REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Non Johnny Depp related Piracy

POSTED BY: ANTHONYT
UPDATED: Tuesday, December 2, 2008 08:35
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2090
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, November 28, 2008 10:15 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/11/28/somalia.pirates.chemical.ta
nker/index.html


Hello,

I am tired of reading about this. Why are these pirates allowed to continue their operations? It's beyond me.

In this article, we learn that the guards on the captured tanker provided non-lethal resistance. Bwah?!

I have the following proposed solutions to the pirate problem:

1) Mount M2 Browning guns on the tankers, which can dispatch any pirate vessel that closes to within 1500 meters.

2) Outfit Q-ships, ships which appear to be commercial boats, but are actually armed with concealed cannon and occupied by military personnel. When the pirates attack, let them get close before blasting them with cannons and apprehending them with marines. (This technique was developed during WWI)

3) Identify the Pirate port and destroy it with one or more cruise missiles.


--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 28, 2008 10:33 AM

ERIC


Where's Pompey the Great when you need him...


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 28, 2008 11:36 AM

FREMDFIRMA


But, but, but...

That area's a gun free zone ?

You know, that magic wall that keeps guns out, right ?
(Obligatory Snark, since this issue directly relates, don't it ?)

I dunno if a browning is good enough, an M2HB would do a nasty bit of damage, but you'd really not wanna let them in that close since they're fond of using RPGs.

I wonder if we have any leftover 3in/50's we could slap on our tankers ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3%22/50_caliber_gun

Optimally though, best bet would be a quad of TOW launcher emplacements, they're quite capable and effective at removing anything from a speedboat to a destroyer escort from your vicinity without too much trouble, don't weigh or bulk much, nor require extensive mounting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-71_TOW

I wouldn't waste the time trying to track down their base, just arm the merchant ships with TOW launchers and forbid them to rescue survivors.

Word will get around.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 28, 2008 11:47 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

The most common RPG used in the world is (I believe) the RPG-7 (Russian design) which has a maximum range of 1000 yards.

The M2 easily has 150% that range, meaning if they close to rocket distance, they're exposing themselves to showers of copper-jacketed lead.

I also wouldn't want to put any defense mechanism on the ship that would be a problem if it fell into Pirate hands. You never know when defenders will prove inept or spineless. The M2 will sink attack boats just fine, while taking a coon's age to sink a tanker. It's the perfect pirate defense weapon, in my opinion, because it's only of particular use to the defenders.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 28, 2008 1:58 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Point, but that's provided you could HIT something at that range with either one, and I'm not real sanguine about the accuracy of either.

While it's in mind tho, you ever seen Waterworld ?

I actually felt kinda sorry for the poor schlep who had to operate that hellspawned quad 50.

Got to cut loose with one of those once, and dear me, I came away half deaf with a mild concussion and was goin "WHHATTT?" when anyone tried to talk to me for two days.

It's like being tossed into a very large, very loud industrial clothes dryer, and having someone turn it on, really it is...

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 28, 2008 2:00 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

Hell, Frem, I wear ear protection when I shoot mere .22 rimfires. I'd hate to hear that monster in action.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 28, 2008 2:22 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

I think this is an elegant compromise:




--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 28, 2008 2:23 PM

WHOZIT


They have "Air Marshalls" on airplanes, they could find Iraq vets who could operate 50 cals, with night sites on these ships.

I'm going to microwave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 28, 2008 3:02 PM

MALBADINLATIN


Why are we not calling in A-10's to give those chaps 5 second bursts of depleated uranium ouchies? It's overkill, but the biggest part of those glorified dingys they'd find when they washed up would be bloody splinters. Which would make this glamorous booming career path perhaps a lesser attractive option for the Depp wannabes?

The Saudiis can pay for it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 28, 2008 3:15 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

Well, we can't launch A-10's from a sea platform, as far as I know. I don't know if we have airbases in the area of Somalia.

And I'd stick to lead, to be honest. No sense wasting elite ammo against paper mache boats. That depleted uranium stuff is designed to skewer tanks.

--Anthony



"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 29, 2008 3:36 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


BBC has an article on the legal problems of stopping the Somali piracy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7735144.stm

Also, that portion of the ocean is packed with fishing boats and dhows, any of which could be pirates. You can't light 'em all up. People would talk.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 29, 2008 3:51 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

When laws get in the way of justice, they need to be looked at.

As for fishing boats and dhows, I'm perfectly willing to wait for signs of aggression before lighting them up. It's not like a terrorist threat, where any boat might crash into you and blow itself up. These pirates want to board you and take you. If every attempt is met with raking machine-gun fire, they'll move on to other means of making a living.

It's appalling to me that the laws governing the sea have been manufactured in such a way as to give the criminals all the advantages. We should encourage a minimum standard of armament amongst merchant vessels, and give them some kind of castle doctrine to work with.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 29, 2008 3:53 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


We need a ban on Assault boats...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 29, 2008 6:58 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Isn't it ironic, Anthony ?

The very same policies that dipshits think will make the streets of america "safer" - applied in practice to the seas, have actually made them more dangerous, haven't they ?

Gotta love it when you have a real world example proving how disastrous a policy is, and folks pointedly ignoring it while continuing to push that policy regardless.

I'm all for a minimum standard of armament and the right to fire on vessels who refuse to shear off or identify themselves within a certain range, in fact - in order to best accomplish this, we should encourage shipping insurers to give cut rates to armed vessels and thus encourage this policy worldwide, nothin overcomes political divisions like cold hard cash, yanno.

And yes, I do believe you CAN lift an A-10 from a carrier, they have a grotesque power to weight ratio and don't need much in the way of runway, but it'd be total overkill and a waste of resources.

If you were gonna station a carrier down there, light attack choppers would be the way to go.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 29, 2008 7:20 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Let's see.

To get 360 degree coverage on something like a supertanker, which can't manuver, you're gonna need at least four gun mounts - protected would be best, since 20 guys shooting AKs could easily get a lucky shot on an unarmored gunner. Since a pirate boat can close at a high rate of speed, they're gonna need to be manned 24/7 by a crew of two. At night you'll need radar and spotlights, also constantly manned. You'll still need additional crew with small arms and grenades as a quick reaction force in case the pirates do make it to the hull below the arc of fire of the M2s. A Ma Deuce will eventually stop a boat, but you might want to consider shoulder-fired, wire-guided anti-tank missles for a quciker kill. Of course you'd need crews for them too.

In other words, It might be more complicated and expensive than just buying a couple surplus MGs and a case of ammo.

That being said, I've heard that several shipping companies have been in contact with Blackwater, although contracts have been signed yet.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 29, 2008 7:45 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

Geezer, you are over-complicating things, in my opinion.

First of all, your 'quick response force' is every man on the boat, with a pistol on every hip whenever work allows, and with every shift leader having keys to the shotgun locker.

Your radar and spotlights are already features of most tankers, so no unusual investment there.

I still say forget the anti-tank missiles. They're too useful if captured. The M2 already exceeds the range of the pirate's RPG's by a wide margin, and quite frankly once you start dropping lead in their laps, they're not likely to persist. Criminals like unarmed victims. If every engagement means lots of your people gonna die, you'll find other work.

So what's your big investment? Say six guns (two on the broadsides, one fore and aft) with ONE man per gun during normal operations. (Under alert conditions, the second man could be summoned to aid with ammo and barrel replacements. But ONE man can operate the weapon just fine until it comes time to reload.) Eighteen men, assuming three shifts of eight hours. And these men could and should probably have other duties that they attend to during the 90% of the voyage that does not involve sailing through pirate infested waters.

I'm honestly tempted to suggest that all the manpower you need is probably already on board. The cost of training them is offset by the lack of 50 million dollar ransoms.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Edited: I just checked, and the Exxon Valdez only had 21 crew, so you probably would need to nearly double that to effectively man the arms and also tend to the ships needs. Still well worth the ransom, IMO.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 29, 2008 8:01 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

The very same policies that dipshits think will make the streets of america "safer" - applied in practice to the seas, have actually made them more dangerous, haven't they ?
By that logic, every nation in the world should have at least five nuclear bombs mounted on guided ICBMs.

And, to yank CTS' chain a bit... wasn't she saying that Somalia is a good example of how well a "stateless" area can function?


---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 29, 2008 8:06 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

Somalia is a mess. It's why I don't believe in Anarchy. The bullies eventually do take over.

To me, government is there to provide a 'minimum guarantee' of civil rights and liberties. The trick is to find the smallest possible government that can do the job.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 29, 2008 8:12 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


AnthonyT- agreed.

*claps hands in delight*

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 29, 2008 9:14 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

By that logic, every nation in the world should have at least five nuclear bombs mounted on guided ICBMs.

Well, consider how fast everyone backed off of North Korea when it was determined they had them.

And look what we and others DO to those who don't.

Everyone, or no one - and since we can't have no one, well....

My earnest preference would be no one, but in addition to the logical reasons for that, there's religious ones too, as I mentioned earlier.

And Somalia isn't an Anarchy, what it is, is the end result of Government.

When the resources run thin and the worm starts feeding on itself till all is destroyed.

And of course all the former Gov troops with guns and supplies, against a populace mostly disarmed for the Gov's convenience, leading to a severe imbalance of power that cannot be rectified by folks stupid enough to have surrendered the means to do so.

It didn't come about as a result of folks wanting it, it was forced upon them, and remember I done stated that for various reasons, including continuing to produce and socially elevate such bullies, mankind is plainly not ready for such a thing at this point in time.

I don't really see an easy solution to that problem other than getting folk in on the ground to help arm and train the locals to resist the bullies, any external solution comes with problems of it's own, obviously...

But IF YOU WERE - best bet would be a walled, defended enclave, where anyone is welcome to work, trade or live, provided they're willing to behave, and then expanding it outward by absorbing the folks who are to help it grow, and eventually squashing the bad guys out to sea and giving them no place to live, no available resources to easily take, and no easy victims.

Remember what I said years ago about them killing off the farmers - eventually they'll either learn some tolerance, or starve - if you deprive them of victims by training and arming them, protecting them, or both, those gunmen will have to make that choice.

It's strange that folk forget so easily, Biafra wasn't that long ago, and yet no one seemed to have learned a lesson from that and applied it here.

I am all for backing the play of whatever solution the locals desire, I just don't think one should be imposed on them without their cooperation.

I wouldn't call that an Anarchy, as it is plain chaos having been imposed upon them without their desire or consent, and THAT is something to be greatly feared in any society.

Those two concepts are far different things, folks.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 29, 2008 9:18 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

To me, government is there to provide a 'minimum guarantee' of civil rights and liberties. The trick is to find the smallest possible government that can do the job.

Succinct, yet amazingly accurate.

You've also convinced me on the .50cal vs TOW issue, it does make sense to not let the baddies get their hands on something that can sink a destroyer if placed correctly.

I think we need to politically bend the neighboring nations a bit however, shouldn't be that hard given how such a mess can contribute to destabilising their own Governments, especially if the locals do start takin an effective stand and the gunmen start looking for other targets.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 29, 2008 10:13 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Well, consider how fast everyone backed off of North Korea when it was determined they had them. And look what we and others DO to those who don't. Everyone, or no one - and since we can't have no one, well.... My earnest preference would be no one, but in addition to the logical reasons for that, there's religious ones too, as I mentioned earlier.
Thank you for being logical. That was my conclusion as well. Not everybody is able to take the second amendment and apply it on international scale using nukes.
Quote:

And Somalia isn't an Anarchy, what it is, is the end result of Government.
Somalia has not has a functioning central government in over 18 years. Kinda hard to blame it on "government" at this point.



---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 29, 2008 11:08 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Yeah, but that's just chaos, unwelcome and unwanted, it wasn't something that happened by choice and intention.

I might not *like* Government, but they certainly want one, by all accounts, and preferably a stable one that provides some security, and if that is what they want, then that is what they should strive for and we should support, regardless.

I was just pointing out that the collapse of their Government set the stage for this mess in the first place, which is an accurate statement.

Anarchy - in the exact term of useage by me, is when folk *voluntarily* dismantle or reduce their existing Government by mutual consent, and that's a far cry from what happened in Somalia.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 29, 2008 12:52 PM

MALBADINLATIN


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT: Well, we can't launch A-10's from a sea platform, as far as I know. I don't know if we have airbases in the area of Somalia.

And I'd stick to lead, to be honest. No sense wasting elite ammo against paper mache boats. That depleted uranium stuff is designed to skewer tanks.

We could have some lead 5.56mm ammo made up. I like the A-10s because of thier range. Maybe fly out of Ethiopia?

But you know what...F-18's, or F-15's with rockets could be johnny on the spot from carriers. Or if you want to see no trace left behind, anti ship missiles

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 29, 2008 5:05 PM

ELVISCHRIST


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/11/28/somalia.pirates.chemical.ta
nker/index.html


Hello,

I am tired of reading about this. Why are these pirates allowed to continue their operations? It's beyond me.

In this article, we learn that the guards on the captured tanker provided non-lethal resistance. Bwah?!

I have the following proposed solutions to the pirate problem:

1) Mount M2 Browning guns on the tankers, which can dispatch any pirate vessel that closes to within 1500 meters.

2) Outfit Q-ships, ships which appear to be commercial boats, but are actually armed with concealed cannon and occupied by military personnel. When the pirates attack, let them get close before blasting them with cannons and apprehending them with marines. (This technique was developed during WWI)

3) Identify the Pirate port and destroy it with one or more cruise missiles.


--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner



I'm with you up to a point - the point where we take the pirates captive. The old law of the sea says that when it comes to pirates, you don't pull 'em out of the water, you let the sea have their bones.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 29, 2008 5:14 PM

ELVISCHRIST


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Let's see.

To get 360 degree coverage on something like a supertanker, which can't manuver, you're gonna need at least four gun mounts - protected would be best, since 20 guys shooting AKs could easily get a lucky shot on an unarmored gunner. Since a pirate boat can close at a high rate of speed, they're gonna need to be manned 24/7 by a crew of two. At night you'll need radar and spotlights, also constantly manned. You'll still need additional crew with small arms and grenades as a quick reaction force in case the pirates do make it to the hull below the arc of fire of the M2s. A Ma Deuce will eventually stop a boat, but you might want to consider shoulder-fired, wire-guided anti-tank missles for a quciker kill. Of course you'd need crews for them too.

In other words, It might be more complicated and expensive than just buying a couple surplus MGs and a case of ammo.

That being said, I've heard that several shipping companies have been in contact with Blackwater, although contracts have been signed yet.

"Keep the Shiny side up"



I'm in general agreement with you on this one. I think it would be economically viable from a shipowner's (or insurer's) perspective to hire 20 or so mercenaries with machineguns and the like to ride along on several of the ships. No signs of armaments... just let the pirates come in close and start to board, and then get the drop on 'em. Take out a few of the pirate crews, and leave them never knowing which ships are protected and which aren't, and the problem goes away rather quickly, I'd wager.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 29, 2008 5:23 PM

ELVISCHRIST


Quote:


But you know what...F-18's, or F-15's with rockets could be johnny on the spot from carriers. Or if you want to see no trace left behind, anti ship missiles



Overkill, in my estimation. You're dealing with wooden fishing boats or rubber & fibreglas "attack" boats for the close-in work. Anything bigger than what Anthony suggested is really just throwing away money and resources on it.

Now, if you're talking about sending those resources at the "mother ships", then I'm all for it. India already blew one of them out of the water with one of their navy ships. One's not enough, but it's a start.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 30, 2008 3:42 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


After more consideration, I'm also thinking that many shipping lines will have insurance to pay off whatever reansom may be extorted by the Somali pirates. So it probably gets to be like a speeding ticket - everyone risks getting a 'ticket' knowing the odds for an individual ship are low, and just pays up if caught. The pirates are smart enough to know that hurting the crews or damaging the ships will end their little speed trap, so they keep the risk of actual harm low.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 2:47 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Well, the M/S Nautica (Oceania Lines) recently did it's bit not to knuckle under to the bastards, I commend her captain - he noticed that the two pirate boats were having trouble catching up to her, so he put the hammer down and left them chewing on his wake.

http://cruises.about.com/b/2008/11/30/attempted-act-of-piracy-on-ms-na
utica-fails.htm


I sincerely hope he had a crewman run to the back of the ship for the express purpose of giving them the bird as he pulled away.

This coulda been one holy hell of a disaster if not for Captain Jurica Brajcic's quick identification and reaction, as she was carrying 656 passengers, 399 crew and operating under a US Flag - thus if she'd been taken all hell would have broke loose, and then *I* would have reccommended putting a tomohawk cruise missle up their favorite dock, which ain't a half bad idea as it is.

I am seriously, seriously in favor of arming our boats, put some crew to operate the guns with reserve naval commissions on board, and that might debateably handle most of the legalities.

Also, remember, we *DO* have, Constitutionally enshrined, another tactic, Congress has the authority to grant letters of marque and thus commission privateers to do the dirty unto these sumbitches, and I say we freakin *do* it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque

Yarr, Hoist the colors, mateys, lets us yanks show these rookies what lootin an pillagin is all about, arrrgh!


-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 3:07 AM

RIVERLOVE


Guns and killing are out of the question because they violate these fine gentlemens' civil rights. Instead, staff each vessel with an ACLU attorney, ever vigilant to council and defend these innocent farmers-turned-murderers by the evil USA. They can even sue on behalf of the Somalis for the salacious slander of calling them "pirates".

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 4:13 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
2) Outfit Q-ships, ships which appear to be commercial boats, but are actually armed with concealed cannon and occupied by military personnel. When the pirates attack, let them get close before blasting them with cannons and apprehending them with marines. (This technique was developed during WWI)


Thats a good idea, but too expensive. A more economical alternative is to randomly place Marines on commerical ships to provide security. That way when they are approaching a tanker or merchantman they could suddenly be facing a platoon of US Marines complete with Air Support from a US Carrier Battlegroup lurking nearby. Once the ship is out of the danger zone a the Marines could transit back on a ship heading the other way (kinda like Air Marshals).

We also used to have smaller patrol boats, hydrofoil craft that would be well suited to pirate work in the Red Sea. Some of these craft did drug interdiction in the '80s.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 8:35 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Frankly, Hero, I'd rather see this one farmed out to mercenaries, hired by the shipping companies themselves. Why? Because then they aren't beholden to the same rules of engagement, and are free to go by the law of the sea. Also, the less *official* U.S. involvement, the better, in terms of getting a bunch of other people pissed off at us over it.

Some jobs just beg for a mercenary force, and who better than "outlaws" to deal with pirates?

Mike

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Fri, April 19, 2024 13:27 - 3534 posts
I'm surprised there's not an inflation thread yet
Fri, April 19, 2024 13:10 - 743 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Fri, April 19, 2024 12:11 - 6267 posts
Elections; 2024
Fri, April 19, 2024 10:01 - 2274 posts
BREAKING NEWS: Taylor Swift has a lot of ex-boyfriends
Fri, April 19, 2024 09:18 - 1 posts
This is what baseball bats are for, not to mention you're the one in a car...
Thu, April 18, 2024 23:38 - 1 posts
FACTS
Thu, April 18, 2024 19:48 - 548 posts
Biden's a winner, Trumps a loser. Hey Jack, I Was Right
Thu, April 18, 2024 18:38 - 148 posts
QAnons' representatives here
Thu, April 18, 2024 17:58 - 777 posts
Why does THUGR shit up the board by bumping his pointless threads?
Thu, April 18, 2024 12:38 - 9 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Thu, April 18, 2024 10:21 - 834 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, April 17, 2024 23:58 - 1005 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL