Capitalism Will Defeat the Pirates
Want to know why pirates are hijacking and holding people for ransom? Because it works. The truth is that in places around the world where criminality is a profitable business, piracy is a pretty wise investment with nice returns and little risk. The only thing standing between you and the prize are unarmed crewmembers prepared to combat your guns with axes and hoses.
The pirates are acting entirely out of economic interest. They don’t suicide bomb their targets. They don’t say it’s part of a grand jihad, even if al-Qaeda roots them on and does business with them. They don’t make political demands. They want money — and that means victory will come when piracy becomes an unsuccessful business enterprise.
Capitalism, through providing the economic incentives for ship crews to be armed or to hire private security, will ultimately end piracy as a major industry for the black market charlatans. To this day, companies are reluctant to arm their crews because of a fear of lawsuits resulting from an accident and high insurance costs. Each attack will drive the point home that an unarmed ship is a vulnerable ship, whose very presence provides pirates with the motivation to continue and expand their assaults. Facing steep financial losses, companies owning seaborne vessels traveling in these parts of the world will find it more costly not to arm their crews and, hopefully, insurance companies will be wise enough to realize it is in their best interest to lower rates on protected vessels.
Shipping consultant Barry Parker believes that post-9/11 laws permitting ship captains to increase their security measures as they see fit will be amended to allow arms to be distributed on the captain’s command. This is a no-brainer solution and legislators need to get on it right now. Hiring private security personnel is also an option, as evidenced recently when one such firm thwarted an attempted hijacking of a cruise ship by Somali pirates with zero casualties.
You raise some interesting points about the nature of capitalism and its reliance on security, and how they complement each other. Socialism, by way of contrast, promotes anarchism in order to control our lives. To be sure, socialistic pirates hate capitalistic seas.
You forgot to mention that hundreds of people are being held captive by these muslim pirates and are being abused. How would you feel if your family memebers were being held captive and were being raped, beaten and starved? We need to send in the Marines immediately and special forces as well to liberate these people and to destroy their hideouts. People also give these muslim pirates way too much credit. They aren’t that smart. They get in little fishing boats and chase giant and slow cargo ships, board them with AK-47s and hold the unarmed crews hostage. A bunch of 12 year olds could do that. If we armed our crewmen and gave them basic training they could defend themselves no problem. The reason why they target these cargo ships is because they’re sitting ducks. If the crews had guns there’d be a huge decrease in cargo ship hijackings. We also need to greatly increase our military presence there. Who cares how much it costs.
Right now, pirates don’t risk being killed. Even if they have more powerful weapons, since their vessel is lighter and has no steel plating whatsoever, they are at greater risk in a shootout. Maybe the nastiest weapon in a fight like this is the range-fused grenade-launcher that the US Army has been developing: a round the size of a large shotgun slug is preset in the chamber (using a laser rangefinder) to explode with lethal fragments at a distance which will get it either among the enemy (on the speedboat) or behind the armor (the ship’s rail).
As to safety: combining a heavy magazine with a blowout panel and a volume into which the blowout can be shunted should probably be sufficient. In the worst case, the ship’s deck would also have a blowout panel.
It is interesting that we ignore the fact that a ship is an extension of its Nation, even while in another Nation’s waters, while having ‘easy reach of the high seas’ available. That latter includes all enclosed bays and going past the headlands of a river: basically if the territory encloses the waters, they are out of easy reach of the high seas. The SCOTUS has ruled that way since in the early 19th century when Congress wanted to abdicate its high seas law making capability, and the SCOTUS traces the US Admiralty lineage back to William for its origin, and the Black Book of the Admiralty (the 14th century compendium of maritime laws, most of which were derived from older forms of Roman trade law). I would highly doubt that after multiple cases in the ante-bellum years of the Republic establishing this, that a later SCOTUS would try to diminish US sovereignty over its own ships.
Ships, as an extra-territorial extension of a Nation, each Nation can decide how to run its own affairs on-board the vessel while it is within easy reach of the high seas. This also means while in a port that has such access. Such can be done by treaty and courtesy given to the host Nation while retaining rights for the originating Nation in cases of danger or forced boarding (invasion).
