Piracy in Somalia

It's time to bring back the "Q" ships! Deploy 3 or 4 of them. One rule of engagement, if they come at you, sink 'em.
They will eventually run out of pirate boats and pirates!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-ship

 

"Piracy isn't just a business,it's a lifeline" Good article in NYTimes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/weekinreview/27pirates.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp

"We get it" said one state Dept.Official. "We get the need to recalibrate."

 

We have bait cars, right? How about bait boats? Put them out there on the water. As they approach, BLAMMY! Waste those pieces of shit.

 

Doh, I tried the link and it says it's not available for anyone outside of Canada As for the topic, I think one of the reasons modern day piracy isn't in richer countries is that it isn't very lucrative. Back in its heyday, pirates were from all sorts of backgrounds (and some notables were from noble families). But the Somali pirates are in an area that is fairly poor....I think the best coarse of action is to just avoid that area.

 

Unfortunately, the area off "piracy" now includes thousands of square miles and not just the area around Somalia. By using stolen ships as "mother" bases, the pirates have expanded the area beyond one that is controllable or avoidable.

 

Exactly. The only way to effectively combat this sort of menace in such a broad area is to look for points of concentration. Unfortunate this means the coastal ports. Attacking pirates in port is very effective, but also causes a lot of collateral damage. In recent times our western culture is unwilling to do this. We did do it in the past, which is where the "...from the shores of Tripolli" came from in the Marine's Hymn.

Tom

 

I am obviously not in favor of Somali piracy, but this American righteousness is *so* misplaced. Time for you folks to read the recent history of what drove the coastal Somalis to their current state.

 

Might as well use the subs that we have this way. They aren't really serving much of a purpose currently.

 

Submarines are not an effective tool against small vessels, nor are they particularly good at finding mother ships in a large ocean. You need air assets for that, and even then it takes a lot of tracking to sort out the good guys from the bad. Sinking ships is the easy part, and there is no need to waste expensive torpedoes to do it.

As for the plight of the Somalis, there is no question that they have been abandoned by the rest of the world. It seems unlikely that they can rise out of their current situation without external help. It also seems equally unlikely that the rest of the world is willing to give it another try -- it didn't go very well last time around.

Either way, the solution isn't to allow piracy to continue as a cottage industry. Either we address the cause or the symptoms; doing neither is not a great option. Probably the best approach is to do both: shut down piracy while restoring some form of government. Unfortunately, given our weak economy and recent overuse of our military, it is unlikely that this will happen.

Tom

 

Most civilian carriers are unwilling to arm their vessels. Generally, once you arm a vessel, any act of piracy or exchange of gunfire is considered an "act of war" by the underwriters, at which point insurance is void. Economically, it has been better to pay ransom and recover the losses through insurance. Of course, the problem with this approach is that it makes piracy profitable, thereby encouraging more piracy.

Tom

 

But surely the insurance payments show up as increased premiums right back to the shippers. So really all they have done is spread the risk somewhat.

 

That is all insurance ever does: spread the risk. The truth is that there isn't much piracy. If you look at the amount of shipping transiting that area, only a tiny amount is ever hijacked by pirates. From an industry standpoint, it has been cheaper to pay ransom than deal with the problem. That, of course, isn't much comfort when you are the one being held hostage.

Tom

 

Exactly my point.
Although I think a more realistic view is that industry finds itself in perhaps cheaper and certainly more familiar territory by agitating for national military intervention rather than pay to fix the fisheries the western countries wiped out.

The cries for Somali blood in this thread are predictable.

 

Actually the answer is pretty simple, either have armed vessels ready to be launched from ships, or armed vessels escorting the merchant ships, it then releases the ships to remain under insurance, while addressing the problem. And the escort ships could be towed by the tankers to save on costs, releasing only to provide protection.

 

If it's most cost effective to pay the ransoms, the shippers should create a Somali fund they all contribute to up front at 150% of the current annual aggregate piracy ransoms and establish a mutually acceptable Somali receivership to take the payment in quarterly installments. The pirates get their money without having to put themselves (and their victims) at risk, they get 50% more than they would get through piracy. Any act of piracy would thereafter instantly void the arrangement and since the arrangement returns 50% better than piracy there would be high incentive to not try to augment the fund with any piracy on the side.

Naturally this is exactly what the world governments should be doing already out of sheer shared humanity for a fellow nation in desperate trouble, but straightforward pragmatism is a pretty good reason for the shippers to do it too.

Trying to solve a problem like this with guns is like trying to eradicate weeds with a staple gun.