High Seas Piracy

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Regarding Piracy on the High Seas:

Whereas the cost of goods to consumers would be significantly increased either as a result of increased operating costs to shippers to provide an their ships with active means to combat pirates and prevent the taking of their vessels and/or would be signficantly increased by the tax burden necessary to provide military forces sufficient to interdict piracy, and

Whereas the potential human cost to merchant crews and to those practicing piracy as a livelihood would be significant were more aggressive means of defense to be used to combat piracy, and

Whereas the cost to consumers and taxpayers can be moderated through the use of commercial insurance against piracy to spread this financial risk across a broad number of insureds, allowing shippers to pass along a reduced cost to their consumers by obviating the need for defensive measures, and

Whereas those practicing piracy can insure that the financial threat they represent to shippers is just enough less than the cost of defending against them as to make paying the appropriate fees for the return of a few captured vessels econcomically viable (using insurance) when compared to the greater cost of defending all of them, then

Be it resolved that no military or defensive actions should be taken against pirates on the high seas or at upon their bases on land and that all such efforts should be deemed counterproductive to the greater interests of human safety for all persons directly involved, to all innocents involved through no fault of their own, and also as being ultimately counterproductive to the smooth flow of trade.


Please declare for or against the resolution and state your reasons. Thank you.

[Lemur]

Correct me if I'm wrong (I often am) but I thought the biggest problem was ports that won't allow armed vessels to dock. And I kind of understand the issue. If a tanker from Yemen showed up in Virginia with a crew bristling with AKs and light machine guns, I don't think the locals would be happy.

I wonder if there could be some agreement with a central weapons locker, where all guns would be deposited and the portmaster given the only key? Just thinking out loud here. Some way that merchant ships could be armed to the teeth on the high seas but effectively disarmed in port? Ideas?

[Louis VI the Fat]

I am struggling with the language and format of the OP. (Speak English for God's sake :wall:)


Hoping I understood it correctly:
I am against. Piracy is a crime. The combat of crime is a goal in itself. Even if the cost of combating a crime exceeds the cost of the crime itself, it must still be undertaken.

To - slightly aptly - quote Voltaire: if tomorrow the world ends, then today we must hang all murderers.

[Fragony]

In the old days we bombed the ports

[Crazed Rabbit]

Whereas;
Justice demands that we cannot ignore such crime as this,

The pirates will continue hijacking vessels because of the economic incentive they have,

And more pirates will join them because they want part of the money,

The amount of pirates hijacking vessels, and the number of hijacked vessels, shall increase,

The negative effects of piracy will increase,

The overall economic harm will increase,

The problem of piracy can be solved in a relatively straightforward way, by

Attacking the pirate's home ports, which we know,

Training and arming the crews,

Allowing armed crews to freely travel.

I hereby declare against your resolution.

CR

[Banquo's Ghost]

I would vote against the resolution, since I don't agree with most of your premises.

The solution is relatively simple and quite cost-effective - and it doesn't require the tearing up of international agreements by arming vessels (one humungous can of worms and God's gift to al-Qa'eda).

Convoys through that part of the world. Most western nations have a fair old naval presence in those seas anyway, and this would give them something useful to do. The pirates only choose isolated ships - they are not going to play with naval escorts.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I am struggling with the language and format of the OP. (Speak English for God's sake :wall:)


Hoping I understood it correctly:
I am against. Piracy is a crime. The combat of crime is a goal in itself. Even if the cost of combating a crime exceeds the cost of the crime itself, it must still be undertaken.

To - slightly aptly - quote Voltaire: if tomorrow the world ends, then today we must hang all murderers.

You understood it perfectly. I do freely admit that the style employed was very "old school" formal debate language.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I would vote against the resolution, since I don't agree with most of your premises.

The solution is relatively simple and quite cost-effective - and it doesn't require the tearing up of international agreements by arming vessels (one humungous can of worms and God's gift to al-Qa'eda).

Convoys through that part of the world. Most western nations have a fair old naval presence in those seas anyway, and this would give them something useful to do. The pirates only choose isolated ships - they are not going to play with naval escorts.

I would question how cost-effective that would be, simply because I don't know the numbers. Would your system involve simply sending escorts to transports, or delaying transports at either end of the Somali coast until several transports could be given an escort? I wonder if there are enough naval escorts available for the former (especially given operating costs for such vessels), while I also wonder if the delays to "collect" transports to form a convoy might increase costs. I don't know, and it sounds like a reasonable proposal worth a full evaluation.

I don't mind seamus's resolution in the OP though.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The solution is relatively simple and quite cost-effective - and it doesn't require the tearing up of international agreements by arming vessels (one humungous can of worms and God's gift to al-Qa'eda).


A can of worms indeed, but how is it a great boon to al-Qa'eda? Are they going to shoot up ports with AK-47s?

And in terms of making armed vessels more acceptable to various wuss nations (including, likely, the US), perhaps only allowing large bore guns permanently affixed to the boat. The type of gun unlikely to be wanted by criminals.

CR

[Furunculus]

against.

piracy is a fad crime, that disappears when sufficiently stamped upon.

it is also a despicable crime, that deserves stamping upon.

[Furunculus]

Correct me if I'm wrong (I often am) but I thought the biggest problem was ports that won't allow armed vessels to dock. And I kind of understand the issue. If a tanker from Yemen showed up in Virginia with a crew bristling with AKs and light machine guns, I don't think the locals would be happy.