I wouldn’t be surprised if a piracy/terrorism will start shifting some commercial fleets away from ‘flags of convenience’ and to more robustly supported Nations that offer an opportunity for self-protection and protection of the ship. Against those that practice predatory or private war to their own ends (not necessarily monetary as hurting a Nation by depriving it of shipping can also be a goal), the means of both piracy and terrorism demonstrate their common root going back in our State based understanding all the way to the late Bronze Age if not further. The US has a very terse, very direct, very easy to read set of Piracy codes on the civilian side on the Federal end and the States also have similar statutes for their part of territorial waters.
All of that said the form of warfare is a crime against all Nations and anyone committing such acts of private or predatory war could be tried anywhere without ‘double-jeopardy’ as their acts are an affront to each Nation individually. And as pirates and terrorists both perform such acts, they lose the protection of the law by declaring themselves to be above all law. In doing so they reclaim all their liberties, positive and negative, which we vest in government to protect us. Of those warfare is the most important as it allows for the creation of civil society without us reverting to the Law of Nature of all against all. That is what these individuals do by reclaiming those things to themselves. We do have the right to defend against man who reverts to Nature. No law can remove it, only make us victims of it.
Mr Mauro:
“Arthur Browning, the chairman of the labor affairs committee of the International Shipping Federation, was quoted as saying, “If we arm our crews with light machine guns, they can probably buy heavy machine guns. And if we can buy light rocket launchers, they can buy heavy ones.””
Yeah…so? When it gets to that point, we can break out some old WW2 erea 40mm Oerlikon “Pom-pom” guns…it’s all been done before.
What I want to know is how many years of seatime this “Labor Committee Chairman” has?
I’ve been “Before The Mast” for over twenty years, with more than a decade spent on the steel.
Give us the weapons and allow us to defend ourselves. The effects are rapid and undeniable, as the liberalization of concealed carry laws in many US states have repeatedly shown, when a significant portion of the potential victims are armed, the crime rate drops.
Mr. Brown’s fears of arms escalation will only come to pass if any crew is stupid enough to leave any pirate alive to tell his buddies that they need to “up-gun”.
Self-defense works too. The Navy doesn’t believe in being unarmed. They are not being a target from pirates. A wallowing merchanter is a good prize. Unarmed is the icing. Armed crews will stop this just as armed civilians stop and kill a lot of home invaders
There’s not much point in continuing to keep armed guards active on ships in peaceful waters. So economically the people and guns should be where the action is. That means use a similar strategy that the pirates use.
Have a central mothership in the area and when a ship that has contracted your protection enters the hotzone send a speedboat with 3 guys who each have a .50 Cal BMG.
Let the ship tow the zodiac and your men post up on the stern and each beam. Maybe even have that ship fly your company’s custom ensign as additional warning to the pirates.
The truth is it won’t matter if the pirates have big guns or not, the .50 BMG will turn their boats into Swiss cheese as soon as intent can be determined.
The arguments against arming merchantmen are based on faulty asumptions. Pirates can only up arm to a limited degree because the high speed boats that they use to catch up to and board a merchant vessel are small and fragile. The fishing dhows motherships which could carry heavier weapons are too slow for an intercept. Pirates approach their victims in small assault craft that are easily destroyed by light infantry weapons. Successful counterpiracy opererations rely on the same tactics that defeated the U-boats in the North Atlantic: Naval Armed Guards, convoys, sink on sight and attack at the source all supported by good intelligence.
I never understood why Cargo ships cannot be armed. a ship with MAERSK written across its side has every right to defend itself. Mounting pairs of twin .50 to the boat while en route, then removing them before they come to port would eliminate anxiety of the local authorities.
Unfortunately the control of government is increasingly ruled by wimps and lawyers (the same). During the world wars, Q Ships were employed to lure submarines to the surface and then attack them with hidden naval guns, usually the four inch variety.
