If they had allowed the senior office afloat out there to open a sea court, we’d be done with Somali pirates attacking U.S. merchant ships.
The pirates on the beach are savvy with technology. They would have seen this pirate swinging from a yardarm on CNN, and they would ever after stay away from our merchants. (yes, yardarms still exist)
It’s the same way the USSR handled kidnapping in Beirut back when Terry Anderson was held.
The Lebanese kidnappers grabbed a Soviet Military Aide and issued a demand. The Russians ignored the demands. The day after the kidnapping, the Russians had delivered, a burlap sack, to the 2nd in command of the kidnappers. Inside the bag, was the dead commander of the kidnappers. News stories varied on the NUMBER OF PIECES he’d been cut into.
There were no more kidnappings of Russian, or Eastern Block personnel, in Beirut.
We should have hung this SOB and then told the whole world to kiss our sovereign, self-protecting, national ass.
I’ve heard that 21st century pirates call for 21st century solutions. OK hang em with a good length of CAT5 Cable, but make them an example.
So, the same corporate interests that are too cheap to pay for effective ship defenses are supposed to pay for open ocean AND whatever firepower it takes to control said ocean?
I don’t think the suggestion or privatization fully applies to this area. Sure, it might be an option in what Somalia (and other nations) would consider national coastal waters. However, many pirate attacks are occurring in what the US and many other nations consider international water (unless you want to go with China’s and Russia’s idea of how far their territorial rights extend).
On another note, the problem with allowing armed merchants, is that armed merchants eventually enter territorial waters. If a Liberian owned/flagged freighter entered a US port with a cache of AK-47s and M-16s, I suspect many people would be upset. With that in mind, I can understand other nations taking issue with a US owned/flagged ships entering their port with such armament.
I do think other options exist, including embarking and disembarking security attachments in international water. There is also an option for convoying. If a pirate is caught in international waters, I think they should be treated accordingly. Hanging is an option, and it is indeed more humane than throwing a person overboard without floatation.
As for Gerrib’s option, I don’t think the issue has anything to do with “too cheap”. It has to do with what nations, where these corporate interest reside, expect from their citizenry. If a US corporation paid for piracy or mercenary operations, I suspect the US government would take issue. And after all, their is little distinguishing difference between an armed private merchant and an armed pirate in the highseas. The difference is in action, but when two parties are involved, both can claim the other threatened first. So I think Gerrib’s argument is missing a few key points.
So, the same corporate interests that are too cheap to pay for effective ship defenses are supposed to pay for open ocean AND whatever firepower it takes to control said ocean?
No.
Why would you imagine that it would be the same corporate interests?
Why would you imagine that it would be the same corporate interests?
Okay, I’ll be more general. What corporate interest would be willing to pay cash for open ocean that they would then have to pay more cash to defend? In other words, how do I as an investor in Indian Ocean “real estate” recoup my investment?
Arm the merchantmen. Declare a bounty on pirates. A large bounty. Grant US citizenship to pirate eradicators. Require that an important part of the pirate be returned to its country of origin. Carry CNN reporters to record the action. Hire some old used Cossacks. I remember stories about Great Uncle Vassily and what he could do with a saber.
how do I as an investor in Indian Ocean “real estate” recoup my investment?
The same way any land owner recoups their investment. Passage tolls.
You sail through my ocean, you pay me, and, in turn, I am responsible for ensuring that you don’t get attacked by pirates. Until the pirates are willing to pay me more than you are willing to pay me to sail through my waters, of course…
The same way any land owner recoups their investment. Passage tolls.
So why don’t we cut out the middleman and sell the ocean to the Somali pirates?
(My apologies if your remark was not intended to be serious.)
So why don’t we cut out the middleman and sell the ocean to the Somali pirates?
Where’s the money? If you don’t care who gets it or how much they can offer, then why not sell all the oceans to me for $10? I’m cool with that.
This is one of the dumbest ideas I’ve seen in a while. “Privatization” isn’t magic fairy dust. It’s just property rights, which only works within a realm of laws enforced by a monopoly of violence. There is no law and no monopoly of violence in Somalia or its coastal waters; therefore privatization won’t do shit.
Unless NRO is suggesting de-monopolizing violence and allowing private parties to charge in, guns blazing, without the discipline or legal restrictions of the US Navy. In which case the idea is even dumber.
Just what we need… more government. Pirates are part of the ocean environment. Instead of hand wringing about what to do, ships that use dangerous waters need to include security costs in their decisions. The cost would be minimal if they all chip in for an escort service (not that kind) in those waters.
The U.S. Government has one responsibility, protect American citizens. All we need to do is what we did, shoot the bastards.
How much to buy the Strait of Gibraltar?
My apologizes Gerrib, I see you are making the same argument I am. Privateers was a means of controlling Pirates in the past. The problem is the Privateers, when operating in other national waters or international waters, are Pirates.
Leland – yep. More than one pirate started out as a privateer. Telling a bunch of armed men that they are not getting paid because there’s no “legal” ship to attack is not good for one’s health.
On another note, the problem with allowing armed merchants, is that armed merchants eventually enter territorial waters. If a Liberian owned/flagged freighter entered a US port with a cache of AK-47s and M-16s, I suspect many people would be upset. With that in mind, I can understand other nations taking issue with a US owned/flagged ships entering their port with such armament.
Personally, I wouldn’t have a problem with it so long as the weapons are stored properly while in our ports. Sure, I’d get upset if the crew were selling the weapons illegally but I doubt that’d be the case very often.
Most of those pirates are attacking in small boats armed with AK-47s (effective range about 200 meters) and RPGs (can’t reach out much further effectively). Contrast that with a rifle caliber machine gun like the 7.62 mm M-60 (effective range of about 1000 meters) on a much more stable ship. A .50 caliber sniper rifle or machine gun can reach out much further.
Pirates can’t get on board if they’re shot full of holes before getting close to the ship. Face it, pirates prefer unarmed victims who can’t do anything to stop them. Why should merchant ships be bound by international law (foolish laws at that) when the pirates aren’t?
Maybe ship crews should start telling pirates that they’re orphans 🙂
I think we missed a HUGE opportunity here.
If they had allowed the senior office afloat out there to open a sea court, we’d be done with Somali pirates attacking U.S. merchant ships.
The pirates on the beach are savvy with technology. They would have seen this pirate swinging from a yardarm on CNN, and they would ever after stay away from our merchants. (yes, yardarms still exist)
It’s the same way the USSR handled kidnapping in Beirut back when Terry Anderson was held.
The Lebanese kidnappers grabbed a Soviet Military Aide and issued a demand. The Russians ignored the demands. The day after the kidnapping, the Russians had delivered, a burlap sack, to the 2nd in command of the kidnappers. Inside the bag, was the dead commander of the kidnappers. News stories varied on the NUMBER OF PIECES he’d been cut into.
There were no more kidnappings of Russian, or Eastern Block personnel, in Beirut.
We should have hung this SOB and then told the whole world to kiss our sovereign, self-protecting, national ass.
I’ve heard that 21st century pirates call for 21st century solutions. OK hang em with a good length of CAT5 Cable, but make them an example.
So, the same corporate interests that are too cheap to pay for effective ship defenses are supposed to pay for open ocean AND whatever firepower it takes to control said ocean?
I don’t think the suggestion or privatization fully applies to this area. Sure, it might be an option in what Somalia (and other nations) would consider national coastal waters. However, many pirate attacks are occurring in what the US and many other nations consider international water (unless you want to go with China’s and Russia’s idea of how far their territorial rights extend).
On another note, the problem with allowing armed merchants, is that armed merchants eventually enter territorial waters. If a Liberian owned/flagged freighter entered a US port with a cache of AK-47s and M-16s, I suspect many people would be upset. With that in mind, I can understand other nations taking issue with a US owned/flagged ships entering their port with such armament.
I do think other options exist, including embarking and disembarking security attachments in international water. There is also an option for convoying. If a pirate is caught in international waters, I think they should be treated accordingly. Hanging is an option, and it is indeed more humane than throwing a person overboard without floatation.
