Pirates again, and Mercs

[Adm.Lee]

I see in AOL's headlines, that an Italian cruise liner successfully repelled a pirate attack in the Indian Ocean, using the usual water hoses, and armed Israeli private security agents.

The article seems to describe the Israelis using pistols once the pirates raised boarding ladders, which deterred the actual boarding.

This line, or a rep. of some others, said they hire Israelis as security, because they are the best-trained. After their mandatory army time, the guys are looking for travel and money. {I'm thinking there are some kind of fringe bennies, too-- young and single, travelling around... }

[jester]

I read the same article. I am hoping that this idea catches on.

Now imagine if they had had a M14 or L1A1 or dare I say a M2 .50 cal? They would have one less pirate boat and half a dozen less idiots to deal with.

I must ask, why on earth are we being so nice to cutthroats? Its as if they go out of their way not to bring harm to bad actors who would kill you in a heartbeat. And the really sad thing is, they know this and play it which in turn gives them more sympathy.

I say we revert to how we dealt with pirates in the 17th and 18th centuries.

If only there were a group of men who could be armed and be placed aboard ships. And from time to time go ashore to attack badguys.....if only there were such an organization

[Webstral]

I agree with Jester. A handful of decently-trained men could make short work of raiders in a speedboat. It's sheer parsimony that cruise liners don't have such people aboard. Yes, the passengers would be unhappy to hear gunfire. Yes, a fire team rushing by and setting up an operating GP MG on the port railings tends to ruin the cocktail hour. But think of the benefits to sales! Cruise line repels pirates with loss of life to pirates! "Cruise with the safest cruise line the world!" reads the ad. The pirates will continue to make their speedboat attacks until they conclude there's nothing to be gained.

Webstral

[JimmyRay73]

While most of us who post on here would have no problem with a well trained fire team rushing to the rails and perhaps setting up a Gimpy, most cruise lines probably fear the impression that would make on the average cruise customer. Could make for an interesting challenge for "clean cut" mercs in real life or a Merc:2000 game. Or my semi-regular Ninjas & Supserspies game.

"Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to defend this cruise liner from ill-trained but ruthless Pirates, without frightening the depends off of the blue-haired granny bingo group on board."

[headquarters]

I think that wouuld be a most interesting cocktail hour ! Even better if I could sign a wiver and get a vest and a carbine and join in after 5 rounds at the ships qualifying course .(Beats afternoon rhumba with Jorge - the gem of the Caribbean).

Now - the pirates - dont you guys see any other solution to the piracy than to kill` em all and let God sort `em out?

Seriously .Somalia .Piss poor and war torn -hundreds of fat prizes labouring away right outside their scorched dry , bombed out depraved coast .from the Cornish and Irish ,the Norwegian and Danes,the sailors of the US and when it was the colonies-not to mention the rest of you brits and francophiles - (I wont even mentionm the Spanish ones as they are described as to evil to talk about without coming agcross as a bigot.A)nd those vaguely related to Francis Drake in here ( ahem!)

hehe.

Piracy has been and is commonplace and will continue to be so until the material /economic situation on the pirate shores improve .Yes -there will be the occasional evil pirate overlord who runs things from a sinister compound where young maidens are traded in white slavery for doublons ahoi! But mainly its just poor people with access to the shipping lanes and and guns.Sure they have GPS trackers and cellphones ( wow! ) .But mainly its the poverty on shore that allows for recruiting young men to this line of work .Feed them on shore and they wont be tempted or se the need for turning to piracy .

On the technical side of things it has always been the tactic of pirate hunters to go after the money - that is target those who profit onshore rather than relying on going after the pirates on the ships alone .If you can limit the ports they can enter and trade in , they would soon be on the run.
Armed guards have often been used -for instance in China in the 1920s ,where Russians were commonly employed due to the surplus of fighting men after the civil war had ended.When it comes to the question of who is better trained for the job and who to use etc - in most cases that is often a question of who charges the most .

Originally Posted by Webstral

I agree with Jester. A handful of decently-trained men could make short work of raiders in a speedboat. It's sheer parsimony that cruise liners don't have such people aboard. Yes, the passengers would be unhappy to hear gunfire. Yes, a fire team rushing by and setting up an operating GP MG on the port railings tends to ruin the cocktail hour. But think of the benefits to sales! Cruise line repels pirates with loss of life to pirates! "Cruise with the safest cruise line the world!" reads the ad. The pirates will continue to make their speedboat attacks until they conclude there's nothing to be gained.

Webstral

[General Pain]

http://www.icc-ccs.org/index.php?opt...ns=0&Itemid=82

http://www.icc-ccs.org/index.php?opt...map&Itemid=219

btw: u guys must see the last episode of Soutphark....Cartman goes to Somalia to be a Pirate hehe

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by JimmyRay73

While most of us who post on here would have no problem with a well trained fire team rushing to the rails and perhaps setting up a Gimpy, most cruise lines probably fear the impression that would make on the average cruise customer.

Yeah, that's the way it seems.

Its not like the security guards are running around on deck armed and ready. The pistols are kept in a safe and only accessible by the security chief and captain.

[jester]

Ah, but the poverty and depraved conditions ashore are self created and continued by them. The poverty and starvation and such is used as a weapon against one another. And it is these very same people who do everything they can to prevent anyone from helping. Even those starving are not helping themselves out of the situation.

So I really have no sympathy for that sort, they are in essence committing genocide upon one another. So, I very much do feel along the lines of killing them all and letting God sort them out. I further feel they should be treated in a barbaric manner as they are accustomed and would inflict upon you, me or any of their other enemies.

The sad fact of the matter in the 3rd World LIFE IS CHEAP! And many of that sort only respect a gun in the hand and only when it is aimed at them or they are our gunned or outclassed and they know you will use it.

Originally Posted by headquarters

I think that wouuld be a most interesting cocktail hour ! Even better if I could sign a wiver and get a vest and a carbine and join in after 5 rounds at the ships qualifying course .(Beats afternoon rhumba with Jorge - the gem of the Caribbean).

Now - the pirates - dont you guys see any other solution to the piracy than to kill` em all and let God sort `em out?

Seriously .Somalia .Piss poor and war torn -hundreds of fat prizes labouring away right outside their scorched dry , bombed out depraved coast .from the Cornish and Irish ,the Norwegian and Danes,the sailors of the US and when it was the colonies-not to mention the rest of you brits and francophiles - (I wont even mentionm the Spanish ones as they are described as to evil to talk about without coming agcross as a bigot.A)nd those vaguely related to Francis Drake in here ( ahem!)

hehe.

Piracy has been and is commonplace and will continue to be so until the material /economic situation on the pirate shores improve .Yes -there will be the occasional evil pirate overlord who runs things from a sinister compound where young maidens are traded in white slavery for doublons ahoi! But mainly its just poor people with access to the shipping lanes and and guns.Sure they have GPS trackers and cellphones ( wow! ) .But mainly its the poverty on shore that allows for recruiting young men to this line of work .Feed them on shore and they wont be tempted or se the need for turning to piracy .

On the technical side of things it has always been the tactic of pirate hunters to go after the money - that is target those who profit onshore rather than relying on going after the pirates on the ships alone .If you can limit the ports they can enter and trade in , they would soon be on the run.
Armed guards have often been used -for instance in China in the 1920s ,where Russians were commonly employed due to the surplus of fighting men after the civil war had ended.When it comes to the question of who is better trained for the job and who to use etc - in most cases that is often a question of who charges the most .

[headquarters]

Well, thats one mans view.

Anyways - lets not get into the politics bit more than we already did.

About fighting off a pirate assault as a mission - could be a great scenario if the defenders werent too well armed .( a few skeet guns they keep on the hobby deck ,some assorted cutlery and tools , the captains S&W ) Too make it even more interesting you could postulate that the pirates get enraged by recieving gunfire and start an action movie hostage/sneak around the ship thing whilst the crew and passengers are locked up etc etc.The task force must be inaccessible for along time of course due to ..eh..the annual navy personell conference in Nairobi and a sudden outburst of salmonella in the flotilla...