This same technique only with armed guards with shoulder fired missiles and rifles should be obvious so that pirating becomes significant risk and in each case a one-way trip. This will allow the remaining ships to travel with relative security, the pirates never knowing which are decoys and which are unarmed.
Port security and onboard ship to shore communication will have to be managed as much of the Somali pirates are paying for intelligence up and down the coast and even in the Suez area. While many of these appears random, undoubtedly they have been spotted as easy targets or valuable cargo or compliant owners.
Finally, satellite monitoring for mother ships will be required, but must coordinated with drones capable of placing a missile down their funnels as they return to within sight of their return to home port to discourage others from joining the enterprise. Frankly it is unlikely to be needed in more than two or three episodes: nothing like a HE message or two for group persuasion.
# 7 is correct in such a strategy of putting armed crews onboard vessels as they pass through areas the moslem pirates are active.
However they need to be inserted in a manner which does not tip off the moslems that there is an armed presence aboard. Then the rules of engagement should be such that there is no quarter given to moslems who attack our shipping.
Utter and total death to them and leave their flesh to the sharks. Same for the “motherships”. Identify them and without warning, blow them out of the water. Then shell the ports they come from. Paying particular attention to any “new” villas springing up.
A good summary of the attitude & strategies required is described in Wikipedia under “First Barbary War”. America has been through this exact scenario more than once, so the answer is already at hand.
11. Fantom:However they need to be inserted in a manner which does not tip off the moslems that there is an armed presence aboard.
That’s kind of like the debate if you should put a sticker in your window if you have a home security system. As the security company you want it displayed so your brand gets out there and it helps you a little bit by dissuading attackers (exceptions occur).
The lack of a security mark suggests that you don’t have security which could be bad for those who don’t have security. Which helps the security business as more people would hire security to get that mark.
Unmarked ships provide more uncertainty for pirates but they may eventually find out which shipping lines pack heat and which don’t.
So use your own judgment on what is best. Just as a security company it would be in my interest to broadcast that a ship is armed. (pretending a ship is armed when it isn’t works too)
My understanding on arming boats is that harbors do not want armed boats entering and docking. That is the only reason I have hear. at such point in time boats coud enter the area and soldiers board the boat to protect it. The boats entering a harbor have local pilots board the boats and bring them in.
e:
My purpose for not showing which ones are armed is so that the moslem pirates do not avoid armed ships. Thus allowing for the destruction of the attacking moslems.
#13 e:
“Unmarked ships provide more uncertainty for pirates but they may eventually find out which shipping lines pack heat and which don’t.”
Unmarked is the way to go.
You really should endeavor NOT to educate your potential enemies as to what your capabilities are, until such time as they carry their newly-gained knowledge that the crew of a targeted ship had,(for example), M-60 machine guns, FAL or M-14 rifles and 12 gauge shotguns, to their graves with them.
If it becomes a business, and therefore just another “Gravy Train”, you’ll have promotional websites spelling out exactly what services and tools company XYZ has available.
If you’re in the Piratin’ Biz, you will do your homework and know this.
“Just as a security company it would be in my interest to broadcast that a ship is armed.”
You wouldn’t get a contract for MY ship, if I had anything to do with it.
The overarching strategic aim here is to eradicate piracy by eradicating those who practice it…NOT to perpetuate your security company “rice bowl” by allowing the pirates to perpetuate theirs.
#7 e:
“Have a central mothership in the area and when a ship that has contracted your protection enters the hotzone send a speedboat with 3 guys who each have a .50 Cal BMG.”
Maintaining the mothership on station is prohibitively expensive, and how do you intend to bring that vessel it’s fuel, it’s food and crew reliefs…do you suppose that we stay aboard ships year-round?
That means that the mothership is going to be away from station for at LEAST a week, while it transits to and docks at, it’s logistical base.
This is when the pirates will strike.
There is also the consideration that the mothership itself would become a prime target for destruction, since once she is out of commission, it’s “Happy Time” for the “flip-flops and AK’s” set.
“Let the ship tow the zodiac and your men post up on the stern and each beam. Maybe even have that ship fly your company’s custom ensign as additional warning to the pirates.”