I wonder if there could be some agreement with a central weapons locker, where all guns would be deposited and the portmaster given the only key? Just thinking out loud here. Some way that merchant ships could be armed to the teeth on the high seas but effectively disarmed in port? Ideas?

we might find that increasing piracy and the concomitant insurance premiums lead to the acceptance of armed guards on ships.

likewise, piracy is confined to certain lawless areas of the sea, major powers like the US have the power to park a ranger battalion in the horn of africa and assets in india/madagascer to do a pick-n-drop on two man teams with high powered rifles. six months of running the pirate-lottery even with one in ten odds would dissolve all piracy threats against US flag ships. this dodges the bullet of armed guards on foreign flags in domestic ports.

[Tribesman]

If you have armed people on boats how do you tell the diffence between a typical fishingboat off East Africa with armed people on board and a bunch of armed pirates using a fishing boat off east africa ?

[Furunculus]

well it requires judgment.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

How is piracy particularly despicable? It's little more than theft with some light kidnapping thrown in. We're bankrolling regimes doing far worse.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Armed guards would have to be UN sanctioned and trained. Rules of engagement would have to be pretty specfic *criminal act in progress*, preemptive deadly force will inevitably lead to killing/injuring innocent people. Armed guards on vessels with highly combustible cargo is akin to lighting a candle in a dynamite shack.

Convoys is probably the most feasible strategy. Develop better non-lethal measures from anti-boarding to safe/secure rooms with a kill-engine switch and/or lock the steering, and an auto emergency distress alarm from that secure space. If one can't prevent the boarding, at least deny them access to hostages and the ability to move the ship to their safe haven.

Accept the fact that piracy will always exist in some degree, and that recovering hostages by force will inevitably result in some of them getting killed eventually.

[Husar]

I'm for it because I'm not a commie and prefer the cheaper option.

The solution to Louis's problem concerning the legality is the same as the solution to illegal drug cartels.
In fact, legalizing piracy could create a lot of sorely needed jobs in this economic crisis. :idea2:

[Strike For The South]

I may be missing something blisteringly obvious but these pirates use fairly light boats right? Why not just go in the deep end of the pool?

Or find a new route?

[KarlXII]

Whereas the potential human cost to merchant crews and to those practicing piracy as a livelihood would be significant were more aggressive means of defense to be used to combat piracy, and

In the end, casualties justify results. I must remind you that piracy is in fact a crime, and should be dealt with. Ignoring the problem would only encourage more aggressive attacks, as oppossed to deterring them with military options.


Whereas those practicing piracy can insure that the financial threat they represent to shippers is just enough less than the cost of defending against them as to make paying the appropriate fees for the return of a few captured vessels econcomically viable (using insurance) when compared to the greater cost of defending all of them, then

Indeed, the pirates see that simply demanding a ransom will ensure financial results. However, if we passively twittle our thumbs and simply allow them to be payed off (Barbary Pirates), they will continue to become more aggressive and demand more and more before the cost of paying ransoms is higher than the cost of launching a Tomahawk.


Be it resolved that no military or defensive actions should be taken against pirates on the high seas or at upon their bases on land and that all such efforts should be deemed counterproductive to the greater interests of human safety for all persons directly involved, to all innocents involved through no fault of their own, and also as being ultimately counterproductive to the smooth flow of trade.

It is true that an attack on pirates and pirate bases will only result in further violence, however, if we cannot respond to simple backward thieves of the high seas, what become of that? The Navies of the World should always be tasked with the protection of the free flow of commercial traffic in relation to merchant vessels. Our resolve should be swift, brutal, and intimidating. Show these pirates that their hijackings and kidnappings will only result in their deaths.

Be it resolved that the necessary military and defensive actions should be tooken by all nations, in the spirit of free trade and protection of sailors, to remove the threat of high seas piracy and ensure the safe passage of naval vessels.

[Fragony]

What's the problem, they have small boats we have an advanced navy, and it is international water, and if it isn't what are they going to do about it. Find them and sink them like the old days. Why do we have to be so civilized all the time, these boots are made for walking.

[KukriKhan]

Don't steal.

If you do (steal), you may enjoy the fruits of your labour for awhile. Maybe a long while. But, in the end, the stealing will denigrate your own existance, because you have not earned the fruits of your stealth, someone else did. And you will know yourself as a parasite, not a human - worthy of respect.

High seas, internet, 7-11... stealing is stealing. Wrong every time.

[Furunculus]

How is piracy particularly despicable? It's little more than theft with some light kidnapping thrown in. We're bankrolling regimes doing far worse.

from teh article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate

Piracy is a war-like act committed by a nonstate actor, especially robbery or criminal violence committed at sea, on a river, or sometimes on shore, either from a vessel flying no national flag, or one flying a national flag but without authorization from a national authority.

Modern definitions of piracy include the following acts:
* Kidnapping of people for ransom
* Robbery
* Murder
* Seizure of items or the ship
* Sabotage resulting in the ship subsequently sinking

The crime of piracy is considered a breach of jus cogens, a conventional peremptory international norm that states must uphold. Those committing thefts on the high seas, inhibiting trade, and endangering maritime communication are considered by sovereign states to be hostis humani generis (enemies of humanity).

