DiscussMormonism.com

Put some troops on a few likely looking vessels. Register courses and cargos in case there's an inside man checking targets. Give 'em a few machine guns and missiles. Perhaps an armed helicopter under a camo tarp and go trolling for pirates.

Wait for them to fire first. Don't try to capture them, just kill them in the return fire. Don't publicize the kills, rather, let the disappearance of their comrades work on the minds of the rest; make them think twice before trying it again.

Both my uncles are captains in the Merchant Marines, they have plenty of security. I highly doubt there will be a pirate attack on a US cargo ship.

No doubt. But the problem remains.

I think the main problem is jurisdiction. The U.S. could track any pirate ship by satellite but do we want to mess with them in someone else's territorial waters?

I think the main problem is jurisdiction. The U.S. could track any pirate ship by satellite but do we want to mess with them in someone else's territorial waters?

I don't think we'd have to enter any territorial waters to accomplish this. It doesn't has to be us either but we might as well.

bcspace wrote:Put some troops on a few likely looking vessels.

Whose troops would we put on whose ships? All of the piracy is of ships owned and operated by private corporations, almost exclusively ones registered in nations that have no significant blue-water Navy of their own and would most likely be adverse to having US military personnel or even military personnel from any of our allies that have the training and equipment needed for maritime operations like you're suggesting. Even worse, stationing military personnel aboard the ship could very well cause it to be refused entry into many ports.

Now you could use private security or mercenaries to do this, but it would be cost prohibative as you would need enough personnel to stand a constant 24hr watches over the ship (fact is, most times the crew doesn't even know they've been boarded by pirates until the pirates have already taken the ship).

bcspace wrote:Register courses and cargos in case there's an inside man checking targets.

Very rarely is that the case. Most of the ships taken by pirates are targets of opertunity, i.e. wrong place at the wrong time.

bcspace wrote: Give 'em a few machine guns and missiles. Perhaps an armed helicopter under a camo tarp and go trolling for pirates.

Most ports would refuse such armed ships entry. Anything more then small arms is generally grounds for refusal in most ports. The exception being warships flying the ensign of a recognized state actor, and then only if that home county that warship's navy belongs to has permission from the country the port is in.

bcspace wrote:Don't try to capture them, just kill them in the return fire.

Because the best way to enforce maritime law is to violate it, right?

bcspace wrote:Don't publicize the kills, rather, let the disappearance of their comrades work on the minds of the rest; make them think twice before trying it again.

Doesn't work at all. In the case of Somali pirates in particular, you're dealing with very desperate people. They see piracy as a means to earn money to feed themselves and their families and giving up what they're doing quite often means a slow death by starvation. So instead they'll keep doing what they're doing because being able to feed themselves and survive is worth the risk of relativity quick and painless death or imprisonment.

GoodK wrote:Both my uncles are captains in the Merchant Marines, they have plenty of security. I highly doubt there will be a pirate attack on a US cargo ship.

This is because US Merchant Marine vessels are flying a US Flag. Pirates usually know better then to screw with anything flying a US Flag for fear of swift and brutal reprisal from the US Navy.

The Nehor wrote:I think the main problem is jurisdiction. The U.S. could track any pirate ship by satellite but do we want to mess with them in someone else's territorial waters?

Considering that the bulk of piracy happens in international waters, jurisdiction really doesn't have anything to do with it except as far as in whose courts captured pirates could be tried. The main problem isn't one of jurisdiction, it's that we simply don't have the man power, resources, and will to maintain an effective anti-piracy patrol anywhere. We can't even keep the Caribbean free of pirates and that body of water is right off our southern coasts. Never mind trying to maintain patrols in the Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean and the South China Sea/Indonesian Straights.



The easiest way to solve the problem of piracy is to just pass a UN Resolution granting any navy in the world the right to engage pirates they encounter and give the captain of the warship that captures any pirates the right to pass sentence on them at their discretion. Bring back the plank. Arrrr....