See my #16 about educating your enemies, and as far as towing a zodiac mounted with a .50 BMG, (which would be a bit much for a lightweight RHIB to mount), the crew wouldn’t be able to employ it effectively.
Have you ever BEEN in the wake of an ocean-going vessel? It’s an open-water flume ride.
What should be realized is that where the “rubber meets the road”, from the prates’ POV, is an escalade…they will be clambering up a vertical steel wall of some height, and from a small open boat.
This is their monet of maximum vulnerability, and this is when a crew can be most effective at repelling the boarding.
I’ve always kept a private inventory of Molotov-cocktail making supplies, and in a pinch, I can gin up a nifty little homemade flamethrower.
When a fella’s burning alive, the last place he’s going to want to go is towards the place that the fire came from…not when there’s the big blue sea just a jump away.
At the risk of being labeled a pro-pirate (aarggh) pacifist appeaser, I’ll offer a few counterpoints to the arguments above.
The Barbary Wars don’t offer a very satisfactory example of how stop piracy. The First Barbary War ended with a a treaty and a huge ransom payment by the US and led shortly to the Second Barbary War. The Second ended with a treaty and a 50 to 1 hostage swap in favor of the pirates. In both cases we had a government of sorts to punish and negotiate with. There is no government to punish in Somalia, only amorphous criminal gangs. The Barbary pirates weren’t finally stopped until France colonized Algeria. I don’t think that ended too well in the long run and I don’t think we’re going to occupy the Somali coast.
As far as the hundreds of current hostages, they have my sympathy, but they aren’t Americans and they aren’t my problem. Let their own governments take the risks and pay the price of failed rescue attempts. The gangsters who control the pirates have run a smart game. By keeping the assaults almost totally non-lethal they have kept the response largely non-lethal. Until they tried a US flagged and crewed ship. That ended well for us and rather badly for them.
As for the economics of arming merchant ships, the people whose pockets are most directly affected by the piracy have calculated so far that it’s more economical to pay the ransoms. This has been the capitalistic response for several years now. Why should it change?
Militarily, the Navy has said that they can’t prevent the attacks without a major realignment of resources. With only 200 or so US flagged merchant ships in operation worldwide, and only a handful that work off the Somali coast, is it worth the multiple costs to mount an operation that would primarily benefit non-American corporations and crews? In the single American case so far, we answered with a reactive response. It worked out just fine. If we had solid intelligence on their operations and targets to hit, that would be great. But we don’t.
I say “Go Navy!” Keep up the good work, maintain a response force in the area and use it aggressively if American lives are threatened. Let the rest of the world handle their own problems for once.
You have far too much faith in this court. When SCOTUS looks to foreign decisions and regularly reinterprets the meaning of the Constitution according to later events (rather than interpreting the events according to the prior Constitution) anything is possible, especially if it increases SCOTUS’s own reach.
Put a few Blackwater guys on each ship, and we’ll soon call it Redwater.
LOST is the reason the pirates operate. The Law of the Sea Treaty forbids arming of merchant vessiles.
You are right that shippers will get sick of the losses but they have to overcome the UN and the Diplomatic Corp. before they can do anything about it. With Barry as President I do not see the situation improving for four years.
There is little doubt that IF all the main shipping companies were to outfit their ships with sharpshooters from the IDF they would have the best protection from pirates at the high seas.
The fact that these commandos are so talented and highly skilled is often overlooked. This is because the craven Israeli leadership refuses to let them loose on the Islamists and to go for VICTORY.The reasons are multifaceted and too long to detail.
That being said,in decades past their leaders aimed high, and this is why they achieved remarkable victories (against all odds) in 1948, 1967 & 1973. No more.
They send them in to start the job, and then purposefully stop them midstream. Nevertheless, their training is aces, about the best in the world.
I know this for a fact…..I would ride the high seas with them feeling secure.
17. Bilgeman:
“I’ve always kept a private inventory of Molotov-cocktail making supplies, .”