Since piracy often takes place outside the territorial waters of any state, the prosecution of pirates by sovereign states represents a complex legal situation. The prosecution of pirates on the high seas contravenes the conventional freedom of the high seas. However, because of universal jurisdiction, action can be taken against pirates without objection from the flag state of the pirate vessel. This represents an exception to the principle extra territorium jus dicenti impune non paretur (the judgment of one who is exceeding his territorial jurisdiction may be disobeyed with impunity).

does that help answer the question as to why people think pirates are baddies, and why such unrestrained action is permissable against them?

[Duke of Gloucester]

Rudyard Kipling put it well:

Danegeld

It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbour and to say: --
"We invaded you last night--we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away."

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
And then you'll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say: --
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say: --

"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that pays it is lost!"

If the pirates know that you will pay up and not fight they will simply ask for more and ask for it more often. The extra cost will be passed on to the final consumer and the world ecconomy will take another knock. In the end it will have to be stopped. A better approach is to fight it early.

[Tribesman]

What's the problem, they have small boats we have an advanced navy
The problem is that there are lots and lots of small boats only a few of which are pirates , the navies have to find those few among the many thousands which isn't very easy .

[rory_20_uk]

As the distance from the shore increases, the number of vessels that have that reach decreases.

Currently the pirates have collectively earnt millions in a matter of months for almost no risk. It's almost a game of tag with a massive paycheque at the end of it.

The USA and France have slightly altered the balance by killing 4 pirates. If deaths and boat losses increase the economics of the situation will alter. Sure, some will still be keen, but others will view the risk vs reward as too great.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

Don't steal.

If you do (steal), you may enjoy the fruits of your labour for awhile. Maybe a long while. But, in the end, the stealing will denigrate your own existance, because you have not earned the fruits of your stealth, someone else did. And you will know yourself as a parasite, not a human - worthy of respect.

High seas, internet, 7-11... stealing is stealing. Wrong every time.

Yes, it just gets especially interesting when the internet thieves call for the death of the high-seas thieves or when the normal people call for the death of the high seas thieves together with their friends, the internet thieves. Might makes right I guess, if i ever develop a software program and anyone of you downloads it, does that mean I can drive my tank up to your house and blow you up?
I mean that's what we're supposed to do with the pirates, isn't it?

Man Kukri, what an angle you presented there.... ~D :2thumbsup:

[Tsavong]

Convoys through that part of the world. Most western nations have a fair old naval presence in those seas anyway, and this would give them something useful to do. The pirates only choose isolated ships - they are not going to play with naval escorts.
Convoys would make it difficult for ships to be pirated. But to do it you would need to get agreements from the shipping companies to hang around in a port somewhere waiting for the convoy to gather and for a frigate / destroyer or two to turn up. Also getting enough escorts out there might be hard unless the US makes a large commitment. The Royal Navy for example only has 22 escorts 5 type 42 destroyers, 13 type 23 frigates and 4 type 22 frigates.

Though if the problem is bad enough this is probably the best method of stopping piracy.

[rory_20_uk]

Unlike WW1 WW2 convoys the threats are so utterly inferior to the defenders the ratio of ships to warships can be very low.

Still, with these modern threats it's good to know the UK has ordered two massive aircraft carriers rather than many smaller more adaptable ships.

Odd that the buzzwords in the army are flexibility and adaptability to changing threats, whereas the Navy want two massive ships for in ill defined purpose - more strange when the old aircraft carriers were viewed as too large and these are larger...

~:smoking:

[Tsavong]

Odd that the buzzwords in the army are flexibility and adaptability to changing threats, whereas the Navy want two massive ships for in ill defined purpose - more strange when the old aircraft carriers were viewed as too large and these are larger...

Massive? They will be smaller in terms of displacement than the US carriers (UK: 65,000 full US: 101,196 full) tonnes , they will also be smaller than the cruse ship Queen Mary 2 76,000 tonnes (approx).

As for there ill defined purpose there they will be air fields at sea which was shone in WW2 and in the Falklands war to be the key to a modern day maritime conflict. You may say the Royal Navy needs smaller more adaptable ships but what point or purpose would they serve if they could not go anywhere with in range of a hostile air force? How would the Royal Navy use its landing ships with out air cover? Im sure the Navy would like to be building new escorts, the last one to enter service being a type 23 in 1999 but the will from the government has not been there.

[rory_20_uk]

OK, so we've got 2 aircraft carriers. They are (as far as I am aware) made of aluminium. So any exocet or newer missile will cause aluminium to combust in water. So effectively one hit can sink the entire ship, unless you can stop this process... oh, which releases hydrogen which is also explosive.

Even assuming the foe has no ground to sea missiles you've still got the planes defending the ships and providing landing support...

Supporting hostile beaches? With AA missiles and gun batteries, and planes? And almost no ability to repair damaged planes?

So, the UK basically is unable to single handedly deal with any relatively equipped for as even one stray missile or torpedo (oh, I forgot torpedoes!) could sink a ship - possibly regardless of size.

Purpose? Taking on to put it bluntly, weaker navies at sea - pirates, drug smugglers and so on. Intelligence gathering. But not to go close to a hostile shore with aggressive intent as we can't build them as fast as we'd loose them.

It's useful to be able to quickly move men to the land in certain situations, but the UK can't adequately "passify" the landing area to do so if it's contested by anything resembling a modern army.

I know there's no will. It's like getting new nuclear weapons - or even Trident over Polaris. It gives the appearance of strength as long as you don't think too long about it.