Put some troops on a few likely looking vessels.

Whose troops would we put on whose ships?

Anyone's. However, I think the US could do the job quite nicely.

All of the piracy is of ships owned and operated by private corporations, almost exclusively ones registered in nations that have no significant blue-water Navy of their own and would most likely be adverse to having US military personnel or even military personnel from any of our allies that have the training and equipment needed for maritime operations like you're suggesting.

I would pay for the use of the vessel.

Even worse, stationing military personnel aboard the ship could very well cause it to be refused entry into many ports.

Why would the troops have to be aboard when the ship reaches port?

Now you could use private security or mercenaries to do this, but it would be cost prohibative as you would need enough personnel to stand a constant 24hr watches over the ship (fact is, most times the crew doesn't even know they've been boarded by pirates until the pirates have already taken the ship).

I wouldn't use private security.

Register courses and cargos in case there's an inside man checking targets.

Very rarely is that the case. Most of the ships taken by pirates are targets of opertunity, i.e. wrong place at the wrong time.

Then no worries. Just pick some likely looking ships. There is enough data available to create targets of opportunity.

Give 'em a few machine guns and missiles. Perhaps an armed helicopter under a camo tarp and go trolling for pirates.

Most ports would refuse such armed ships entry. Anything more then small arms is generally grounds for refusal in most ports. The exception being warships flying the ensign of a recognized state actor, and then only if that home county that warship's navy belongs to has permission from the country the port is in.

Like the troops, why would such munitions have to be aboard ship during port 'o call? Not much is required to take out a few motor boats or a mother ship.

Don't try to capture them, just kill them in the return fire.

Because the best way to enforce maritime law is to violate it, right?

Self-defense is not a violation of any law. Fire when fired upon.

Don't publicize the kills, rather, let the disappearance of their comrades work on the minds of the rest; make them think twice before trying it again.

Doesn't work at all. In the case of Somali pirates in particular, you're dealing with very desperate people.

Death has a way of creating certain types of desparation yes.

They see piracy as a means to earn money to feed themselves and their families and giving up what they're doing quite often means a slow death by starvation.

Liberal b***s***. They could be putting their energy to use improving the condition of their nation. They are criminals, not victims.

The easiest way to solve the problem of piracy is to just pass a UN Resolution granting any navy in the world the right to engage pirates they encounter and give the captain of the warship that captures any pirates the right to pass sentence on them at their discretion. Bring back the plank. Arrrr....

They are attempting that right now. But there is no need. The UN has no recognizable authority or jurisdiction nor should it be given such.

bcspace wrote:

Whose troops would we put on whose ships?

Anyone's. However, I think the US could do the job quite nicely.

Then we run into a couple of problems.

1. If we use just anyone's troops then who is going to pay for it? Piracy isn't a problem for us and the cost avoiding pirate waters doesn't add enough to the cost of goods here to justify spending tax dollars funding what is someone else's problem.

2. We could use our troops, but the cost of stationing a platoon sized force on every ship that travels through waters prone to piracy in terms of money, equipment, and warm bodies is prohibitive at best. Once again, since it's not really a problem that effects us enough to worry about it, what is our incentive for spending our lives and treasure on someone else's problem?

3. Eitherway we still run into the problem of ports allowing ships carrying uniformed troops and their weapons into dock.

bcspace wrote:

All of the piracy is of ships owned and operated by private corporations, almost exclusively ones registered in nations that have no significant blue-water Navy of their own and would most likely be adverse to having US military personnel or even military personnel from any of our allies that have the training and equipment needed for maritime operations like you're suggesting.

I would pay for the use of the vessel.

I'd rather not pay for it. Once again, piracy is primarally someone else's problem. We could do it, but it would be prohibitively expensive, and quite frankly, we have much more important things to spend our money on and their are easier and more efficient ways of dealing with piracy.

bcspace wrote:

Even worse, stationing military personnel aboard the ship could very well cause it to be refused entry into many ports.

