High Seas Piracy

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.

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?

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.

In the old days we bombed the ports

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

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

against.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

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 ?

well it requires judgment.

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

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.

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:

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

from teh article:

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

Quote:

---

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?

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.

Quote:

---

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 .

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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:

Quote:

---

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: