What should be done to combat piracy? Watch

Ghost
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#61
Report 10 years ago
#61
Ok, after countless opposition to my boiling water and barbed wire approach, I have proposed a new strategy.

Run an electronically charged plate around the sides of the boat! Fry the *******s! (Note: I'm talking about a huge tanker, not a small boat)
0
quote
reply
FiveFiveSix
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#62
Report 10 years ago
#62
(Original post by Alasdair)
Well, obviously, the naval part of the force is there to hunt pirates as well as protect shipping (which I suspect would involve a fair bit of shooting at pirates).



True, but if we make it undesirable to be a pirate (by rigorous protection of shipping which reduces their 'revenue' rather than the rather dubious threat of death that is unlikely to scare a Somali who's grown up in one of the world's most violent places), then piracy will decrease.

As for 'the Somalis', there's no such thing really...there's no central authority in Somalia...
Fair point, but why send naval forces to protect shipping, when we could just arm the shipping and train the crews, therefore reducing the cost and logistical nightmare? I do agree a heavily armed cruiser is likely to deter pirates, but so surely is a few bursts of machine gun fire from the side of a tanker?

If we make it undesirable to be a pirate, surely they'll find other ways of making money, violently? Piracy may decrease, but violent crime will surely rise (as if it's not bad enough already!) Is there really no authority in Somalia? I was unaware of that... :o:
0
quote
reply
willenium
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#63
Report 10 years ago
#63
hasn't been a real government since '91
0
quote
reply
FiveFiveSix
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#64
Report 10 years ago
#64
(Original post by yusufu)
If you're not shooting to wound or kill, what's the point of shooting?
To reduce the threat. In a normal situation, for example, you'd aim at the chest, simply because it's the biggest target. A bloke that takes a few rounds to the chest probably won't be too healthy, but even if he's still alive, he's unlikely to carry on trying to make a nuisance of himself.

In other situations, like a suicide bomber, the threat is reduced by putting as many rounds into the head as possible, because it destroys the brain, so he can't twitch and press the button, as he might if you shot him anywhere else, or still be sufficiently alive to press the button. If there were a way of neutralising a suicide bomber any other way, I'm sure that method would be used (The Israelis have some very interesting research). Or a counter terrorist sniper shooting a hostage taker in the head, because he may be wearing body armour, or may be able to shoot a hostage if he is just injured or takes a while to snuff it. The sniper also has the luxury of choosing where he wants to put that round because he usually has time, plus a very accurate weapon, and extensive training. Your average soldier has an average weapon and average accuracy, hence the whole aiming for the biggest part of him. If humans had giant legs and tiny torsos, we'd aim there... It's all about threat reduction and the size of the target.

Shooting to kill and all that hollywood crap is reserved for just that - hollywood.

EDITED TO ADD: And now, back to piracy... I apologise for going off-topic!
0
quote
reply
yusufu
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#65
Report 10 years ago
#65
(Original post by FiveFiveSix)
To reduce the threat. In a normal situation, for example, you'd aim at the chest, simply because it's the biggest target. A bloke that takes a few rounds to the chest probably won't be too healthy, but even if he's still alive, he's unlikely to carry on trying to make a nuisance of himself.

In other situations, like a suicide bomber, the threat is reduced by putting as many rounds into the head as possible, because it destroys the brain, so he can't twitch and press the button, as he might if you shot him anywhere else, or still be sufficiently alive to press the button. If there were a way of neutralising a suicide bomber any other way, I'm sure that method would be used (The Israelis have some very interesting research). Or a counter terrorist sniper shooting a hostage taker in the head, because he may be wearing body armour, or may be able to shoot a hostage if he is just injured or takes a while to snuff it. The sniper also has the luxury of choosing where he wants to put that round because he usually has time, plus a very accurate weapon, and extensive training. Your average soldier has an average weapon and average accuracy, hence the whole aiming for the biggest part of him. If humans had giant legs and tiny torsos, we'd aim there... It's all about threat reduction and the size of the target.

Shooting to kill and all that hollywood crap is reserved for just that - hollywood.
Ah. I see. You meant you don't usually have a choice in whether to wound or to kill, not that you don't do either.
0
quote
reply
FiveFiveSix
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#66
Report 10 years ago
#66
(Original post by willenium)
hasn't been a real government since '91
Is there nothing there whatsoever?
0
quote
reply
FiveFiveSix
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#67
Report 10 years ago
#67
(Original post by yusufu)
Ah. I see. You meant you don't usually have a choice in whether to wound or to kill, not that you don't do either.
Nicely summed up :p:
0
quote
reply
Lampshade
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#68
Report 10 years ago
#68
Arm the ships travelling through the area. Put troops and heavy firepower onboard.
0
quote
reply
Alasdair
Badges: 14
#69
Report 10 years ago
#69
(Original post by FiveFiveSix)
Is there nothing there whatsoever?
Pretty much not. There's parts of the north that are governed by two loosely organised, unrecognised states called 'Puntland' and 'Somaliland'. There are areas that are ruled by an organisation called the Union of Islamic Courts that basically just enforce a sort of Shariah Law system. There are other areas under the control of Ethiopian troops, but mostly it's warlords, I think.
quote
reply
Alasdair
Badges: 14
#70
Report 10 years ago
#70
(Original post by Lampshade)
Arm the ships travelling through the area. Put troops and heavy firepower onboard.
It would make far more sense to detach naval forces to do it. Naval ships are specifically designed to fight on the water and protect other ships. Also, where would troops be quartered? There's hardly any merchant ships afloat that have the space to sleep a couple of hundred soldiers...

Seriously guys, this is 2008, not 1808 - the time of the armed merchantman sailing through dangerous waters is over.
quote
reply
FiveFiveSix
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#71
Report 10 years ago
#71
(Original post by Alasdair)
Pretty much not. There's parts of the north that are governed by two loosely organised, unrecognised states called 'Puntland' and 'Somaliland'. There are areas that are ruled by an organisation called the Union of Islamic Courts that basically just enforce a sort of Shariah Law system. There are other areas under the control of Ethiopian troops, but mostly it's warlords, I think.
Much as I'm not the biggest fan of the Sharia law system, I'd guess it has a pretty permanent solution to piracy...

I knew it was mostly warlords, but I thought it had all calmed down since the american ****-up, sorry, intervention, in the 90s?
0
quote
reply
Lampshade
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#72
Report 10 years ago
#72
(Original post by Alasdair)
It would make far more sense to detach naval forces to do it. Naval ships are specifically designed to fight on the water and protect other ships. Also, where would troops be quartered? There's hardly any merchant ships afloat that have the space to sleep a couple of hundred soldiers...

Seriously guys, this is 2008, not 1808 - the time of the armed merchantman sailing through dangerous waters is over.
Perhaps, I'm not too hot on my military strategy.

Maybe decoy ships, extra navy vessels... and a zero tolerance policy. I.e. Aggression towards ships in the area leads to destruction of suspected pirate vessels. Shoot to kill.
0
quote
reply
willenium
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#73
Report 10 years ago
#73
the town of eyl has basically turned into a pirate haven. when some french hostages got taken a while back, sarkozy said that he only gave the go ahead for a rescue when he did because there was a risk they'd be taken to eyl where there would have been no way of getting them back. the somalia pirates don't mess around, but they also are very reluctant to kill people.
0
quote
reply
Jabbamuffin
Badges: 1
#74
Report 10 years ago
#74
Dress up as Somalian's and pretend it's already been taken.
quote
reply
Alasdair
Badges: 14
#75
Report 10 years ago
#75
(Original post by willenium)
the town of eyl has basically turned into a pirate haven. when some french hostages got taken a while back, sarkozy said that he only gave the go ahead for a rescue when he did because there was a risk they'd be taken to eyl where there would have been no way of getting them back. the somalia pirates don't mess around, but they also are very reluctant to kill people.
True. Probably because they realise that the international community will come down on them like a ton of bricks quicker than they can say "me hearties" if they start killing a lot of westerners...
quote
reply
FiveFiveSix
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#76
Report 10 years ago
#76
(Original post by Alasdair)
It would make far more sense to detach naval forces to do it. Naval ships are specifically designed to fight on the water and protect other ships. Also, where would troops be quartered? There's hardly any merchant ships afloat that have the space to sleep a couple of hundred soldiers...