~:smoking:

[Louis VI the Fat]

I do freely admit that the style employed was very "old school" formal debate language.If anything, I loved the formality of the language! It felt like a warm bath.
There was some irony intended in me, as a non-native speaker, accusing an English speaker of not applying proper English when he is, in fact, writing in perfect, schooled English. :2thumbsup:



You understood it perfectly.I'll huff and I'll puff until I get it. It takes more than rigidly applied formality and some anachronisms to out-English me. :sweatdrop:

[Furunculus]

Odd that the buzzwords in the army are flexibility and adaptability to changing threats, whereas the Navy want two massive ships for in ill defined purpose - more strange when the old aircraft carriers were viewed as too large and these are larger...


there purpose is VERY well defined.

it was the centre-piece of the Strategic Defence Review in 1998, and later confirmed in the 2003 update; SDA: New Chapter.

[Furunculus]

1. They are (as far as I am aware) made of aluminium. So any exocet or newer missile will cause aluminium to combust in water. So effectively one hit can sink the entire ship, unless you can stop this process... oh, which releases hydrogen which is also explosive.

2. Supporting hostile beaches? With AA missiles and gun batteries, and planes? And almost no ability to repair damaged planes?

3. So, the UK basically is unable to single handedly deal with any relatively equipped [[navy???]]for as even one stray missile or torpedo (oh, I forgot torpedoes!) could sink a ship - possibly regardless of size.

4. Purpose? Taking on to put it bluntly, weaker navies at sea - pirates, drug smugglers and so on. Intelligence gathering. But not to go close to a hostile shore with aggressive intent as we can't build them as fast as we'd loose them.

5. It's useful to be able to quickly move men to the land in certain situations, but the UK can't adequately "passify" the landing area to do so if it's contested by anything resembling a modern army.

6. I know there's no will. It's like getting new nuclear weapons - or even Trident over Polaris. It gives the appearance of strength as long as you don't think too long about it.


1. Where did you get the idea that the hulls and superstructure will be constructed from aluminium? :inquisitive:

2. planes that are seriously damaged crash, ones that are not do not. people have been operating carriers successfully for over 75 years without anyone yet realising that the whole idea is redundant because broken aircraft don't fly.

3. In that case no-ones navy is any use, with the possible exception of the US. The point of aircraft carriers is theat they allow you to attack/detect them before they can attack/detect you.

4. well duh, we don't want to take on a stronger navy, so yes, aircraft carriers do allow us to give weaker navies a good shoeing. two points, a) only the US navy is stronger, and b) carriers do much much more than just allow us to shoe everyone elses navy.

5. we have the second largest amphibious capability in the world, by quite some margin, but yes it is small. however, it is not the job of the navy or the marines to take on 100,000 strong armies, rather it is make opposed landings to secure beachheads which allow the landing of army units.

6. nukes prevent anyone ever contemplating industiral war against the UK, a war we would be hard pushed to defend against.

[rory_20_uk]

there purpose is VERY well defined.

it was the centre-piece of the Strategic Defence Review in 1998, and later confirmed in the 2003 update; SDA: New Chapter.

"To meet our longer term needs, we plan to replace our current carriers from around 2012 by two larger, more versatile, carriers capable of carrying a more powerful force, including a future carrier borne aircraft to replace the Harrier. These plans will now be developed in detail in the normal way."


Yeah, right.

~:smoking:

[rory_20_uk]

1. Where did you get the idea that the hulls and superstructure will be constructed from aluminium? :inquisitive:

2. planes that are seriously damaged crash, ones that are not do not. people have been operating carriers successfully for over 75 years without anyone yet realising that the whole idea is redundant because broken aircraft don't fly.

3. In that case no-ones navy is any use, with the possible exception of the US. The point of aircraft carriers is theat they allow you to attack/detect them before they can attack/detect you.

4. well duh, we don't want to take on a stronger navy, so yes, aircraft carriers do allow us to give weaker navies a good shoeing. two points, a) only the US navy is stronger, and b) carriers do much much more than just allow us to shoe everyone elses navy.

5. we have the second largest amphibious capability in the world, by quite some margin, but yes it is small. however, it is not the job of the navy or the marines to take on 100,000 strong armies, rather it is make opposed landings to secure beachheads which allow the landing of army units.

6. nukes prevent anyone ever contemplating industiral war against the UK, a war we would be hard pushed to defend against.


Ship that was destroyed in Falklands. If steel is the preferred material then mea culpa
Yes... so ther rate of attrittion would have to be almost non existant before you're left with an empty carrier looking rather foolish
Other navies: India, China spring to mind. Odds of hiding an aircraft carrier and planes from satelites with IR or even goold old Radar aren't likely. If they can'd to this I'd argue the aircraft carriers are overkill
As you point out most navies are weaker - most to the extent that a Destroyer or cruiser could singlehandedly give them a good shoeing. Why the overkill? Carriers do more... yup, we can fly planes over places - as long as they're not hostile places of course.
The loss of life would be so hideous taking an opposed beach the force would be crippled to the point of needing a full refit. America has the facilities to adequately back up the force. It seems most other forces have realised that this isn't a worthwhile area to spend money on.
Yes. My point was that since Polaris they've done that. Spending billions more on newer ones is a waste.


~:smoking:

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

from teh article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate


does that help answer the question as to why people think pirates are baddies, and why such unrestrained action is permissable against them?
Oh no, piracy is wrong of course. However, there are greater evils to challenge if one is feeling the need to do so. These Somalian pirates are merely the flavor of the week.

[Furunculus]

"To meet our longer term needs, we plan to replace our current carriers from around 2012 by two larger, more versatile, carriers capable of carrying a more powerful force, including a future carrier borne aircraft to replace the Harrier. These plans will now be developed in detail in the normal way."

Yeah, right.


nice, you read the precis.

the point being that the whole of the UK's strategic doctrine is based around mobile forces, amphibious capability, and carrier support for that amphibious and mobile capability.

[Furunculus]

[1]Yes... so ther rate of attrittion would have to be almost non existant before you're left with an empty carrier looking rather foolish
[2]Other navies: India, China spring to mind. Odds of hiding an aircraft carrier and planes from satelites with IR or even goold old Radar aren't likely. If they can'd to this I'd argue the aircraft carriers are overkill
[3]As you point out most navies are weaker - most to the extent that a Destroyer or cruiser could singlehandedly give them a good shoeing. Why the overkill? Carriers do more... yup, we can fly planes over places - as long as they're not hostile places of course.
[4]The loss of life would be so hideous taking an opposed beach the force would be crippled to the point of needing a full refit. America has the facilities to adequately back up the force. It seems most other forces have realised that this isn't a worthwhile area to spend money on.
[5]Yes. My point was that since Polaris they've done that. Spending billions more on newer ones is a waste.



so you, arm-chair general rory have decided in your wisdom that you can better outline the UK's strategic capabilities than the MOD?

1. the obvious solution is to use carriers in combinartion with intelligence so as they do not come into WW2 pacific style battles

2. are you telling me that things are going to get more difficult? no kidding, but somebody with a lot of stars on his collar came to the conclusion that carriers are still worth it.

3. that is what good military practice is about, massive overmatch which reduces losses in the event of conflict, this ain't queensbury rules. and lots of other nations are thinking seriously about having carriers too, so its less a case of overmatch rather than keeping up with the joneses.

4. you think so do you? so you forget the falklands and sierra leonne. opposed landing is still relevant with current theory stating that helicopter forces go in first, followed by RM's in landing ships, then backed up by the bay class, finally using the ro-ro's for army units once a secure dock has been established.

5. we don't make the missiles, so when the US changes missiles (i.e. to trident) we have to as well as we don't have the facilities to maintain them.

[Furunculus]

Oh no, piracy is wrong of course. However, there are greater evils to challenge if one is feeling the need to do so. These Somalian pirates are merely the flavor of the week.

oh i agree, which is why i wish to see pirates status as scum maintained, thus allowing anybody and everybody to do anything they please to fend off pirate attacks

[rory_20_uk]

For what? It appears that the first decision was "let's get two massive ships" then the "thinking" appeared afterwards.

Our mobile forces are too weak to protect the homeland from a threat, with only two large carriers unable to be spread thinly and are there to act swiftly against a threat from a sufficiently weak power lest the lack of military preperation in depth becomes apparent... And this is "strategic thinking"??? :inquisitive:

~:smoking:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If anything, I loved the formality of the language! It felt like a warm bath.
There was some irony intended in me, as a non-native speaker, accusing an English speaker of not applying proper English when he is, in fact, writing in perfect, schooled English. :2thumbsup:


I understood your ironic humor, Louis. Tu es tres drole!

Besides, if I did not appreciate irony, I could never remain a Republican.

[Husar]

Wait...since when do these pirates use exocets and torpedoes? :inquisitive:

And since when does a third world country have the means to shoot down modern carrier aircraft like flies?

Did I miss a big change of topic or are you just overlooking that when a frigate guards a convoy it may take some time to reach a ship that spotted a bunch of pirates late while airplanes can quickly reach anything and provide air cover and recon missions to combat pirates more effectively. On the downside(upside for you bloodthirsty people) aircraft can hardly arrest pirates, only kill them, unless we're talking helicopters (which can be stationed on some frigates as well).

[Tribesman]

Wait...since when do these pirates use exocets and torpedoes?
There is a very big arms market in Somalia , and while exocets amnd torpedoes might be unavailable there are plenty of other missiles on sale over there . So all the pirates need to do is spend some of their money

[Furunculus]

For what? It appears that the first decision was "let's get two massive ships" then the "thinking" appeared afterwards.

Our mobile forces are too weak to protect the homeland from a threat, with only two large carriers unable to be spread thinly and are there to act swiftly against a threat from a sufficiently weak power lest the lack of military preperation in depth becomes apparent... And this is "strategic thinking"??? :inquisitive:



no, you have the cart before the horse. the decision was to maintain a force that could intervene, and support that intervention. hence:
mobile forces
strategic airlift
amphibious ability
aircraft carriers

our conventional forces don't have to protect the homeland, we have nukes that ensure no-one ever conducts conventional warfare against the UK.

[Furunculus]

Did I miss a big change of topic or are you just overlooking that when a frigate guards a convoy it may take some time to reach a ship that spotted a bunch of pirates late while airplanes can quickly reach anything and provide air cover and recon missions to combat pirates more effectively. On the downside(upside for you bloodthirsty people) aircraft can hardly arrest pirates, only kill them, unless we're talking helicopters (which can be stationed on some frigates as well).

no-one is suggesting we use aircraft carriers for use on pirates, rory was just getting carried away with himself.

and yes, frigates with helicopters are just the thing for anti-pirate operations, for exactly the same reasons we always use a helicopter capable vessel for the Caribbean patrol for anti drug-running patrols.

