Why are these shipping companies not arming their boats with enough fire power to fight off the pirates? Just seems logical to me.

 

Cost. Training. Money.

Which is why a carrier battlegroup would be more effective. While I hate the idea of having to devote such resources to this matter I think that the ability to project power quickly from the carrier deck is essential for quick responses to the pirates. They may be fast, but they aren't going to outrun an F/A-18 in hot pursuit.

 

If we do that, I mentioned on the P&R thread, we should target the bases and harbors. Destory their havens and they have nowhere to conduct business. A task group would be a legitimate force for such an endeavor.

Well, it's not old.

 

Posted today on CNN

 

 

 

I think everyone is failing to see that these aren't "rational" people. I always love it when we presume to anticipate what terrorists really will do. As much as this is about money, this is about more than money. I don't believe they'll hesitate to do exactly as they threaten.

 

I believe we're talking about 2 different incidents. France has had a prior use of lethal force, as had another country. The article stated that neither country had seen any retaliations in the time since those uses of force.

 

These are thieves for the most part, not terrorists. They want money.

I believe we're talking about 2 different incidents. France has had a prior use of lethal force, as had another country. The article stated that neither country had seen any retaliations in the time since those uses of force.

 

These are thieves for the most part, not terrorists. They want money.

 

 

That was then, this is now.

I took his comment to mean that he fears reprecussions as in, this will embolden the pirates to kill rather than negotiate. Not that he is afraid.

If they kill a captive then they have no room to negotiate. The navy deck guns would vaporize them in seconds, at least in cases where the navy was there, such as this one.

That was then, this is now.

 

Not sure what your point is. It shows that in the recent past they made threats and never carried them out. It's all about money to pirates.

Not sure what your point is. It shows that in the recent past they made threats and never carried them out. It's all about money to pirates.

 

 

I believe you are selling them short. What better way to assure that money comes their way than by proving they will kill if they don't get it?

I believe you are selling them short. What better way to assure that money comes their way than by proving they will kill if they don't get it?

 

That's why you don't stop until you've killed them all.

That's why you don't stop until you've killed them all.

 

 

I suspect that given the conditions in Somolia, that's a daunting task. There's a never-ending supply of desperate people there. The keys to stopping them are what Hatz has mentioned.

Seems Somalians took mortar shots at a US Congressman's plane today. He was there to talk to someone about the piracy issue, I believe.

I agree with the action taken. I disagree that Obama is "afraid" and will hesitate to take similar action in the future. I feel the previous poster misinterpreted the phrase "feared reprecrussions".

 

You may be right on the interpretation. It could have been a warning that this situation is far from over from both sides. If he continues along these lines I for one will gain a lot of respect for him.

I believe you are selling them short. What better way to assure that money comes their way than by proving they will kill if they don't get it?

 

They've already proven that in the past but in the time they've been doing this very few have been killed. It's not good business to kill as that ups the ante and will illicit a much stronger response. They've been pretty successful with their past methods so I just don't see them changing the way they operate. Obviously much depends on the individuals carrying out a particular pirate attack.

Seems Somalians took mortar shots at a US Congressman's plane today. He was there to talk to someone about the piracy issue, I believe.

 

Islamic terrorist group claimed the attacks last I heard.

I believe you are selling them short. What better way to assure that money comes their way than by proving they will kill if they don't get it?

 

 

Once they have shown they will kill then it is a coin toss as to whether they will return the captives alive anyway. At that point negotiations are worthless except to stall until you are in place to extract the hostages.

If we do that, I mentioned on the P&R thread, we should target the bases and harbors. Destory their havens and they have nowhere to conduct business. A task group would be a legitimate force for such an endeavor.

 

 

For what it's worth I am well aware of that. I made posts regarding that same issue last week when it all started.

 

Here we go:

 

I understand the difficulty in attempting to limit these attacks, however my question is this:

 

If they are using "mother ships" to launch these attacks on merchant vessels, do not the "mother ships" need to dock somewhere? Additionally would these vessels not also need to be considerably sized in order to be effectively carry out there intended missions and as such wouldn't they need a decent sized harbor?

 

 

I am thinking that we need to go with the Q-Ship method to solve this problem.

 

I still feel as though modern day Q-Ships would be a considerable deterrent to pirate activity in the area. Not knowing which cargo ships are really cargo ships and which ones are actually disguised naval vessels armed to blow you out of the water would give many pause when looking to hijack.

 

Actually the Royal Navy made greater use of them during WWI than WWII because the U-Boats were actually even more likely to surface to attack merchant vessels in the WWI than WWII.

 

They ceased to be of use once the convoy systems were implemented in both wars, and in WWII when the Wolf-Packs were used as they usually attacked at night and from under the waves. For what it's worth I don't believe the U.S. ever used them to the extent the British did. By the time we joined both wars, convoy systems were in place and Q-Ships were somewhat redundant.

 

Sorry, about the obscure WWI reference, but a CBG would be excessive. My thoughts are that a converted merchant vessel with USN personnel on board and outfitted with hidden, modern, ordinance would make for a considerable deterrent. Put about 15, at most, in the area plying the shipping lanes flying U.S. or whatever nation's flag it would make the pirates a lot more cautious once a few of their raiding parties got blown out of the water.

 

As much as I hate to use wikipedia, they give a good general concept of it:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-ship

Edited April 14, 200917 yr by PepRock01
Adding quotations.