It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cruise Ships Vulnerable to Attacks

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Question is, what marines do you use?
The USMC?
The Royal's?
The french marine corp?
The Russian marine corp?



does it really matter? im not talking about marines as a security force for the passengers, im talking about a "trojan horse" cruise ship, as shadow put it, full of marines ready to utterly destroy anyone attacking the ship. which country supplies the marines is trivial.

oh...and thanks for the lesson on q-boats stu....that was pretty interesting. i had never heard about that before.




posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Your idea regarding covert operations utilizing heavily armed "decoy" ships to attract attention of terrorists in the region is very good, quite possible, and in my opinion if it is not already currently being implemented into our DOHS operations, then it should be.

Referring to the issue concerning which Marines should be controlling the operation, I would have to say U.S., for several reasons.

1. The U.S. Marine Corps is a subsidary of the U.S. Navy, therefore since we have the biggest, strongest, and most technologically and tactically advanced seaborn naval fleet in the world, hands down, it is quite obvious that our Marines would have the absolute best, in terms of access to equipment, operational capabilities, and floating platforms from which to deploy at a moment's notice.

2. U.S. Marines are highly trained, and have specialized Special Forces programs designed to teach E-5 and above qualified applicants the ways of Hostage Rescue Operations, Counter-Terrorism Tactics, and other relative means of warfare relating to terrorism situations involving seacraft.



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 05:19 PM
link   
It really is an amazingly broad problem. I just checked a Maritime Shipping site that reports on world wide shipping threats and I was surprised to find that there are dozens of reports of piracy just off of the Somalian coast, not to mention elsewhere in the world. downtothesea.com...

What made the pirate attack on the cruise ship so newsworthy is that, it seems, maritime shipping is the prime target. Recently, on Coast to Coast am (this time hosted by Ian Plunkett), there was a guest (forgive me for not noting the name) who was a sea captain and "master mariner" who mentioned that cargo ships and freighters are not armed. There is no gun locker filled with shotguns and the like. This is an idea that has somehow stuck with us after WWII when the merchant marine were, indeed, trained and armed. Instead, when some freighters go through areas where there have been reports of piracy, depending upon the shipping company, armed security guards will be hired.

From what this master mariner had to say on Coast to Coast AM, he was recommending that the ships officers be properly trained and armed. He also noted that a ships best defense is to head towards deep water as the attackers are usually on smaller, high speed, boats with limited range so a freighter that is under attack can simply head out to sea.

What I found interesting in this report is that there is some "government sanctioned" piracy that also goes on. This master mariner mentioned that he had heard of entire ships being taken and repainted and re registered under a different name and flag.



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 05:21 PM
link   
One more thing. Regarding "authority" in international waters, if there is one single American person on that ship, the U.S. has "authority" over that person. This in turn creates the loophole needed for a government/military operation to exist. As long as there is U.S. citizens involved, the unit is required to utilize deadly force in accordance with USN deadly force procedures (A. To protect life and property.).

Also, it would not be hard for the U.S. GOV to conduct joint operations with European countries, and some Asiatic and Indian countries, in order to expand the AOR of the units (if this scenario were in fact to be actualized). Many foreign countries have been subject to terrorism by these means, and would jump at the chance to load up a boat full of warriors and get a shot at blasting those fockers.



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 05:29 PM
link   
benevolent tyrant, the idea that DOD (or any other foreign gov for that matter) would conduct hijacking operations on their own ships is ridiculous. Why damage your own international commerce operations?

Instead, I believe it is more likely that this may have and still may be happening, only Countries are stealing other Countries ships, know what I mean? I can definitely see someone saying, "You know what? Those fockers over there have three times as many ships as we do. Send out the A-Team and bring back one of those bad boys for us."

Why not? It is very possible. Good post.



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by StarChild
2. U.S. Marines are highly trained, and have specialized Special Forces programs designed to teach E-5 and above qualified applicants the ways of Hostage Rescue Operations, Counter-Terrorism Tactics, and other relative means of warfare relating to terrorism situations involving seacraft.


And what do you think the SBS are, a Sunday School outing?

This is one of those things that should be multinational because it is multi-jurisdictional. Just like the policing of the Straits of Malacca is becoming.

Maritime search and intelligence can be supplied by whoever has Orions or Nimrods in the area.

Support can be from whoever has marines and helicopters and/or OPVs in the area.

Each piracy hotspot would be a declared region with its own anti-piracy commander, a position drawn on rotation from the nations contributing forces, regardless of the size of contribution. Said OC would be four-ring Captain or higher.