Not a wise thing to say on a public forum. You could get an ATF visit. Better to leave the first person narrative/admission, out of it.
18. RabelRabel:
You make some good points. Can’t say as I see any of them as wrong. different conclusions drawn but a well written post.
Having said that. The second time we actually slapped the moslem pirates around a bit. Got a better treaty. Which brings us to the government thing.
…..”..RabelRabel:.. There is no government to punish in Somalia, only amorphous criminal gangs.”
I am fairly sure that is the definition of “government”. “amorphous criminal gangs.” that is. Follow the money.. bomb the Villas the power structure(government there) is building. While you are at it, bomb/shell the surrounding real estate and you will hit the government/power structures militia/henchmen.
This is how it has always been.. sic semper sic.
17. Bilgeman: Maintaining the mothership on station is prohibitively expensive, and how do you intend to bring that vessel it’s fuel, it’s food and crew reliefs…do you suppose that we stay aboard ships year-round?
Why would everyone have to be on the same boat year round? There are ports in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Yemen that aren’t the worst places in the world to stay and refuel. And for fatigue reasons its probably good to let your people go home every 3 months or so. The Gulf of Aden is hardly the High Seas.
Bilgeman:What should be realized is that where the “rubber meets the road”, from the prates’ POV, is an escalade…
The fighting platform is the deck of the cargo ship, the Zodiac is exclusively for transport.
Bilgeman:I’ve always kept a private inventory of Molotov-cocktail making supplies, and in a pinch, I can gin up a nifty little homemade flamethrower.
Why would you let them get within 250 feet of your ship before you would do anything about it? Their little boat may be rocking but AK-47s start hitting man sized targets reliably well within that range. Its better to get them further out. And personally I doubt you’ve had much experience with Molotov cocktails as you have made some wrong assumptions about their effectiveness.
As for telegraphing your capabilities to the pirates being bad. It isn’t bad as long as they know they’re not gonna take your ship without large losses, so they won’t even try. Pirates can’t get paid if they’re dead.
In conclusion, think a little more before you post.
Currently, the pirates are carrying small arms (AK-47s and RPGs) on light boats. An AK-47 is only accurate out to a couple hundred meters and an RPG perhaps a bit more, but accuracy is tough when your boat is bouncing. A freighter is a much more stable gun platform. A 7.62mm machine gun like an M-60 or M-240 would have an effective range upwards of 1000 meters. Even if the pirates switched to larger weapons, they’d still be a lot less accurate and more vulnerable than the freighter. They can’t capture you if they’re ripped to shreds before they can get close.
A couple weeks ago, the pirates attacked an Italian passenger ship. A security detail fought back including firing pistols at the pirates. The ship wasn’t taken. Pirates prefer unarmed targets.
#23 Fantom:
“Not a wise thing to say on a public forum. You could get an ATF visit. Better to leave the first person narrative/admission, out of it.”
Appreciate the concern, but aboard ship, fuels, rags, and breakable containers are around every corner.
ATFE would be welcome to come by…but they should announce themselves first.
Right now it is cheaper for the shipping companies to pay the ransoms and get reimbursed by the insurance companies. Eventually this is going to get too expensive as more pirates are drawn to this low risk / high payoff enterprise but governments could speed up the process of paying off pirates becoming uneconomical and make some money at the same time.
Pass a 300% tax on ransom payments, a 300% tax on insurance reimbursements for ransom payments and a 300% tax on insurance premiums to cover ransom payments. Now it gets more expensive to pay ransom to the pirates, shipping companies will start getting serious about finding some way to avoid it.
27. Bilgeman:
#23 Fantom:
“Not a wise thing to say on a public forum. You could get an ATF visit. Better to leave the first person narrative/admission, out of it.”
Appreciate the concern, but aboard ship, fuels, rags, and breakable containers are around every corner.
ATFE would be welcome to come by…but they should announce themselves first.
My Man!
If a port refuses entry to an armed ship,
then ALL ships refuse to enter that port.
