Somali Pirates Seize 21 American Sailors

reply to post by IAF101

And that can only be done with a SHOOT-On-SIGHT approach with Pirates.

Blowing up every speed-boat sized vessel in a part of the world where fishing trawlers and ferries aren't much bigger than catamaran sailboats is a bad idea.

A bit like shooting every masked ghoul on Halloween.

Positive Identification and the complete blockading of ALL commercial traffic, American or not, from that area is a much better idea.

The first step is to narrow down the number of potential targets.

There are plenty of alternative and much safer routes via the Suez Canal and the Indian Peninsula commercial traffic can take through this area.

Sure it'll cost money and waste time, but lives are more important.

mining somali ports and in-land drone attacks on Somalia.

What to blow up UN aid ships and cargo freighters carrying desperately need food supplies?

Why don't you just boil the world's oceans then?
Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

Pirate ships aren't being launched from ports to begin with. They're not that stupid or obvious.

They conceal them off-shore in storage areas before towing them to isolated coasts or shallow bays for launch.

If they were all docked at port after every pirate attack, we'd never loose track of them.

Not to mention having self-destruct devices on ships to scuttle them in case of capture.

And what drown everyone on board? Destroy millions of dollars of cargo, oil, or other precious supplies? Pollute the environment while you're at it too?

Holy crap, does the word "Collateral Damage" mean ANYTHING to you?

[edit on 8/4/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]

NAVY took over ship and all prisoners are save.

www.foxnews.com...

Now THAT'S how to save $$ in a recession...


"Hey Marines, you know.. since you are clocked in this Wednesday afternoon.. umm wanna play with your guns and boats?"

It sounds as though the crew took matters into their own hands. Hot Damn that's how it is done. I look forward to the details regarding this accomplishment. The crew and captain were apparently well trained.

For an American to sail on a MILITARY SEALIFT COMMAND (MSC) ship -
naval auxiliary crewed by civilians must have a small arms certificate

Because the MSC is the prime employer of US merchant sailors means
that every crew member has been through small arms course.

Article from last week on firearms training at Massachusetts Maratime Academy

www.boston.com...

Since Us crew already have weapons training would be simple to equip
US flag ships with weapons - 12 gauge shotguns, pistols to repel
pirate attacks

Just glad there ok. heard the story break this morning. Teach those pirates not to screw with us.

reply to post by Adrifter


I think it's great news, too.

/sarcasm (below)

I only hope that the American crew doesn't get accused of mistreating the hijackers. Think about it and then tell me that's not possible ...



[edit on 4/8/2009 by centurion1211]

you want to stop pirates arm cargo ships with a few 50 cal machine guns and give all crewmen access to assault rifles and side arms. say a couple of weapon lockers on each deck .

www.msnbc.msn.com...

NAIROBI, Kenya - Pentagon officials said Wednesday that the American crew of a U.S.-flagged cargo ship had retaken control from Somali pirates who hijacked the vessel far off the Horn of Africa.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because information was still preliminary. But they said the hijacked crew had apparently contacted the private company that operates the ship.

The question is, will Obama sympathize with, and apologize to the pirates?

For the actions of the ugly Ameicans'

Originally posted by centurion1211
reply to post by Adrifter

 

I think it's great news, too.

/sarcasm (below)

I only hope that the American crew doesn't get accused of mistreating the hijackers. Think about it and then tell me that's not possible ...

[edit on 4/8/2009 by centurion1211]

Wouldn't surprise me.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
It has, to my mind, reached the point where one has to call cui bono on this whole subject.

So...you're conspiracy buffs? Who benefits? How come this still goes on?

Good point...is there a hidden 'flase flag' motive in play here?

I just did a quick 'google' looking for items on Chinese investment in that region of Africa and found a couple of interesting articles..

=4363]China's oil offensive strikes: The horn of africa and beyond

China’s four major oil corporations have unlimited government support, allowing them to edge out the smaller Western oil companies that traditionally take on high-risk exploration projects like Somalia. Latecomers to the global oil game, the Chinese companies and their exploration offshoots have focused on oil-bearing regions neglected by major Western operators because of political turmoil, insecurity, sanctions or embargoes. China once hoped to supply the bulk of its energy needs from deposits in its western province of Xinjiang, but disappointing reserve estimates and an exploding economy have given urgency to China’s drive to secure its energy future. Twenty-five percent of China’s crude oil imports now come from African sources.

Oil in Somalia?

Last month a deal was reached between Somali President Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmad,

the China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) and China International Oil and Gas (CIOG) to begin oil exploration in the Mudug region of the semi-autonomous state of Puntland (northeast Somalia) (Financial Times, July 17). Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government (TFG), which has yet to secure its rule, is to receive 51 percent of the potential revenues under the deal.

Chin ainvests in Somalia despite instability

Last month, for example, China National Petroleum Corporation (C.N.P.C.) signed a deal to co-develop an offshore block in Sudan, where China has been the dominant player in the oil sector after sanctions caused Western firms to suspend their operations or pull out completely. Sudan now supplies up to ten percent of China's oil imports. In Angola, China provided $2 billion in soft loans to the government that allowed it to avoid implementing reforms requested by Western donors. In return, Angola ensured that it would provide continuous oil supplies to Beijing.

Ok, now for the foil hat..

Just suppose teh US went back into Somalia and achieved their aim a second time around of 'securing a warring state' ...what would happen to the previously signed oil-contracts with China? Would they become void and a US-favourably-managed re-contracting of oil supplies be put in place just as in Iraq?

Summat smells fishy, and it aint unwashed pirates

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
A bit like shooting every masked ghoul on Halloween.

Not exactly, but I understand what you are implying. Yes, shooting at everything and anything 'Wild West' style is ludicrous. Conversely though, every ship has an identification and any vessel that does not match up or does not answer hails, especially in those pirate areas, should be considered hostile and appropriate action taken as so deemed by the Captain of the threatened vessel.

Positive Identification and the complete blockading of ALL commercial traffic, American or not, from that area is a much better idea.

The costs of doing a complete blockade through those pirate areas off Somalia and in the Gulf of Aden would be astronomical. Not only are commercial vessels having to pay astoundingly high insurance premiums, now with a blockade of commercial maritime transitory routes through those areas, rerouting of those vessels will not only add delivery times costs, but rerouting costs (fuel, crew, etc.). Therefore, from a 'costs-only' perspective (i.e.: the shipping company and ultimately the customer/consumer), a total and complete blockade is not practical, especially if your only considering lives. All this said, given the global economic crisis, this is not even counting the national costs to those nations that provide military vessels to enable an effective "complete" blockade.


More feasible alternatives (not a complete list) would be:

- to add more ships to those already patrolling the regions off Somalia and in the Gulf of Aden. Thus far, there are only 12-22 military/coast guard ships operating in those pirate infested waters. As such, their water coverage is limited, hence the creation of the Maritime Security Patrol Area in the Gulf of Aden. It has been deduced that effective coverage would require upwards of 60+ ships.

- to convoy those commercial maritime vessels and then have them escorted through those pirate zones. Convoys proved their effectiveness in WWII; they are still applicable and effective today.

- to have the international community solve the vast majority of the piracy problem by solving the Somalia equation. This will invariably require international troops on the ground in Somalia, as well as nation-building and the costs associated with that, hence why the international commnty has abstained from this alternative. Blackhawk Down syndrome remains alive and well.


[edit on 8-4-2009 by Seekerof]

Wait,i just heard they still have the ships captain captive.
two lines

Officials: U.S. vessel now in hands of crew; captain may be captive

www.aikenstandard.com...

Two Mass. Maritime graduates led hijacked ship
www.boston.com...

don't worry I am sure Osama wil solve this issue, like he does every other problem since he took office Throw tax payers money at the Pirates to Bail out the captian!

They said they were "unarmed crew members"..
hmmmm..


Must have been KFC night.

news.yahoo.com...

The crew retook the ship, but the captain was taken by the pirates in a lifeboat. Lets see what happens.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Blowing up every speed-boat sized vessel in a part of the world where fishing trawlers and ferries aren't much bigger than catamaran sailboats is a bad idea.

A bit like shooting every masked ghoul on Halloween.

By shoot on sight, I didnt imply that every speed boat need to be attacked but rather the opposite. When Pirates are noticed, the policy of trying to chase them away or when captured turning them over to the Yemeni or the Kenyans is what I think the world should reconsider. Shooting them dead on positive identification is a far greater deterrent than sending them to some facility. It also makes the process easy for Naval ships as the hassles of detainment, transportation, processing etc are cut down.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Positive Identification and the complete blockading of ALL commercial traffic, American or not, from that area is a much better idea.

You cannot blockade an portion of an ocean. It like saying that we should blockade the Western Seaboard of the US. Its not really enforceable. Also, already the cost of patrols is quite high, moving further assets to region will only increase costs to unacceptable levels.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
There are plenty of alternative and much safer routes via the Suez Canal and the Indian Peninsula commercial traffic can take through this area.

That is where the pirates initially stuck off the coast of Yemen. With increased patrols they have shifted to the Mozambique straits. With so many natural resources moving out of Africa, it is not possible to extend the current naval patrols to cover the increased area. There is just no way of avoiding traffic in those waters as the Somalis are extending their range of operations and using increasingly sophisticated weaponry.
The fight will soon have to be taken to the pirates homes and lairs.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira

mining somali ports and in-land drone attacks on Somalia.

What to blow up UN aid ships and cargo freighters carrying desperately need food supplies?

On the contrary, it would be easier and cheaper to mine off the Somali coast than continue with this policy of indefinite patrols by the worlds navies. Also, aid material could be easily transported over land via Egypt, Kenya etc and it would be safer.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Pirate ships aren't being launched from ports to begin with. They're not that stupid or obvious.

Many large ships and tankers that have been hijacked are being berthed at well known ports as they just cant be just parked near an obscure beach.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
If they were all docked at port after every pirate attack, we'd never loose track of them.

We have never lost track of the ships. Just the pirates because they are not seen as a priority. You cant miss a Supertanker or a cargo freighter that easily. Most of them have GPS locators and can easily be tracked from anywhere in the world forget about the various Navy's tracking them.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
And what drown everyone on board? Destroy millions of dollars of cargo, oil, or other precious supplies? Pollute the environment while you're at it too?

Holy crap, does the word "Collateral Damage" mean ANYTHING to you?

Once you destroy the ships, the pirates really have no way to transport all the sailors from sea to shore. The main value of piracy is capturing the cargo. If they wanted people to kidnap they could do it easily on land.

Also, the immediate cost to the environment may be high but the long term cost of piracy in one of the world's busiest shipping lanes is FAR greater. An oil spil can be cleaned up, a sunken freighter can be salvaged. But when you consider how the overheads of these "pirates" factor into raw material and thereby into manufacturing and finally to the consumer in the West and around the world over time, they can pretty much alter the economic landscape.

USS Bainbridge arrived in the last few minutes. There's been a P-3 keeping an eye on the lifeboat that the pirates are in. They're trying to bring a peaceful resolution to the situation.

reply to post by jsobecky


Well of course current efforts to combat piracy off Somali have failed because the wrong approach is being taken . The right approach would be to implement a convoy with adequate air cover and escorts . Clearly who ever dreamed up the current strategy either never read about or understood the Battle of the Atlantic . I would have thought that the Battle of the Atlantic would have been compulsory reading for any future naval leaders .