Thread: America wins again.
4/16/2009 6:59pm, #41
I'd like to see Africa. I've spent a lot on tan equipment and it would be a nice change of atmosphere.
Not so hot about sailing though.You are not free whose liberty is won by the rigour of other, more righteous souls. Your are merely protected. Your freedom is parasitic, you suck the honourable man dry and offer nothing in return. You who have enjoyed freedom, who have done nothing to earn it
4/16/2009 11:56pm, #42Originally Posted by joecos
MSNBC has a good write-up on the issue:
"Separating the innocent fishermen from the pirates is going to be hard," Macdonald said.
Pirates on the other hand, seem to pilot small, fast vessels that actively pursue passing shipping. They are also the ones carrying weapons. (not that they can't hide them, but if they have them in the open its kind of a dead give-away).
I don't think telling the difference would really be that much of a problem.
4/17/2009 10:04am, #43
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
It's the fault of the warring warlords who have destroyed the government. We really don't care if a country wants to become more and more Islam, since that's their choice. If we did give a flying fig, we would have intervened in France by now.
As for negotiations, I agree with you. Giving in to them only encourages them even more. After all, if you give a mouse a cookie, he'll be back for that glass of milk.
4/17/2009 10:30am, #44
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- BJJ & K1
Those warlords opposing the Islamists (who incidentally have almost stabilized the region on several occassions) in Somalia are funded and tactically supported by the US mainly through Ethiopia, the US froze all the assets of one of the largest banks in Somalia citing links to terrorism but never actually offering evidence and has also carried out airstrikes in Somalia.
I feel I need to clarify that I am neither supporting the Islamic warlords or condemning out of hand any of the individual actions by the US however it is simply untrue to say that your government does not have SOME responsibility for the current anarchy in the region.
4/18/2009 5:48am, #45
4/18/2009 11:14pm, #46
4/19/2009 5:58am, #47
canadians, dutch, NATO win again:
NATO forces have foiled yet another pirate attack in waters off the Horn of Africa.
A Canadian warship responded after a Norwegian tanker came under attack by pirates armed with assault rifles and rocket propelled grenades.
A spokesman for the warship says the pirates fled, abandoning their weapons, but the Canadians pursued them for hours for several hours and briefly detained them.
This comes a day after Dutch forces freed 20 Yemeni hostages held by pirates and briefly detained seven pirates.
NATO has increased its anti-piracy patrols in the region in an effort to curb the growing problem.
4/19/2009 4:18pm, #48
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
- Judo / Boxing
This article pretty much sums up the entire situation:
Against All Flags - Questions and answers about pirates and Somalia
It was created from the Cold War (just like Afghanistan). We helped insane people fight off communism, now those insane people are coming back at us. In this case the guy was overthrown and the only government left was Tribal authorities, who became warlords, who we aided to fight off the spread of Jihadism, who then stirred up ****, we sent in soldiers and aid with hands tied, we pulled out leaving an even bigger mess, and now desperate people are desperate.
I agree, we should simply look after our own and take down any pirates we do capture, but leave the country alone.
4/22/2009 6:53pm, #49
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
- Honolulu, HI (Hawaii Kai)
- Itinerant Wanderer
Just got back to this thread....
I wonder if anyone commenting on this topic has actually been on a ship (not just your Bass Tracker 2000)? Anyone in the shipping industry?
As a NOAA Corps (look it up) officer, assigned to slow-moving research vessles, I can sympathize with the shipping companies in many respects. For one, merchant mariners cannot just carry weapons willy-nilly. Aside from company policy of not wishing to make mutinies more accessible to crew, port authorities are rarely willing to allow armed crewmembers ashore, or even allow armed merchantmen in port. Ports are sensitive areas in the U.S. now, don't you reckon they're sensitive overseas as well? (Hint: Yes. Yes they are.)
Anyone ever conned a ship bigger than 500 feet? The biggest ship I've had the pleasure of conning has been about 225 feet. It did 10 knots on a downhill slope, and had twin rudders and screws. That made it possible for it to turn much quicker than a cargo ship. Even then, that "quicker" means that if you throw the rudder hard over, you've got 10 to 15 seconds to really see the bow start swinging fast, depending on your speed. On a loaded merchant ship pushing 800 feet long, with one screw, and one rudder, when you give a rudder command, it can take 45 seconds to even see your bow move. Want to go faster? You'll need a few minutes for the engineers to respond, and even then, you won't get much. Merchant ships operate at 20 to 22 knots regularly, but will take time to go from sea speed to emergency full ahead. Now, make sure that when your 800 foot ship that's doing 28 knots of emergency full ahead takes an RPG on the bow, you don't slam a bow wave into that hull to cripple the ship. What happens when you put that amount of force behind a wall of water hitting a hole in steel? (Hint: The hole rapidly gets bigger.)
A RHIB (Rigid hull inflatable boat) with a load of pirates can do 30 knots easily, and responds to helm commands instantly. It's also really friggin' hard to see them on radar. As they have a limited range, the "mother ships" will get them out to waters where they can close the distance to shipping lanes easily. The problem is, legitimate fishing practices such as purse seining require lots of little chase boats. Which ones are fishing, and which ones are pirating? And, make sure you get this one absolutley correct, which ones are fishing now, but might pirate later if the fishing's slow?
Fortunately for us, naval architects have developed fast, responsive ships equipped with excellent radar capabilities (if your radar picks up seagulls, it's doing a good job), and armor built to withstand an RPG blast. They are also allowed to be armed in various ports-of-call around the world. They're called destroyers, cruisers, cutters, and are owned by navies. Navies who's primary mission is to protect shipping interests. Force projection is a close second.
The piracy issue isn't going away any time soon. But I do not think arming merchant sailors is going to be the pancea some think it is. Giving them non-lethal options that won't assplode their 500,000 tons of liquified natural gas is probably a good idea. I also think stepping up naval escorts and patrols in the worst areas is also a good idea. And, at some point, the ground situation in Somalia will have to change for the better to make piracy less of a popular option.
4/23/2009 2:34pm, #50
That is a good point. It is better that ship personnel are unarmed. That way, the weapons that are locked up when the ship is in port won't grow legs and run to the rails and start shooting the place up. Question: Were there any cases of port authorities in any country colluding with pirates?
What was the effective distance of the ship's radar over the various wave conditions?
How many are "lots?" Did the "mother" ships manufacture incorporate stealth technology? What is the radar distance of the average cargo ship (over 200 feet)?
Not all pirates have RHIBs. It appears many still use wooden fishing boats. They appear to be twenty feet or so. They may not make 30 knots but are still fast enough to use in interception and boarding. The term mother ship seems misleading and more of a media hype term. The (admittedly) few examples seem to be bigger fishing vessels. What makes anyone think that an impoverished "fisherman" will not commit piracy if the outcome will be that he is well paid and left alive.
Unless, the ships are actively tracking down and capturing/destroying the pirate ships and crews, they are only engaging in force projection.
You should explain the LNG ship scenario. I missed were talk was made of arming them with RPGs or that type of stuff. And how would the ground situation in Somalia actually eliminate or significantly reduce the piracy issue? Like there hasn't been piracy before modern times.
Last edited by BadUglyMagic; 4/23/2009 2:41pm at . Reason: spelling