Somali Pirates Seize Largest Ship Yet

[Sarevok]

The Saudis are floating on a sea of oil money. Why don't they hire some mercenary group like Blackwater to "liberate" the shipm ? Is not fighting terrorists one of the chief tacticoool things these mercs train for ?

[The Grim Squeaker]

The Saudis are floating on a sea of oil money. Why don't they hire some mercenary group like Blackwater to "liberate" the shipm ? Is not fighting terrorists one of the chief tacticoool things these mercs train for ?

Simple answer: It costs more, and they likely thought that no one would attack a ship that big so far away (450 miles!, by men on speed boats and tiny ships).

I am rather surprised at the rather unliberal expressions voiced by many members here against the pirates (Executions, blasting any port known to harbor them, death, etc'). I'm sure Zeon is serious, but do most members here really support a quick trial and keelhauling for pirates caught in the act of piracy? (Not saying there's anything wrong with it, just surprised.. )

[The Yosemite Bear]

Well if ships sailed in nice orderly convoys, with protection then it wouldn't be a problem, but it would result in lots of delays and expenses....

[PeZook]

Well if ships sailed in nice orderly convoys, with protection then it wouldn't be a problem, but it would result in lots of delays and expenses....

You have no idea how much of an expense it would mean. It would be cheaper to just give a hefty pension to every single Somali pirate so that they'd fuck off.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Well if ships sailed in nice orderly convoys, with protection then it wouldn't be a problem, but it would result in lots of delays and expenses....

You have no idea how much of an expense it would mean. It would be cheaper to just give a hefty pension to every single Somali pirate so that they'd fuck off.

Not really, since the pirates would just keep going or would ask for more .
(PMC soldiers or guards on every ship, or a few speed boats or small ships loaded with guards hired by the corporations or other nearby nations would make more sense, as they could patrol the waters and respond to multiple calls for help)

I'm amazed that ships still go that close to the shore though (although the case mentioned is an outlier in terms of range), i'd except them to maintain a far greater distance and for almost no ships to go there at all, an unofficial trade embargo until the situation improves. Gues greeds triumphs over all.

[Lagmonster]

Isn't Somali resource poor? What the heck is there for the American Empire to claim from its inhabitants? Fish? Corn?

Somalia isn't exactly brimming with natural resources, but what it does have is probably largely unexploited with the lack of heavy industrial exploitation. What Somalia DOES have that is entirely evident is a coastline - control of the horn of Africa and an important sea lane.

[Lonestar]

Lets be fair- most of them can feed their own people. It is only the really crappy ones that can't do that.

Believe it or not, there is a massive gap between "being able to feed your own people" and "being able to maintain a persistent CAP". Especially as the "Persistant CAP" would absorb a lot of technical resources and personnel, which most countries in that region farm out to people named "Ivan" anyway.

And I am pretty sure that the US and France have a nearby air base- don't we basically employ the enitre population of Djibouti?

(1)The Base is a SOF base, not a place where one sticks high performance jets.
(2)There are only so many planes to go around anyway.
(3)No, we do not "basically employ the entire country of Djibouti".

Isn't Somali resource poor? What the heck is there for the American Empire to claim from its inhabitants? Fish? Corn?

Sumatra is resource poor as well, that didn't stop a not-insignifigant chunk of the Islamic population think that we detonated a nuke in the Indian Ocean to justify an "Invasion of Muslim land".

[Thanas]

Last I checked, indiscriminate killing of civilians was a war crime.

Not saying Russia wouldn't do it, but I am saying that they shouldn't.

I think I saw somewhere on this board when the US Navy captured some pirates, recently, they stuck them in the brig and endlessly blasted them with this.

Probably counts as torture in some International Arbitration courts, but damned if that's appropriate.

Link or it didn't happen. I need to find out more about this.

[Sky Captain]

Well let`s hope they don`t accidentally crash the tanker and cause worlds biggest oil spillage.

[Solauren]

I just had a thought....

there is no government in Somolia.

It's possible that a a group now has 33 tanks and a shitload of fuel. And are negotiating the ransom for the same and have no intention of delivering.

That's a small army and the means to fund it.

Could someone be setting up for a attempt to take control of the region?

[Siege]

Could someone be setting up for a attempt to take control of the region?

As far as I know that freighter with the MBTs on it has been under permanent guard, so it's rather unlikely the pirates will be able to get those tanks onto land.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Could someone be setting up for a attempt to take control of the region?

As far as I know that freighter with the MBTs on it has been under permanent guard, so it's rather unlikely the pirates will be able to get those tanks onto land.

In addition, you need personnel trained in using the tanks, even to the basic point of driving them and firing/loading. It's not as easy as driving a car

[Solauren]

The pirates could be working for someone with access to the needed skilled people you know.

Just a theory. An unlikely theory to be sure, but still a theory.

[dragon]

Hum wonder how long before all the merc companies like Blackwater starts offering a protection crew for ships?

[CJvR]

This is pathetic.
Don't capture them, they might seek asylum.
There is their base, there is the ship, there are the pirates still on board - whatever are we to do???
In the old days they strung up pirates but nowdays we can't even give them away.

[Samuel]

I just had a thought....

there is no government in Somolia.

It's possible that a a group now has 33 tanks and a shitload of fuel. And are negotiating the ransom for the same and have no intention of delivering.

That's a small army and the means to fund it.

Could someone be setting up for a attempt to take control of the region?

Actually Somali has 3 governments. Although wiki seems to indicate that even these are fractured a bit more. And the tanks were originally sent to Kenya by the Ukrainians to be shipped to the rebels in south Sudan to allow them to become an independent country. Info from previous pirate thread

[SAMAS]

How much would it cost to put 5 guys with AK's and a .50cal machine gun on a supertanker?

Companies won't allow it. You can't even carry electronics onto an oil tanker.

[Kanastrous]

Fire/explosion hazard?

[Darth Wong]

I just had a thought....

there is no government in Somolia.

It's possible that a a group now has 33 tanks and a shitload of fuel. And are negotiating the ransom for the same and have no intention of delivering.

That's a small army and the means to fund it.

Could someone be setting up for a attempt to take control of the region?

IIRC, that tanker is carrying crude oil. You can't run a tank on that.

[Siege]

How much would it cost to put 5 guys with AK's and a .50cal machine gun on a supertanker?

Like other people have said earlier, you have to pay a lot of extra money to be able to have armed guards on watch 24/7, which is what you will need to do to reliably prevent attempts at piracy (otherwise you risk your armed dudes getting caught by pirates as they're taking a nap). Moreover, if you mount lots of big guns onto a tanker (or any kind of freighter really) no respectable port will allow you to enter. And finally, there's thousands of ships passing through that region of the world every year, and only a relative handful of ships are hijacked.

For a shipping company the extra investments required to ward off pirates is just not worth it. They're better off insuring themselves against the risk and paying the occasional ransom. Which in turn is one of the big issues for navies trying to fight piracy: if I recall correctly, Lonestar in the previous thread on the subject explained how even when a hijacked freighter is intercepted by a warship, the owner will usually not grant permission to take the pirated vessel back by force, presumably because they're afraid of unneccesary damage to ship/cargo/crew.

[Darth Wong]

This is one of those situations where individual self-interest is at odds with collective self-interest. Nations and regions have no collective self-interest in paying off pirates: it only encourages them to continue this activity in future. But in any given situation, the individuals who own a particular ship have an incentive to pay off the pirates so they can get their ship and crew back intact.

[Admiral Valdemar]

They're asking for $250M ransom, I've heard.

Yeah, what was that about it being more expensive putting PMCs on patrol on ship?

[Darth Wong]

They're asking for $250M ransom.

Yeah, what was that about it being more expensive putting PMCs on patrol on ship?

Sooner or later, someone has to deal with these people. This is the inevitable outcome of continually paying them off no matter what they do. Why shouldn't they escalate to higher and higher value targets?

It's pretty bad when there are well-known pirate bases on the coast and no one does anything about it. it's not as if they couldn't treat them as mini-states, consider their actions to be declarations of war, and respond accordingly.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Edited my post because that's what I heard on ITN. I haven't found any online sources, but given that's the ship + cargo cost, it seems reasonable.

If the UK or US governments had started negotiating, you could once more shoot down that whole "We don't negotiate with TERRUHRISTS!!11" line they trot out.

The Saudis are going to have to take measures to stop this happening again. The world can't afford such problems with VLCCs carrying that much precious oil, and piracy seems on the increase around the world for a variety of reasons.

[Kodiak]

This is one of those situations where individual self-interest is at odds with collective self-interest. Nations and regions have no collective self-interest in paying off pirates: it only encourages them to continue this activity in future. But in any given situation, the individuals who own a particular ship have an incentive to pay off the pirates so they can get their ship and crew back intact.

I agree that the company that owns the tanker will be happy to pay the ransom and this will only embolden the pirates. Imagine what sort of gear they can buy w/ $250M. I keep waiting for Voluntaryist to chime in on one of these threads so we can talk about how wonderful this Somalian "free-market" is and how it isn't run by warlords.