Question Taking on Pirates

[Bj]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8613388.stm


Has everyone been following up on that oil tanker taken up by pirates?

Looks like the pirates abandoned it. I wonder why though.



Anyway I saw a link in there that asks, 'can pirates be defeated'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8371139.stm

Which brings me to..

'Why not just blow them out of the water?' I asked.
"In the Western world we like to have due process in legal issues," he said. "It would be the same as if somebody in London looking like a burglar would be shot on sight, we just don't do that."

So I ask, why not? The difference between a burglar in London and these pirates is that they are armed with fully autos and RPGs, I would turn the 127mm and 20mm guns at least in their direction, fire off warning shots at least.

 

[Ark]

I for one appreciate the fact that the EU's piracy unit has some appreciation for human rights and due process. They're criminals, not enemy combatants, and should be treated as such. That means detain if possible and only use force when necessary.

Somewhat unlike the American military, which apparently considers it entirely okay to murder a dozen people without warning with an Apache because one of them had a camera that kinda sorta not really looked like an RPG. I WISH we'd take some cues from the Europeans for our rules of engagement.

Back to the piracy thing, they can't be that hard to avoid. Just shove the throttles forward and call the nearest Navy ship. A cruise ship fought them off with loud noises, they can't be that professional. As for the root cause, maybe the West should give some thought to cleaning up the mess we left in Somalia. Most people don't engage in piracy just for giggles, and it's a complete copout to try and explain it away as "Oh, they're criminals, simple as that."

 

[ar81]

Somalia is a failed state, harbor for pirates.
Here an interesting article on the matter:

Mounting Stresses, Failing States

 

[Ark]

Somalia is a failed state, harbor for pirates.
Here an interesting article on the matter:

Mounting Stresses, Failing States

I found this to be the most interesting point in the article:

Ranking on the Failed States Index is closely linked with key demographic and environmental indicators. Of the top 20 failed states, 17 have rapid rates of population growth, several of them expanding at close to 3 percent a year or 20-fold per century. In 5 of these 17 countries, women have on average more than six children each. In all but 6 of the top 20 failed states, at least 40 percent of the population is under 15, a demographic statistic that often signals future political instability. Young men, lacking employment opportunities, often become disaffected, making them ready recruits for insurgency movements.

So poverty brings people popping out children left and right which brings ever more poverty. I see the trap they're in and why the whole thing is just a self-perpetuating cycle of instability and poverty, but I'm still wondering why. Why the hell would people who can barely feed themselves fire out four or five or six more kids to feed? Most of these countries are dependent on international food aid, do they not understand that every new kid means a little bit less food for everyone else?

Finding an answer to this problem is essential to solving the overall failing state problem, which is essential to permenantly solving the Somali pirate problem. Just shooting them won't change anything anymore than the War on Terror changed anything.

 

[ar81]

Well, if you are poor, have no money to go to the movies, no TV, no videogames, no travelling, going out for dinner, what will you do to be entertained?

If you have no appropriate education and wrong social pressures to prove yourself as a macho in a macho culture where women are worthless and have no rights, how to make right decisions? How will you manage your own destiny? How will you plan the future of a family? How would you handle money?

Local poverty means incompetent local politicians. They come with the purpose of gaining power, not working on people's welfare. Mental health is also a big issue in poor countries.

 

[Ark]

Well, if you are poor, have no money to go to the movies, no TV, no videogames, no travelling, going out for dinner, what will you do to be entertained?

If you have no appropriate education and wrong social pressures to prove yourself as a macho in a macho culture where women are worthless and have no rights, how to make right decisions? How will you manage your own destiny? How will you plan the future of a family? How would you handle money?

That all said, how the hell do you change those elements of a culture when 40% of people are 15 or younger? Try to tell them what they're doing is wrong, and they'll probably shoot you in the face. They already hate Westerners and blame us for their problems (probably rightfully), so they sure won't listen to us when we try to explain the wisdom of seeing past your own nose.