Why would the troops have to be aboard when the ship reaches port?

So now on top of expending money to station troops on foreign ships you're also suggesting we detail several warships (which we really don't have to spare) to follow those civilian vessels about and go through the expense of moving troops and equipment back and forth every time they dock? All for a problem that really doesn't effect us at all.

bcspace wrote:

Now you could use private security or mercenaries to do this, but it would be cost prohibative as you would need enough personnel to stand a constant 24hr watches over the ship (fact is, most times the crew doesn't even know they've been boarded by pirates until the pirates have already taken the ship).

I wouldn't use private security.

It would be cheaper for the shipping companies to do that for themselves then it would be for us to use our own military to do it. Would be easier to work around docking issues as well as the chip's captain could just claim that the mercs were passengers.

bcspace wrote:

Most ports would refuse such armed ships entry. Anything more then small arms is generally grounds for refusal in most ports. The exception being warships flying the ensign of a recognized state actor, and then only if that home county that warship's navy belongs to has permission from the country the port is in.

Like the troops, why would such munitions have to be aboard ship during port 'o call? Not much is required to take out a few motor boats or a mother ship.[/quote]

Once again, you're suggesting we waste our money, our troops, our equipment, and our time on a problem that isn't ours. Why?

bcspace wrote:

Because the best way to enforce maritime law is to violate it, right?

Self-defense is not a violation of any law. Fire when fired upon.[/quote]

Once again, you're running again maritime law. When you've sank a ship you are obligated to rescue the surviving crew. The Germans actually tried to ignore that in WWII only to find that we accorded their U-Boat sailors the same treatment.

bcspace wrote:

Doesn't work at all. In the case of Somali pirates in particular, you're dealing with very desperate people.

Death has a way of creating certain types of desparation yes.[/quote]

They're already desperate, bc. Trying to make them even more so isn't going to have any effect.

bcspace wrote:

They see piracy as a means to earn money to feed themselves and their families and giving up what they're doing quite often means a slow death by starvation.

Liberal b***s***. They could be putting their energy to use improving the condition of their nation. They are criminals, not victims.

In the case of Somali pirates, they don't have the resourses to improve their own nation right now as their government is busy trying to fight an insurgency against Islamic rebels. Maybe if we stepped in and helped them get their country sorted out your claim might have merit, but for now it is utterly and completely wrong.

Also, I love how you immediately went "rar! ebil liberals!!". Shows me that you honestly have no idea of what your talking about here.

bcspace wrote:

The easiest way to solve the problem of piracy is to just pass a UN Resolution granting any navy in the world the right to engage pirates they encounter and give the captain of the warship that captures any pirates the right to pass sentence on them at their discretion. Bring back the plank. Arrrr....

They are attempting that right now. But there is no need. The UN has no recognizable authority or jurisdiction nor should it be given such.

So your solution is for us to engage in more unilateralism, ignore international law (many of which we are signatory to), and to just tell foreign nations and companies "this is how it's going to be or else"? So I guess the last eight years of us doing that and the consequences of that have completely escaped your notice.

Angus wrote:Also, Shades is a douchebag for editing posts on this "personal attacks" b***s***. Since when did mods even care about that, and iof they do care now then why are they not applying it across the board evenly? Why, because it's lameass censoring and therefore an act of douchebaggery, which makes Shades a douchebag for doing it.

The personal attack policy is an experiment that is being applied until the end of the year. The details are in the Terrestrial Forum. I will locate the exact thread and post the link here, if you would like.

As far as being even-handed. We try our best.

I work full-time, as do the other Mods, so we monitor the best we can to be consistent.

Thanks for your understanding. At the end of the calendar year (December 31), please feel free to vote "No" when Shades puts the experiment to a vote to see if posters want to implement it permanently.