Quote:
Originally Posted by daddio
who pays for that ?
who provides the service ?
who do they answer to ?
nice idea but it does raise some questions.
cheaper to put some cannons on the tankers.
|
We are already involved - Task Force 150 is composed of ships from about twelve nations including the US Navy and is coordinated with the US Fifth Fleet. Command rotates, but we all know who provides the technical support, such as tracking the pirates.
In fact, the Task Force has admitted it tracks the pirates and warns the ships, but can't get there in time to prevent attacks.
As to the suggestion merchant ships arm. This is a questionable practice under maritime Law, but as Capt. Sweeney points out at
Kennebec Captain: Arming merchant crew , there are practical problems:
"Any proposals to arm crews would have to include plans to train crews in the use of firearms. The problem of declining standards of seamanship skills and overworked crews seems to have been overlooked.
Does it make sense to spend time and money training merchant crews in the use of lethal force? The reluctance to arm crews is not because of any squeamishness or some kind of misguided political correctness but practicality. I get ABs from time to time that can not be taught to steer. At safety meetings we still are trying to get the concept of wearing eye protection when using power tools across to the crew, with limited success. Where is the time to train and supervise crew armed with automatic weapons going to come from?"
Also, from
Piracy and Armed Response on Ships :
The issues of deploying arms on board do not stop with insurance. There are strict rules to adhere to for the Master, who retains ultimate sovereignty over weapons on a vessel. Also, it must be remembered that some ports around the world do not permit vessels to berth with weapons on board - even if locked away in bonded store, and there are serious legal implications for those not obeying these regulations.
Apparently part of the problem with naval protection is the size of the area - the recent tanker seizure took place halfway to Madagascar, off Kenya. They simply don't have enough ships to patrol the area. My original question was why our Navy couldn't seem to track and intercept these ships with all the high-tech equipment we buy them - from further research it seems they can track them but interception is the problem.
It would seem to me one solution for this is to call in a fighter from Saudi Arabia or Egypt. One fighter could be on the scene in minutes and could easily sink a pirate vessel. (I would have to be done before they boarded the target). Warning should first be put out that any small ship approaching or following a merchant ship would automatically be considered a pirate. Egypt especially should have an interest in doing this, as the piracy is already affecting traffic through Suez, a major source of revenue to them. Saudi Arabia is closer, however.
Convoying would be another way that would work. Shipping companies would be annoyed because it would slow traffic by making ships wait for the convoy to form, but it is quicker and cheaper than the alternative of going around Africa. I would make the option available but leave it up to the shipping companies and captains, with the understanding that ships going alone take their own chances.
If the present situation is allowed to continue, how long will it be before the terrorists see an opportunity and get involved? It would probably be easy to seize a passenger vessel, or even a Navy ship - I doubt Navy sailors are armed with small arms.