U.S. Navy's Rescue Fuels Debate Over Arming Crews

[Nonno]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/world/13shipping.html?src=twt&twt=nytimes

"HONG KONG — A spate of attacks on ships off Somalia and the rescue Sunday of an American captain held hostage by pirates have reinvigorated a long-simmering debate over whether the crews of commercial vessels should be armed.
Skip to next paragraph
Related
In Rescue of Captain, Navy Kills 3 Pirates (April 13, 2009)

While the arming of merchant vessels was commonplace for centuries, it faded in recent decades because of ship owners’ concerns about liability and the safety of their sailors.

Despite repeated problems with pirates in the Strait of Malacca between Indonesia and Malaysia and now in the waters of the Arabian Sea, ship owners worried that their crews would be killed instead of held for ransom if the crews tried to defend themselves and failed.

But the expanding range and seafaring skills of Somali pirates are prompting some experts to start calling for changes. The killing by United States Navy personnel of three Somali pirates during the rescue Sunday of Richard Phillips, the American captain of the container ship Maersk Alabama, has further raised the stakes, with at least one Somali pirate on shore threatening vengeance on the next American seafarer captured.

Barry Parker, a shipping consultant in New York and former ship broker, predicted that an international agreement would be drafted to allow captains to keep firearms and distribute them to crew members during times of potential danger from pirates. New international rules pushed through by the United States after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, authorized captains to monitor maritime security in their vicinity and maintain their vessels at elevated levels of vigilance in response to dangers.

If that anti-terrorism system were expanded to include piracy and ships were armed, Mr. Parker said, captains could be authorized to take greater measures in response to high levels of danger. “The captain declares there’s some elevated level and they open up the gun locker,” he said.

But many ship owners, including those with vessels that regularly ply the waters off East Africa, remain deeply reluctant to allow any weapons on their ships, said Matthew Flynn, a shipping consultant in Hong Kong who works closely with ship owners in Asia and East Africa.

“I’m not sure people are convinced at all it’s going to make ships or crews safer,” he said."

 

[LordStanley]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/world/13shipping.html?src=twt&twt=nytimes

"HONG KONG — A spate of attacks on ships off Somalia and the rescue Sunday of an American captain held hostage by pirates have reinvigorated a long-simmering debate over whether the crews of commercial vessels should be armed.
Skip to next paragraph
Related
In Rescue of Captain, Navy Kills 3 Pirates (April 13, 2009)

While the arming of merchant vessels was commonplace for centuries, it faded in recent decades because of ship owners’ concerns about liability and the safety of their sailors.

Despite repeated problems with pirates in the Strait of Malacca between Indonesia and Malaysia and now in the waters of the Arabian Sea, ship owners worried that their crews would be killed instead of held for ransom if the crews tried to defend themselves and failed.

But the expanding range and seafaring skills of Somali pirates are prompting some experts to start calling for changes. The killing by United States Navy personnel of three Somali pirates during the rescue Sunday of Richard Phillips, the American captain of the container ship Maersk Alabama, has further raised the stakes, with at least one Somali pirate on shore threatening vengeance on the next American seafarer captured.

Barry Parker, a shipping consultant in New York and former ship broker, predicted that an international agreement would be drafted to allow captains to keep firearms and distribute them to crew members during times of potential danger from pirates. New international rules pushed through by the United States after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, authorized captains to monitor maritime security in their vicinity and maintain their vessels at elevated levels of vigilance in response to dangers.

If that anti-terrorism system were expanded to include piracy and ships were armed, Mr. Parker said, captains could be authorized to take greater measures in response to high levels of danger. “The captain declares there’s some elevated level and they open up the gun locker,” he said.

But many ship owners, including those with vessels that regularly ply the waters off East Africa, remain deeply reluctant to allow any weapons on their ships, said Matthew Flynn, a shipping consultant in Hong Kong who works closely with ship owners in Asia and East Africa.

“I’m not sure people are convinced at all it’s going to make ships or crews safer,” he said."

Boom head shot
Boom head shot
boom head shot........

 

[Larry Gude]

Hmm.

Pirates attack ships. Lots of them.

Captains want to arm crews.

Some say that might not be a good idea. Worry this could upset the pirates.

The ones who are attacking ships.

