger than a rowboat. The obvious drawback is that this kills a lot of innocent men, women and children. Plan B is orbit over those ports with UAVs and blow up any vessels trying to leave port. You still kill a lot of innocent fishermen, but less woman and children, except when they starve to death when their husbands and fathers don’t come home.
Obviously this solution won’t be implemented, until it gets a lot worse than it is now, since no one wants to take the PR hit yet.
It would also be grossly disproportionate. Let’s be realistic; these are nothing more than criminals; occasionally violent robbers. Not some existential threat to the country or the planet. Some of these suggestions when you get right down to it are the equivalent of deciding to deal with Los Angeles street gangs by bombing LA with B-52s.
Disproportionate perhaps, but grossly? We are dealing with criminals certainly, but this is a lawless area and sending in the cops isn’t an option. Less than 100 years ago we invaded Mexico in response to one raid by Villa. We fought two wars in response to piracy by the Barbary states.
Frankly I suspect that my scheme would cause far fewer deaths than some of the other suggestions I’ve read. It you destroy their boats, then they aren’t pirates anymore. Brigands yes, but not pirates.
Yes, grossly. Four people got killed? Sad, but far more people die to more common types of crime and we don’t consider it proportionate to start leveling towns or invade nations in an attempt to stop it.
Because, as we all know, the American presence (and the UN presence in general) in Mogadishu was a stunning success back in the early 90s. I’m pretty sure they even made a movie about it.
What gave you the impression that I cared anything about the four people that were killed? I was mad that American sailors were putting themselves in harms way trying to rescue those morons.
I am disturbed at the disruption of international commerce which is caused by piracy. As far as I’m concerned Piracy=High Oil Prices=High Food Prices=Starving People.
It’s not our country. Bombing them is an act of war. Declaring war on the citizens of Somalia is really, honestly, a huge dick move. Don’t you think they have enough problems without freaking America deciding to kill them? It’s not about "not wanting to take the PR hit.’ It’s that these are real live human beings who have a right to exist on this planet and who we are not about to start murdering en masse in hopes that it’ll cut down on some minor banditry and slightly lower the cost of getting Chinese gee-gaws to Europe’s vending machines. America, thank god, still has some kind of moral high ground and isn’t going to suddenly start murdering the planet’s poorest people in their sleep to save a buck or two.
Or maybe we don’t have that. Whatever. A great way to produce the next generation of America hating terrorists is to make a bunch of new orphans. I guess when they decide to start bombing our civilians in retaliation, we can just go apeshit on their villages again. Who needs development when you have an endless cycle of violence to attend to?
Short answer. Yes, the U.S. Navy does serve to keep international waters open to commerce and trade and free from terrorism. If you look at a map, you’ll see that the waters off Somalia are hard to avoid by anyone sailing around the world unless they choose to take the long way around the tip of Africa