Re: Somali pirates demand $20 million for release of U...

[Guest guest]

They might be interested in the tanks, but they can't really do anything with them. I think you're right that most people don't care about the crew since they never said anything about the other crews that were captured. The governments have and have paid ransoms, which has only made the pirates bolder, since they used some of those proceeds to buy better boats and communication technology.

If the countries can't get together and smash these pirates, they might as well start convoying the ships through these areas with military escorts. This has to happen because "international law" is hampering the fight against the pirates. It seems the pirates can't be attacked unless they are actually in the process of hijacking a ship. That's just silly because it puts the ship and the crew in great threat. The pirate boats are different from the fishing boats and could be identified and blown out of the water by drones or aircraft. If that started to happen, piracy would drop off.

Here is some more information about this situation.

From Strategypage.com

September 29, 2008: Piracy has become big business in northern Somalia. Local Somali warlords have figured out that foreign warships are only a problem if they catch you actually attacking a merchant ship. That is unlikely. So over a thousand Somali gunmen have organized themselves into about a dozen different pirate groups. Most of them are going after the heavy traffic going in and out of the Red Sea, through the Gulf of Aden. It appears that some of the pirates, equipped with a satellite phone, join Somali fishing boats, and call in if they spot a merchant ship travelling slow enough for the speedboats to catch, and without a lot of lookouts. The pirates then speed to the scene, try to catch up with and board the target ship. In the last week, two ships have been taken. One was a Ukrainian ship carrying a cargo of over 2,000 tons of weapons (including 33 T-72 tanks) to Kenya. The pirates promptly demanded $35 million for the ship, then lowered that to $20 million. As foreign warships closed in, the pirates threatened to sink the Ukrainian ship if anyone tried to take their prize away.

September 28, 2008: After three weeks, pirates released an Egyptian ship. The size of the ransom was not mentioned. On the Ukrainian cargo ship Faina, seized on the 25th with its cargo of weapons, one of the 21 crew died (from stress and high blood pressure).The Faina is being held at the port of Hobyo, which is halfway down the east coast of Somalia. Hobyo has long served as a base for pirates.

September 27, 2008: Russia has ordered a warship in the Baltic to go to the Gulf of Aden and deal with the pirates there.

September 26, 2008: A Japanese ship was released by the pirates, after being held for three months. A $2 million ransom was paid.

September 25, 2008: The international community has refused to send troops into Somalia, even to deal with the growing piracy problem off the north coast. France is alone in calling for international action against the pirates. That is, something more than just naval and air patrols in the pirate infested waters of the Gulf of Aden. The Somali town of Eyl, on the northeastern coast, has turned into a headquarters for the pirates, secure in the belief that the foreigners will not come ashore, except perhaps as a commando raid. Even captured pirates are not punished. Today, a Danish warship released ten pirates they had captured, along with two speedboats, weapons, on the 17th. Since the Danes did not catch the pirates in the act of piracy, they had no evidence to prosecute them. So the Danes destroyed the speed boats, kept the weapons and put the pirates ashore.

In southern Ethiopia, the first cargo ship (carrying 17,000 sacks of sugar) docked at the Islamic Union held port of Kismayu. The Islamic Courts need to get commerce going in Kismayu to make the occupation of the town pay for itself.

In a message dated 9/29/2008 12:28:48 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

They don't want the cargo. They want money for the cargo, and here they are being foolish. Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and calculators.

[Guest guest]

The problem here again is international maritime law. It is illegal for merchant ships to be armed. That means merchant ships can't mount things like machine guns, light cannon, missiles, etc. I'm not sure if this would extend to carrying mercenaries, but since they would need heavy weapons to be effective, so they could shoot up the pirate boats before the merchant ship was boarded, they would be of limited value. Some ships do carry a few personal weapons, but the crews aren't trained in their use or in shipboard combat. As it is, the weapons are usually locked away and by the time the pirates are spotted (sometimes only when they are coming aboard the ship) and the weapons are got out, it is too late. In addition, the pirates are usually more motivated to steal than the crew is to protect the ship, and the pirates usually have numbers on their side. As more crews are taken hostage and more are killed or die in captivity, that attitude might change.

You wouldn't need to land any forces at all. With the right equipment, those satellite phone calls could be detected and its location detected. Once that is done, it wouldn't be hard to determine what ship is in the area. Then, a fleet of Predator drones with Hellfire missiles heads to the area. The drones would already be airborne and loitering in small groups in areas where ships are most commonly hit. When the drones see the speed boats moving in, they are targeted and destroyed. If any escape, they would be tracked back to their home port. The port would then be watched closely and if other speedboats could be determined, an attack is launched with other drones or maybe manned aircraft and the boats destroyed.

What we would be doing is simply a form of blockade. We find out where they are coming from, hit them on their way to raids and also use our drones and aircraft to destroy the boats in the ports. Mining the port would be useless since the boats are too small for that. So, we would need to use direct attacks such as guided missiles. In this way, we would not have to bother with putting soldiers in the city unless hostages were taken and disbursed through the city. But then the point of what I have suggested is to prevent that from happening in the first place.

In a message dated 9/29/2008 12:53:10 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

1) They know sending a bunch of troops in there would mean high casualties and so they are unwilling to take the risk for a bunch of cargo shipping lines that could just as well pay mercenaries or guns for hire or protection contractors to protect their ships. Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and calculators.

[Guest guest]

It is very easy to understand. The pirates are thugs who want money. The drug markets and stealing from aid workers and such already have their specialists and trying to break into those markets is dangerous because the people controlling them are armed and very dangerous. Merchant ships are unarmed and full of noncombatants so the risk is low. On the other hand, rewards can be high in terms of goods stolen from the crew, light items that can be offloaded and sold or ransoms for the ships and crew as they get more and more violent.

I'm sure they didn't know what was on the ship. The criteria for attacking a ship is more about being able to catch the ship in the first place, not so much what it is actually carrying. That is why it is the ship and the crew that is being held for ransom. The crew is valuable because even if the company doesn't value them, their relations will and so their nations will be pressured to pay ransoms. The ships are also very valuable and it would often be cheaper to pay a ransom than to pay the insurance cost of replacing the ship. It might actually be the insurance companies pressuring for the payment of the ransoms.

The pirates are simply after money. The tanks are worthless to them since they can't really sell them and they sure can't use them on the water. They would rather have cash so they could buy the things they really need and can use to pirate more ships and get more money.

Kenya does have some trouble with its borders. They have been fighting with the Somalis for a long time because the Somalis have long had a reputation as being nasty thuggish people. There was a saying when the British ruled Kenya something like "Never trust a live Somali and only trust a dead one after you've made sure he's really dead." Just recently the Somalis pushed into Kenya, so it is no surprise that they are looking for weapons. Those T-72's aren't much to us, but to an enemy armed with light weapons and trucks, they would be very dangerous if used even halfway well. Other border disputes are also common in that region. Its more active than most people think.

In a message dated 9/29/2008 12:42:59 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

I am trying to get into the minds of these pirates and am finding it difficult to do so. They are too small. Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and calculators.

[Guest guest]

" The international community has refused to send troops into Somalia,

even to deal with the growing piracy problem off the north coast.

France is alone in calling for international action against the

pirates. That is, something more than just naval and air patrols in

the pirate infested waters of the Gulf of Aden. "

I like how honest the international community is here.

1) They know sending a bunch of troops in there would mean high

casualties and so they are unwilling to take the risk for a bunch of

cargo shipping lines that could just as well pay mercenaries or guns

for hire or protection contractors to protect their ships.

2) As for France, the international community all know how it works

with them. They call for action, someone ELSE takes charge, and then

they play a background or peripheral role until the going gets tough.

Then they withdrawal, citing whomever is leading the venture as being

the cause of the problem, and denying that they ever wanted the

action taken in the first place. The international community is tired

of France and its " bold calls for action. "

I have personally heard French Canadians express embarrassment about

France and their cowardly behavior when it comes to military

involvement.

Let France take the lead for a change and prove itself. I hope they

get no assistance from anyone else. Then they can withdraw their bold

calls for action and cower in front of the world with their tails

between their legs.

Or they could fight like men and take the lumps and criticism that

come with it as the US has been doing for years.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

I have read stories about some cruise ships using firehoses and also some kind of sonic device on pirates. The sonic thing seemed to annoy the pirates, but they figured out where the noise was coming from and started shooting at the device making the crew abandon it. I don't remember if the pirates also boarded the ship or not.

Are merchants allowed to mount non-lethal defensive countermeasures? Iknow a few Navy vessels are designed with the capability to use a jetof water as a deterrent.As for evidence, somehow I think a dead crew member, hostages, andtheir unauthorized presence is sufficient evidence...Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and calculators.

[Guest guest]

Freighters aren't designed to turn fast. Some can move reasonably fast but at high fuel cost. Their turning radius is also pretty large, but it varies with the size of the ship and the design of its steering and rudders. It might be possible to hit a speedboat when it was along side, but that would be dangerous letting them get that close. You do have me curious now as to what their turning radius is. I've seen big cargo ships moving on rivers, but never seen them do much maneuvering without tugboats helping them.

I would wonder about a hard turn into the pirate's craft. I don't knowif a cargo ship at speed could turn hard enough to do more thanbruise, but it is likely worth a shot. The bow and the stern wouldlikely be extremely dangerous for small craft.Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and calculators.

[Guest guest]

Are merchants allowed to mount non-lethal defensive countermeasures? I

know a few Navy vessels are designed with the capability to use a jet

of water as a deterrent.

As for evidence, somehow I think a dead crew member, hostages, and

their unauthorized presence is sufficient evidence...

[Guest guest]

I would wonder about a hard turn into the pirate's craft. I don't know

if a cargo ship at speed could turn hard enough to do more than

bruise, but it is likely worth a shot. The bow and the stern would

likely be extremely dangerous for small craft.