 

[The_Twisted_Ear]

What scares me now is all the idiots saying we should now take on the responsibility of ridding the Somali Pirates in their home country. When will we understand that the moment we try to help everyone - we get nothing but grief from them. Since Obama is paying for everything with tax payers money - why not arm ONLY American Vessels and provide Insurance for the Vessel (if their provider drops them). Let's protect our own before we worry about other countries that hate us?

 

[HouseCat]

What scares me now is all the idiots saying we should now take on the responsibility of ridding the Somali Pirates in their home country. When will we understand that the moment we try to help everyone - we get nothing but grief from them. Since Obama is paying for everything with tax payers money - why not arm ONLY American Vessels and provide Insurance for the Vessel (if their provider drops them). Let's protect our own before we worry about other countries that hate us?

Cause that makes too much sense. We can't even take care of our own homeland security problems, homeless people, jobless people, etc...

 

[Larry Gude]

What scares me now is all the idiots saying we should now take on the responsibility of ridding the Somali Pirates in their home country. When will we understand that the moment we try to help everyone - we get nothing but grief from them. Since Obama is paying for everything with tax payers money - why not arm ONLY American Vessels and provide Insurance for the Vessel (if their provider drops them). Let's protect our own before we worry about other countries that hate us?

Consider; What we SHOULD have done in A'stan was go in, go after OBL, get him and then leave. From there, Afghanistan would be free to reconstitute themselves however they saw fit with the clear understanding that we'd simply come back if they wanted us to.

These pirates are the exact same scenario; we've been invited to come to their area and visit with them some. We've done so. While we're at it, it would be reasonable to send a few teams in, as in A'stan, reinforce the message that we're happy to oblige if you'd like us to come back and leave it up to them whether they want us to come back or not.

Contrary to the popular notion that if we break it we own it, we only break what's necessary to serve out interests, get out and leave it to them to run their lands as they see fit. With the understanding that we'd be more than happy to come back again. If they'd like us to do so.

The pirates hold some 200 crew members from various nations, right now. It remains to be seen whether the pirates want to start taking this out on them or not. Obama can take more action now and dissuade them.

 

[aps45819]

Hmm.

Pirates attack ships. Lots of them.

Captains want to arm crews.

Some say that might not be a good idea. Worry this could upset the pirates.

The ones who are attacking ships.

The worry is a sailor might accidentally shoot himself in the foot or his buddy in back of his head.
Then come the lawsuits.

Q: What's the difference between paying a pirate and paying a lawyer?
A: The lawyer isn't tax deductible and the pirates are probably cheaper

 

[Larry Gude]

The worry is a sailor might accidentally shoot himself in the foot or his buddy in back of his head.
Then come the lawsuits.

Of course. However, the same logic applies; better to deal with the crew shooting one another or the pirates? I mean, we're not talking 1650 and Blackbeard where the bad guys have got boats superior to what they are attacking. We're talking speed boats versus these huge ships.

In any event, I heard a decent proposal this morning; exclusionary zones (no fly zone for boats). In the designated shipping lanes, any boat without the equivalent of a 'flight' plan filed with the military, will be sunk.

Of course, then come the lawyers again...

 

[aps45819]

Of course. However, the same logic applies; better to deal with the crew shooting one another or the pirates? I mean, we're not talking 1650 and Blackbeard where the bad guys have got boats superior to what they are attacking. We're talking speed boats versus these huge ships.

In any event, I heard a decent proposal this morning; exclusionary zones (no fly zone for boats). In the designated shipping lanes, any boat without the equivalent of a 'flight' plan filed with the military, will be sunk.

Of course, then come the lawyers again...

Pull along side a cargo ship and threaten to start shooting gernades up on the deck.
Cargo ship stops due to superior firepower.

The small boats are carried to the area by a larger vessel. You're not getting a 20' Boston Whaler 400 miles offshore by itself.

 

[Larry Gude]

Pull along side a cargo ship and threaten to start shooting gernades up on the deck.
Cargo ship stops due to superior firepower.

The small boats are carried to the area by a larger vessel. You're not getting a 20' Boston Whaler 400 miles offshore by itself.

OK, but the cargo ship has inferior firepower by choice. Where would you rather be; in a small boat shooting up or a big one shooting down?

 

[ImnoMensa]

I surely dont want to see a small contingent of US military in Somalia.

I keep seeing how an American President failed to help his military when we lost 2 Blackhawk helicopters and 18 soldiers. 500 dead Somalians. No if we go we should go as a coalition of nations who have people being held for ransom, and we go strong enough to stop piracy for the next 50 years or we dont go at all.

I know it is doubtful we will see that as those nations paying ransom havent the courage to stop it.

The best idea is probably the No shipping zone. Anyone not authorised to be in it gets sunk. With all hands.

I am sure sailors using these waters must get hazard pay, but is it really worth it?

 

[Larry Gude]

I
I am sure sailors using these waters must get hazard pay, but is it really worth it?

Hazard pay is ALWAYS worth it. Until your number comes up.

Our last foray into Somalia is not what I have in mind. I'm thinking more target attacks at whomever needs to get the message to leave US shipping alone. Doesn't need a base to be set up. Can be supported from a carrier.

A simple; 'Don't tread on me'

 

[edinsomd]

For the record, the MA-2 .50 Caliber machine gun has about twice the effective range of an RPG-7 (920m vs. 1.8km). Also, the US has been involved in low-key operations in Somalia for a few years now going after al Qaeda- remember the AC-130 attacks? This could easily be shifted to the coast. Nothing deters piracy like dead pirates.

 

[Larry Gude]

For the record, the MA-2 .50 Caliber machine gun has about twice the effective range of an RPG-7 (920m vs. 1.8km). Also, the US has been involved in low-key operations in Somalia for a few years now going after al Qaeda- remember the AC-130 attacks? This could easily be shifted to the coast. Nothing deters piracy like dead pirates.

Great tactical point.

To me, it's a no brainer. Put 4 dual .50 mounts on either side of a freighter, two on the bow, two on the stern and, viola, no fuss, no muss.

It alleviates the worries of the crew roaming around with and needing to be trained to use small arms although I'd have some cutlasses and blunderbusses for each man, if only for the kewl factor, and a little open seas drill to get the .50's in action, problem solved.

Hell, spend some money and get them some kewl sights for low visibility and night use.

Great post!

 

[AK-74me]

For the record, the MA-2 .50 Caliber machine gun has about twice the effective range of an RPG-7 (920m vs. 1.8km). Also, the US has been involved in low-key operations in Somalia for a few years now going after al Qaeda- remember the AC-130 attacks? This could easily be shifted to the coast. Nothing deters piracy like dead pirates.

A few Ma dueces, a few barret 50's, a few battle rifles and some thermal vision scopes, get a handful of trained guys on there and 99% of pirates will be out gunned.

 

[SamSpade]

Start sinking the ships that tow them out to sea.

No one will want to do it.

 

[MrZ06]

Start sinking the ships that tow them out to sea.

No one will want to do it.

Exactly. If you take out the mother ships. The pirates will be of little threat out in the sea.

 

[edinsomd]

Great tactical point.

To me, it's a no brainer. Put 4 dual .50 mounts on either side of a freighter, two on the bow, two on the stern and, viola, no fuss, no muss.

It alleviates the worries of the crew roaming around with and needing to be trained to use small arms although I'd have some cutlasses and blunderbusses for each man, if only for the kewl factor, and a little open seas drill to get the .50's in action, problem solved.

Hell, spend some money and get them some kewl sights for low visibility and night use.

Great post!

Thanks! Night vision is a given, but I'd replace cutlasses and blunderbusses with sidearms and something is size 12, just in case.

On second thought, give 'em the cutlasses too...

 

[aps45819]

OK, but the cargo ship has inferior firepower by choice. Where would you rather be; in a small boat shooting up or a big one shooting down?

I'd rather be in the armed ship shooting at the unarmed ship.
Pirates aren't stupid.
Mass murderers that shoot up schools aren't stupid.
Both have easy pickings when it's illegal to defend yourself.

To me, it's a no brainer. Put 4 dual .50 mounts on either side of a freighter, two on the bow, two on the stern and, viola, no fuss, no muss.

.. and everything gets confiscated at the next port.

Can you imagine the jail time if a ship pulled into Baltimore with automatic weapons onboard?

 

[edinsomd]

I'd rather be in the armed ship shooting at the unarmed ship.
Pirates aren't stupid.
Mass murderers that shoot up schools aren't stupid.
Both have easy pickings when it's illegal to defend yourself.



.. and everything gets confiscated at the next port.

Can you imagine the jail time if a ship pulled into Baltimore with automatic weapons onboard?

And this idiocy has to stop. In the meantime, a detachment of trained professionals could protect the ship while it's in dangerous waters, and depart with their gear when after the threat has passed.