Navy Seals Free Hostage

[Torakus]

......Oh... and sink the mother ships. They can't operate far into the Aden without the motherships. Those small attack boats just don't have the range to operate from shore.

Lose the rest of the it, this is where the LPCs hit the road. No matter the level of remote capability or automation, arming merchant vessels is probably not the solution. But taking the pirates long range capability will at a minimum, force them to develop a long range threat (perhaps like the Vallarta class go-fast). If nothing else we will force a small sector of Somalis into ship construction, arguably a more honest trade than piracy.

Tora

[Embar Angylwrath]

......Oh... and sink the mother ships. They can't operate far into the Aden without the motherships. Those small attack boats just don't have the range to operate from shore.

Lose the rest of the it, this is where the LPCs hit the road. No matter the level of remote capability or automation, arming merchant vessels is probably not the solution. But taking the pirates long range capability will at a minimum, force them to develop a long range threat (perhaps like the Vallarta class go-fast). If nothing else we will force a small sector of Somalis into ship construction, arguably a more honest trade than piracy.

Tora

Armed assault is ALWAYS a risk/reward calculation.

The Somalis engage in piracy because the risk/reward solution favors them. If more of them die, the r/r solution begins to shift. Also remember, this isn't a government action, its small groups of individuals. This limits their technological and strategic capacity to t tactical level. So... lets approach the solution from a tactical perspective...

A tactical perspective requires a solution that is temporal and direct. A fancy way of saying that a tactical solution requires a defeat of the tactical threat in the immediate timeframe that the threat presents itself. Which means...

Blow their shit out of the water if they are attacking you, because you don't have to worry about pissing off their non-existant and ineffectual government ...

Sink the motherships... shoot the heads off the attacking pirates... arm merchant vessels so they can defend themselves... blow raiders into shark chum...

Sometimes the simple solution is the best solution.

[Ddrak]

Arming a merchant ship doesn't make it an automatic military target. The definition of "military target' differs from country to country. And the ROEs for military engagement on a military target differ as well (and change from time to time). As an example, there are cruise ships today that have sonic weapons that aren't considered military targets.

You will have a difficult time getting privately owned vessels with this sort of weaponry in a lot of ports. In fact, isn't private ownership of M61's illegal in almost all nations, including your own?

Pirates can't afford to buy a ship, that's why they try to steal them. There is no market (at least to pirates) for a ship (the larger cost) and the weapons (the smaller cost).

Umm... are you sure you're actually understanding the situation? The ships aren't the issue. The pirates are in it mostly for the kidnapping money. Of course there's a market for the ships and weapons to the pirates, or more specifically for the weapons to "go missing" from ships and end up in pirate hands.

Also, just about any weapon short of tactical nukes is available on the arms market. Arming merchant ships wouldn't change that. And the Phalanx system is nothing more than a M61 Vulcan slaved to a maritime radar and tracking system.

If the weapons are so readily available that putting tens of thousands of them into private hands wouldn't change the availability then why aren't they on merchant ships already? Come on - you're being silly now.

How about this? US and NATO flagged ships would be equipped with the Phalanx system, on the most seaward point of the bow, stern, starboard-side and port-side. These systems would be controlled and operated remotely by a command of the US military (or neutral NATO maritime coalition). They could also be equipped with a self-destruct device that would be triggered both remotely or shipboard if command thought the capture of the system was imminent. And they could also be mounted on extension platforms, away from the main hull structure, so a few explosive bolts would send them into the deep.

Bad idea. No sane ship owner would want a remote controlled M61 on their ship which could literally go off at any time.

There are many, many, many ways to arm the ships and keep the defense systems protected (or rendered useless) to an attacking force.

Not really, which is why most weapon systems are actively destroyed before they get in the hands of non-military personnel. Physical access will always trump remote control silliness eventually.

Dd

[Trollbait]

The definition of "military target' differs from country to country.

That may be true and if you are in x,y, or z's territorial waters then those laws may apply. Typically you will be in international waters where international maritime law will apply. As I understand those laws are fairly specific as to what constitutes a warship , a merchant vessel, and a legitimate military target.

[Partha]

Why are you out to oppress Somalian entrepreneurs with your socialist government? Clearly the cargo has no value to the company since they couldn't even bother to pay for armed guards for it.

[Ddrak]

The definition of "military target' differs from country to country.

That may be true and if you are in x,y, or z's territorial waters then those laws may apply. Typically you will be in international waters where international maritime law will apply. As I understand those laws are fairly specific as to what constitutes a warship , a merchant vessel, and a legitimate military target.

Yep. It explicitly says any ship with military equipment (cargo or otherwise) that is not a warship loses their right to free passage (article 19).

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_ ... osindx.htm

Dd

[Torakus]

Dd,

I don't think article 19 says any such thing. Article 19 is a description of what Innocent Passage is, and what specific activities are not allowed during innocent passage; which does not include restrictions on cargo or equipment.

Tora

[Ddrak]

Dd,

I don't think article 19 says any such thing. Article 19 is a description of what Innocent Passage is, and what specific activities are not allowed during innocent passage; which does not include restrictions on cargo or equipment.

Tora

It has several items related to cargo/equipment:

(e) the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft;

(f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device;

(g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;

To my (non-legal) eye, that implied any military equipment, aircraft or contraband placed the ship outside innocent passage.

Or am I reading it wrong?

Dd

[Ddrak]

I should add that there's very good reasons you don't want corporations creating their own police and self-defense forces, particularly multinationals that can change flag at will. Corporations tend to be a hell of a lot more mercenary and amoral than any elected government will be.