It doesn't really look like a problem that can ever be solved. The civilized world has lower birthrates because everyone has enough wealth and stability to afford the luxury of planning ahead. This isn't the answer to failing states, because elevating everyone on the planet to the quality of life of your average American would take the resources of three or four Earths. They're dependent on international aid to keep them alive long enough to pop out more kids, yet reject any kind of international governance, education, or other nation-building efforts. The situation can't be ignored or left alone, because there will only be ever more of them fighting for the same limited resources.

I'm probably not the only one looking at all these things and wondering if it's just all separate symptoms of the same problem. Failed states, piracy, terrorism, the bottomless black hole of lives and money that is the War on Terror...are these all just endless skirmishes in the overall war between the Haves and Have-Nots? If so, the numbers are fast tipping in the latter's favor.

 

[Bj]

So poverty brings people popping out children left and right which brings ever more poverty. I see the trap they're in and why the whole thing is just a self-perpetuating cycle of instability and poverty, but I'm still wondering why. Why the hell would people who can barely feed themselves fire out four or five or six more kids to feed? Most of these countries are dependent on international food aid, do they not understand that every new kid means a little bit less food for everyone else?

As one of my HS teacher put it, 'because they are bored' :dry:

Not sure how it works exactly around there, but here at least where I live, families get more 'federal aid' if they have more members in their family. Also I think they can get more aid if they have an infant. ie they continue making babies from ages 15-~50. On the note of that type of federal aid, I wonder, where would be the motivation to work then?

Finding an answer to this problem is essential to solving the overall failing state problem, which is essential to permenantly solving the Somali pirate problem. Just shooting them won't change anything anymore than the War on Terror changed anything.
...
They're criminals, not enemy combatants, and should be treated as such. That means detain if possible and only use force when necessary.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpPrXGWbZHU"]YouTube- 2000lb jdam droped on taliban stronghold[/nomedia]

If I saw that in real life, I would be very much discouraged from going against Allied forces. Same goes with land/sea/air/anything


I guess there is a really fine line between the two. I would think a group of people (5+) would be considered combatants. Though, I dont think a boat load of guys with RPGs and fully autos out 100+miles from shore would be considered going on your 'average boating expedition' :thumbup:

But your right detaining when possible is absolutely necessary, the question is, on a little non armored boat like this; why not take a few 14.5mm shots to the engine (which I am sure is unarmored) completely disabling them in the middle of the ocean, and making them surrender.

Somewhat unlike the American military, which apparently considers it entirely okay to murder a dozen people without warning with an Apache because one of them had a camera that kinda sorta not really looked like an RPG. I WISH we'd take some cues from the Europeans for our rules of engagement.

Not exactly sure if that's what happens in real life per se, but if it did I would have a problem with that. So you have been on the front lines and watched this happen? I would expect that they would really confirm their targets before just mowing everything down.

Back to the piracy thing, they can't be that hard to avoid. Just shove the throttles forward and call the nearest Navy ship. A cruise ship fought them off with loud noises, they can't be that professional. As for the root cause, maybe the West should give some thought to cleaning up the mess we left in Somalia. Most people don't engage in piracy just for giggles, and it's a complete copout to try and explain it away as "Oh, they're criminals, simple as that."

Right, a tanker at 500k tones that can travel at max ~16-19 knots is going to out run a small skiff? Yeah don't think so. Like trying to outrun a rocket with a bicycle.

Also a destroyer is a little harder to take than a non armed tanker, what with those big 130mm guns and everything :thumbup:

They engage in piracy for money, you know how many millions that crude is worth :thumbup:

---------- Post added at 12:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:31 AM ----------

That all said, how the hell do you change those elements of a culture when 40% of people are 15 or younger?

...

It doesn't really look like a problem that can ever be solved. The civilized world has lower birthrates because everyone has enough wealth and stability to afford the luxury of planning ahead. This isn't the answer to failing states, because elevating everyone on the planet to the quality of life of your average American would take the resources of three or four Earths. They're dependent on international aid to keep them alive long enough to pop out more kids, yet reject any kind of international governance, education, or other nation-building efforts. The situation can't be ignored or left alone, because there will only be ever more of them fighting for the same limited resources.

China had an answer;
One-child_policy

Though it would violate 'rights' and I am sure any USA political leader would get kicked out of office just for mentioning it.