Nations would contribute specific units to be available for said OC at all times. They would also have extra units on 24-hour call-up.

ie. Singapore might put 2 F16s armed for maritime strike at the regional force's disposal. Malaysia and Indonesia might contribute OPVs and Australia and New Zealand could contribute PC3s, Sea Kings and SAS, with F/A 18s to backstop the Singaporeans.

At least, that's my two cents worth.



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
a sea captain and "master mariner" who mentioned that cargo ships and freighters are not armed. There is no gun locker filled with shotguns and the like. This is an idea that has somehow stuck with us after WWII when the merchant marine were, indeed, trained and armed. Instead, when some freighters go through areas where there have been reports of piracy, depending upon the shipping company, armed security guards will be hired.


Which was big business in the Persian Gulf during the '80s if you had clients shipping oil out of Kuwait. Even with an Iowa and its entourage in the area. I'm sure it pays even bigger now.



What I found interesting in this report is that there is some "government sanctioned" piracy that also goes on. This master mariner mentioned that he had heard of entire ships being taken and repainted and re registered under a different name and flag.


Interesting one lately was a tanker full of oil that just "disappeared" from its anchorage where the government had impounded it. Seriously embarrassing, even in Africa.

The flags of convenience make tracing the ownership of big boats seriously difficult to track. Malta are a major culprit, so are Panama and Columbia. Cambodia has had its issues too. Loyd's of London threatened to delist them or something, the government cancelled the registry contract and gave it to someone else who was supposed to clean it up. Not much changed, though.



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 11:11 PM
link   
In fact, for your information, I am very familiar with the Special Boat Service. During my time in the USN I served with the SEAL units, and in turn served with SWCC units. This led to joint operations with, yes, the SBS, among others. I have the utmost respect for the members I served with, and what they stand for.

In my opinion, the SBS is just as qualified, if not more so, than any other Special Warfare Boat Units (SWCC being in second). However, this has nothing to do with what is being discussed and theorized here.

We're talking about functional unit capabilities, and most of all, resources. The SBS doesn't have anywhere near the funding available to SWCC units, nor does it possess the massive support structure of the U.S. Navy. Period.



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by StarChild
benevolent tyrant, the idea that DOD (or any other foreign gov for that matter) would conduct hijacking operations on their own ships is ridiculous. Why damage your own international commerce operations?



If you would re read my post, I don't believe I said anything of the sort. What I was implying is that there are certain countries, Somalia for example, that might sanction hi jacking cargo ships. The pirates would return the hijacked vessel to their Somalian port where the cargo would be off loaded and sold while the ship would undergo a face lift. The ship would be repainted, re named, re registered and then used by Somalia (for example) or even sold.



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 11:53 PM
link   
I see your point. I was only clarifying specifics. Speaking of Somalia, aren't they restricted under NATO, regulating import and export operations within the country?



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 03:07 AM
link   
The problem is that Somalia has land borders with almost equally impoverished African nations where money talks and bulldust doesn't even crawl. You can get anything you want across those borders for ridiculously small bribes. Once there you get new certificates for your cargo and you're away. Some areas of SEAsia are the same and I assume central America isn't much different.

For example, overloaded trucks in Cambodia are charged somewhere between 2,000 and 4,000 Cambodian Riel at each police checkpoint. They are not examined and their cargo is of no import to the cops. The exchange rate is fairly stable at around 4,000 riel to the US dollar.

What the cops are working on is the volume of traffic they charge. What they are guaranteeing is the uninterrupted smuggling fo fuel that pays no excise duties into the national coffers, the uninterrupted illegal logging of old-growth forests, also paying no tax into the treasury and the uninterrupted destruction of Cambodia's roads. Which were built, in most cases, by Japan anyway. Meaining that less than 18 months after a road is brand newly paved the Japanese are being asked to repair or rebuild it again for free, again.

You wanna know why Africans are poor? Because they want to be. And this kind of piracy is a symptom of that.



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
does it really matter?

I think it kinda does since you would be sending hundreds of men to a dangerous area , plus...would you like it if the UK ordered 45 comando to sit off hawai in a civie ship??


im not talking about marines as a security force for the passengers, im talking about a "trojan horse" cruise ship, as shadow put it, full of marines ready to utterly destroy anyone attacking the ship. which country supplies the marines is trivial.

oh...and thanks for the lesson on q-boats stu....that was pretty interesting. i had never heard about that before.

No the matter of "who" supplies the marines is very high up.



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by StarChild
We're talking about functional unit capabilities, and most of all, resources. The SBS doesn't have anywhere near the funding available to SWCC units, nor does it possess the massive support structure of the U.S. Navy. Period.

Not really..
The SBS has acess to the highest ammount of funding inside the MOD...period.
The SBS has acess to atleast 2 warships (one destroyer and one frigate) that are within a week or two's sail.
The SBS has acess to every arm of the MOD...it has the best kit, the best training and frankly you name a job and they can get there within 24 hours.

If there is a way to get them there physically they can and will get there.

To say the SBS doesnt have the ability to do this , or any mission of this type is laughable.



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by StarChild
We're talking about functional unit capabilities, and most of all, resources. The SBS doesn't have anywhere near the funding available to SWCC units, nor does it possess the massive support structure of the U.S. Navy. Period.

Not really..
The SBS has acess to the highest ammount of funding inside the MOD...period.
The SBS has acess to atleast 2 warships (one destroyer and one frigate) that are within a week or two's sail.
The SBS has acess to every arm of the MOD...it has the best kit, the best training and frankly you name a job and they can get there within 24 hours.

If there is a way to get them there physically they can and will get there.

To say the SBS doesnt have the ability to do this , or any mission of this type is laughable.


I think someone needs a box of Q-tips.

I did not say they "don't have the ability" to conduct these types of missions. What I said was... *clears throat*, that they do not compare to SWCC and the USN in terms of capability and resources. Jeez...


Let me guess, you're British.


[edit on 24-11-2005 by StarChild]



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Yeah, DW is British (scottish)


He is also a very loyal member of the Sea Cadets, so badmouth the Royal Navy at your peril!

Yes, the USN has a far larger resource base to draw upon, but the Royal Navy has the worlds second largest Navy, is the oldest Navy in the world and can draw upon vast resources and expierience itself.



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 07:10 PM
link   
I was recently watching a program on Operation Sea Dragon, a multi national operation securing the waters of the gulf to keep key shipping routes, and oil facilities secure. I don't think it would be too difficult to open up a similar operation like that in key areas of the world where piracy is occurring.



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by StarChild
I think someone needs a box of Q-tips.

I need something to remove make up?
Look just because I wear blue face paint on burns night and the scotland away games does NOT mean I cant take it off.....and just cause I wear cam cream doesnt mean I dont have my own solution ..
www.huggies.com...
The best "make up" remover..


I did not say they "don't have the ability" to conduct these types of missions. What I said was... *clears throat*, that they do not compare to SWCC and the USN in terms of capability and resources. Jeez...


Yet again, I'll say this again.
We have the capabilityt and resources that do compare to the US navy. Overall the RN does not, but we do have a special forces capability well able to match yours.

A) Name any position on the planet and the UK can get a special forces unit there with support (BTW, SF do not require a warship to have support)

B) Name any position on the globe and the RM can be there within 48 hours ready to rock and ruin.


Let me guess, you're British.


[edit on 24-11-2005 by StarChild]

No, I'm scottish.



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Uhh... by the way, Q-Tips are for earwax.


Ok, so you think the British Navy is the best thing since sliced bread, and that's fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, you are severely missing the point here, which is what? I think you may have forgotten. Capability and efficiency.

BTW, Britain does not have the second largest navy in the world. Japan does.


So lets compare, shall we?


USN versus RN.



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 11:11 AM
link   
U.S. Navy vs. Royal Navy

1. Size.
2. Capabilities.
3. Funding.
4. Resources.
5. Marine Units.
6. Special Forces Operations Capable Units.
7. Special Warfare Boat Units.
8. Hostage Rescue Teams.
9. Explosive Ordnance Disposal Units.
10. Airpower.
11. Sealift Capability.
12. Submarine Fleet.
Etc. etc. etc.

Let's hear your input on the following subjects first, since you are so confident in your statements.



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by StarChild
Uhh... by the way, Q-Tips are for earwax.


Hmm weird...thinking of the wrong product lol.


Ok, so you think the British Navy is the best thing since sliced bread, and that's fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, you are severely missing the point here, which is what? I think you may have forgotten. Capability and efficiency.

I do think it is the best, and I have taken both into consideration.
The RN is the most capable and efficient navy I know.


BTW, Britain does not have the second largest navy in the world. Japan does.


I never said it, plus the USN is no where near the largest navy
maersk has the largest navy.


So lets compare, shall we?


USN versus RN.

Compare? Size wize?

The US navy is larger and better in some areas but the RN is just as capable.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join