This is a discussion on Pirates attack second US vessel! within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by DrLewall we have to "give them a chance"..we are after all, a kinder, gentler nation, right? Yup, cause if there is one ...
Put a half dozen Blackwater guys on a ship and you can almost guarantee the attacks on US ships will stop.:)
07/02 FFL/SOT since 2006
Probably the only home based FFL that doesn't do transfers.
It doesn't have to be Blackwater guys you know. A company of WELL ARMED Marines would do the trick.
Pick 'em up near the canal from a carrier. Drop 'em off to another carrier down south or vice/versa. No extra funds needed from any government or insurance companies. Orders would be to shoot to kill ANY unauthorized attempt at piracy with heavy weapons authorized. Warships would also continue to stand by for assistance.
A video camera would be a must have for those countries who would scream about how the US is indiscriminately killing innocent Somali civilians engaged in peaceful fishing endeavors.
Oh, and there ought to be a campaign ribbon for it too.
Last edited by Rob P.; April 15th, 2009 at 01:45 PM. Reason: target change
This is actually good news. This way no one can complain when we go in and finish these clowns off. A couple hundred dead pirates is long overdue.
Above ,people were talking about ancient societies and why they haven't figured these types of things out. The problem is their culture, or lack thereof. Feudal, tribal cultures,superstitious and fearful of change, add a crazy 'religion' to it and any sort of societal progress is completely stifled. Anyone who isn't with the program is silenced, quickly and permanently. Throw in a lack of education and you have a recipe to keep themselves in the Stone Ages. At the risk of not being PC I must say that Western civilization and Judeo/Christian values are far better than what these cultures bring to the table. I say this not from a viewpoint of religion because I'm an atheist but from a viewpoint of philosophy. Until these people change their minds they can't change their lives.
We need to send a few decoy ships over loaded with a "few good men"!
“The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.”.... Albert Einstein
Was watching Fox News the other day and they were interviewing a retired USN Captain who is now CEO of a maritime security company.
He was explaining that there are several shipping companies who do hire contract maritime security details for their ships. And while in International waters, weapons on board is not an issue.
The problem is going in and out of port when you are within sovereign territory of a country. So many countries prohibit weapons on board ships while in their waters or in port.
So companies which do have contracted maritime security forces have to wait until a cargo ship leaves port and enters international waters and then ferry the weapons and personnel out to the ship already at sea. Then they have to remove said weapons and personnel before the ship enters the next port.
That is not only a logistical nightmare, but also a very expensive thing to have to do each and every time a ship enters or leaves the boundary waters of a foreign countries.
So there are shipping companies out there who do provide armed security for their cargo and crews, but not very many of them want the expense or liability so they go without.
"The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."
So basically the shipping companies want to scrimp on the safety of their crews and cargo, meanwhile the U.S. and other Navies have to spend what I'd imagine amounts to several fortunes to patrol and police the area.
The way I see it is this: If you can afford to run the ship you can afford to safeguard your people. scrimp somewhere else, the safety of the people should be paramount.
It's obvious that ports that won't allow arms need to change their policies or lose the business. Make new laws or get rid of old ones,laws can change. If the shipping Companies had to pay the ransoms instead of the insurers, I'll bet they'd come up with a solution quick. I'm all for saving our people but I really think that it should be done privately without tying up the Navy. The time to stop the pirates is before they get the ship.
Ok, I feel better now, thanks.
My brother and I have been talking about what firearms a security team should have on board. The obvious answer is what they are trained with, but what do you all think would work best?
Here is my thinking:
- Designated Marksmen with .50BMG rifles and high-power scopes
- Additional personel would have 7.62mm 'assault rifles', light machine guns, and 12GA shotguns which would come into play at closer range, as well as handguns.
I have a question for you experienced members (OPFOR, SIXTO?) - When would the team open fire? Only when fired on, or before?
I think they should hire companies like Blackwater it shouldn't take more the 4 operators per ship with the right armament and if you start killing the pirates it becomes a losing proposition and they will stop. They are the bullies of the sea.
I think that fighting the pirates from smaller ,more mobile boats is better, escort the big ships through. Who wants a fire fight on a ship with LNG on it ? I wouldn't.
Open fire as soon as you know that they're pirates. The seas there aren't exactly crowded with pleasure boaters. Fishermen and people in smaller boats tend to give freighters a wide berth. With radar you can see a boat from a god distance, even with binoculars or the naked eye you can see forever at sea. Hail them on the radio,if no answer orchangeof course..sink 'em. If they aren't engaged in fishing, dragging a net,checking lines or trolling ,light'em up.
United - that mix would be pretty reasonable. You'd want something like the M107 for stand off engagements, and something along the lines of a FAL or 7.62AR would be ideal for if they got within 500m or so. Having a few shotguns handy to repel boarders is always a good idea, but if they are already getting on board then the security team has pretty much failed. Four men, suitably armed and trained, could keep the "standard" pirate boat at bay indefinitely.
A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.
Thanks for the replies.
PNUT - Being a civilian who has never seen combat of any kind, I balk at the thought of firing on someone without knowing that they pose a lethal threat. I understand the concept of a preemptive strike, however, and its importance on the high seas. Also, I agree that most boats would steer clear (pun intended) of any large ship. At the same time, just because a boat is seen with several armed Africans on board does not mean they are miscreants (after all, who would not arm themselves if they had to go out to sea in that region?). I guess the security team would fire if the boat approached...
OPFOR - Glad to hear that my list makes sense! When do you think they would/should open fire? Also (slightly OT), I've heard USCG personnel refer to their handguns as 'PDWs', and I was wondering: Does that term only apply to handguns? I didn't think to ask at the time. Thanks!