So if you have an answer to better the entire world all at once then lets hear it, cause none else has yet been able to figure it out. Realistically there is no 'one package fits all' type of thing, you can only just better your one corner of it.

 

[Ark]

As one of my HS teacher put it, 'because they are bored' :dry:

Not sure how it works exactly around there, but here at least where I live, families get more 'federal aid' if they have more members in their family. Also I think they can get more aid if they have an infant. ie they continue making babies from ages 15-~50. On the note of that type of federal aid, I wonder, where would be the motivation to work then?

Welfare lifestyles aside, the problem of food dependency is probably minor in comparison to the corrosive cultural elements, leadership problems, and other ingrained societal issues. The age disparity being what it is, part of the reason those counties seem like they're run by children is because they're actually...run by children.

YouTube- 2000lb jdam droped on taliban stronghold

If I saw that in real life, I would be very much discouraged from going against Allied forces. Same goes with land/sea/air/anything

And yet people still try to light their underwear on fire. The more believers (and innocent collateral) we kill, the more cities we blast into rubble, the more people are going to see this as a holy war between Islam and the US.

I guess there is a really fine line between the two. I would think a group of people (5+) would be considered combatants. Though, I dont think a boat load of guys with RPGs and fully autos out 100+miles from shore would be considered going on your 'average boating expedition' :thumbup:

But your right detaining when possible is absolutely necessary, the question is, on a little non armored boat like this; why not take a few 14.5mm shots to the engine (which I am sure is unarmored) completely disabling them in the middle of the ocean, and making them surrender.

I have no real problem with that. Rules are a little bit different out on open water than in dealing with criminals on land. They're in it for the money, not ideology, and are thus much more likely to give up when faced with the prospect of getting their little dinghy shot out from under them.

Not exactly sure if that's what happens in real life per se, but if it did I would have a problem with that. So you have been on the front lines and watched this happen? I would expect that they would really confirm their targets before just mowing everything down.

http://www.businessinsider.com/coll...hows-deaths-reuters-reporters-in-iraq--2010-4

This is what I had in mind with that statement. Basically unprovoked attack on a group of people because a couple of them had cameras on their shoulders. Also shot at the people (including children) who showed up to try and rescue the wounded. I've always had my suspicions about the US rules of engagement in a situation where we're supposedly trying to rebuild a nation and "win hearts and minds", but that's a sideline to this conversation.

Right, a tanker at 500k tones that can travel at max ~16-19 knots is going to out run a small skiff? Yeah don't think so. Like trying to outrun a rocket with a bicycle.

Also a destroyer is a little harder to take than a non armed tanker, what with those big 130mm guns and everything :thumbup:

They engage in piracy for money, you know how many millions that crude is worth :thumbup:

How do they even get up to a deck that's 20 or 30 feet above the water? Grappling hooks and rope ladders? How much fuel do they even have?

It just seems really, really silly to me that a couple guys in a rowboat with a little outboard motor can keep up with, board, and capture a large oceangoing vessel. How the heck do they do it? :lol:

---------- Post added at 03:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:46 AM ----------

China had an answer;
One-child_policy

Though it would violate 'rights' and I am sure any USA political leader would get kicked out of office just for mentioning it.

So if you have an answer to better the entire world all at once then lets hear it, cause none else has yet been able to figure it out. Realistically there is no 'one package fits all' type of thing, you can only just better your one corner of it.

One-child, at least temporarily for a few decades, would be a great thing for the future of the world as a whole if it could be instituted globally. Unfortunately it's an impossible thing to enforce without massive human rights violations, and I can't come up with a way to limit births that's truly acceptable to today's society. Hitler thought he had a solution, it didn't really pan out.

Of course, if lifting everyone out of poverty takes the resources of 4 Earths, we could always get cracking on mining Eros. About five similar asteroids should do it. :thumbup:

 

[Bj]

And yet people still try to light their underwear on fire. The more believers (and innocent collateral) we kill, the more cities we blast into rubble, the more people are going to see this as a holy war between Islam and the US.


http://www.businessinsider.com/coll...hows-deaths-reuters-reporters-in-iraq--2010-4

This is what I had in mind with that statement. Basically unprovoked attack on a group of people because a couple of them had cameras on their shoulders. Also shot at the people (including children) who showed up to try and rescue the wounded. I've always had my suspicions about the US rules of engagement in a situation where we're supposedly trying to rebuild a nation and "win hearts and minds", but that's a sideline to this conversation.