Dd

[Torakus]

Dd,

You are reading it wrong. Article 19 is describing specific actions taken while the passage is in progress. What happens before and after the transit is of no concern to the coastal nation, unless the cargo is specifically prohibited by the laws of that coastal nation, such as in the past when Australia had laws against transit of vessels utilizing nuclear power and/or carrying radioactive cargo. A ship may pass through territorial sea while transporting military equipment, but may not load or unload any military equipment during the passage, because this could be viewed as a hostile act against the coastal nation. Launching and landing or devices pertains mostly to military aircraft, but can be applied to UAVs, and certain non-innocent uses of small surface borne craft launched from a larger vessel (not including life rafts). While it is allowed in transit passage, it is not allowed during innocent passage.

Tora

[Ddrak]

Fair enough. I'd suspect in that case the number of nations that permitted private vessels with Phalanx systems on them a rather small number - even the US with their liberal gun laws doesn't permit that sort of firepower in private hands. Like the nuclear reactors, it would seriously limit the number of ports those boats could enter.

A friend at work today pointed out the problem with going after the motherships: The pirates are primarily in the hostage business. Where do you think the hostages are? Sinking the motherships isn't going to win you too many friends if you're tossing the baby out with the bathwater, and the chances of a successful raid on every mothership (there's hundreds of them) is so small as to be nonexistant.

Dd

[Torakus]

Agreed, armed merchantmen have a history of being denied entry to ports for as long as ships have sailed the seas, and that alone is enough to discourage the idea of arming merchant sailors for self protection. The other option of providing the vessel with a military self defense force would fix that, by changing the vessel's status to military, but complicate it's port entry requirements in that permissions would have to flow through embassies or military attaches rather than through port control entities. It would require some investigation but I think in the end it would be a more effective and cheaper option.

Any plan to take out the mother ships is going to run into difficulties, but I don't think any are insurmountable. You and your friend assume that interdiction of the mother ships first phase would be to locate and destroy. That is not the case at all. In fact, it would probably be quite some time before an operation of that type would reach a point where mother ships are being scuttled. Really the process starts with determining what the battle space is, what sorts and numbers of assets are needed to carry out effective surveillance of that space, and then determine availability of those assets. That is pretty simplified and the amount of minutia involved is several orders of magnitude larger than all the individual characters that make up all of the posts ever posted to this board. But I think you get the point that it starts there, and that takes time. Then the available surface assets begin with presence operations that help establish them as a player in the region and identify the routines of the sea going traffic sharing that battle space, and provides the opportunity to establish dialogue with non-players who also share the battle space in an attempt to gather actionable intel on the mother ships and further refine traffic patterns and routines. Only after lengthy analysis would an operation to interdict and scuttle mother ships involved in piracy (both a right and obligation under UNCLOS) be initiated. Each interdiction would be different, but would all follow a rough pattern and all would have to be based on reliable intelligence (don't ask me to define reliable). The wild card is the "government" of Somalia. They or their surrogates in the form of any nation with a bone to pick with the U.S. would likely stomp feet and hold breath at the idea of the U.S. or coalition navies assimilating as stateless a fishing vessel actually flying a Somali flag. Although interdiction might happen during the early stages of all of this as a result of individual rescue operations, they would be the exception rather than the rule and the scuttling of the vessel would be carried out only after the hostages are liberated. I think you and your friend would be surprised to learn how capable the coalition navies are of doing just that type of operation and how often very similar endeavors have been planned and executed without the public ever hearing about them. Just for perspective, the number of fishing vessels involved in drug smuggling along the pacific coast of the americas is a minute percentage of the hundreds of thousands of registered vessels, yet we still routinely interdict them based on reliable intelligence and a significant amount of contraband is seized, smugglers prosecuted and vessels scuttled. I admit that a significantly larger amount of contraband still finds its way through, but that is a function of realizing the levels of assets required to flip those numbers and then doing nothing about it. On the other side, it is almost more appropriate to call the Somali fishing fleet, the Somali piracy mother ship fleet. If they have the cash flow to put to sea, it is likely as result of cooperation with the pirates, which would establish particularized suspicion, but not provide a trip wire leading to law enforcement or military action.

Anyway, all of that rambling boils down to, the idea isn't to just run around sinking any ship with a skinny on it. La vengeance est un plat qui se mange froid.

Tora

[Ddrak]

Again, makes sense. Question then is really one of whether it's worthwhile to invest in as a nation, or if you just tell your merchant ships to stay clear until Somalia sorts its shit out?

Dd

[Alluveal]

We need Chuck Norris over there.

Fuckers wouldn't stand a chance.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

We need Chuck Norris over there.

Fuckers wouldn't stand a chance.

Whats he gonna do, throw the bible at them?

[Harlowe]

Fall, so true, so true.

God I hate Chuck Norris, he's such a fucking joke. Speaking of which, I also hate Chuck Norris jokes.

[Torakus]

Question then is really one of whether it's worthwhile to invest in as a nation, or if you just tell your merchant ships to stay clear until Somalia sorts its shit out?

I don't have the answer. It depends on how much of the traffic going through the gulf of Aden either from or to the Suez canal are carrying cargo that would have an economic impact on the U.S. should it not arrive or need to be rerouted around Africa. As long as the U.S. doesn't have to go it alone, I would think the answer is yes. But again, I don't know how much the added cost and risk of rerouting traffic around the cape would be.

Tora

[Ddrak]

Yeah... uh, never mind me. I completely forgot that Somalia went that far north as to control the Red Sea. African geography

Thanks Torakus - lots to think about from someone who knows the deal orders of magnitudes better than I do.

Dd