This will not be popular but here it is. Put pressure on the Somalia Gov. to take care of the problem, and if they dont, bring in an aircraft carrier and a battleship to protect it. Then we blow everything out of the water that is armed. We also bomb any safe harbors that our intelligence informs.

If that's the case, I say avoid that strategy. Perhaps a better strategy is to send a boatload of NAVY SEALS in a disguised boat - then take of business.

 

Blow every Pirate ship out of the water every time they venture into the seas.

 

I like these two options the best. Make the Navy Seal boats appear to be vulnerable US ships and when the pirates attack give them a bad case of lead poisoning. It wouldn't be long till the pirates steered away from any ship displaying Old Glory. Let other nations do what ever they want.

This will not be popular but here it is. Put pressure on the Somalia Gov. to take care of the problem, and if they dont, bring in an aircraft carrier and a battleship to protect it. Then we blow everything out of the water that is armed. We also bomb any safe harbors that our intelligence informs.

 

Their government is useless. The simple of addition of force has been shown, countless times, to not fix a state like Somalia. It is a much greater undertaking, one I don't believe the United States is interested in doing alone.

This will not be popular but here it is. Put pressure on the Somalia Gov. to take care of the problem, and if they dont, bring in an aircraft carrier and a battleship to protect it. Then we blow everything out of the water that is armed. We also bomb any safe harbors that our intelligence informs.

 

 

None of the bolded have been in service for at least 10 years.

 

I am not entirely sure if you know how the USN operates, but it wouldn't just send 1 carrier and 1 escort anywhere outside of U.S. coastal waters. Carriers operate in Carrier Battle Groups (now known as Carrier Strike Groups or CSGs), and have for quite a long time now. A CSG consists of the carrier itself, crusiers, destroyers, frigates and so on to defend it from outside threats. Attack subs are also common in a CSG. So you can't just send 1 carrier there, it doesn't happen that way.

 

Now as to the Somali government, it has very little actual control at this point anyway in its own country so putting pressure on them is somewhat moot.

I like these two options the best. Make the Navy Seal boats appear to be vulnerable US ships and when the pirates attack give them a bad case of lead poisoning. It wouldn't be long till the pirates steered away from any ship displaying Old Glory. Let other nations do what ever they want.

 

I already brought up Q-ships in another thread.

 

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 CSG 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 quotes.

Their government is useless. The simple of addition of force has been shown, countless times, to not fix a state like Somalia. It is a much greater undertaking, one I don't believe the United States is interested in doing alone.

 

I am just speaking of governing the seas around it. You may be right on trying to persuade the government there.

I like these two options the best. Make the Navy Seal boats appear to be vulnerable US ships and when the pirates attack give them a bad case of lead poisoning. It wouldn't be long till the pirates steered away from any ship displaying Old Glory. Let other nations do what ever they want.

I like this option. :thumb:

 

Place about 10 decoy merchants ships in the area that are well armed by the U.S. navy. Then when the pirates attempt a highjacking, either capture them or blow them into a million pieces.

 

Before long they will be wondering which ship is the real thing and which ship is a deadly decoy.

These shipping companies have to take some of the responsibility here. They are doing business in a dangerous area of the world. They need to have private security (armed mercenaries) on these ships. They also need to keep an arsenal available for the crew members to access. To my understanding, these pirates are approaching these huge ocean going vessels in small rubber watercrafts. They fire over the deck to get it cleared, then it is easy for them to get aboard. A few 50 caliber machine guns with the right man pulling the trigger would go a long ways in repelling this type of attack. Private companies doing business in other dangerous areas have to provide for their own safety (oil companies in the Middle East). Why can't these shipping companies do the same?

I am just speaking of governing the seas around it. You may be right on trying to persuade the government there.

Basically there is no Somali government . just a bunch of warlords running the country .

These shipping companies have to take some of the responsibility here. They are doing business in a dangerous area of the world. They need to have private security (armed mercenaries) on these ships. They also need to keep an arsenal available for the crew members to access. To my understanding, these pirates are approaching these huge ocean going vessels in small rubber watercrafts. They fire over the deck to get it cleared, then it is easy for them to get aboard. A few 50 caliber machine guns with the right man pulling the trigger would go a long ways in repelling this type of attack. Private companies doing business in other dangerous areas have to provide for their own safety (oil companies in the Middle East). Why can't these shipping companies do the same?

 

That is what I was thinking...arm the cargo ships.

 

Seriously, Obama is fighting pirates...in the year 2009...who would have thunk it?

Don't know what he will do without that pirate vote in 2012.

We have a base in Yemen correct?

 

My solution is simple but costly.

 

All American ships have an armed security team loaded by boat or copter around Yemen, offloaded around South Africa.

 

2 oil drilling platforms refitted to house 200 troops/UN type soldiers, 4 speedboats and one LSD-49 Harpers Ferry class and their landing craft and 2 helicopters each placed along the Somali coast.

 

Authorized to use EXCESSIVE force.

I think the threat is minimal but why not let are merchant marines carry guns, I would venture to say this would have been over when it started if that was the case. Most of these people who steal and stuff our cowards and would not do if there was a chance of being shot back at.

These shipping companies have to take some of the responsibility here. They are doing business in a dangerous area of the world. They need to have private security (armed mercenaries) on these ships. They also need to keep an arsenal available for the crew members to access. To my understanding, these pirates are approaching these huge ocean going vessels in small rubber watercrafts. They fire over the deck to get it cleared, then it is easy for them to get aboard. A few 50 caliber machine guns with the right man pulling the trigger would go a long ways in repelling this type of attack. Private companies doing business in other dangerous areas have to provide for their own safety (oil companies in the Middle East). Why can't these shipping companies do the same?

 

I agree, the shipping lines should shoulder the cost. Put it into your cost of product.

How about arming every crew member with more fire power than the pirates, when they try to board, start picking them off, one by one into Davey Jones Locker!

 

:clap:

Authorized to use EXCESSIVE force.

 

"The use of Unnecessary Force in the apprehension of the Blues Brothers has been approved."