The stupid refusal would end real quick.
ships are one nation extension, right ! though in territorial waters they are supposed to be on the protection of the nearest country
http://bruxelles2.over-blog.com/pages/Piraterie_extrait_convention_droit_de_la_mer_montego_bay_1982-778737.html
Piraterie (extrait convention droit de la mer “montego bay” 1982)
Article 111 Droit de poursuite
1. La poursuite d’un navire étranger peut être engagée si les autorités compétentes de l’Etat côtier ont de sérieuses raisons de penser que ce navire a contrevenu aux lois et règlements de cet Etat. Cette poursuite doit commencer lorsque le navire étranger ou une de ses embarcations se trouve dans les eaux intérieures, dans les eaux archipélagiques, dans la mer territoriale ou dans la zone contiguë de l’Etat poursuivant, et ne peut être continuée au-delà des limites de la mer territoriale ou de la zone contiguë qu’à la condition de ne pas avoir été interrompue. Il n’est pas nécessaire que le navire qui ordonne de stopper au navire étranger naviguant dans la mer territoriale ou dans la zone contiguë s’y trouve également au moment de la réception de l’ordre par le navire visé. Si le navire étranger se trouve dans la zone contiguë, définie à l’article 33, la poursuite ne peut être engagée que s’il a violé des droits que l’institution de cette zone a pour objet de protéger.
But
Article 107 Navires et aéronefs habilités à effectuer une saisie pour raison de piraterie
Seuls les navires de guerre ou aéronefs militaires, ou les autres navires ou aéronefs qui portent des marques extérieures indiquant clairement qu’ils sont affectés à un service public et qui sont autorisés à cet effet, peuvent effectuer une saisie pour cause de piraterie.
most cargos are registred in paradise islands, so they are no nation extension, as we only are allowed to defend our “nation” (and France did it for each of her hijacked boats), then these ships still are a prey for pirats
and fortunately
Dans les eaux territoriales somaliennes ? La convention de Montego bay ne s’applique pas donc aux actes des eaux territoriales ou zone économique exclusive. Mais la résolution 1816 du Conseil de sécurité de l’Onu autorise les Etats à pénétrer dans les eaux “dans les eaux territoriales de la Somalie” et “utilise (…) tous moyens nécessaires pour réprimer les actes de piraterie et les vols à main armée (…) d’une manière conforme à l’action autorisée en haute mer en cas de piraterie en application du droit international applicable”. Précision importante : le bateau piraté conserve la nationalité du pavillon d’origine.
http://bruxelles2.over-blog.com/article-23862091.html
Besides, I read that China has the intention to dominate the indian ocean, so may-be, she’ll handle the problem, (she is constructing a big harbour in Shri-Lanka as a site for supplying her navy with oil)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6207487.ece#cid
umm, the US are not absent :
http://www.asiantribune.com/?q=node/16190
It would only take 2 trained Blackwater-esque guards to stave off any attack, and in most cases one. Any spec-ops trained soldier can kill Somali terrorists at a roughly 150 to one ratio. From any strategically advantaged position, it would be very easy to kill 6-10 attackers. They are among the worst trained combatants on the planet, and are only successful in a all-gun versus no-gun situation. Personally, if I had any advance warning of their approach and a decent combat rifle, no way they even make it to the ship alive.
“If a port refuses entry to an armed ship,
then ALL ships refuse to enter that port.
The stupid refusal would end real quick.”
So you’re okay with a boycott of the Port of New York/New Jersey? How about Oakland? Or Los Angeles/Long Beach?
The problem is the anti-gun sentiment in many nations. In the US, non-resident aliens, e.g., foreign crew on a foreign vessel, are prohibited from possessing guns. Automatic and rail mounting firearms and guns are strictly controlled requiring a tax and license to possess but not permitted to non-resident aliens. New York, New Jersey, California as states and the cities involved strictly limit the possession of firearms to citizens as well as foreign nationals. This is just the US, but the United Kingdom, Australia, Mexico and many other countries strictly limit firearms.
Sure the Congress could preempt state and local laws but they are bent on keeping guns from law abiding citizens rather then permitting declared firearms to be held by foreign nationals even if they are under customs seal. The problem with firearms isn’t at sea, it is when a vessel enters the territorial waters of a nation hostile to gun possession, like the US.
Reports are that the pirates are funded by rich Somalies who get a big part of the ransom. These individuals should be identified, placed on the Specially Designated Nationals list, their proceeds confiscated and shippers should refuse to transport items of use to the pirates to Somalia or any surrounding country that doesn’t control the items transfer to Somalia. In addition, any shipper who violates the embargo should be blackballed with no other shipper accepting cargo that a boycott violator has handled or transshipped.
#33 JKB:
“So you’re okay with a boycott of the Port of New York/New Jersey? How about Oakland? Or Los Angeles/Long Beach? ”
I’ve sailed into both, several times, and I’d be down with that. I boycott them every chance I get. I could live a long and happy life if I never see Bayonne,NJ or Vallejo,CA again.
“Sure the Congress could preempt state and local laws but they are bent on keeping guns from law abiding citizens rather then permitting declared firearms to be held by foreign nationals even if they are under customs seal.”
Being as ships are foreign territory, and the Constitution forbids the States from cutting separate deals with foreign nations, they and their local gun laws can go piss up a rope.
Fact of the matter is that the Captain/Master of US-flagged ships traditionally has had a handgun in their safes,(typically a .38 snubbie, it’s understood that this is for putting down mutinies…i.e.: shooting his own crew),and no-one overseas gets all bent out of shape about it, unless he has actually fired the thing.
I used to sail LNG tankers from Indonesia to Japan and back, and one of that fleet’s captains had used his gatt to hole the hull of a derelict in order to send it to the bottom, (unlit derelict craft are a hazard to navigation, so he was doing a traditional public service).
When he got to Japan, the Japs flipped out and buried the guy in paperwork to account for each and every round he fired…but then generally the Japs are crazier than a pack of shaved rats in an empty oil drum.
Once a ship docks, and in order to clear Customs, the gun locker can be inventoried, locked up and sealed, to be unsealed when we are out of GoofyLand’s territorial waters.
This isn’t a big deal…and if GoofyLand thinks that it is, we can ship our PL 480 foreign aid grain cargoes to their mortal enemies over in Absurdistan down the coast.
JKB — So you’re okay with a boycott of the Port of New York/New Jersey? How about Oakland? Or Los Angeles/Long Beach?
Can you think of a more efficient way to get them to modify an absurd policy?
Capilist seas,that sounds like the answer
Show Obama, Reid and Pelosi the tea party protests were not “astroTurf” but they were the beginning of a massive movement against massive Government growth and the control that comes with it. Tell them to Empower Individual Americans to take responsibility for their own lives and for the individual to have control over the direction of our country Sign the petition for Individual Empowerment!!! http://www.PetitionOnline.com/Indv1776/petition.html THE ONLY WAY THIS WILL WORK IS IF YOU COPY AND SEND IT TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY THAT HAVE THE SAME OPINIONS AS YOU. ALSO COPY AND POST IT ON OTHER NEWS SITES, BLOGS, EMAIL IT TO ORGANIZATIONS ETC
I think that declaring war on piracy is not going to solve the problem. The solution is going to have to come on the inside and that means starting with Somalia’s government. It seems this problem isn’t going to be solved for a while… anyway i found this video today that shows how different news outlets are reporting on the story. It’s interesting to see the difference in perspectives. Definitely worth a look:
http://www.newsy.com/videos/pirates_on_demand/
Leslie Siegel belives that this piracy is going to continue as long as we do not shore up our water … International waters! Leslie Siegel believes what shipping consultant Barry Parker was trying to get across, and if we do not do that soon, the pirates are going to kidnap Johnny Depp and decide to make a movie or documentary about it, and then decide to go into the movie business, ever hear of a movie called “GET SHORTY?” Not just that it revived John Travolta’s career, but the premese of it, that anyone, even evil pirates or mafia can make money on what they do (et al The Sopranos), maybe pirates should consider that instead, or we must begin the process of doing what Parker suggests!