Egypt and Yemen make insane amounts of money from ships transiting the region, where are they? Why aren't they patrolling? Why are we ONCE AGAIN expected to fix everyone else's problems?
Ya, Italy is looking for our help with their piracy problems too.
Where are their ground troops helping us in Iraq and Afganistan??????
One way street.
Except for England, Ausrtralia, Poland and a few others we get nada, nothing
in support of our interests.
I agree with you 100% on this......I was very psyched when they got him out safely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIJIMMY
im on top of the world today. these are the things that separate Americans from the rest of the world, this captains courage should send a message to the world, minutes from being rescued he looked calm and collected as if it was only a matter of time until he was free. Very proud of my country today
"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."
yeah, waa, waa, waa
How come a bunch of guys in sailing vessels and 9 iron cannons were able to wipe out pirates 300 hundred years ago and now it ssuddenly the biggest issue for the most technologically advanced nation in the world?
We can do this, we can stop it.
from what I saw on the news, a bunch of journalists are walking around talking to the pirtates, they know what ports they launch from. I think we need a little deterrent like this......
Let's not forget that the pirates still hold 100 hostages from previous raids.
It is annoying to me that the US is seen (by our politicians) as required to police the world. We should only be protecting our interests.
It would be significantly cheaper and more effective to place an armed security force on US flagged ships than to have battleships aimlessly patrolling over a million square miles of ocean.
I would like to see those pirates with their AK-47s and 15' tin attack boat try and board a vessel that has 2 sharpshooters and 2 other security personnel.
Let's not forget that the pirates still hold 100 hostages from previous raids.
That nobody seems to care about.
Quote:
It is annoying to me that the US is seen (by our politicians) as required to police the world. We should only be protecting our interests.
Not only politicians but now the screaming right's desire to invade Somalia.
Quote:
I would be significantly cheaper and more effective to place an armed security force on US flagged ships than to have battleships aimlessly patrolling over a million square miles of ocean.
Now this is inherently wrong, whether a warship is sitting in Norfolk or in the Indian Ocean, its costing money. Period. But mind you, would I want them stuck there when there's plenty of other capable nations in the region? No.
Quote:
I would like to see those pirates with their AK-47s and 15' tin attack boat try and board a vessel that has 2 sharpshooters and 2 other security personnel.
Ok, so the pirates just stuff a couple RPG's into the side of an LPG tanker. Lotta good those sharpshooters are huh?
Ok, so the pirates just stuff a couple RPG's into the side of an LPG tanker. Lotta good those sharpshooters are huh?
They're doing that anyway. RPGs are being launched at many of the vessels that use their "defense systems" - systems that consist mainly of high-powered sounding devices and water guns.
Accuracy of an RPG above 200meters is pathetic. Yet well within the range of a sharpshooter.
To these Pirates, raiding these ships is a minimal-risk job considering the profits available. There is hardly any deterrent. Maybe some of them will start thinking twice when a couple dozen pirates die at sea for attacking the wrong vessels.
They're doing that anyway. RPGs are being launched at many of the vessels that use their "defense systems" - systems that consist mainly of high-powered sounding devices and water guns.
Accuracy of an RPG above 200meters is pathetic. Yet well within the range of a sharpshooter.
To these Pirates, raiding these ships is a minimal-risk job considering the profits available. There is hardly any deterrent. Maybe some of them will start thinking twice when a couple dozen pirates die at sea for attacking the wrong vessels.
Considering its a 3rd world nation with absolutely nothing to gain other than through piracy, I doubt much other than real patrols is going to deter them.
So they get lit up, I'm sure they'll happily start shooting back and ransoming the cargo instead of the crew. Less hassle that way anyhow. And up until now the crews were treated pretty well overall. Thats out the door now.
Shipping companies don't want to pay to arm the ships nor pay for the liability. Replacing dead crew is cheaper than arming them.
I disagree. Considering the real risk to these companies is an increase of insurance premiums after being paid out, I'd speculate that insurance companies would provide decreased rates for shipping companies that have armed details.
In a pure, cold-hearted business sense, I would guess that preventing the death of one or two crewmen and not having to pay out the insurance costs is cheaper than arming them.
Now this is inherently wrong, whether a warship is sitting in Norfolk or in the Indian Ocean, its costing money. Period.
Its a hell of a lot cheaper for a ship to be sitting pier side in norfolk than to be steaming around the IO. Do you realize how much fuel is burned by a destroyer when its underway.......not to mention just the 6 figure toll for going through the Suez Canal.
"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."
Its a hell of a lot cheaper for a ship to be sitting pier side in norfolk than to be steaming around the IO. Do you realize how much fuel is burned by a destroyer when its underway.......not to mention just the 6 figure toll for going through the Suez Canal.
Well that fuel is gonna get burned one way or another. They don't sit for long unless undergoing maintenance. And hey, its just tax dollars.
But yet again, why exactly are we being expected to patrol?
We have always maintained a presence in the IO...we should continue to do that. What needs to happen is that the shipping companies need to pay for a seperate security force dedicated to security on their ships and not try and have the crew worrying about it.
If they board another US ship, Security force withstanding, the Navy needs to respond and take them out if need be.
Not for nothing but even France stepped up this weekend and said enough is enough.
"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."
We have always maintained a presence in the IO...we should continue to do that. What needs to happen is that the shipping companies need to pay for a seperate security force dedicated to security on their ships and not try and have the crew worrying about it.
And they won't.
Quote:
If they board another US ship, Security force withstanding, the Navy needs to respond and take them out if need be.
Well the crew will be dead next time. Then what?
Quote:
Not for nothing but even France stepped up this weekend and said enough is enough.
And got one of the hostages killed.
Why aren't Somalia's neighbors patrolling?
Why do you expect us to do everything? Do you ENJOY your tax dollars being wasted on a 3rd world desert hell hole?
Why aren't Somalia's neighbors patrolling?
Why do you expect us to do everything? Do you ENJOY your tax dollars being wasted on a 3rd world desert hell hole?
Like you even said, the fuel is getting burned anyway isn't it?
Why should we waste it on Somalia?
There's better things to be doing.
Suez Canal makes Egypt alot of money.
This threatens their livelyhood there.
They can deal with it.
Actually that would be the ideal situation, if Egypt had a decent navy, they certainly wouldn't get all uptight about blowing away the pirates. Unfortunately, it doesn't affect them economically, the canal is a necessary evil for shipping costs, so they won't make the effort. So its up to us and the other seafaring nations to put a stop to it, just like we did with the pirates of Tripoli a few hundred years ago.
Did someone really ask why Somalia's neighbors arent patrolling???? Am I the only one that thinks this is funny???
How much can Kenya, Djibouti, and Eritrea do? The Somali coastline dwarfs theirs, the equivalent of going by coast from Point Judith to Tampa, Florida - the long way. The US would have trouble watching that with out entire Coast Guard.
The US would have trouble watching that with out entire Coast Guard.
This is the principle source that many people are ignorant on - people have an attitude of "how tough can it be". John, you are dead on that the amount of sea that needs to be secured is vast. Locally, people can't grasp what "a million square miles of open ocean" is. They think that just because we are the most powerful nation in the world, we should be able to stop these actions completely because we're the USofA.
What people don't get is that this isn't a time of war with Somalia so there is only a very small risk to US interests. The percentage of ships being attacked is statistically minuscule compared to the number of vessels that pass through the oceans.
"But Americans are being attacked." Behind the scenes, I'd be willing to bet the administration's response is "So what?" The only reason any country has involved their Navy patrolling the waters is because of the potential economic impact to their own interests.
The Somali coastline dwarfs theirs, the equivalent of going by coast from Point Judith to Tampa, Florida - the long way. The US would have trouble watching that with out entire Coast Guard.
And cover out to 700 nm. Maybe time for a marine version of Blackwater......
"and we'll need two carriers.....and maybe some jets, yeah we'll need some jets."
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms.” – James Madison.
Blackwater has already offered their services... at a cost of course.
Estimated cost for a security unit on board is $60,000 per trip.
A Hell of a lot cheaper than 1-2 Million in Ransom.....not to mention it won't be long before people start suing the companies for not providing a safe working environment
"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."
This is the principle source that many people are ignorant on - people have an attitude of "how tough can it be". John, you are dead on that the amount of sea that needs to be secured is vast. Locally, people can't grasp what "a million square miles of open ocean" is. They think that just because we are the most powerful nation in the world, we should be able to stop these actions completely because we're the USofA.
What people don't get is that this isn't a time of war with Somalia so there is only a very small risk to US interests. The percentage of ships being attacked is statistically minuscule compared to the number of vessels that pass through the oceans.
"But Americans are being attacked." Behind the scenes, I'd be willing to bet the administration's response is "So what?" The only reason any country has involved their Navy patrolling the waters is because of the potential economic impact to their own interests.
And one of the core Navy beliefs I'm told is that Navy will protect American Citizens and Commerce on the world's seas. Those people were doing just that. This is also the first instance this has come up in years. The Somali just don't care or concern themselves of that yet.
For several months a bunch of ships from US, Europe, Russia, India, and China have been patrolling the waters - mostly in the Gulf of Aden (China has sent warships to patrol further then they have for hundreds of years). Attacks there are down somewhat from this time last year. Attacks of the East Coast of Somali have increased. Go figure. Move, Countermove. Move, countermove.
The administration may have been "so what" or do what you gotta do. The on scene people made the immediate decision, likely in the confines of engagement they were given, and made the call. Executed amazingly. How that call for that instance plays out long term will be interesting to see.
Hybrid Mode