As for Gerrib’s option, I don’t think the issue has anything to do with “too cheap”. It has to do with what nations, where these corporate interest reside, expect from their citizenry. If a US corporation paid for piracy or mercenary operations, I suspect the US government would take issue. And after all, their is little distinguishing difference between an armed private merchant and an armed pirate in the highseas. The difference is in action, but when two parties are involved, both can claim the other threatened first. So I think Gerrib’s argument is missing a few key points.
So, the same corporate interests that are too cheap to pay for effective ship defenses are supposed to pay for open ocean AND whatever firepower it takes to control said ocean?
No.
Why would you imagine that it would be the same corporate interests?
Why would you imagine that it would be the same corporate interests?
Okay, I’ll be more general. What corporate interest would be willing to pay cash for open ocean that they would then have to pay more cash to defend? In other words, how do I as an investor in Indian Ocean “real estate” recoup my investment?
Arm the merchantmen. Declare a bounty on pirates. A large bounty. Grant US citizenship to pirate eradicators. Require that an important part of the pirate be returned to its country of origin. Carry CNN reporters to record the action. Hire some old used Cossacks. I remember stories about Great Uncle Vassily and what he could do with a saber.
how do I as an investor in Indian Ocean “real estate” recoup my investment?
The same way any land owner recoups their investment. Passage tolls.
You sail through my ocean, you pay me, and, in turn, I am responsible for ensuring that you don’t get attacked by pirates. Until the pirates are willing to pay me more than you are willing to pay me to sail through my waters, of course…
The same way any land owner recoups their investment. Passage tolls.
So why don’t we cut out the middleman and sell the ocean to the Somali pirates?
(My apologies if your remark was not intended to be serious.)
So why don’t we cut out the middleman and sell the ocean to the Somali pirates?
Where’s the money? If you don’t care who gets it or how much they can offer, then why not sell all the oceans to me for $10? I’m cool with that.
This is one of the dumbest ideas I’ve seen in a while. “Privatization” isn’t magic fairy dust. It’s just property rights, which only works within a realm of laws enforced by a monopoly of violence. There is no law and no monopoly of violence in Somalia or its coastal waters; therefore privatization won’t do shit.
Unless NRO is suggesting de-monopolizing violence and allowing private parties to charge in, guns blazing, without the discipline or legal restrictions of the US Navy. In which case the idea is even dumber.
Just what we need… more government. Pirates are part of the ocean environment. Instead of hand wringing about what to do, ships that use dangerous waters need to include security costs in their decisions. The cost would be minimal if they all chip in for an escort service (not that kind) in those waters.
The U.S. Government has one responsibility, protect American citizens. All we need to do is what we did, shoot the bastards.
How much to buy the Strait of Gibraltar?
My apologizes Gerrib, I see you are making the same argument I am. Privateers was a means of controlling Pirates in the past. The problem is the Privateers, when operating in other national waters or international waters, are Pirates.
Leland – yep. More than one pirate started out as a privateer. Telling a bunch of armed men that they are not getting paid because there’s no “legal” ship to attack is not good for one’s health.
On another note, the problem with allowing armed merchants, is that armed merchants eventually enter territorial waters. If a Liberian owned/flagged freighter entered a US port with a cache of AK-47s and M-16s, I suspect many people would be upset. With that in mind, I can understand other nations taking issue with a US owned/flagged ships entering their port with such armament.
Personally, I wouldn’t have a problem with it so long as the weapons are stored properly while in our ports. Sure, I’d get upset if the crew were selling the weapons illegally but I doubt that’d be the case very often.
Most of those pirates are attacking in small boats armed with AK-47s (effective range about 200 meters) and RPGs (can’t reach out much further effectively). Contrast that with a rifle caliber machine gun like the 7.62 mm M-60 (effective range of about 1000 meters) on a much more stable ship. A .50 caliber sniper rifle or machine gun can reach out much further.
Pirates can’t get on board if they’re shot full of holes before getting close to the ship. Face it, pirates prefer unarmed victims who can’t do anything to stop them. Why should merchant ships be bound by international law (foolish laws at that) when the pirates aren’t?
Maybe ship crews should start telling pirates that they’re orphans 🙂