Pathetic anti-piracy!

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The release of prisoners in such a way does seem fishy, but if they dropped them off around the same coordinates where they found them in a similarly shitty boat to the one they were picked up in I don't see how the Russians did any wrong. They simply put them back where they found them. There's never going to be any proof that they were made to die so the story will fade away in no time.

Are you familiar with the concept of negligent homicide?

This was a summary execution with a dramatic Russian flair:

Ten suspected Somali pirates captured by the Russian navy last week may have perished after their release, a defence source in Moscow has told reporters.

Marines seized them during a dramatic operation to free a hijacked Russian oil tanker far from shore, killing an 11th suspect in the gun battle.

They were released in an inflatable boat without navigational equipment.

Within an hour, contact was lost with the boat's radio beacon, the defence source said.

"It seems that they all died," the unnamed source was quoted as saying by Russia's Interfax news agency.

Russia initially said the 10 pirates would be taken to Moscow to face criminal charges over the hijacking, but they were released instead because there were not sufficient legal grounds to detain them, the defence ministry in Moscow said.

The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which Russia is a signatory, gives sovereign nations the right to seize and prosecute pirates.

Western officials were very surprised when the Russian authorities dropped plans to put the pirates on trial in Moscow, the BBC's Richard Galpin reports from Moscow.

Now there is even more surprise the pirates were set adrift in the Indian Ocean to make their own way home, he adds.

They crammed ten men into a small inflatable 200 miles from the notoriously stormy shores of Soqotra Island with no navigational equipment. One imagines they might also have neglected providing them with food, water, and oars, and perhaps we might imagine that the Captain sent them down while pointing vaguely and declaring "Gentlemen, Yemen is that way. God help you", with a dry sneer. So we can see from that article (which was posted before, so sorry for reposting it), that this wasn't negligent homicide. It was very, very intentionally a summary execution.

[K. A. Pital]

Well, that's Russia for you. "Pirates, ye be warned" and all that, done in a Russian fashion.

[Losonti Tokash]

This was a summary execution with a dramatic Russian flair:

*snip*

They crammed ten men into a small inflatable 200 miles from the notoriously stormy shores of Soqotra Island with no navigational equipment. One imagines they might also have neglected providing them with food, water, and oars, and perhaps we might imagine that the Captain sent them down while pointing vaguely and declaring "Gentlemen, Yemen is that way. God help you", with a dry sneer. So we can see from that article (which was posted before, so sorry for reposting it), that this wasn't negligent homicide. It was very, very intentionally a summary execution.

Oh, yeah, I agree completely. But Norade's post just reeked of "well they didn't really murder them they just sent them to certain death i don't see anything wrong with that heh "

[Norade]

The release of prisoners in such a way does seem fishy, but if they dropped them off around the same coordinates where they found them in a similarly shitty boat to the one they were picked up in I don't see how the Russians did any wrong. They simply put them back where they found them. There's never going to be any proof that they were made to die so the story will fade away in no time.

Are you familiar with the concept of negligent homicide?

I am, however it isn't any worse than simply shooting them all in the raid which would be acceptable. Hell the Russians could have lined them up at the railing and killed them and nobody would have known any better. Now the pirate know that at least one group, who will face no international backlash on a significant scale, will simply make them go away if they're the ones to catch them. If every nation did that there would be less people to man the boats and steal things.

I'm not out to be a tough guy here, but guy doing his job on a boat to provide goods to my country > guy armed with AK who attacked him breaking international law. I only wish the laws on armed vessels allowed the ships to mount remote operated weapons to killfuck the pirates without needing the navy. That because the people who are working and providing goods to paying customers are worth more in terms of dollars, but also in terms of how many other people they can help. That dollar they drop into a cup at the gas station is more than the dirt fuck Somali will ever do to help people.

I could really care less about how the noble Somalis are starving and need million dollar ransoms to buy food for their village because frankly that isn't where that money is going and we all know it.

[DudeGuyMan]

Somehow this wouldn't be as... as... hilarious if it were any other country. Something about the fact that it's Russia just makes me wanna go "That's our Ivan!" and do a big theatrical shrug while someone hits a laugh track.

[Thanas]

I am, however it isn't any worse than simply shooting them all in the raid which would be acceptable.

Yes it is. During a raid they still pose a threat. Under lock and key, they don't. Hence, the military can kill people when raiding a house if fired at, but not once they are in their custody.

Hell the Russians could have lined them up at the railing and killed them and nobody would have known any better. Now the pirate know that at least one group, who will face no international backlash on a significant scale, will simply make them go away if they're the ones to catch them. If every nation did that there would be less people to man the boats and steal things.

Wrong. Considering how cheap life is over there and how desperate the people are, killing them is not a deterrent. Neither is doing it in a cruel manner. Heck, the British and the Spanish had some of the most gruesome execution methods for pirates and guess what - it did not even deter "their" own pirates which they used to sic on each other.

I'm not out to be a tough guy here, but guy doing his job on a boat to provide goods to my country > guy armed with AK who attacked him breaking international law. I only wish the laws on armed vessels allowed the ships to mount remote operated weapons to killfuck the pirates without needing the navy.

Yeah, because a) remote operated weapons need no training whatsoever for the people who operate them b) they do not need any maintenance at all and c) you can totallly trust the common merchant mariner to operate them in a professional and competent manner.

That because the people who are working and providing goods to paying customers are worth more in terms of dollars, but also in terms of how many other people they can help. That dollar they drop into a cup at the gas station is more than the dirt fuck Somali will ever do to help people.

A, I see. So you value a human life at one dollar. Good to know when the time comes to measure your inherent worth to humanity.

I could really care less about how the noble Somalis are starving and need million dollar ransoms to buy food for their village because frankly that isn't where that money is going and we all know it.

Who said anything about how noble Somalis are starving?

[Norade]

I am, however it isn't any worse than simply shooting them all in the raid which would be acceptable.

Yes it is. During a raid they still pose a threat. Under lock and key, they don't. Hence, the military can kill people when raiding a house if fired at, but not once they are in their custody.

Under lock and key they also cost too much to be worth caring for, besides it isn't that hard to toss them a pistol when they're in cells and then paste them if it comes down to it.

Hell the Russians could have lined them up at the railing and killed them and nobody would have known any better. Now the pirate know that at least one group, who will face no international backlash on a significant scale, will simply make them go away if they're the ones to catch them. If every nation did that there would be less people to man the boats and steal things.

Wrong. Considering how cheap life is over there and how desperate the people are, killing them is not a deterrent. Neither is doing it in a cruel manner. Heck, the British and the Spanish had some of the most gruesome execution methods for pirates and guess what - it did not even deter "their" own pirates which they used to sic on each other.

No shit, but aside from invading the country or turning it into a radio active parking lot what else can be done? Catch and release will only cause more to join in, and there is no will to make life better for the average Somali citizen. At least killing them will thin the numbers somewhat.

I'm not out to be a tough guy here, but guy doing his job on a boat to provide goods to my country > guy armed with AK who attacked him breaking international law. I only wish the laws on armed vessels allowed the ships to mount remote operated weapons to killfuck the pirates without needing the navy.

Yeah, because a) remote operated weapons need no training whatsoever for the people who operate them b) they do not need any maintenance at all and c) you can totallly trust the common merchant mariner to operate them in a professional and competent manner.

Having them would leave open the option for PMC's to guard ships freeing the navy up for roles that it is more suited to. The weapons will need to be maintained, and misuse of those weapons will need to be looked into. However which is better, navies spending time and money hardly doing anything to halt pirates, or it becoming suicide to attack a large ship?

That because the people who are working and providing goods to paying customers are worth more in terms of dollars, but also in terms of how many other people they can help. That dollar they drop into a cup at the gas station is more than the dirt fuck Somali will ever do to help people.

A, I see. So you value a human life at one dollar. Good to know when the time comes to measure your inherent worth to humanity.

Because I totally capped that at one dollar... The point is those Somalis provide no good to anybody and often actively harm other human beings. The majority of people in other nations do not, and many will, on their own, contribute more to the good of humanity than any number of Somalis ever will. Simply put the average Somali is worth nothing aside from any base value you wish to put on human life and nearly any other not actively evil human will contribute more to the world than they will; even if only base value of human life + $1.

I could really care less about how the noble Somalis are starving and need million dollar ransoms to buy food for their village because frankly that isn't where that money is going and we all know it.

Who said anything about how noble Somalis are starving?

I pre-empted the cries that I the Somali's only do it because they're starving and there are no other jobs. These pirates could just as easily band together and try to overthrow the people keeping their nation down. If medieval peasants and revolutionaries hundreds of years ago could figure that out there is no reason Somalis can't. Thus they must be too stupid to realize that they could make their nation a better place. Unlike in most nations the population have weapons equal to those oppressing them but they can't stop selling each other drugs and killing each other long enough to see that. This fact alone makes them worthless.

[Thanas]

Under lock and key they also cost too much to be worth caring for, besides it isn't that hard to toss them a pistol when they're in cells and then paste them if it comes down to it.

Oh no, they cost too much, so let us just kill them. I think we have got a word for that...oh yeah, it is "murder" and "war crime".

No shit, but aside from invading the country or turning it into a radio active parking lot what else can be done? Catch and release will only cause more to join in, and there is no will to make life better for the average Somali citizen. At least killing them will thin the numbers somewhat.

Do what the Germans are doing and bring them to trial? That possibility ever entered in your thinking?

Having them would leave open the option for PMC's to guard ships freeing the navy up for roles that it is more suited to. The weapons will need to be maintained, and misuse of those weapons will need to be looked into. However which is better, navies spending time and money hardly doing anything to halt pirates, or it becoming suicide to attack a large ship?

Yeah, because controlling tens of thousands of heavy weaponry is just that much cheaper. Especially when one of those things malfunctions and cuts down some dockyard workers. Also, navies are doing quite a lot to halt piracy, I guess all those intercepted pirate attacks do not matter.

Furthermore, one thing no sea captain wants is a bunch of armed thugs hanging around on his ship. Even the Royal Navy had some bad experiences with soldiers on its ship of the line, what makes you think PMCs, not bound by law and in effective control of the ship will not cause problems on their own?

Wait, I know what you will say next. "Hire competent thugs". Well, gee, these cost a lot of money. So much money that it becomes far cheaper to pay ransom money than provide for enough PMCs to cover a ship. You really seem to have no idea of the cost of PMCs, but why don't you try to show us how much it would cost to outfit a ship that way? Unless the government is willing to bear the financial risk of every aspect of PMCs, no company will use them except with very sensitive cargo.

Navy ships are paid for by the people. PMCs are not.

A, I see. So you value a human life at one dollar. Good to know when the time comes to measure your inherent worth to humanity.

Because I totally capped that at one dollar...

My mistake. You capped it between one dollar and the cost of feeding and keeping prisoners under lock and key for some weeks, as you yourself said above. Of course, this is soooo much better.

The point is those Somalis provide no good to anybody and often actively harm other human beings. The majority of people in other nations do not, and many will, on their own, contribute more to the good of humanity than any number of Somalis ever will. Simply put the average Somali is worth nothing aside from any base value you wish to put on human life and nearly any other not actively evil human will contribute more to the world than they will; even if only base value of human life + $1.

The vast majority of africans also do not contribute more to the good of humanity. Shall we kill them as well? Come to think of it, how much have you contributed to society so far? Are you self reliant? Have you paid the tens of thousands in taxes back to the Government which was the cost to society of raising you?

Or may it be that the value of life is something inherently worth something and not judged by any arbitrary criteria?

I pre-empted the cries that I the Somali's only do it because they're starving and there are no other jobs.

So why do they do it then?

These pirates could just as easily band together and try to overthrow the people keeping their nation down. If medieval peasants and revolutionaries hundreds of years ago could figure that out there is no reason Somalis can't. Thus they must be too stupid to realize that they could make their nation a better place. Unlike in most nations the population have weapons equal to those oppressing them but they can't stop selling each other drugs and killing each other long enough to see that. This fact alone makes them worthless.

You are truly that ignorant it is a wonder you could even find Somalia on a map. Please explain how the situations in Switzerland and the French Revolution are in any way comparable, how the same underlying facts are prevalent in both societies.

Also, love blanket statements. Oh no, a nation that has decades of civil war and was completely screwed over by everybody else when it comes to the natural resources has some problems. Ergo, they are worthless.

And I eagerly await you supporting your claim that the pirates/fishermen have equal numbers, organization, logistics, experience and skill to the warlords and their following.

[Norade]

Under lock and key they also cost too much to be worth caring for, besides it isn't that hard to toss them a pistol when they're in cells and then paste them if it comes down to it.

Oh no, they cost too much, so let us just kill them. I think we have got a word for that...oh yeah, it is "murder" and "war crime".

Who's going to charge the Russians and make it stick enough to do anything? Short answer, nobody.

No shit, but aside from invading the country or turning it into a radio active parking lot what else can be done? Catch and release will only cause more to join in, and there is no will to make life better for the average Somali citizen. At least killing them will thin the numbers somewhat.

Do what the Germans are doing and bring them to trial? That possibility ever entered in your thinking?

They could have, but try them and then what? Hold them forever, let them free in your nation? Release them back to Somalia?

Having them would leave open the option for PMC's to guard ships freeing the navy up for roles that it is more suited to. The weapons will need to be maintained, and misuse of those weapons will need to be looked into. However which is better, navies spending time and money hardly doing anything to halt pirates, or it becoming suicide to attack a large ship?

Yeah, because controlling tens of thousands of heavy weaponry is just that much cheaper. Especially when one of those things malfunctions and cuts down some dockyard workers. Also, navies are doing quite a lot to halt piracy, I guess all those intercepted pirate attacks do not matter.

Furthermore, one thing no sea captain wants is a bunch of armed thugs hanging around on his ship. Even the Royal Navy had some bad experiences with soldiers on its ship of the line, what makes you think PMCs, not bound by law and in effective control of the ship will not cause problems on their own?

Wait, I know what you will say next. "Hire competent thugs". Well, gee, these cost a lot of money. So much money that it becomes far cheaper to pay ransom money than provide for enough PMCs to cover a ship. You really seem to have no idea of the cost of PMCs, but why don't you try to show us how much it would cost to outfit a ship that way? Unless the government is willing to bear the financial risk of every aspect of PMCs, no company will use them except with very sensitive cargo.

Navy ships are paid for by the people. PMCs are not.

Heavy weapons aren't needed, hell a few AR's on a motorized mount linked to a laptop would slaughter anybody attacking in a small boat. Given how cheap the weapons part is you could likely get tons of them for cheap if there was a market for them.

As for the navy doing things, what is the expense per stopped pirate? How much does it cost per month to keep the navy there? It would be cheaper for the governments involved to subsidize arming the merchant ships.

How fast is that PMC group going to find itself not being hired in favor of ones that are better?

Besides if all it takes is one or two additional crew and on board weapons to keep most smaller attacks away then how expensive will it be? A one time fee to arm the ships, and the cost of two additional crew. That sure seems cheaper than paying to get a ship back.

A, I see. So you value a human life at one dollar. Good to know when the time comes to measure your inherent worth to humanity.

Because I totally capped that at one dollar...

My mistake. You capped it between one dollar and the cost of feeding and keeping prisoners under lock and key for some weeks, as you yourself said above. Of course, this is soooo much better.

People measure worth in different ways.

The point is those Somalis provide no good to anybody and often actively harm other human beings. The majority of people in other nations do not, and many will, on their own, contribute more to the good of humanity than any number of Somalis ever will. Simply put the average Somali is worth nothing aside from any base value you wish to put on human life and nearly any other not actively evil human will contribute more to the world than they will; even if only base value of human life + $1.

The vast majority of africans also do not contribute more to the good of humanity. Shall we kill them as well? Come to think of it, how much have you contributed to society so far? Are you self reliant? Have you paid the tens of thousands in taxes back to the Government which was the cost to society of raising you?

Or may it be that the value of life is something inherently worth something and not judged by any arbitrary criteria?

You must have missed the thread on that exact topic I made. It ended up being that seeing as they don't waste resources most Africans are net neutral to human well being. Some are net positive (South Africa springs to mind), and others are net negative (like Somalia).

As far as myself, I'm a student going to post secondary school so I can earn money and contribute to society. While I'm under no impression that my getting a a degree in computer information systems will make me some god among men, I will sure as fuck contribute more to the world than some malnourished idiot with an AK.

I pre-empted the cries that I the Somali's only do it because they're starving and there are no other jobs.

So why do they do it then?

These pirates could just as easily band together and try to overthrow the people keeping their nation down. If medieval peasants and revolutionaries hundreds of years ago could figure that out there is no reason Somalis can't. Thus they must be too stupid to realize that they could make their nation a better place. Unlike in most nations the population have weapons equal to those oppressing them but they can't stop selling each other drugs and killing each other long enough to see that. This fact alone makes them worthless.

You are truly that ignorant it is a wonder you could even find Somalia on a map. Please explain how the situations in Switzerland and the French Revolution are in any way comparable, how the same underlying facts are prevalent in both societies.

Of course what happened in France and Switzerland aren't exactly the same, I never said they were. However that doesn't excuse the Somalis for running around killing each other at every possible opportunity. Even an uneducated fuck should eventually realize he gains nothing in the long run if he kills the guy next to him for drugs or for an old family feud.

Also, love blanket statements. Oh no, a nation that has decades of civil war and was completely screwed over by everybody else when it comes to the natural resources has some problems. Ergo, they are worthless.

I do recognize that they've had decades of civil war, but the citizens killing each other, taking drugs, and buying guns does no good. Other societies figured this out long ago, what's taking them so long?

And I eagerly await you supporting your claim that the pirates/fishermen have equal numbers, organization, logistics, experience and skill to the warlords and their following.

Of course, the masses in other revolutions must always have had every advantage over those above them? If they showed any attempt to get organized for the better they would slowly grow the political will to aid their cause.

[PeZook]

Arming a merchant ship won't do one lick of good unless the crew can keep a decent watch 24/7 while traversing the dangerous areas, and it simply can't be done. The crews are just plain too small, so the pirates will be getting aboard anyway, gun turrets or not.

If it was possible for merchants to have six-eight watchmen at all times, no pirate attacks would happen, because all the merchant would need to do to escape is increase speed upon spotting the motorboat, making itself instantly unboardable.

[Norade]

Arming a merchant ship won't do one lick of good unless the crew can keep a decent watch 24/7 while traversing the dangerous areas, and it simply can't be done. The crews are just plain too small, so the pirates will be getting aboard anyway, gun turrets or not.

If it was possible for merchants to have six-eight watchmen at all times, no pirate attacks would happen, because all the merchant would need to do to escape is increase speed upon spotting the motorboat, making itself instantly unboardable.

Would something like motion sensors scanning the waters near points that pirates commonly board and that alerting the helmsmen work? Or would waves give too many false positives?

On remote weapons you could make automated weapons that fire or don't fire based on transponders carried by the crew. Unauthorized boarding would lead to being filled with lead. To cut down accidents they could be made to activate only after the ship has been boarded.

[Thanas]

Who's going to charge the Russians and make it stick enough to do anything? Short answer, nobody.

Ah, so it is not a crime as long as you can get away with it.
Hey, I didn't know what Germany did in the Eastern Front was completely fine and dandy with you because many of them were neither charged nor did the charges stick in many cases.

A crime is a crime is a crime. The feasibility of prosecution does not enter it. If I got away with shooting you, does it make it okay?

They could have, but try them and then what? Hold them forever, let them free in your nation? Release them back to Somalia?

Either option is on the table. But what does this have to do with anything? Why is trying them in court not an option? It is a slam-dunk case.

Heavy weapons aren't needed, hell a few AR's on a motorized mount linked to a laptop would slaughter anybody attacking in a small boat. Given how cheap the weapons part is you could likely get tons of them for cheap if there was a market for them.

There is not a market for them. Nor is a single motorized mount enough to stop an attack, nor are AR's great weapons for this.

As for the navy doing things, what is the expense per stopped pirate? How much does it cost per month to keep the navy there? It would be cheaper for the governments involved to subsidize arming the merchant ships.

Evidence, please.

How fast is that PMC group going to find itself not being hired in favor of ones that are better?

Because the market is practically empty due to the high demand in Afghanistan and Iraq. There are only so many people available for this job who have the high training.

Besides if all it takes is one or two additional crew and on board weapons to keep most smaller attacks away then how expensive will it be? A one time fee to arm the ships, and the cost of two additional crew. That sure seems cheaper than paying to get a ship back.

You will now calculate the cost of those persons (your 2 man team is worthless, you'd need at least based on average PMC salary and then calculate the number of ships need guarding. You will then balance that versus the low risk of being captured and having to pay a ransom.

My mistake. You capped it between one dollar and the cost of feeding and keeping prisoners under lock and key for some weeks, as you yourself said above. Of course, this is soooo much better.

People measure worth in different ways.

What a brilliant retort. So you still measure it in a monetary value that is lower than keeping people at bread and water for a few weeks. In that case, you are a callous sociopath and quite probably worse than most dictators out there.

You must have missed the thread on that exact topic I made. It ended up being that seeing as they don't waste resources most Africans are net neutral to human well being. Some are net positive (South Africa springs to mind), and others are net negative (like Somalia).

So your solution is that because they are worth less in your opinion than the expense necessary to feed them for a few weeks, they are net negative. So...because they cost money, they are worthless. Also, love the blanket statement regarding Somalia, sociopath.

You are worse than Saddam.

As far as myself, I'm a student going to post secondary school so I can earn money and contribute to society. While I'm under no impression that my getting a a degree in computer information systems will make me some god among men, I will sure as fuck contribute more to the world than some malnourished idiot with an AK.

But you haven't paid back the money back. Ergo, you are still a net negative to society. Ergo, you deserve to be killed.

Of course what happened in France and Switzerland aren't exactly the same, I never said they were.

You certainly did, saying that the Somalis could have easily reformed the country for the better.

However that doesn't excuse the Somalis for running around killing each other at every possible opportunity. Even an uneducated fuck should eventually realize he gains nothing in the long run if he kills the guy next to him for drugs or for an old family feud.

You do not know anything about a tribal society, do you? They have a habit of doing this unless other people step in and change them. The notion that Somalia of all people, a country with no education system, no functioning governemnt and no law can just reform is so childishly naive that I wonder if you have ever been outside your own little world.

I do recognize that they've had decades of civil war, but the citizens killing each other, taking drugs, and buying guns does no good. Other societies figured this out long ago, what's taking them so long?

There are large pieces of the west that have not figured that out, see american ghettos. Also, it took the west several thousand years to get over it. Guess what the results would have been if someone had just came into and destroyed the livelihood of that society? Read up on the German invasions of the Roman Empire.

And I eagerly await you supporting your claim that the pirates/fishermen have equal numbers, organization, logistics, experience and skill to the warlords and their following.

Of course, the masses in other revolutions must always have had every advantage over those above them? If they showed any attempt to get organized for the better they would slowly grow the political will to aid their cause.

Quit dodging and prove your point. Also, show how in a tribal society this is even possible.

[Serafina]

Waaait a minute - let me get this straight.
Norade, you make two absolutely outlandish claims, if i am not mistaken.

First, you claim that there is nothing wrong with killing prisoners without any trial at all, because it would be too expensive to imprison them to give them one.
I think every sane person can see what's wrong with that.

Second, you claim that instead of pirating, the various tribes could somehow form a working goverment.
Of course, that assumes that
-the differences between them miraculously disappear
-that they can agree on a leader
-that they even know how to govern a state instead of a couple of mudhuts
-that there is govermental infrastructure left
-that such a goverment would not abuse it's power
-that it would be stable
You present absolutely no evidence for this preposterous claims and ignore that something like that never happened.

But even IF they formed such a goverment - what are they going to live from? Somalia has nothing to make money from and nearly no infrastructure. A stable goverment alone won't attract any foreign industry - and you can't build your own becaue you don't have any money.

So, what are they going to do? Exactly, more organized pirating, because that's a good source of money. Heck, such a goverment could charge "anti-piracy fees" and if you don't pay them your are propably going to get attacked by pirates.

So you are left with exactly the same choices as you are now:
-have numerous warships in the area to deter pirate attacks
-pay the ransom
Indeed, you would have eliminiated the possiblity of guarding or arming freighters, since your fantasy-goverment can now organize larger raids.

So tell me - did you give this even a shred of tought?

[Norade]

Who's going to charge the Russians and make it stick enough to do anything? Short answer, nobody.

Ah, so it is not a crime as long as you can get away with it.
Hey, I didn't know what Germany did in the Eastern Front was completely fine and dandy with you because many of them were neither charged nor did the charges stick in many cases.

A crime is a crime is a crime. The feasibility of prosecution does not enter it. If I got away with shooting you, does it make it okay?

I never said it was right, and while I do agree with pirates being killed I also admit it's illegal. You also need to realize that when something is illegal, but also the easiest way to deal with a problem, and there's nothing that others can do about it, that option will see use.

They could have, but try them and then what? Hold them forever, let them free in your nation? Release them back to Somalia?

Either option is on the table. But what does this have to do with anything? Why is trying them in court not an option? It is a slam-dunk case.

Most options solve nothing, they simply delay the problem and bring people with every reason to hate you into your nation.

Heavy weapons aren't needed, hell a few AR's on a motorized mount linked to a laptop would slaughter anybody attacking in a small boat. Given how cheap the weapons part is you could likely get tons of them for cheap if there was a market for them.

There is not a market for them. Nor is a single motorized mount enough to stop an attack, nor are AR's great weapons for this.

There would be a market if ships were allowed to mount them, they also have uses in future remote and unmanned weapons systems. A single well placed motorized mount makes attacking the wrong ship a far greater risk and the pirates may look for easier targets when it fires at them. As for AR's I only mentioned them due to cost, something like an LMG would be far better.

As for the navy doing things, what is the expense per stopped pirate? How much does it cost per month to keep the navy there? It would be cheaper for the governments involved to subsidize arming the merchant ships.

Evidence, please.

Assuming every person aboard was paid at the lowest rate and there were no other costs it costs Canada $7.6 million per year to keep her contribution in theater. The US likely spends many times that given what it has in the region. Overall simply based on adding the number of sailors in the region as listed on the wiki and multiply by a the lowest Canadian soldiers wage I get $185.2 million spent on the issue each year.

With some economy of scale that seems like it would be enough to arm a decent enough number of ships with some form of semi-automated defense.

How fast is that PMC group going to find itself not being hired in favor of ones that are better?

Because the market is practically empty due to the high demand in Afghanistan and Iraq. There are only so many people available for this job who have the high training.[/quote]

I wonder how many would love the chance to work on a nice air conditioned boat instead of in a nasty desert?

Besides if all it takes is one or two additional crew and on board weapons to keep most smaller attacks away then how expensive will it be? A one time fee to arm the ships, and the cost of two additional crew. That sure seems cheaper than paying to get a ship back.

You will now calculate the cost of those persons (your 2 man team is worthless, you'd need at least based on average PMC salary and then calculate the number of ships need guarding. You will then balance that versus the low risk of being captured and having to pay a ransom. [/quote]

It depends on the average salary of a PMC and how much it would cost to place a large enough team on ships that are likely to pass through the region.

My mistake. You capped it between one dollar and the cost of feeding and keeping prisoners under lock and key for some weeks, as you yourself said above. Of course, this is soooo much better.

People measure worth in different ways.

What a brilliant retort. So you still measure it in a monetary value that is lower than keeping people at bread and water for a few weeks. In that case, you are a callous sociopath and quite probably worse than most dictators out there.

Yeah, because trials are free, as are jails, and prisoners are going to be feed only bread and water... Right. Like it or not human lives can be valued in dollars and it simply isn't worth it to not simply shoot pirates in the act.

You must have missed the thread on that exact topic I made. It ended up being that seeing as they don't waste resources most Africans are net neutral to human well being. Some are net positive (South Africa springs to mind), and others are net negative (like Somalia).

So your solution is that because they are worth less in your opinion than the expense necessary to feed them for a few weeks, they are net negative. So...because they cost money, they are worthless. Also, love the blanket statement regarding Somalia, sociopath.

You are worse than Saddam.

The nation as a whole is draining at least $185 million a year simply in anti-piracy measures alone, not to mention aid and other expenses. If we assume that in total everything spent in the region only totals up to just over double that at $400 million per year then we're spending 5% of that nations GDP simply to keep them from harming the world more.

As far as myself, I'm a student going to post secondary school so I can earn money and contribute to society. While I'm under no impression that my getting a a degree in computer information systems will make me some god among men, I will sure as fuck contribute more to the world than some malnourished idiot with an AK.

But you haven't paid back the money back. Ergo, you are still a net negative to society. Ergo, you deserve to be killed.

Over my lifetime I will become a net positive, over the past decades few Somalis will. I also don't raid ships and endanger my life and the lives of others. Nor does my nation as a whole.

Of course what happened in France and Switzerland aren't exactly the same, I never said they were.

You certainly did, saying that the Somalis could have easily reformed the country for the better.

Easily? Likely not. Can they reform it? Maybe.

However that doesn't excuse the Somalis for running around killing each other at every possible opportunity. Even an uneducated fuck should eventually realize he gains nothing in the long run if he kills the guy next to him for drugs or for an old family feud.

You do not know anything about a tribal society, do you? They have a habit of doing this unless other people step in and change them. The notion that Somalia of all people, a country with no education system, no functioning governemnt and no law can just reform is so childishly naive that I wonder if you have ever been outside your own little world.

Hmm, funny how the west, and many parts of the east broke from that mold many hundreds if not over a thousand years ago how long do we give these people to catch up before we decide we can make better use of the land?

I do recognize that they've had decades of civil war, but the citizens killing each other, taking drugs, and buying guns does no good. Other societies figured this out long ago, what's taking them so long?

There are large pieces of the west that have not figured that out, see american ghettos. Also, it took the west several thousand years to get over it. Guess what the results would have been if someone had just came into and destroyed the livelihood of that society? Read up on the German invasions of the Roman Empire.

Did I praise ghettos for getting anything right? Nope, they'd also have many more resources if they stopped fighting and are equally retarded and cost tons of money each year to keep from harming themselves or others.

What happened to Rome caused the dark ages, though there was much more to it than a simple invasion. You're an expert in that area though so I'm not even going to begin to get into this here. Though if you feel like it I'd pop buy a thread in History on the topic if it's worth your time to make one.

And I eagerly await you supporting your claim that the pirates/fishermen have equal numbers, organization, logistics, experience and skill to the warlords and their following.

Of course, the masses in other revolutions must always have had every advantage over those above them? If they showed any attempt to get organized for the better they would slowly grow the political will to aid their cause.

Quit dodging and prove your point. Also, show how in a tribal society this is even possible.

Maybe they should grow the fuck up as a society and stop being ignorant tribal idiots. Most of the world has figured this out by now and we all started out with less knowledge than Somalis have now. They can at least see that other ways exist without having to invent an entirely new way to live.

[Norade]

Waaait a minute - let me get this straight.
Norade, you make two absolutely outlandish claims, if i am not mistaken.

First, you claim that there is nothing wrong with killing prisoners without any trial at all, because it would be too expensive to imprison them to give them one.
I think every sane person can see what's wrong with that.

Of course I see what's wrong with it. I also see the reality behind why it's done. We know exactly what verdict the show trial would reach anyway, this also solves the issue of what to do with them when they're found guilty.

Second, you claim that instead of pirating, the various tribes could somehow form a working goverment.
Of course, that assumes that
-the differences between them miraculously disappear
-that they can agree on a leader
-that they even know how to govern a state instead of a couple of mudhuts
-that there is govermental infrastructure left
-that such a goverment would not abuse it's power
-that it would be stable
You present absolutely no evidence for this preposterous claims and ignore that something like that never happened.

But even IF they formed such a goverment - what are they going to live from? Somalia has nothing to make money from and nearly no infrastructure. A stable goverment alone won't attract any foreign industry - and you can't build your own becaue you don't have any money.

So, what are they going to do? Exactly, more organized pirating, because that's a good source of money. Heck, such a goverment could charge "anti-piracy fees" and if you don't pay them your are propably going to get attacked by pirates.

On the issue of forming a government, while no other nation has done it in the same conditions nothing is to say that these groups couldn't realize that fighting themselves is a major part of why they're poor. Even among the uneducated there are above average IQ's that can think of new ideas and natural leaders.

Also Somalia had working governments and wealth in the past, in fact it used to be a massive trade hub in antiquity. So to say there is no way it could make money is retarded. It obviously holds an important position for world trade and if it ever got its shit together it could make huge money because of it. Short term they're still fucked, but they start looking less like a place to die and more like a place that is headed the right way.

So you are left with exactly the same choices as you are now:
-have numerous warships in the area to deter pirate attacks
-pay the ransom
Indeed, you would have eliminiated the possiblity of guarding or arming freighters, since your fantasy-goverment can now organize larger raids.

So tell me - did you give this even a shred of tought?

Yeah, that's one way to profit from being on a trade route but if half the money spent containing them was spent to help them get some form of industry working it needn't be the only way.

[PeZook]

Would something like motion sensors scanning the waters near points that pirates commonly board and that alerting the helmsmen work? Or would waves give too many false positives?

You could theoretically mount some sort of look-down radar set, one on each broadside, but there are several problems with that sort of solution: cost, maintenance, power and again cost.

On remote weapons you could make automated weapons that fire or don't fire based on transponders carried by the crew. Unauthorized boarding would lead to being filled with lead. To cut down accidents they could be made to activate only after the ship has been boarded.

If you want to make them activate only after the ship's been boarded, you'd need enough of them to cover the entire ship, which shoots the cost up dramatically, and doesn't guarantee anything: by the time most crews even realize they're under attack, their ship is already secure. If activated in such a scenario, the risk of friendly fire shoots up dramatically, since it's unlikely the autoguns could shoot precisley enough to kill a pirate leading crewmembers to a holding area, for example.

Also, I've been told insurers really, really don't like to insure ships and crews with weapons aboard, since weapons + bunch of untrained sailors = accident waiting to happen. There are many, many ports that also have special pain-in-the-ass rules in place for ships with arms aboard.

[Serafina]

Also Somalia had working governments and wealth in the past, in fact it used to be a massive trade hub in antiquity. So to say there is no way it could make money is retarded. It obviously holds an important position for world trade and if it ever got its shit together it could make huge money because of it. Short term they're still fucked, but they start looking less like a place to die and more like a place that is headed the right way.

Guess what, they ARE making money off the trade right now.

What, that's not right? Bad luck - heck, as a sovereign state they could pass a law on it. Sure, you can invade them - but we are trying to evade that, right?

Besides, "they were X in antiquity" is an insanely stupid argument.
But i guess we have to inform every country along the Silk road that they now get a huge share out of chinese-european trade, just like in antiquity

[Norade]

Would something like motion sensors scanning the waters near points that pirates commonly board and that alerting the helmsmen work? Or would waves give too many false positives?

You could theoretically mount some sort of look-down radar set, one on each broadside, but there are several problems with that sort of solution: cost, maintenance, power and again cost.

On remote weapons you could make automated weapons that fire or don't fire based on transponders carried by the crew. Unauthorized boarding would lead to being filled with lead. To cut down accidents they could be made to activate only after the ship has been boarded.

If you want to make them activate only after the ship's been boarded, you'd need enough of them to cover the entire ship, which shoots the cost up dramatically, and doesn't guarantee anything: by the time most crews even realize they're under attack, their ship is already secure. If activated in such a scenario, the risk of friendly fire shoots up dramatically, since it's unlikely the autoguns could shoot precisley enough to kill a pirate leading crewmembers to a holding area, for example.

Also, I've been told insurers really, really don't like to insure ships and crews with weapons aboard, since weapons + bunch of untrained sailors = accident waiting to happen. There are many, many ports that also have special pain-in-the-ass rules in place for ships with arms aboard.

Make sense, I just wonder where the break even point lies...

[Norade]

Also Somalia had working governments and wealth in the past, in fact it used to be a massive trade hub in antiquity. So to say there is no way it could make money is retarded. It obviously holds an important position for world trade and if it ever got its shit together it could make huge money because of it. Short term they're still fucked, but they start looking less like a place to die and more like a place that is headed the right way.

Guess what, they ARE making money off the trade right now.

What, that's not right? Bad luck - heck, as a sovereign state they could pass a law on it. Sure, you can invade them - but we are trying to evade that, right?

Besides, "they were X in antiquity" is an insanely stupid argument.
But i guess we have to inform every country along the Silk road that they now get a huge share out of chinese-european trade, just like in antiquity

I know that they're making money right now, but sooner or later companies are going to find a break even point for kidnappings and hostage takings and insurance rates will leap up even more. So eventually it will take more than what is happening right now and still won't make as much money for them. A functioning government, at its worst would pull in more money from piracy and give other nations a reason to end it one way or the other.

The argument can still hold true though in Somalia's case as they're already proving they can effect trade. If they could get enough money they could be a major trade and refueling hub as oil wouldn't need to go very far and they have the location for it.

[MKSheppard]

All you need to do is pass a regulation saying:

"If you wish to operate on shipping route A213 or within x nautical miles of the horn of africa; at all times your speed should be in excess of 25 knots."

[Shroom Man 777]

One of the things why putting guns on ships is stupid is that the ships crossing the Horn of Africa once may not be the same ones crossing it again? I mean it's not like the same ships are passing by there all the time, and other ships from all over the world might be crossing that route XYZ-number of times. Does this mean we put guns on ALL ships? Or only on the ships that cross the Horn of Africa? How many times will those ships cross the Horn of Africa? What if they cross there only once... or what if they cross it only every five years? What if they never go there again? Man, what routes do these ships take. And do we have a graph from the 1960s showing the percentage of ships that get pirated, and the percentage of ships that go through there unmolested? How common is piracy? One in a hundred ships crossing the Horn? One in a thousand? One in two? One in a half?

[[R_H]]

What would be goal of intervention here ? Improving the quality of life in Somalia ? Under the fucked up rules the world operates under that is all but impossible. At same the same bizarre sense of morality that pervades international politics makes it trivial to deal with pirates by just invading the country under a faux excuse and killing people. But the strength of will to occupy and improve a country Somalia for the good of people living there is all but impossible to findl.

Another question is which faction or which of the factions to back? And then there's the slight problem that Somaliland and Puntland are autonomous to the point that they're basically their own countries.

It would probably be an invaision under the GWOT umbrella, after all, the ICU and al-Shabab are Islamists. After Somalia it's off to Yemen!

[LaCroix]

I want to jump on shep's bandwagon. (I never thought that could happen...)

It seems rational. What speed would make a ship unboardable? I know that getting a pilot on board is a life-threatening thing, and this is done at low speed and with boats made for that purpose and both ships wanting to make it happen.

At what speeds would boarding be "near impossible"? And could merchant vessels reach these speeds? What are the sustainable top speeds in this area and how is the sea there? calm?

With what I know about ship building, the smaller pirate vessels must be operating at significant above hull speed to keep up with the bigger ships.

[Thanas]

I never said it was right, and while I do agree with pirates being killed I also admit it's illegal. You also need to realize that when something is illegal, but also the easiest way to deal with a problem, and there's nothing that others can do about it, that option will see use.

No? You said

I don't see how the Russians did any wrong.

.
You also argued that the Russians could have tossed a pistol in the cell and then shot them under a pretense and argued that the option would be more cost effective.

Quit backpedaling.

Most options solve nothing, they simply delay the problem and bring people with every reason to hate you into your nation.

More useless wigging. We have a viable option which also is morally superior. You have no case, no argument. You are nothing but hot air.

There would be a market if ships were allowed to mount them, they also have uses in future remote and unmanned weapons systems. A single well placed motorized mount makes attacking the wrong ship a far greater risk and the pirates may look for easier targets when it fires at them. As for AR's I only mentioned them due to cost, something like an LMG would be far better.

As you have already conceded that (and not been able to produce any cost estimate either) I'll not address this any further.

Assuming every person aboard was paid at the lowest rate and there were no other costs it costs Canada $7.6 million per year to keep her contribution in theater. The US likely spends many times that given what it has in the region. Overall simply based on adding the number of sailors in the region as listed on the wiki and multiply by a the lowest Canadian soldiers wage I get $185.2 million spent on the issue each year.

With some economy of scale that seems like it would be enough to arm a decent enough number of ships with some form of semi-automated defense.

No, it would not. There are over 21.000 crossings there in any year. Also, your estimate is disingenious because those ships would still have been built and paid anyway. In any case, your estimate utterly sucks because you just declare that it would be enough. Heck, just purchasing a single AR for every one of the crossing would cost almost 17 million and that is just a stock AR without a mount or any persons covering it and not even covering the additional insurance, pay, risk coverage etc. In short, not feasible.

I wonder how many would love the chance to work on a nice air conditioned boat instead of in a nasty desert?

You've not been on a freighter, have you? That said, what these guys care about is pay.

It depends on the average salary of a PMC and how much it would cost to place a large enough team on ships that are likely to pass through the region.

Numbers or concede.

Yeah, because trials are free, as are jails, and prisoners are going to be feed only bread and water... Right. Like it or not human lives can be valued in dollars and it simply isn't worth it to not simply shoot pirates in the act.

As I said, sociopath. Sure good to know that when you are killed, it will be a net gain to society because you are a) a net negative and b) if the police don't investigate, they safe a lot of money.

The nation as a whole is draining at least $185 million a year simply in anti-piracy measures alone, not to mention aid and other expenses. If we assume that in total everything spent in the region only totals up to just over double that at $400 million per year then we're spending 5% of that nations GDP simply to keep them from harming the world more.

Which proves...what, exactly?

Over my lifetime I will become a net positive, over the past decades few Somalis will. I also don't raid ships and endanger my life and the lives of others. Nor does my nation as a whole.

Which has got what to do with the drowning of unarmed prisoners?

Easily? Likely not. Can they reform it? Maybe.

And the conservatives in the USA may just decide to support Obama, which is way more likely than what you are peddling.

Hmm, funny how the west, and many parts of the east broke from that mold many hundreds if not over a thousand years ago how long do we give these people to catch up

Because we had a basic economy that was enough to provide for us as a society over several hundred years. We also had a continous scholarly tradition and civilising influence in several institutions. The Somalis have neither.

before we decide we can make better use of the land?

Ah, so you are not only a sociopath, but also a social darwinist. Next stop: Eugenics.

What happened to Rome caused the dark ages, though there was much more to it than a simple invasion.

Way to miss the point here, which was that if you erode a people's livestock, they will become tribal and primitive.

You're an expert in that area though so I'm not even going to begin to get into this here. Though if you feel like it I'd pop buy a thread in History on the topic if it's worth your time to make one.

Given your utter inability to argue a point and lack of knowledge, it sure as heck would not.

Maybe they should grow the fuck up as a society and stop being ignorant tribal idiots. Most of the world has figured this out by now and we all started out with less knowledge than Somalis have now. They can at least see that other ways exist without having to invent an entirely new way to live.

You can't make any argument, nor can you cite any evidence to support your position. Your continued stubbornness in taking a position and when challenged, simply repeating your words and insisting that it must be so does not, contrary to your expectations, an argument make.

All you need to do is pass a regulation saying:

"If you wish to operate on shipping route A213 or within x nautical miles of the horn of africa; at all times your speed should be in excess of 25 knots."

Won't work because many merchantman have a top speed of 15-18 knots. They can't go that fast.

[Norade]

I could continue to lose this point to point debate in dramatic fashion, but I'm just going to concede while I'm less far behind. At first glance and with rough numbers it seemed like it might just be cheaper for the military to subsidize arming merchants ships, but it isn't. My stance on killing pirates hasn't changed though, I still think that it's better to make raiding ships at least as deadly as living in Somalia, than to simply let it happen.

On the nation and their progress as a civilization, I'd like to figure out where Africa went wrong after they had a head start, but that is for another time.