While I do not really advocate this it has occurred to me that if any hijacked plane was immediately blown up there would be no more hijackings…or far fewer. If the crew and passengers knew that the hijackers meant certain death they would all rise up and beat the hijackers into submission on the spot. They’d have nothing to lose by trying. Today hijackers expect a reasonable chance of success so they continue to try.
To wit I seem to recall shortly after 9/11 some nutter rushed the cockpit on a commercial flight. With 9/11 fresh in everyone’s mind and the passengers thinking if one of these guys gets control they will all die anyway the passengers mobbed the guy. Same thing with the fourth plane on 9/11. As soon as the passengers learned what was going on and they were destined to die anyway they attempted (unsuccessfully sadly) to take control of the plane back (and despite them dying almost certainly saved even more deaths had the plane reached its destination).
A bit harsh I know but I bet it’d work. A few ships/planes would be sacrificed today to save all the future ships/planes.
Again, and this time with gusto: these are people you are talking about, with loved ones, and that appreciate their lives. Their lives are more valuable than containers and ships. These people who were not hired to risk their lives to teach anyone a lesson. If they had wanted to do so they’d be in the military and not the merchant marine.
I would not like to have my husband slaughtered to teach some Somali scumbag a lesson. I am confident when I say that the family of crew members, and most normal people, round the world feel the same way.
It’s a very different risk equation. Post-2001, the ordinary American airline passenger knows that complying with a hijacker likely results in the death of everyone on board as well as innocents on the ground. By killing so many, the hijackers pretty much ended the hijacking business in American airspace.
It’s nothing like that in cases of piracy for profit. The two are unrelated.
Pirates are not zealots willing to destroy their trade for religious or political purposes. They are businessmen.
First, I said I did not really advocate it. Just considered it and I say it with the consideration that I might be on one of these hijacked planes.
Second, it is NOT about teaching anyone a lesson. It is about changing the calculation people make when considering hijacking a plane/ship. If you know before you start that you are doomed to failure you would not even try in the first place. These pirates want loot, they are not sending a political message. If they knew they WILL die if they try to hijack a ship why do you think they’d even try?
It is a cold calculation but assume we shot down (say) five planes to make this point clear prior to 9/11. How many MORE people would be alive today as a result? 9/11 would never have happened. You know all those people had loved ones too.
Yes, but generally speaking we don’t kill people to prevent deaths that might, or might not occur. The reason nobody tried what you said pre-9/11 is that nobody knew it would occur.
Somali pirates have not killed any crew, or harmed them. In fact they treat them fairly well. It’s in their best interest, why start the killing ourselves and guarantee there will be more violence and deaths.
You want to stop this? Invade Somalia. With people that are actually getting paid to risk death.
I think “hare-brained” would be an adequate description.
It is just amazing how many and how often Americans regard violence as an easy solution to complex problems. Normally you would have someone more intelligent and level-headed in the government but if you happen to have someone like Bush then you’re screwed because he’s sure to escalate the problem.
Right now there’s pretty much an international consensus on how to handle the problem. Tomorrow America says “fuck this, I’m gonna take care of things my way!” and starts shooting without regard to the fact that nobody wants to be saved by America or by anybody else. Crew people die. Some pirates die. A few bystanders die. The damage done is worse than anything solved. Countries get angry with America. Any support America had vanishes. Allies cease their support in disgust. American yahoos call Europeans cowards and bad friends. Russia and China oppose America’s actions. American yahoos call the Russians and Chinese evil. Suddenly America is alone and facing a problem which has been greatly aggravated. A problem which was strictly small time criminal now becomes politicized. The Somalis present it as a matter of sovereignty and independence threatened by American greed. Other people in the world also become agitated. America starts punishing incursions in Somalia which manage to kill more innocents than anything else. The Yahoos who started all this now call for wiping Somalia off the face of the earth. Converting it to glass by nuking it from outer space. The stupidity is just mind boggling. It’s not like it has not happened before.
Now that would be one hell of a press conference! We didnt know where the planes were going but just to be safe we shot them all down. Yeah, I’m sure the American people would have supported that.
And the example makes no sense because people are not being killed now and they would begin to be killed under your scenario. The problem would not get better, it would get worse.
African people, including Somalis, are risking their lives just to make the crossing and get to Europe illegally where they hope to get a construction job if they are lucky or beg on the street otherwise. The death toll is very high. Many are lost at sea or die from exposure. Large numbers never make it and yet they risk their lives in exchange for the hope of a construction job. And you think you will discourage them from attempting hijackings if they think they might get killed? Good luck with that.
I don’t understand why many Americans think only Americans are willing to risk their lives for something they believe in. The belief that other people are substantially different. The belief that only Americans have a noble cause to die for and therefore other people, like Iraqis will cower in the corner and not risk anything.
Is America willing to singlehandedly occupy Somalia probably with the opposition of most of the world? Good luck with that one. It didn’t work out so well last time.
Let me put you through a scenario here using a policy based on the calculation that we would shoot down any plane being hijacked…which is what you seem to be getting at.
So, I’m a terrorist group. And I’ve noticed that the US is shooting down planes (full of citizens) whenever they are hijacked. Does this deter me? Hell NO! Not only can my terrorist group get big press from these events but it’s going to give the US a huge black eye every time they do it. Not only that, I can use this to my advantage. I can strategically hijack a plane over a city…and then either the US shoots the plane down (killing all the citizens on board and the scattering burning wreckage and jet fuel over large swaths of the city, in theory killing even more citizens…WIN/WIN!) or the back down and stop doing that…in which case we go to plan B.
The same thing goes with these ships. If we simply sink the ships (with the crews and cargoes) once they are captured the only one’s we are REALLY hurting are the cargo companies and the crews. Sure, we probably will manage to kill a few low level pirates (I’m doubting the Pirate King or whatever is going to be involved in either the capture or prize crew)…but so what? We’ve generated sufficient bad press at this point that everyone is going to be screaming for us to stop…hell, that would happen (rightfully) if we did it ONCE. And the pirates will suck it up and keep on keepin on, since all they have to do is capture an occasional ship to make it worth their while (at several million dollars a pop). But now the pirates are going to be a bit more pissed off…and so might start dealing more harshly with the crews.
What we need is more war ships in the area, more patrols giving us more possibilities of intercepting these raids before they happen. While this would cost a lot more money I see it as preferable to more atrocities and more ill will.
PLUS+++ this is for Whack-a-Mole (whom I respect as a poster, btw) If some future suicide high-jackers/terrorists knew that any plane or ship that they took control of would ‘just get blown up’ they might start to target strategic transports. Certain cargo ships with weapons and plane loads of girl scouts as an example.
Or political dignitaries and such…you get the picture.
Note that I wasn’t advocating blowing up the hijacked ships or some such nonsense, merely preventing the shipping companies from paying ransoms.
Without the ransoms the whole enterprise collapses. Sure, you’ll have small scale piracy where guys climb onboard and break open containers and steal whatever goods they can find. But this type of piracy is very low reward and doesn’t make international news. You have to crack open a lot of containers full of t-shirts and George Bush urinal cakes to find one full of iPods, and even then you can’t sell the iPods for very much anyway.
And for those that say that the pirates are mostly holding the ship hostage, please consider that most of the hijackings you hear of are not gigantic Saudi oil tankers, or big containers ships owned by multi-billion Danish companies, but small fishing ships. The value of those is small, the crews are what makes those worthwhile. They pay less but they are also easier to take than a huge ship.
In fact this whole business started because Somalis were pissed at fishing ships violating their waters (they lacked a government to enforce anything) and exploiting their fish, leaving the locals with nothing. They used this as justification to start the whole piracy business.
Most of the ships caught are small fishing ships. Those rarely make the news.
Why not have ships go through the Gulf of Aden in convoys with a destroyer or two for escort? Then you only have to guard a few square miles instead of a million. Would this just be too hard to organize or is there some other obvious reason I’m missing?
On preview I see Mighty_Girl’s post about the fishing ships, this wouldn’t be any help for them, but would it be worthwhile for cargo ships, tankers, and other large high value vessels?
After reading Mightygirl’s posts, I have to agree with her.
As long as the pirates are not killing the crews, maybe arming them is a bad idea. If they do change their tactics, then the policy can be changed. It looks like the pirates are after the cargo and money, and are content to let the crew live. That might change if they start getting shot at.
Even using the generous distance of 500 miles your numbers don’t add up. 175x600+500*1200 = 742,500. You would have to use a 700 mile wide path to add up to a million square miles. I also believe my original numbers are more realistic when applied to a flight search pattern. The point of my argument is that deep sea piracy can be drastically eliminated by identifying and removing the mother ships.
None of this changes my argument that mother ships can be identified much easier using an aircraft capable of staying aloft for 34 hours. It’s a process of elimination to track the ships near a pirated boat. As I cited earlier the Air Force is pitching the idea to other countries, which means they’re marketing the aircraft (yet to be produced aircraft). Since they already have them in the Gulf Coast arena I would venture to say they’re aren’t enough of them to go around and eventually they will be patrolling the Somali coast. It’s just common sense to use a 400 mph plane designed to track objects than a whole ship full of people traveling at 30+ knots.