Agreed. The fact is that those look upon negotiation as weakness; the only thing they understand or will respond to is raw, naked force.
We need to destroy their shoreline infrastructure and blast their boats out of the water. Our flagged ships should either be armed or have Marines on board, and we need to kill them with no more regard than we would show for a cockroach that we just stepped on.
I am still so confused by these events. Do we still have, uh torpedoes?
Surely these idiots have SONAR, or some hacked type. If they see a sloped fish heading toward them at 60 knots, they jump ship and we arrest, or at least chum the carcass?
Yes, because the risk to the ship is low, and the reward for killing or capturing pirates and cutting them off from their source of income is high.
Because I disagree that it will put their product or their crews’ lives at higher risk. The pirates aren’t stupid, they are going to understand that when profit is decreased and the chance of death or imprisonment increases, there is less benefit in piracy.
This only works if you actually believe that the next person in line is actually going to fall for your attempt at intimidation. Do you come from some alternate universe where the United States is known for rolling over and playing dead for terrorists? Or are you just flailing about, looking for anything to prop up your argument, however unlikely?
Didn’t they used to, like, attack pirates with cannons and shit? What was wrong with that approach? Or is this the era of a new, more sensitive man?
Have you seen the first Pirates of the Carribean movie? Did it not impress upon you what it means to bombard a city?
Isn’t it amazing how people just throw logic out the window when it comes to situations like these? They think people are criminals because they have a burning desire to be criminals rather than thinking that criminals do cost benefit analyses like any other business.
If they have sonar , its basically a commercial fishfinder that your normal saturday angler would have on his bassboat. They are also using commercial GPS, which is something that could be screwed with, for those not running the right software.
With regards to the torpedo Idea , while you may be able to command detonate one , Im not sure that the torpedos data base would register the target, suffice to say I think thats the wrong weapon to use in this situation.
Its been shown in Afganistan and Iraq , that the heavy bombers have good loiter capability as well as being able to drop one bomb at a time, so a cluster bomb would probably be better in this case, if the lead time can be measured vis a vis the speed of the go fast boats
Declan
Absolutely agree. And I would volunteer.
I don’t think that’s a good idea, at any stage. Before the pirates board the target, you’d be better off using a gun, if anything, because a bomb, let alone a cluster bomb, is going to be less accurate and serious overkill. After the pirates board the target, you want to kill or capture them while causing minimal damage to the ship, crew and cargo, which probably means boarding it yourself.
I agree. I’d thought of SAS hit squads targetting known criminals in Northern Ireland about 10 years before it was ever mentioned in the news.
Would this really be so difficult these days? It could be voluntary, with the various navies setting a time and place, and whoever wants to be in the convoy shows up or waits for the next one. Each convoy would probably need less firepower then was required to fend off U-boats. And the convoys could disperse after the danger zone and wouldn’t overload any ports.
How much of a warning does a crew have once the pirates have targetted them, and how much time do the pirates need once aboard? Could the ships be equipped with a safe room of some sort, either on the bridge or somewhere else? Once they know they’re under attack, the crew send out a distress call, shut down the engines and lock themselves in. Nothing is impregnable, and I’m sure the pirates could afford a few cutting torches, but if the crew can stay safe for a few hours is that enough time for the navy to arrive and retake the ship?
300 miles in a foreign sea is close.
But even if fully patrolled on each square mile (this is a big area), there remains the problem of what to do with the pirates. For instance Denmark was previously ordered (by US command) to release captured pirates because it was unclear what should be done with them, and in some other instances various so-called "human rights” organisations have criticising Denmark for the treatment of captured pirates (Danish sailors on the warship Absalon were ordered to cut out images of scantly clad girls in magazines they were given while held captive, not to offend their sensibilities) and for releasing them to Yemen without checking up on weather they were being treated humanely. Another problem is that if you take them back home for indictment and prison, they’re likely to just seek asylum. And who the hell wants a bunch of former pirates let in their country.
In any case, one should examine who actually stand the most to lose by this pirate infestation. I’d say Egypt – for losing the Suez channel trade, already a number of ships are directed around south of Africa. Saudi Arabia & Yemen. And India, China lose on the extra shipping cost. USA and Europe: not so much. Egypt has the second largest navy in Africa. Let them deal with it. Europe has apparently grown too soft to deal with such problems themselves. So let China and Russia handle it. I bet they still has the will to show the pirates the folly of their ways in non mistakenly ways. And quite without cutting any pretty girls from any magazines too.
I come from this universe were the ransoms are currently being paid. If it was the US government paying the ransoms yes it might be different but that is not the case.
I think your the one flailing about trying to justify escalating a nonlethal situation for your apparent blood lust.
The whole point is to make piracy a dead end by establishing a policy of surrender to imprisonment, or die. If you are unwilling to imprison them, you haven’t solved a thing by taking them into custody and releasing them.
If you are willing to kill or imprison them, the whole problem will go away. Piracy would never pay and therefore no would engage in it.
I see that you have decided to ignore the rules of this forum.
Do not post personal insults outside the BBQ Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
Everyone else: this has gotten lot more personal than it needs to be.
Back off.
Demonstrating why, in your mind, another poster’s arguments are invalid is fine.
Claiming that the arguments are stupid, (or any host of sysnonyms), is counterproductive.
[ /Modding ]
The inability of the navy to deter the pirates or intervene in the capture of the Maersk Alabama demonstrates empirically that 300 miles was not close enough, which is the point. The pirates chose to attack there because no naval deterrence was immediately present.
While I have my doubts about the value of voluntary convoy – which would leave loners vulnerable to predation and we’d still have hostages – I take your point about dispersing after leaving the area. That makes convoy more attractive, as you say.
Using a clusterbomb means putting a lot of baseball size grenades over a large area, simply using a bomb on a dhow is not cost effective, but being hit with several- up to a dozen bomblets should disable the pirate without having it seriously in danger of sinking.
Declan
I don’t know how you would make a mandatory convoy in international waters. I only mentioned “voluntary” as a solution to the organizational problems. It’s a service to merchant shipping, but the navies providing the escorts would be in position to dictate when, where, and how often the convoys form. Miss the deadline? Too bad. There’ll be another one in a couple days. The cargo ships would be unwise to go it alone, since fewer unprotected targets probably makes them even more likely to be attacked.