[Tsavong]

Other navies: India, China spring to mind. Odds of hiding an aircraft carrier and planes from satelites with IR or even goold old Radar aren't likely. If they can'd to this I'd argue the aircraft carriers are overkill

I'd like to point out that the Indian Navy has an air craft carrier the INS Viraat (ex HMS Hermes) and is in the precess of replacing it with the Russian built INS Vikramaditya (ex Admiral Gorshkov) after it comes out of a refit. And is planning to build one domestically. China is also planning a carrier i believe.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I agree with Tribesman here - Ignore it until;

A. it affects US trade more than it does our rivals.
B. it affects US lives
C. There is an international humanitarian disaster
D. the pagan heathen pirate booty begins filtering into the hands of international islamic terrorists.

A bit of high powered, 3rd world anarcho-capitalism in the Indian Ocean won't hurt the US, and I'm not sure that it would hurt Somalia either.

The US governement should make the waterways safe for US trade ships. Let the pirates have as much European, Russian, Indian and Chinese loot as those countries will allow them to have before they all collectively decide to solve a problem on the ground for once. Maybe we would sign on after the fact.

It is simply not worth it for us to spearhead this. Goods from other countries rise in price, our goods stay the same. Somalis arn't starving as much either and have a lucrative option to distract them from al-qaeda. Win-Win for the U.S.

Lets not forget, we hired the US govt. They shouldn't solve problems in other countries unless people are dying en masse, our interests are hurting, or we want them to do something.]

Aybody else wants action? That's what you hire your own governements for.

[KarlXII]

The US governement should make the waterways safe for US trade ships. Let the pirates have as much European, Russian, Indian and Chinese loot as those countries will allow them to have before they all collectively decide to solve a problem on the ground for once. Maybe we would sign on after the fact.


Remember when we didn't deal with the pirates during Bush's presidency, and then the pirates attacked a U.S. freighter? What stops it from happening again?

It is our obligation, as a signer of the North Atlantic Treaty, to come to the aid of our allies who have been attacked. An attack on one is an attack on all.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Remember when we didn't deal with the pirates during Bush's presidency, and then the pirates attacked a U.S. freighter? What stops it from happening again?

It is our obligation, as a signer of the North Atlantic Treaty, to come to the aid of our allies who have been attacked. An attack on one is an attack on all.

We should help patrol the region. No ground action spearheaded by the U.S. I'd love to see Europe start this thing on their own, seeing how it is having a larger effect on them. We could even be junior partners on it.

[KarlXII]

We should help patrol the region. No ground action spearheaded by the U.S.

And why not? I do not see why a joint effort can't be made in Somalia as with Afghanistan.

[ICantSpellDawg]

And why not? I do not see why a joint effort can't be made in Somalia as with Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is just a joint effort? From what I can tell it is a joint effort SPEARHEADED by the US (with a UK edge). This could be a joint effort SPEARHEADED by the EU. that means that instead of relying on the US (whose population is 306 mil) the EU (population 499 mil) shows some initiative and leads the way for once, particularly regarding a problem that affects them more than it does us (like the taliban/alqaeda affected the US MORE than the EU).

If you want us to stop treating you like our child, stop treating us like your daddy.

It would be awesome to feel like we had a 50/50 partnership with the EU

[KarlXII]

Afghanistan is a joint effort?

You obviously haven't been informed of anything about Afghanistan since I don't know when.

[KarlXII]

My point still stands, the U.S. has a responsibility to stop these pirates, not because they attack U.S. ships, because they attack all merchant ships.

[ICantSpellDawg]

My point still stands, the U.S. has a responsibility to stop these pirates, not because they attack U.S. ships, because they attack all merchant ships.


Your point is that the US should finance the defense of other peoples interests.

Sure, we will go to bat for universal values, but we need to see the same level of dedication out of your pocketbook as well. And none of this nancing and prancing, not sending combat troops to hot spots, that so many countries try to pull.

[KarlXII]

Your point is that the US should finance the defense of other peoples interests.

We haven't been doing that already? How much do you think it would cost for a combined force in Somalia compared to financing the defence of Iraqi interests?

The point is, the United States has the responsibility of defending her allies from future pirate attacks, I am highly supportive of a joint effort, as per Afghanistan, as the European navies are not shabby. The French are already responding to these attacks, why not us?

[Banquo's Ghost]

We should help patrol the region. No ground action spearheaded by the U.S. I'd love to see Europe start this thing on their own, seeing how it is having a larger effect on them. We could even be junior partners on it.

You'll find that the EU has been patrolling for some time - the US has only woken up to the piracy because of this last incident.

The French (as part of the EU Task Force) have been chasing the pirates all over God's Creation.

[Tribesman]

I agree with Tribesman here - Ignore it until;

Wow , thats the second person recently to invent my views .


Afghanistan is just a joint effort?
Blimey , how many of the initial offers were not taken up becuase george wanted to go it alone ?



You'll find that the EU has been patrolling for some time - the US has only woken up to the piracy because of this last incident.

You are being too kind Banquo , I would have ripped into the US failed intervention and then pointed to the increase in piracy since Americas proxy players moved in .