Alright it happened, I would believe that, but I also believe that the gunner being human will make mistakes. Unfortunately when the mistake involves a gun... well I'd rather not think about the consequences. But just because this one incident occurred does not mean that it will always occur, or that 'if the Brits where here...' no if any other gunner besides that one with itchy fingers was in the seat then that person might have taken a closer look before firing. From what I gathered command only gave the order to engage because the gunner said they where armed with RPGs and whatever. Not because the ROE is better/worse then anyone else. Just that command was under the impression they where a group of guys with guns.

Now you might ask, what seems to me a very obvious quick fix... du.. send a video feed to command itself. Oh and just because its not obvious to army engineers, the line should be encrypted.

vid can be projected on the wall for all to view at command where they can make a more rational decision rather than trust a single gunner. Oh but that's just too logical I suppose.

In that vid it is almost obvious that those people where not combatants, still doesn't mean that the ROE is bad in theory, its entirely the gunners fault in this case.

With that in mind, I could assume that a rowboat loaded with RPGs 100+ miles from shore is not really on a sight seeing mission. Less chance of being a civilian than a pirate.

How do they even get up to a deck that's 20 or 30 feet above the water? Grappling hooks and rope ladders? How much fuel do they even have?

It just seems really, really silly to me that a couple guys in a rowboat with a little outboard motor can keep up with, board, and capture a large oceangoing vessel. How the heck do they do it? :lol:


Of course, if lifting everyone out of poverty takes the resources of 4 Earths, we could always get cracking on mining Eros. About five similar asteroids should do it. :thumbup:

Most likely grapple hooks yes.

A ships speed doesn't necessarily relate to its size. The smaller(lighter) it is the faster it is (usually).

Well then Ill get started on that Arrow :thumbup: I will need a couple engineers...

 

[Notebook]

I don't think these two cases are comparable. The Afghan? incidenct was a result of not identifying the target, with ship hijacking its obvious if the bad guys are trying to get on board, they probably aren't customs or harbour pilot...

Its a tragedy for those civilians, and shows the hard choices the military has to make all the time. I wouldn't like to be on the "wrong" end of those guns.

Re: the British have better rules of engagement, I'm not sure of that. My Uncle was on a Destroyer during WWII and they got a bit fed-up of the RAF having a go at them, they sometimes fired on known aircraft to "warn them off" even when it was identified as friendly.
Seems like a dangerous tactic, if they came back with bigger friends...
Not sure if that was a sailors tale, as he wasn't too impressed with his last Captain, called him "an insurance salesman". Navy slang?

N.

 

[Linguofreak]

Why the hell would people who can barely feed themselves fire out four or five or six more kids to feed?

As insurance against old age. They don't have Social Security, and the more kids you have that live until you're too old to support yourself, the less each one has to contribute to supporting you, so the more likely they are to be willing and able to support you. And since infant and child mortality rates are high in these countries, they have lots of kids to make sure enough make it through to adulthood.

We have very much the opposite problem: Social Security hides the process of the young supporting the old without actually getting rid of it, and as a result the Baby Boomers didn't have enough kids, with the result the Social Security system is failing.

---------- Post added at 12:58 ---------- Previous post was at 12:38 ----------

A ships speed doesn't necessarily relate to its size. The smaller(lighter) it is the faster it is (usually).

Actually, it does. The longer a ship is, the faster it can move before wave-making resistance starts piling up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_speed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Froude_number

However, really small boats with relatively big engines (like motorboats), are generally able to get around wave resistance by planing. (And these pirates are generally using motorboats).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planing_(sailing)

 

[T.Neo]

I agree that force should be involved in dealing with piracy. We can't just stand by with our due process while these crimes are being comitted.

Nontheless, it is certainly not viable for cargo ships and oil tankers to have their own 20mm cannons...

As for poverty, overpopulation is not a cause, it's a symptom. Of course the situation is more complicated, but population decrease in third world countries cannot be expected without political reform. The governments in place in many countries are simply unacceptable. When proper education and resources are provided, birth rate will drop.

Draconian measures such as a "one-child policy" should only be considered in an absolute worst case situation. China is not a shining example of human rights.

 

[lennartsmit]

What are you going to do with the pirates that are captured by navy-ships.

Disarm them and throw them out on the ocean? This is what the commander of the HMS Evertsen said about that:

"It is just like the policemen in Amsterdam catching junkies who steal bicycles," said one of the Dutch officers on board. "They kick them out after arresting them and then see them back in the police station the following morning."

Bring them to the Hague for prosecution for the international court of justice? They will get cells better then their homes and will request asylum.

Shoot them up and not capture them at all? There is the possibility of shooting up innocent fishermen.

Some solutions would be to go in large armed convoys.
Large ships could carry non-lethal weapons like LRAD's.
Maybe arming the officers? I know the captain has at least one gun in case of mutiny.

 

[Ark]

Re: the British have better rules of engagement, I'm not sure of that. My Uncle was on a Destroyer during WWII and they got a bit fed-up of the RAF having a go at them, they sometimes fired on known aircraft to "warn them off" even when it was identified as friendly.
Seems like a dangerous tactic, if they came back with bigger friends...
Not sure if that was a sailors tale, as he wasn't too impressed with his last Captain, called him "an insurance salesman". Navy slang?

N.

:lol: Good story. Don't know if it's true, but it's amusing. The two incidents really have little in common, I was just using it as a comparison to convey my respect for the EU people for their discretion.

As silly as it seems to adopt WW2 strategies to deal with pirates in dinghys, traveling in convoys may be the best solution. These guys set out with the expectation of going after a helpless and unarmed ship, and know full well they aren't equipped to deal with Navy vessels. All but the stupidest will turn around and go elsewhere. It doesn't solve the underlying problems, but it seems like the most bloodless solution until someone figures out how to really solve it.

 

[Urwumpe]

The best would be securing the ports - or do you think such small boats are made for being in the waters for weeks?

Of course it would be more dirty work, but likely cheaper than forming convoys to keep the worlds economy alive.

 

[Eagle]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8613388.stmSo I ask, why not? The difference between a burglar in London and these pirates is that they are armed with fully autos and RPGs, I would turn the 127mm and 20mm guns at least in their direction, fire off warning shots at least.

.50cal BMG is already overkill. Piracy attempts tend to fail when there is any resistance by the crew (using the captain's pistol, Molotov cocktails, thrown bricks etc.)

Nearly all shipping is unarmed because of international, national, and port regulations. The exception is that captains traditionally keep a single, locked pistol.

The current situation certainly isn't ideal.

 

[Urwumpe]

Also, not on all ships you might want to see weapons. Tankers or Cruise ships don't blend well with weapons.

But still, it would be better if there could be no safe havens for pirates anymore.

 

[Zatnikitelman]

I think the Convoy idea is the best. 1 destroyer, or even frigate guarding 5-8 ships flanking them from the rear-oceanside. Could effectively guard the whole line especially if the shepherding ship has small armed vessels to go after the pirate vessels.
BTW-anyone hear about pirates shooting at a Marine Dock Landing ship?
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/10/suspected-pirates-take-shots-at-u-s-ship/?hpt=T2

 

[Urwumpe]

BTW-anyone hear about pirates shooting at a Marine Dock Landing ship?
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/10/suspected-pirates-take-shots-at-u-s-ship/?hpt=T2

Yes. That was a good candidate for a Darwin Award.

I also heard that the pirates captured by the Dutch frigate will be send to Germany for the first time in history for their process, because the pirates attacked a purely German ship with a purely German crew and got caught on board it.

There are some concerns about the pirates staying in Germany after serving their sentence here, because Germany does not forcefully expel people to Somalia because of the political situation there.

 

[Ark]

There are some concerns about the pirates staying in Germany after serving their sentence here, because Germany does not forcefully expel people to Somalia because of the political situation there.

Pfft, are people afraid they're going to start pirating in German waters? They'd be too busy enjoying Germany's healthcare system, whatever welfare is available, and basking in the luxury of not having to dodge stray bullets on a daily basis. :lol: