No no, you’re the expert. Sailor Doctrine it is.
Whack-a-Mole kindly provided a link to a story that explains this back in post #17. When people continued to ask questions that were answered in the story, I referred back to it (and quoted from it) a while ago.
In short, a group of captives took the ship back, but escaping pirates took the ship captain as hostage. The former captives arranged a trade of the pirate they’d captured for their captain. The pirates agreed, but failed to release the captain when the pirate was released. The linked story explains better
People will risk a lot for money not to mention a lot of money. People break the law all the time in all sorts of ways from drug dealers to Madoff in search of a quick buck.
These guys are pulling on average $3 million per hijack. Even assuming some warlord bankrolls the thing and takes $2 million the hijackers become colossally wealthy in their terms and are set for life.
That is quite a lure and nothing will dissuade them short of it becoming exceptionally unlikely to succeed. So far they are having a good deal more success than loss in this so of course they keep doing it.
Sorry…I think I got mixed up between the two threads on this subject. I’ve been watching CNN web and TV, but the story has changed a couple times over the course of the day.
It is not my doctrine. You are the one questioning the actions and competence of the US government and navy as well as those of allied nations. You are the one who thinks you know better, not me. I know very well how big the sea is.
Actually that would be the French.
One missile frigate would have trouble hunting down all their little boats, and as sailor points out, you have to have a very substantial capability and force to police the waters to separate pirates from civilians. A BIG effort is needed.
Geez, if there was ever a reason for the United Nations to use military force, sure to Christ this is it. Pirates are the common enemies of the human race. Where’s the UN?
“Perdicaris alive, or Raisuli dead.”
As I mentioned above you need to make it so the likelihood of success for the pirates drops to almost zero.
Seems a simpler solution would be to put military on the freighters. Say five guy on each with substantial weaponry capable of easily zapping these pirates as they approach. Each country puts troops on whatever freighters fly their flag. They need only do this for ships traversing hotspots, not the whole world.
I would presume that would take less manpower and far less expense than fielding fleets of warships in the area and likely be more effective.
They don’t have a Navy…
Good question though. You’d think that enough countries have been burned by this by now that there would be some kind of concerted international effort to put a stop to it. Instead we have everyone (including the US) doing their own thing on a fairly limited basis.
As someone pointed out up thread (I mentioned it also in passing), the ocean is a BIG place. This should be apparent to anyone following along, since we ALREADY have war ships in the region (and so do several other countries) and yet the pirates keep coming out and yoinking ships seemingly at will. There would need to be a major fleet presence in the region to have any hope at all of curtailing these kinds of raids…and that is going to cost some serious bucks (which is probably the answer to your question about why the UN hasn’t done much tangibly about this situation).
-XT
Eh, you should just give the bridge crew sidearms and put shotguns in a lockbox. You don’t need the extra expense of hiring military crews. Just allow the crew to fight back.
IIRC the pirates use things like RPGs. One boat can stay out of range of sidearms and threaten to put holes in their ship while another boards.
You need something with a bit more punch and range I think.
I don’t think that’s an option for some of the ships depending on what nationality they are flagged for and their companies individual policies. I know that a lot of companies put no fire arms restrictions on their merchant vessels, and some nations put those restrictions on as policy.
-XT
What’s the motivation for the crew? Why should they put themselves at greater risk by fighting to protect someone else’s property?
Um…not being taken hostage and held at gun point for weeks or months under the threat of death? I’d be fairly motivated to avoid that.
-XT
No, I’m not questioning the technology to identify pirates, you are. You can’t guard each ship with another ship but you can ride shotgun over a large area with satellites and a Global Hawk. When combined with a Predator or Reaper you have the assets needed to identify and attack pirates. The ocean going ships that are hundreds of miles from shore are being attacked by boats launched from large ships. It’s the only way they can operate that far out. By default, that process is easy to track and address. And by default, if you remove the mother ships you radically reduce deep sea piracy. Large ships don’t come cheep so if you take them away, and do it consistently, they go away. That means the pirates concentrate their efforts closer to shore which means NATO and participating countries can concentrate on those areas.
The UN should intercede against Somalia pirates in whatever resolution shuffling voodoo needed to accomplish the task. It’s not that that we can’t take care of business, the political will do do so doesn’t exist.
Waiting out the negotiations between pirates and the ship insurers seems less likely to result in death than fighting (probably ineptly) against a determined enemy who’s very likely gotten the drop on them.
What do you mean “where’s the UN”? There are ships from something like 15 countries, including Spain. Why on earth would the UN drop everything to take care of a very minor problem compared to what’s going on in the world? It’s not like the UN is something independent from the countries which form it. If the UN has not dropped everything to take care of this maybe it is because the member nations, including the USA, have not given this a high priority. For now they seem to think the forces they have sent are adequate. Why do you talk of the UN as something different from the USA? Has the USA brought up the subject and others refused to consider it? It seems to me the UN, meaning the nations which form it, are doing what they see as adequate. What do you expect the UN to do?
And then the company doesn’t pay and the pirates get tired of feeding you and…
No offense, but do you actually have professional knowledge of maritime surveillance, detection and combat, especially with regards to the use of the unmanned drones whose names you’red bandying about?