Originally Posted by jester

Ah, but the poverty and depraved conditions ashore are self created and continued by them. The poverty and starvation and such is used as a weapon against one another. And it is these very same people who do everything they can to prevent anyone from helping. Even those starving are not helping themselves out of the situation.

So I really have no sympathy for that sort, they are in essence committing genocide upon one another. So, I very much do feel along the lines of killing them all and letting God sort them out. I further feel they should be treated in a barbaric manner as they are accustomed and would inflict upon you, me or any of their other enemies.

The sad fact of the matter in the 3rd World LIFE IS CHEAP! And many of that sort only respect a gun in the hand and only when it is aimed at them or they are our gunned or outclassed and they know you will use it.

[Raellus]

Unfortunately, warlords and criminal gangs rule Somalia. We tried to help back in the early '90s with loads of humanitarian aid but the punks kept 'jacking it. Then we decided to get tough with the warlords and they pulled a "Black Hawk Down" on us. So we got out. The punks still rule.

Not sure what else we can do. Our "nation building" record (in that region, in particular) has not been that great.

Anyway, I read that shipping companies are reluctant to use armed security for two main reasons. A lot of commercial cargo is highly flammable or explosive. Second, they don't want the pirates to get violent. Apparently, the shipping companies are cool with their employees being taken hostage and ransomed for milions of dollars but are not cool with them being shot at and/or killed. Makes some sense, but not a whole lot.

I'm no accountant but I would guess that hiring a half-dozen or so "private security contractors" for travel through the embattled passage would be a lot cheaper than paying ransoms. Maybe not.

Someone here suggested having amphib/navy ships at both ends of the danger zone, then loading a squad of marines or a SEAL squad at one end, and pulling them off at the other. Simple, cheap, and effective. I just don't get why this is not SOP at the moment.

Villigant, determined, and resourceful crews alone have proven again and again that they can foil attempted boarders with little more than firehoses. Give them the tools and the training and piracy would soon become a very unlucrative profession. Even during piracy's "Golden Age" back in the 1600s & 1700s, a crew that actually fought back (given relatively equal strenght) stood a pretty good chance of getting away. And that was before radar, radios, modern small arms, etc.

Considering that a few Israelis with pistols chased off a group of AK-armed pirates, I would bet that just the sight of a couple of ARs would be enough to chase off most pirates.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Anyway, I read that shipping companies are reluctant to use armed security for two main reasons. A lot of commercial cargo is highly flammable or explosive. Second, they don't want the pirates to get violent. Apparently, the shipping companies are cool with their employees being taken hostage and ransomed for milions of dollars but are not cool with them being shot at and/or killed. Makes some sense, but not a whole lot.

Not to mention the sheer amount of ship traffic in that area. Just putting a few men on a small percentage would be a huge undertaking. From how I've read things, in the bigger picture (or for larger companies) you would be saving more money by not hiring them and paying for any ransom. The chance of getting hijacked is very low when you consider how much shipping goes through this area.

[headquarters]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

Not to mention the sheer amount of ship traffic in that area. Just putting a few men on a small percentage would be a huge undertaking. From how I've read things, in the bigger picture (or for larger companies) you would be saving more money by not hiring them and paying for any ransom. The chance of getting hijacked is very low when you consider how much shipping goes through this area.

the fact is that up until now,piracy has been a lot more commonplace than people think .The last months high profile attacks outside Somalia have tuned everyone in on it .But attacks were the pirates rob the crew and steal what they can from the cargo has been going on for decades in many waters .The shipping firms arnt that keen on reporting the incidents.A report means laying up in a harbour for a week while police do their thing .This costs a lot of money .Then the insurance companies get in on the action and up the prices .
The owners would rather the pirates take a few thousand dollars in money and some cargo than delay the ship .Ultimately that would be much more costly .Armed guards would mean that the hold up would be more likely and longer lasting - explaining a bullet riddled hull and a few dead bodies tend to slow things down in customs.

the seal team /USMC squad on either end of the piracy zone to be embarked and disembarked by chopper as an ad hoc security team is a huge mission .just count the number of craft going through the area .Also - the legal and political issues: do the Russians want USMC on their ships ? Do the US want Chinese commandos on theirs ? What court will setle the matter of a Russian drunk former spetsnaz sailor and the US soldier getting into an ugly scrap over "whos actually the more elite force ?"

A bit of a weird example - but you know something along those lines .

[Legbreaker]

My understanding is that the vast majority of the ransoms are actually coming from the insurance companies. While I'm sure the insurers would like nothing more than eliminating the pirates, there's small issues such as international law getting in the way and the fact that what they're paying out is a very small fraction of the insurance premiums they're collecting world wide.

To employ private security to sit on their hands for potentially months at a time would cost a lot more, and guess where those costs would be passed on to? The shipping companies, and ultimately us, the consumers of the goods those ships are carrying.

Economics are driving the whole thing when you strip it down. Payouts of ransoms just aren't significant enough to warrant the expenditure by private companies (even the larger multinationals) to secure each and every ship, or even a token random selection. The companies bottom line is better served by prodding the various world governments to take action - costs the companies nothing that they're not already claiming against their insurance, or writing off in some way to avoid tax....

[General Pain]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

My understanding is that the vast majority of the ransoms are actually coming from the insurance companies. While I'm sure the insurers would like nothing more than eliminating the pirates, there's small issues such as international law getting in the way and the fact that what they're paying out is a very small fraction of the insurance premiums they're collecting world wide.

To employ private security to sit on their hands for potentially months at a time would cost a lot more, and guess where those costs would be passed on to? The shipping companies, and ultimately us, the consumers of the goods those ships are carrying.

Economics are driving the whole thing when you strip it down. Payouts of ransoms just aren't significant enough to warrant the expenditure by private companies (even the larger multinationals) to secure each and every ship, or even a token random selection. The companies bottom line is better served by prodding the various world governments to take action - costs the companies nothing that they're not already claiming against their insurance, or writing off in some way to avoid tax....

hmm..So the Insurance companies are the ones that should pay mercs...probably cheaper than paying insurance claims.....

[jester]

One thing to consider,

The ransoms have been in the millions of dollars as well as the $100,000 contained in the ships safes.

And that is the pot of gold at the end of the raindow for the pirates, that is inspiring more and more to take the chance and go a pirating, that is why we are seeing an increase as of late.

And the horriffic thing is, what is going to happen when they finaly do take a cruise ship with a few thousand passengers hostage, forget the thousand or so crew they are mostly from the third world and expendable to the insurance companies?

So poof in one great piece of luch they now have 3000 hostages? What then? I would bet my pension those same companies and cowardly countries would be up in arms as to "why hasn't anything been done?" Meaning <why did the US take them out years ago?....my hate is growing for cowards from abroad who refuse to maintain their own freedom and demand I provide it for them and the rest of the world.>

[headquarters]

If that comment belongs on these boards it should be in the rants and rave thread .

jeez.

Originally Posted by jester

What then? I would bet my pension those same companies and cowardly countries would be up in arms as to "why hasn't anything been done?" Meaning <why did the US take them out years ago?....my hate is growing for cowards from abroad who refuse to maintain their own freedom and demand I provide it for them and the rest of the world.>

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by General Pain

hmm..So the Insurance companies are the ones that should pay mercs...probably cheaper than paying insurance claims.....

Actually, no.
The payouts are likely cheaper than hiring mercs to sit about doing nothing potentially for months at a time - at the very least weeks between ports. Added to the mercs fees are transportation costs - the hiring party is likely to be responsible for flying the mercs around from port to port (they'd obviously not be needed away from the piracy areas).
And of course there's the supply of weapons for their use. They'd most likely be weapons assigned to the ships rather than the mercs - too many issues in port otherwise getting them on and off.

The thing to remember is that it's not just one insurer who's covering all the claims - although millions are being paid out on a fairly regular basis, each company might only be hit a few times a year so it's a bit hard for their accountants to justify the certain expense of year round, permanent mercs on ships against the uncertainty of a successful pirate hijacking.

[theDevil]

would cost $50000 for three days security detail.

when you think about the amount of ship going through here, you can start to understand that not many are willing to pay this for each trip...

but there are some japanese ship patroling the area, so it should be secure...

[Webstral]

It will be interesting to see when the economics hit the tipping point.

Webstral

[Targan]

Originally Posted by theDevil

but there are some japanese ship patroling the area, so it should be secure...

There are an amazing array of ships patrolling the area or being sent to join patrols. Even Australia is sending a couple of ships (and we really don't have a very mighty navy at all). The piracy issue does seem to have galvanized many governments into action in this area.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

Not to mention the sheer amount of ship traffic in that area. Just putting a few men on a small percentage would be a huge undertaking. From how I've read things, in the bigger picture (or for larger companies) you would be saving more money by not hiring them and paying for any ransom. The chance of getting hijacked is very low when you consider how much shipping goes through this area.

I guess I just don't have a firm grasp of the economics of this whole mess.

If insurance pays for the ransoms, it stands to reason that premiums would skyrocket. This would increase the cost of shipping and this cost would eventually trickle down to the consumer.

Now, one of the American crewmen from the headliner ship is suing. Littigation: the American way. Makes me proud to be an American (NOT!). Lawsuits are yet another expense the shipping companies will be facing if they continue to allow their ships to be hijacked. This is going to start adding up. Then again, I suppose pirates could sue if they were injured by armed security.

I still can't see why certain cargo would not be worth a little added protection. For example, that boatload of Ukranian tanks that got jacked a couple of months ago.

Instead of paying for private security contractors to ride along, why don't shipping companies pay for firearms and training for their crews. Considering the alternatives (PSC's, paying ransoms, higher insurance premiums), this would be really cheap.

I guess I just don't like doing nothing and complaining about the results. These pirates may come from a chaotic, impoverished region, but piracy is still a crime. Simply rolling over and letting it slide? I can't abide. As a taxpayer, it bugs me that I'm paying for my military to protect shipping companies that could be doing a lot more to protect themselves.

Piracy has been an issue in the region for a while now. It's also pretty bad in the South China Sea, Philippine Sea, and Java straights. National Geographic did a feature in the last couple of years on Indonesian (or was it Malayan) pirates. You'd think the international community would have come up with a comprehensive, effective program to deal with piracy by now.

[kcdusk]

Originally Posted by Raellus

As a taxpayer, it bugs me that I'm paying for my military to protect shipping companies that could be doing a lot more to protect themselves.

Armed response to pirates might not be seen as "core business" for shipping companies.

Diesel mechanic, check. Knot tieing, check. Navigation by stars, check. Ability to fire automatic weapons, um .... no but i am willing to learn on the job.

Arming crew (non-combatants) probably isnt the right way to go.

Do airplanes pay for undercover sky marshals? (I dont know the answer).
Just thinking of a similar situation. Its almost like asking basic ships crew to make a citazens arrest.

I think having a well defined shipping lane that is protected by a UN type force (OK, dont laugh at the UN idea) might work better. Not sure how practical it is though having shipping restricted to a super-sea-way.

[jester]

I was studying for my merchant marine papers a few years ago. And they had specialty training for crew members which allowed them a bonus. Like lifeboat something or other I forget. Another for life saver, another for rescue swimmer. Simply add a secondary or specailty billet of gunner as an additional duty with a small monthly bonus the same as they do for the other specialty additional duties, all voluntary but paid for by the company, or their merchant membership.

And the pecident does exist in WWI and WWII when they put weapons on the ships to combat submarines, provide air protection and from comerce raiding Q ships.

It can be done, it should be done and it can be done cost effectivly, the only real cost is the weapons mount, cheaply done, the weapons system a M2 .50 goes for about $5k per unit, add initial training of another 1 to 5 K per man, and then annual or biannual qualification less than $1k with 2 mounts per vessel, to give a decent amount of coverage the cost is less than 50k for the all gun crews and weapons systems for a year. That is alot less than what they spend on fuel bipassing the region.

As for "MERCENARYS" they can simply do what the cruise ships have started doing with passengers.

The put into port before they hit the zone, and bus the passengers to an airport then fly the passengers out of the hot zone, then bus them to the port where they will meet up with the ship as the ships sails on without passengers.

I would think doing this for a dozen men is alot cheaper than for a thousand or more civilians.

Hell, they could just have platoons of say 24 six men per ship.

A platoon in the North, a platoon in the South, six men per ship.

And they just switch one South bound team replaces a North bound team, when youy have to many men in one area without enough in the other, they are bused back and they start all over again.

[theDevil]

..or some other news agent, that even somalien fishingmen where a bit fed up of the pirates, and a group of fishermen had captured or killed 9 pirates trying to take their fishing boats... ...so there are good men doing good things even in somalia...

the way they go about their buisniss is another discussion, but everythings abit different in africa, or atleast where i have been down there (only west coast).

and it was here i saw it, and the number where bigger, 12... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8023951.stm

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by jester

It can be done, it should be done and it can be done cost effectivly, the only real cost is the weapons mount, cheaply done, the weapons system a M2 .50 goes for about $5k per unit, add initial training of another 1 to 5 K per man, and then annual or biannual qualification less than $1k with 2 mounts per vessel, to give a decent amount of coverage the cost is less than 50k for the all gun crews and weapons systems for a year. That is alot less than what they spend on fuel bipassing the region.

In many cases the hijackings occur stealthfully. They side up to the vessel at night and board. There's nothing a mounted weapon would prevent in these common cases. As well, pirates would now be armed with captured mounted 50s... which is a little more than the AKs they have now.

Armed ships? A lot of nations have regulations about armed vessels entering their ports. That's going to be a big international headache to have to sort out.

Inadvertent killings? A US navy ship killed an Egyptian a few months ago because he was trying to get his speedboat close enough to sell cigarettes. Its common practice in that area it seems. Who's to say the boat approaching are pirates if they are not shooting or openly wielding weapons? I have my doubts that the gunners can pull this off in a sea chock full of small boats without killing some innocent fisherman.

I just don't think the solution is as simple as mounting weaponry.

[jester]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

In many cases the hijackings occur stealthfully. They side up to the vessel at night and board. There's nothing a mounted weapon would prevent in these common cases. As well, pirates would now be armed with captured mounted 50s... which is a little more than the AKs they have now.

And that is why a few extra men on watch are needed. When a small boat is sighted, the alert is sounded, the ship takes counter measures to include manning the gun and the high pressure firehoses and the captain relays their position so warships in the region can come to the scene or at least monitor the situation. A ships officer should use a video camera to film the pirates so that they can use it later to identify them. When the vessels get within range and a warning has been made they get opened up on with the .50, they try to board remember boarding a vessel at night while moving is not that easy. They they get his with the hoses and should it come to it, small arms. Another cool idea some of those M37 cylinder loaded grenade launchers loaded with CS and even stink bombs send a few rounds of those into the attacking vessels that would make their boarding very difficicult.

Armed ships? A lot of nations have regulations about armed vessels entering their ports. That's going to be a big international headache to have to sort out.

Let the lawyers settle that. Remember, alot of countries also have issues with alcohol, tobacco and porn too. But, there is a reason ships sail under various flags, and as I recall due to its flag it is in many aspects considered almost sovern soil of the nation under which it is flagged. Of course then we have the nationality of the crew and the ownership of the company/shipping line.



Inadvertent killings? A US navy ship killed an Egyptian a few months ago because he was trying to get his speedboat close enough to sell cigarettes. Its common practice in that area it seems. Who's to say the boat approaching are pirates if they are not shooting or openly wielding weapons? I have my doubts that the gunners can pull this off in a sea chock full of small boats without killing some innocent fisherman.

Sh-it happens. It happened in the PI, Oki and other places where the locals would sneak on the bases to steal the spent cassings, salvage metal from unexploded ordinance and similiar. Sorry but such things happens. Then again the area is a "hot zone" so it is not as if they do not know the risks of doing such stupid things. With such incidents as the Cole and other similiar attacks it is a do it at your own risk thing.

You are in Thailand, do they still have the bonka boats that go out to the US Navy ships? I would imagine they no longer do as a result of such incidents as the Cole.

I just don't think the solution is as simple as mounting weaponry.

It is more than mounting weapons for sure. Vigilance on the part of the crews who are often 3rd worlders and from what I hear not the best sailors and surely not the most dilligent for sure. But arming vessels, puitting troops on some vessels <like the sky marshalls they are not on all planes, but it is up to the badguys to figure it out, a gamble for the badies. And awareness and comitment on the parts of the crews and ships, and yes military action on the pirate centers. Some say the problem is the poverty of the region, so should we go back into Somalia and eliminate the leading badguys who are preventing the aid from getting through and prevenitng the normalcy from returning to the land? NOT GONNA HAPPEN! Who is going to go into Somalia? And force them by gunpoint to stop fighting? And to do so you would have to eliminate the entire clan system and clan loyalty. And if the woeful state they live in and their children are raised is not enough incentive for them, then it just is not going to happen. They do not want it! So give them what they understand, a hard kick and hot lead.

[Adm.Lee]

I've been told one of the main reasons merchant crews are not armed is that the captains and owners then have to fear for their lives and ships.

Before this burst of Somali piracy, one of the flavors of modern piracy was that ships and cargoes would "disappear." Some of the crew would take over, sail to an out-of-the-way spot, rename the hull and sell the cargo. The rest of the crew would be paid off, and the insurance company is left to figure out what happened.

RE: WW2, the AA guns and crews that were placed on merchant ships were, IIRC, naval crewmen-- the US Navy Armed Guard. The ship's civilian crews were not involved.

[jester]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

I've been told one of the main reasons merchant crews are not armed is that the captains and owners then have to fear for their lives and ships.

Before this burst of Somali piracy, one of the flavors of modern piracy was that ships and cargoes would "disappear." Some of the crew would take over, sail to an out-of-the-way spot, rename the hull and sell the cargo. The rest of the crew would be paid off, and the insurance company is left to figure out what happened.

RE: WW2, the AA guns and crews that were placed on merchant ships were, IIRC, naval crewmen-- the US Navy Armed Guard. The ship's civilian crews were not involved.

The navy and coastguard would put personel on the ships, but, some of the crew of the ship also formed parts of the gun crews, it doesn't matter if you are a trigger puller of one of half a dozen men handing ammo to the loader a member of a gun crew is a member of a gun crew, and all are versed in how to operate the system, that is one of the rules of being on a gun crew. <to not is a failure of the team/crew leader.>

Now, how is this for a T2K scenario,]

A mewrchant vessel in the hands of some small time warlords on some barren coast. It has "parts" the parts themself are so much metal, but they turn out to be critial parts to a Bradely or M1 or something else, along wiith so many other supplies needed for the war effort.

Think of the container ships. Only the containers that are topside can be looted, those that are stacked on the inside are safe.

Or how about a PC, who was a member of the merchant marine, a good idea for an older character, and for the record, most are former military, some like the military sealift command actictively recruit military folks.

[headquarters]

there are always more than one side to the story though - armed response is well and good if you could only say with certainty that there isnt ANY right on the other side ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann..._b_155147.html

[kato13]

The story above would have resonated with me if the pirates had demanded an investigation or policy change rather than money for their hijackings or if they had directed their violence against either of the two groups which are presumed to have wronged them (dumpers or fishers).

I've done a little digging and from what I have read the a majority of dumping that occurred came from the Italian mafia. I wonder if those ships arm themselves and are therefore not as easy of a target.