[Guest guest]

Some do have thrusters intended for low speed maneuvering, but I am

not sure about the effects at speed.

> Freighters aren't designed to turn fast. Some can move reasonably fast but

> at high fuel cost. Their turning radius is also pretty large, but it varies

If the alternative is being hijacked the fuel might be relatively less

expensive.

[Guest guest]

" Are merchants allowed to mount non-lethal defensive countermeasures? I

know a few Navy vessels are designed with the capability to use a jet

of water as a deterrent.

" As for evidence, somehow I think a dead crew member, hostages, and

their unauthorized presence is sufficient evidence... "

I don't know anything about maritime law, but I do know that crimes

committed outside the territorial waters agreed upon by countries

(usually 70 miles or so) are sometimes not prosecutable in any court of

law. Thus if you are out in the middle of the ocean and a cruise ship

employee rapes someone, supposedly (I have heard) they are immune from

prosecution.

So I don't know that defending one's ship with small arms fire would be

anything anyone would be prosecuted for if you did it in international

waters. Further, I have a hard time believing anything would happen if

you defended yourself within national waters because if the local coast

guard or armed forces are there, what other choice have you got?

Yet even so, each country has its own laws about weapons, and there are

international maritime laws, I should think. I just do not know what

they are or how and where they apply.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

Found this on Strategypage.com today. I've highlighted a few parts. Insurance rates are way up in that area. The article does say that most merchant ships are fast enough to outrun the pirates. The problem is that running at such high speeds uses up a lot of fuel and really stresses the engines and bearings which drives up maintenance costs. Maybe we should just let the Russians go down there and shell some of these villages flat like they did in the old days.

Somali Pirates Defeat Warships

September 30, 2008: The U.S. naval officers leading the anti-piracy efforts in the Gulf of Aden has warned shipping companies to take additional precautions, because the fifteen warships in the Gulf cannot possibly protect all the merchant ships passing through the area.

The key problem is that no one wants to go ashore and take on the Somali warlords responsible for the surge in piracy. No wonder, as the natural state of Somalia, over the last few centuries, has been violent anarchy. This would be bloody, mainly for the Somalis, and no nation wants to get accused of war crimes and brutality by the media.

For the last century, however, order was imposed, first by colonial governments, and then by post-colonial dictators. But Somali dictators have been unable to maintain their rule over the entire region known as "Somalia." A government of sorts was always found in some of the coastal towns, which enabled trade with the outside world. But this has been threatened by the recent growth of piracy. Some warlords are taking over coastal villages and running piracy operations from them. Local fishermen eagerly join these gangs, seeing the possibility of a huge payday. This is all possible because of the current anarchy. In the past, piracy was suppressed by foreign navies destroying the towns of villages the pirates used as bases. This is no longer politically acceptable, and no one is yet willing to send troops ashore to fight the warlords who created and maintain the pirate operations. The nations with the military forces able to go into Somalia (like the U.S., Britain and France) are well aware of the region's history, and the willingness of the Somalis to just keep fighting.

The availability of speedboats, satellite radio and GPS have made it possible to conduct piracy deep into the Straits of Aden (a major choke point for international shipping). Many nations are sending warships to try and control the pirates at sea, without going ashore. This, and forcing ships to transit the area at high speed, or in convoys, will be expensive, but this is believed to be ultimately able to keep losses down and prevent insurance rates for ships from skyrocketing.

Russia, however, is sending a warship to join in the anti-piracy effort. The Russian frigate, however, will be acting alone, not as part as Task Force 150 (the international naval and air force patrolling the Gulf). The Russian ship is coming from the Baltic, so it won't arrive until early October. Everyone is curious to see how the Russians will deal with the pirates. The Russians often go Old School in cases like this.

Foreign navies are trying to provide some protection against the growing pirate activity off Somalia's north coast, partly to try and keep insurance rates down. As the risk of ships getting seized in the Gulf of Aden passes one percent, the maritime insurance companies, as expected, have raised premiums (covering passage through the 1,500 kilometer Straits of Aden) from an average of $900 to $9,000. That's expected to go higher because, when you do the math, you realize that the current increase does not quite cover the million dollars per ship ransom (which is also going up.) The insurance increase has made certain that all ships moving through the area are aware of the pirate risk, and more ships are alert enough to spot and speed away from the pirates. Most ships moving through the Straits of Aden have a top speed in excess of what the pirate speedboats can achieve. But the larger ships take time to reach their top speed, and the trick is to rev the engines of the larger ship soon enough to get away from the approaching pirate speedboats. This requires posting more lookouts (because the speedboats are low enough in the water to not show up well, if at all, on the navigation radar of larger ships). The pirates will continue to go after the ships that they can catch, and these will tend to be the smaller and slower ones from poor (often Moslem) nations. That could have interesting repercussions. Recently an Iranian ship was captured, which appears to have a toxic, and apparently illegal cargo onboard. A Ukrainian ship was also taken recently, with a cargo containing 33 T-72 tanks (for Kenya) and much other military equipment as well. Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and calculators.