[Husar]

There is a very big arms market in Somalia , and while exocets amnd torpedoes might be unavailable there are plenty of other missiles on sale over there . So all the pirates need to do is spend some of their money

Except that they rather send their money to families or invest it in some business so they can retire there and stop being pirates/poor/both. I don't really think they can fire anything really dangerous for an aircraft carrier from their paddle boats before the aircraft carrier can sink them. I don't even think they'd want to. They want money, not start an all-out war with any western nation by sinking a carrier. :dizzy2:

[Tribesman]

Actually I have the solution .
Its a simple solution really and quite cost effective .
Send in the French , not the French navy but the French fishermen .
Having just ended most of their blockade for a ransom payment of 4 million they should now sail off to the African coast and blockade every little port and jetty on the Somali coast , that will ensure that the Somali pirates can no longer put to sea and will have to seek other employment .

[rory_20_uk]

Actually I have the solution .
Its a simple solution really and quite cost effective .
Send in the French , not the French navy but the French fishermen .
Having just ended most of their blockade for a ransom payment of 4 million they should now sail off to the African coast and blockade every little port and jetty on the Somali coast , that will ensure that the Somali pirates can no longer put to sea and will have to seek other employment .

Genius. A plan with no downside. Worst case scenario the two groups of dissidents wipe each other out on the high seas.

Any survivors can then be shelled at leisure.

~:smoking:

[ICantSpellDawg]

You'll find that the EU has been patrolling for some time - the US has only woken up to the piracy because of this last incident.

The French (as part of the EU Task Force) have been chasing the pirates all over God's Creation.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_Force_151

This was set up in January specifically for this purpose. We have been talking about the issue since God knows when. The American public has "woken up to it" recently because that is what publics do when something interesting happens.

Tribesman, what were you suggesting be done about the piracy problem? Were you suggesting that we begin a ground operation? Were you suggesting that we start attacking ships and escalating conflict? I could have sworn that you didn't think that either was a good option. From what I recall, you didn't think the piracy was a problem for the US and therefore the US should butt out - right?

When I said "ignore", i didn't mean pretend the problem doesn't exist - I just meant sit there and don't do anything about it.




You are being too kind Banquo , I would have ripped into the US failed intervention and then pointed to the increase in piracy since Americas proxy players moved in .

You don't mean that you would have blamed America for the piracy problem, do you? Not you - an ardent defender of the US? Since this is the first time you are blaming the US for everything under the sun (particularly for something so clearly caused by the US) people will take it seriously for once.

Tribes is one of those guys who curses the innaguration of GWB and the genocide of the American Indians every time he stubs his toe or burns a finger.

[Banquo's Ghost]

You don't mean that you would have blamed America for the piracy problem, do you? Not you - an ardent defender of the US? Since this is the first time you are blaming the US for everything under the sun (particularly for something so clearly caused by the US) people will take it seriously for once.

Tribes is one of those guys who curses the innaguration of GWB and the genocide of the American Indians every time he stubs his toe or burns a finger.

I think you'll find Tribesman is referring to the US backed Ethiopian invasion on behalf of the Somali Transitional Federal Government, which over threw the Islamic Courts Union. The ICU had, for a short time, instigated the firmest rule of law seen in Somalia for some time, and cracked down hard on piracy.

However, since it was law based in Shari'a (and the ICU was Islamist) Washington felt that they were entirely the wrong sort of Muslims, and so gave substantial support to the previous warlords via the Ethiopian invasion.

Unsurprisingly, when these crooks got back into a position of power, they dismantled national security infrastructures in favour of their own little fiefdoms. Fiefdoms that on the coast, are making a very good living out of piracy again.

[Hosakawa Tito]

I think you'll find Tribesman is referring to the US backed Ethiopian invasion on behalf of the Somali Transitional Federal Government, which over threw the Islamic Courts Union. The ICU had, for a short time, instigated the firmest rule of law seen in Somalia for some time, and cracked down hard on piracy.

However, since it was law based in Shari'a (and the ICU was Islamist) Washington felt that they were entirely the wrong sort of Muslims, and so gave substantial support to the previous warlords via the Ethiopian invasion.

Unsurprisingly, when these crooks got back into a position of power, they dismantled national security infrastructures in favour of their own little fiefdoms. Fiefdoms that on the coast, are making a very good living out of piracy again.


Yes, in hindsight that appears to have been a miscalculation, but who can say what the "wrong sort" of Muslims may have decided to do. Eliminate the uncontrolled pirate factions and just replace them with their own people, perhaps. Lucrative criminal activity isn't religion specific, especially in such a destitute country with few economic options as Somalia. If anything it would just add another reason, jihad, to the justification of the act.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think you'll find Tribesman is referring to the US backed Ethiopian invasion on behalf of the Somali Transitional Federal Government, which over threw the Islamic Courts Union. The ICU had, for a short time, instigated the firmest rule of law seen in Somalia for some time, and cracked down hard on piracy.

However, since it was law based in Shari'a (and the ICU was Islamist) Washington felt that they were entirely the wrong sort of Muslims, and so gave substantial support to the previous warlords via the Ethiopian invasion.

Unsurprisingly, when these crooks got back into a position of power, they dismantled national security infrastructures in favour of their own little fiefdoms. Fiefdoms that on the coast, are making a very good living out of piracy again.

I understand - again, what would he have advised them to do in that situation? Simply ignore the problem? Who would we have supported? Should we have done nothing at all?

When we say we should do nothing, he rejects that.

All US ideas are rejected by default, ad hominem. Simply because they come from the US, not necessarily based on merits.

[Tsavong]

The problem with TuffStuffMcGruff's plan of the USN doing nuthing unless it flys a US flag would is quite simply 'flags of convenience'.

Most modern shipping lines have no national loyalties. And the flag they fly is chosen for reasons of regulation, wage rates or taxation. So how do you tell what is a US ship? And how do you know if a ship you see is carrying US goods. There is no reasion why a US ship would or why a non US ship would not.

The so called American Maersk Alabama is in fact owned by the Denmark-based A. P. Moller-Maersk Group.

[drone]

Ron Paul suggests issuing letters of marque to combat pirates. (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hVfRcYnDJfYa7RSEH9Q8UwiyFwHg)
WASHINGTON (AFP) — A US lawmaker known for broadsides at US foreign policy says Somali piracy has an age-old solution: "Letters of marque" empowering private citizens to chase the seaborne scoundrels from the oceans.

Republican Representatives Ron Paul and a handful of conservative theorists say it's time that the US Congress used the technique -- pioneered by European powers in the 18th Century as a way to wage naval warfare on the cheap.

Major shipping companies should accept a "go at your own risk" approach and not expect government help when they transit through pirate-infested waters, Paul said this week in a video posted on the public Internet site YouTube.

"I don't think just because people go into these dangerous waters that our army and navy and air force and everything has to follow," said the Texas lawmaker, adding that letters of marque would allow merchant ships to sail armed.

"I think if every potential pirate knew that this would be the case, they would have second thoughts because they could probably be blown out of the water rather easily if those were the conditions," said Paul.

The US Constitution explicitly allows the Congress to issue such letters, in effect giving private parties a license to fight hostile seaborne forces like the pirates, in theory without fear of being branded pirates themselves.

Typically, the arrangement offered privateers no reward from the government except a share of the booty recovered, taking all of the risk and attendant costs off the books of frequently cash-strapped global powers.
Say what you want about him, but the guy is entertaining. ~D

:pirate2:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Ron Paul suggests issuing letters of marque to combat pirates. (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hVfRcYnDJfYa7RSEH9Q8UwiyFwHg)

Say what you want about him, but the guy is entertaining. ~D

:pirate2:

Absolutely. I've also read about the possibility of companies paying into an "insurance" pool effectively making the Marines and similar entities marque carrying organizations.

Lets take old ideas that worked and update them for the times.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The problem with TuffStuffMcGruff's plan of the USN doing nuthing unless it flys a US flag would is quite simply 'flags of convenience'.

Most modern shipping lines have no national loyalties. And the flag they fly is chosen for reasons of regulation, wage rates or taxation. So how do you tell what is a US ship? And how do you know if a ship you see is carrying US goods. There is no reasion why a US ship would or why a non US ship would not.

The so called American Maersk Alabama is in fact owned by the Denmark-based A. P. Moller-Maersk Group.


If the Ship or its crew generates revenue for the US (taxes or through trade/military alliances) , protect them. If they do not, do not. We could offer pay-based flags. You pay, we protect. Rackateering on the high seas.

There must be some international agreement regulating this.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I vehemently oppose the resolution profferred in the opening post of this thread.

Piracy is a general ill, and all nations should work to curtail or, where possible, to eradicate it.

Some means of defending ships must be found, be it convoys, armed guards or the like. This will not be an easy task, as it is wrong to simply create free fire zones around merchant shipping and kill everything, because fishermen hauling in their livelihood look remarkably similar to fishermen who go a-viking on alternate Wednesdays, and because killing a 2-year-old who happens to live in a village that makes part of its living from piracy does not redound to our credit nor to the general good. Despite the difficulty of the task, it must be undertaken.

No amount of appeasement can buy off pirates, because there will always be those who are not getting "their share" and who will seek to obtain it by force. Moreover, PROPERTY MATTERS. Property is not just a cost to produce couple to some perceive value to a consumer. Trade is the exchange of ideas, culture, and the sinews of growth for all involved in trade. What right does a pirate have to property that exists because of the efforts and investment of another?

Sometimes the larger principle of a situation demands a response that is out of line to the direct economic cost involved.

[Lemur]

This strikes me as eminently practical (http://www.slate.com/id/2216163/pagenum/all/#p2):


Allow authorized crewmembers to shoot pirates—the fact that armed outsiders are boarding a merchant ship in international waters should be deemed sufficient provocation. Declare a safety zone around merchant ships—anyone crossing into the zone is warned to cross back; those who proceed face the risk of getting shot. Armed marshals should be required onboard merchant ships traveling through straits declared to be dangerous, especially if they are carrying particularly sensitive goods; the marshals could be paid out of a common international fund.

Only we shouldn't call them "marshals." I like "sea ninjas" much better.

[ICantSpellDawg]

This strikes me as eminently practical (http://www.slate.com/id/2216163/pagenum/all/#p2):

Allow authorized crewmembers to shoot pirates—the fact that armed outsiders are boarding a merchant ship in international waters should be deemed sufficient provocation. Declare a safety zone around merchant ships—anyone crossing into the zone is warned to cross back; those who proceed face the risk of getting shot. Armed marshals should be required onboard merchant ships traveling through straits declared to be dangerous, especially if they are carrying particularly sensitive goods; the marshals could be paid out of a common international fund.
Only we shouldn't call them "marshals." I like "sea ninjas" much better.


You could probably get a consensus around "sea-ninjas"