Seriously guys, this is 2008, not 1808 - the time of the armed merchantman sailing through dangerous waters is over.
Agreed that it makes no sense to station troops on board, but I'm still puzzled at why you think arming them is such a bad idea?

An armed merchant ship, with a trained crew, would in my opinion be more effective at deterring pirates. Reasons? Firstly, a large convoy of ships is easy to track, and hard to organise. Secondly, to detach naval forces is a logistical and practical nightmare, not to mention difficult bearing in mind many countries commitments militarily around the globe. Thirdly, cost-wise, it would work out a lot cheaper to arm and train merchant ships and their crews than divert navy ships and sailors, pay them, fuel etc. Besides, who is going to pay for all this? Are we going to charge the firms for protection? I hardly think so. But if they are encouraged (or mandated) to pay for weaponry and training for their own crew...

Just my idea, you understand, but I'm still not understanding why you object to arming them. I totally understand about not garrisoning them with troops, but why no weaponry?
0
quote
reply
Alasdair
Badges: 14
#77
Report 10 years ago
#77
(Original post by FiveFiveSix)
Agreed that it makes no sense to station troops on board, but I'm still puzzled at why you think arming them is such a bad idea?

An armed merchant ship, with a trained crew, would in my opinion be more effective at deterring pirates. Reasons? Firstly, a large convoy of ships is easy to track, and hard to organise. Secondly, to detach naval forces is a logistical and practical nightmare, not to mention difficult bearing in mind many countries commitments militarily around the globe. Thirdly, cost-wise, it would work out a lot cheaper to arm and train merchant ships and their crews than divert navy ships and sailors, pay them, fuel etc. Besides, who is going to pay for all this? Are we going to charge the firms for protection? I hardly think so. But if they are encouraged (or mandated) to pay for weaponry and training for their own crew...

Just my idea, you understand, but I'm still not understanding why you object to arming them. I totally understand about not garrisoning them with troops, but why no weaponry?
Because I don't think it's efficient, or effective, and I think you'll get a lot of resistance from shipping companies and crews. What's more, it won't fix the wider problem because ships can't be pro-active about patrolling...
quote
reply
~Ollie~
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#78
Report 10 years ago
#78
(Original post by FiveFiveSix)
Agreed that it makes no sense to station troops on board, but I'm still puzzled at why you think arming them is such a bad idea?
Ah FiveSixFive you filthy cur you and your ways...
I find it amusing that you and Sam are both in the military :p:
0
quote
reply
FiveFiveSix
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#79
Report 10 years ago
#79
(Original post by ~Ollie~)
Ah you and your ways...
I find it amusing that you and Sam are both in the military :p:
Indeed mate. No offence, but I'd really prefer if you didn't put my name on here, some of the stuff I write could get me into trouble, so I'd really appreciate it if you'd edit your last.

I'm sure you understand :p:

But yeah, funny ol' world isn't it. Heard from Sam recently?
0
quote
reply
FiveFiveSix
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#80
Report 10 years ago
#80
(Original post by Alasdair)
Because I don't think it's efficient, or effective, and I think you'll get a lot of resistance from shipping companies and crews. What's more, it won't fix the wider problem because ships can't be pro-active about patrolling...
Surely if they are made more responsible for their own defence, it will make them more efficient? If however they are under the impression that it's ok, they can do as they please because the heavily armed warship next to them has their back...

I agree it won't solve the issue that anti-pirate patrols are needed, but going back to your earlier point, if you rid the pirates of their revenue by making the ships impossible to take over (i.e. heavily armed with a trained crew), then surely the piracy problem will decrease as they find other things to do?
0
quote
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you have any savings?

Yes (69)
75%
No (23)
25%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed