Ending Somali piracy: few options for US forces

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:01:12 GMT, "Riley 77"
wrote:


"Gettamulla Tupya" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 22:38:35 -0400, "Tom K"
wrote:

I saw this article on Yahoo regarding Somali Piracy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090414/...cy_few_options

3 Small excerpts:

"Stamping out Somalia's piracy scourge using U.S. warships or military
force
will be virtually impossible, according to maritime experts who said
Tuesday
the real problems lie ashore in the ashes of Somalia's failed state."

"Perhaps the biggest obstacle ... is the sheer size of the seas around
the
Gulf of Aden and Somalia's 1,900-mile coastline, the longest in Africa.
It's
impossible for ships to be everywhere at once, and they can only guard a
tiny fraction of the tens of thousands of vessels that transit the region
annually."

"Most nations and ship owners have been reticent to use military options
...
pirates have rarely harmed hostages."


There is only one option to end the piracy.

Kill the *******s.


Yeah, I've never quite understood this so called "legality" they have to do
this sort of thing.

How bout a couple of waves of fighters n such carpet bomb the coast
line....they have to sail from somewhere.

Or we could just tell that part of the world. "Hey...you want food? YOU
stop the pirates".

You're a loony.
Thumper

On Apr 15, 7:05*pm, Charles wrote:
In article , Tom K

wrote:
So... you want to give high end weapons to cargo ships with crew from
countries like Liberia, etc? *You can't give the cargo ships something
simple like guns if the pirates have rocket launchers. *So if you give cargo
ships high end weapons, how long before those high end weapons are sold on
the black market?

Instead of giving the cargo ships weapons I would suggest setting up
convoys of a bunch of ships protected by military ships like they did
against the German subs.

Or like they do with tour buses in Egypt.

R

On Apr 15, 5:03 pm, Nonnymus wrote:

Why is it any of our business what a Liberian ship carries in the way of
defensive arms? I thought we were discussing American ships. I believe
we armed merchant ships during wartime, so I see little difference.The
exclusion zone would be a good thing, since it could be defended from
the air. . . warning shots followed by true interdiction.

I doubt any country would invite well-armed - and essentially
impossible to inspect - ships pulling into their ports. Maybe the
ships could hire pirates to ferry the stuff to shore?

R

In article ,
"Tom K" wrote:

"JCarnaghie" wrote in message
...
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Tom K" wrote:
Brilliant... I guess you didn't bother to read the article. They can't
even find them. There's 1900 miles of coast line. And when they do find
a boat, they can't tell the difference between real fishermen and
pirates. And last time we tried something on land in that country, it
resulted in the real life case of "Black Hawk Down".
The only real way might be to pull the ships a little farther away
from land, declare an exclusion zone and say anything originating on the
coast that goes past that point will be sunk. Period. Even that is iffy
at best.

It might be iffy, but it certainly would put a crimp in the pirates
operations. No small boat fishermen go 100 miles offshore to legally
"fish" so it would not impact the legal folks.
The real "problem" is that there is no functioning government, and
successful pirates make lots of money without any apparent risk. Kill a
few dozen of them, and "properly" display their remains and you might see
a real difference in the number wanting to go "pirating.".
Meanwhile, give the ship's crews some appropriate arms and some training
to increase their self defense capability.
Cheers,
John in LALALand (On the Left Coast)

So... you want to give high end weapons to cargo ships with crew from
countries like Liberia, etc? You can't give the cargo ships something
simple like guns if the pirates have rocket launchers. So if you give cargo
ships high end weapons, how long before those high end weapons are sold on
the black market?

--Tom

It really wouldn't take high end weapons to do the job. A few .50 cal.
machine guns strategically mounted on a ship would dispatch the pirates
quite well. It is far easier to hit a boat in the water than to hit a
target from that small boat.

A couple of JDAM visits to the pirate chiefs' lairs would crimp the
operation, too.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:12:04 -0400, "Tom K" wrote:

There is only one option to end the piracy.

Kill the *******s.

Brilliant... I guess you didn't bother to read the article. They can't even
find them. There's 1900 miles of coast line. And when they do find a boat,
they can't tell the difference between real fishermen and pirates. And last
time we tried something on land in that country, it resulted in the real
life case of "Black Hawk Down".

The answer is very simple. Let the pirates come to meet their doom.

A few armed troops on every ship traversing the area will soon see the problem evaporate.

In article , Tom K
wrote:

So... you want to give high end weapons to cargo ships with crew from
countries like Liberia, etc? You can't give the cargo ships something
simple like guns if the pirates have rocket launchers. So if you give cargo
ships high end weapons, how long before those high end weapons are sold on
the black market?

Charles wrote:
Instead of giving the cargo ships weapons I would suggest setting up
convoys of a bunch of ships protected by military ships like they did
against the German subs.


There! I was waiting to see if someone would suggest that. I was going
to suggest it myself if no one did.

I don't know how many ships sail past that area every day, but it seems
that all the ships for the day, or even 2 days worth should hold back
and all travel in a tight group. Have at least one military ship
traveling with them.
Depending on need, they could go north one day and south the next, or
both ways each day. Sure, someone would have to pay for the military
ships but think of the cost of fuel for all ships to travel extra miles
to stay way off the coast. If it keeps the pirates from getting richer
and stronger, it's money well spent.

Steve

Nonnymus wrote:
Tom K wrote:

"JCarnaghie" wrote in message
...

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Tom K" wrote:

Brilliant... I guess you didn't bother to read the article. They
can't even find them. There's 1900 miles of coast line. And when
they do find a boat, they can't tell the difference between real
fishermen and pirates. And last time we tried something on land in
that country, it resulted in the real life case of "Black Hawk Down".

The only real way might be to pull the ships a little farther
away from land, declare an exclusion zone and say anything
originating on the coast that goes past that point will be sunk.
Period. Even that is iffy at best.

It might be iffy, but it certainly would put a crimp in the pirates
operations. No small boat fishermen go 100 miles offshore to legally
"fish" so it would not impact the legal folks.
The real "problem" is that there is no functioning government, and
successful pirates make lots of money without any apparent risk. Kill
a few dozen of them, and "properly" display their remains and you
might see a real difference in the number wanting to go "pirating.".
Meanwhile, give the ship's crews some appropriate arms and some
training to increase their self defense capability.
Cheers,
John in LALALand (On the Left Coast)


So... you want to give high end weapons to cargo ships with crew from
countries like Liberia, etc? You can't give the cargo ships something
simple like guns if the pirates have rocket launchers. So if you give
cargo ships high end weapons, how long before those high end weapons
are sold on the black market?

--Tom


Why is it any of our business what a Liberian ship carries in the way of
defensive arms? I thought we were discussing American ships. I believe
we armed merchant ships during wartime, so I see little difference.The
exclusion zone would be a good thing, since it could be defended from
the air. . . warning shots followed by true interdiction.

Another alternative would be to let groups of Americans charter ships
and sail them deliberately in harm's way. Aboard would be the
Americans, but secretly armed to the teeth. When the pirates approach
the vessel, they'd get the surprise of their soon-to-be brief life. The
Americans could keep the trophies- appropriately mounted- and it'd be a
great version of going on an African Safari.

George, Ray or Cal could arrange the hunting charter.

Nonny,
I was indeed thinking about American ships,
the ones that the pirates now say they are going
to single out for attack.
In W.W.II we did indeed arm merchant ships,
and a couple of 20 mm or 40 mm cannons would be
more than adequate to "ring the bells" of any of
today's small boat pirates. I bet one could
purchase a couple of old Bofors 40 mm guns for not
too much money and mount them in a cargo
container. Wouldn't that be a great surprise! Of
course equip them with Night Vision gear and a
laser range finder to make sure "first shot" hits
were the order of the day.
Cheers,
John in LALALand (On the left coast)

[Default] Thus spake "Tom K" :


"Gettamulla Tupya" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 22:38:35 -0400, "Tom K"
wrote:

I saw this article on Yahoo regarding Somali Piracy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090414/...cy_few_options

3 Small excerpts:

"Stamping out Somalia's piracy scourge using U.S. warships or military
force
will be virtually impossible, according to maritime experts who said
Tuesday
the real problems lie ashore in the ashes of Somalia's failed state."

"Perhaps the biggest obstacle ... is the sheer size of the seas around
the
Gulf of Aden and Somalia's 1,900-mile coastline, the longest in Africa.
It's
impossible for ships to be everywhere at once, and they can only guard a
tiny fraction of the tens of thousands of vessels that transit the region
annually."

"Most nations and ship owners have been reticent to use military options
...
pirates have rarely harmed hostages."


There is only one option to end the piracy.

Kill the *******s.

Brilliant... I guess you didn't bother to read the article. They can't even
find them. There's 1900 miles of coast line. And when they do find a boat,
they can't tell the difference between real fishermen and pirates. And last
time we tried something on land in that country, it resulted in the real
life case of "Black Hawk Down".



I'm in favor of supplying a small military presence on random ships.
The pirates would have no way of knowing whether this would be their
lucky day or their last day. Q ships are also attractive.

I saw a political cartoon today. The top showed a Somali pirate + 1
million dollars = one million pirates. The bottom showed a Somali
pirate + a bullet = one less pirate.
--

- dillon I am not invalid

The RMS Titanic sank on April 15th. US income taxes
are due on April 15th. Coincidence? I think not.

[Default] Thus spake JCarnaghie :

Nonnymus wrote:
Tom K wrote:

"JCarnaghie" wrote in message
...

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Tom K" wrote:

Brilliant... I guess you didn't bother to read the article. They
can't even find them. There's 1900 miles of coast line. And when
they do find a boat, they can't tell the difference between real
fishermen and pirates. And last time we tried something on land in
that country, it resulted in the real life case of "Black Hawk Down".

The only real way might be to pull the ships a little farther
away from land, declare an exclusion zone and say anything
originating on the coast that goes past that point will be sunk.
Period. Even that is iffy at best.

It might be iffy, but it certainly would put a crimp in the pirates
operations. No small boat fishermen go 100 miles offshore to legally
"fish" so it would not impact the legal folks.
The real "problem" is that there is no functioning government, and
successful pirates make lots of money without any apparent risk. Kill
a few dozen of them, and "properly" display their remains and you
might see a real difference in the number wanting to go "pirating.".
Meanwhile, give the ship's crews some appropriate arms and some
training to increase their self defense capability.
Cheers,
John in LALALand (On the Left Coast)


So... you want to give high end weapons to cargo ships with crew from
countries like Liberia, etc? You can't give the cargo ships something
simple like guns if the pirates have rocket launchers. So if you give
cargo ships high end weapons, how long before those high end weapons
are sold on the black market?

--Tom


Why is it any of our business what a Liberian ship carries in the way of
defensive arms? I thought we were discussing American ships. I believe
we armed merchant ships during wartime, so I see little difference.The
exclusion zone would be a good thing, since it could be defended from
the air. . . warning shots followed by true interdiction.

Another alternative would be to let groups of Americans charter ships
and sail them deliberately in harm's way. Aboard would be the
Americans, but secretly armed to the teeth. When the pirates approach
the vessel, they'd get the surprise of their soon-to-be brief life. The
Americans could keep the trophies- appropriately mounted- and it'd be a
great version of going on an African Safari.

George, Ray or Cal could arrange the hunting charter.

Nonny,
I was indeed thinking about American ships,
the ones that the pirates now say they are going
to single out for attack.
In W.W.II we did indeed arm merchant ships,
and a couple of 20 mm or 40 mm cannons would be
more than adequate to "ring the bells" of any of
today's small boat pirates. I bet one could
purchase a couple of old Bofors 40 mm guns for not
too much money and mount them in a cargo
container. Wouldn't that be a great surprise! Of
course equip them with Night Vision gear and a
laser range finder to make sure "first shot" hits
were the order of the day.
Cheers,
John in LALALand (On the left coast)

You said 40mm Bofors, I immidiatly thought of the many now unused "Sgt
Yorks" that were built for the US Army and promptly dumped when it was
found that the tests were a little shaky. Or borrow Mike Dillon's
favorite toy.
--

- dillon I am not invalid

The RMS Titanic sank on April 15th. US income taxes
are due on April 15th. Coincidence? I think not.

On 4/14/2009 10:38 PM Tom K "tweaked" on too much Starbucks said:
I saw this article on Yahoo regarding Somali Piracy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090414/...cy_few_options

3 Small excerpts:

"Stamping out Somalia's piracy scourge using U.S. warships or military force
will be virtually impossible, according to maritime experts who said Tuesday
the real problems lie ashore in the ashes of Somalia's failed state."

"Perhaps the biggest obstacle ... is the sheer size of the seas around the
Gulf of Aden and Somalia's 1,900-mile coastline, the longest in Africa. It's
impossible for ships to be everywhere at once, and they can only guard a
tiny fraction of the tens of thousands of vessels that transit the region
annually."

"Most nations and ship owners have been reticent to use military options ...
pirates have rarely harmed hostages."


Simple, loan Somalia the money to transform it into a cruise ship port
of call. The reason to be a pirate will be removed. They'll have much
more fun diversifying as tourist trinket shop keepers, taxi drivers, all
sorts of imaginable ways to make booty without ever setting foot on a
pirate vessel. Just imagine the lure of a booze cruise hosted by former
pirates! They'll be making money so fast they may need to worry about
neighboring countries turning pirate on them!

--
________
To email me, Edit "blog" from my email address.
Brian M. Kochera
"The poor dog is the firmest friend, the first to welcome the foremost to defend" - Lord Byron
View My Web Page: http://home.earthlink.net/~brian1951