USN sinks pirates

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2007-10-30 02:57pm

Lonestar wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:Though at least being able to chase pirates into Somalia's territorial waters is a step in the right direction. This should have been done years ago.
It has been done years ago, I took part in such a mission. We were at the point with one CG, two DDGs, one FN FFG, and the Bonhomme Richard less than 10 miles off fo Mogadishu when the owners of the ship opted to pay the ransom rather than have us take the Feisty Gas back. The operation would have included French SF and EOD taking the ship while Marines were landed on Somalia to attack the pirate camps, all while we(my ship, plus the 2 DDGs) would have been shelling the Hell out of known Bad Guys installations. We probably would have brought Piracy in the HoA to an stop right there, and I know that we've had almost-similiar operations since, but the ships' owners always opt to pay the ransom.

So don't knock Coalition forces for this. The USN and other navies have been busting their ass working within the framework they can.

I'm not knocking anyone for it. Though a question occurs: If the ship owners opt to pay the ransom, why not let them pay it, get the ship back, and then attack the pirate installations anyway?

Ryan Thunder · Post by **Ryan Thunder** » 2007-10-30 03:04pm

Rogue 9 wrote:I'm not knocking anyone for it. Though a question occurs: If the ship owners opt to pay the ransom, why not let them pay it, get the ship back, and then attack the pirate installations anyway?

Because like idiots, we're "too good" for that, I figure.

Perhaps the pirates have some way of returning the hostages without revealing where they are?

Ryan Thunder · Post by **Ryan Thunder** » 2007-10-30 03:04pm

Edit: Where the pirates are, that is.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2007-10-30 03:06pm

It should simply be illegal for any American company to pay ransom, and then wait for a ship owned by one to be taken. There we have our cause right there.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2007-10-30 03:08pm

That leads to the problem of the pirates simply ceasing attacks on American-flagged vessels, though.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2007-10-30 03:09pm

Ghetto edit: Which isn't really a problem, of course, but it doesn't accomplish the intended purpose.

Sturmfalke · Post by **Sturmfalke** » 2007-10-30 03:16pm

Ryan Thunder wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:I'm not knocking anyone for it. Though a question occurs: If the ship owners opt to pay the ransom, why not let them pay it, get the ship back, and then attack the pirate installations anyway?
Because like idiots, we're "too good" for that, I figure.

What do you mean by "too good for that"? If they know where the bases are and do not attack them despite that knowledge, there has to be another reason behind this decision. Maybe they are only allowed to act in direct defense of a merchantman or something like that.

Ryan Thunder wrote:Perhaps the pirates have some way of returning the hostages without revealing where they are?

If I understand Lonestar's post correctly they have information as to where the pirate installations as well as pirate camps are, so that would not be a problem.

Ryan Thunder · Post by **Ryan Thunder** » 2007-10-30 03:32pm

Sturmfalke wrote:
Ryan Thunder wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:I'm not knocking anyone for it. Though a question occurs: If the ship owners opt to pay the ransom, why not let them pay it, get the ship back, and then attack the pirate installations anyway?
Because like idiots, we're "too good" for that, I figure.
What do you mean by "too good for that"? If they know where the bases are and do not attack them despite that knowledge, there has to be another reason behind this decision. Maybe they are only allowed to act in direct defense of a merchantman or something like that.

I meant that perhaps a promise to not obliterate the pirate installation is part of the agreement, and we might be too nice to actually go back on it even if it makes sense.

Personally, I'd just bomb the shit out of them as soon as I got the hostages back anyways.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2007-10-30 03:37pm

Sturmfalke wrote:
What prevented the navy from executing this plan except the part where they actually take the ship back? If it would have been possible to shell land-based installation then, it should have been possible to destroy them and the pirate camps, say, a week later after the hostage crisis of the Feisty Gas has been resolved. Or did the Somalis deny authorisation for such an operation as long as there is no merchantman in danger?

Somali has no government to give or deny permission. I don't know if you've been keeping up with world events since 1991 but the country at that time was essentially a patchwork of warlord led states. Now it's a formerly Islamic Cabal led state that's been invaded by Ethiopia but the Muslim Congress was only in power for about eight months and wasn't recognised by anyone, so for all intents and purposes their was still no government.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2007-10-30 03:46pm

You know, here's an idea. Why not employ Q-ships? Just run a disguised armed merchantman near the Somalian coast and let them come.

Sturmfalke · Post by **Sturmfalke** » 2007-10-30 03:56pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Sturmfalke wrote:
What prevented the navy from executing this plan except the part where they actually take the ship back? If it would have been possible to shell land-based installation then, it should have been possible to destroy them and the pirate camps, say, a week later after the hostage crisis of the Feisty Gas has been resolved. Or did the Somalis deny authorisation for such an operation as long as there is no merchantman in danger?
Somali has no government to give or deny permission. I don't know if you've been keeping up with world events since 1991 but the country at that time was essentially a patchwork of warlord led states. Now it's a formerly Islamic Cabal led state that's been invaded by Ethiopia but the Muslim Congress was only in power for about eight months and wasn't recognised by anyone, so for all intents and purposes their was still no government.

I haven't been following Somali politics, but from what I gathered from the occasional news I heard they have an interim government that is trying to establish control over the entire country since it has been throwing out the union of islamic courts with Ethiopia's help. This interim government represents the land at the UN, so it is internationally recognized and would have to give permission for such an operation from a purely legal point of view, or am I mistaken here?

But if there is no actual government to ask for permission, the question remains: What prevented them from attacking known pirate installations?

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2007-10-30 04:09pm

Sturmfalke wrote:
I haven't been following Somali politics, but from what I gathered from the occasional news I heard they have an interim government that is trying to establish control over the entire country since it has been throwing out the union of islamic courts with Ethiopia's help. This interim government represents the land at the UN, so it is internationally recognized and would have to give permission for such an operation from a purely legal point of view, or am I mistaken here?

I wasn't aware of the interim government. I was more referring to the period when Lonestar actually took part in the OP against the pirates and the time this was concieved, Somali was still controlled by warlords. So there was no one in Somali to ask permission.

But if there is no actual government to ask for permission, the question remains: What prevented them from attacking known pirate installations?

Who knows what goes through the heads of politicians besides hot air. Which is really just a fancy way of saying that I don't know.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2007-10-30 04:13pm

Rogue 9 wrote:That leads to the problem of the pirates simply ceasing attacks on American-flagged vessels, though.

The American merchant marine has perhaps 300 ships sailing the world’s oceans, against 90,000 foreign flagged ships, many of which are American owned. The odds of an American flagged merchant ship being attacked off Somalia are incredibly slim.

Rogue 9 wrote:You know, here's an idea. Why not employ Q-ships? Just run a disguised armed merchantman near the Somalian coast and let them come.

Q-ships are used in South East Asia, but usually it’s a small ship like a yatch since that sort of vessel is more easily and more likely to be attacked. Off Somalia the number of attacks is significant, but its not like any ship approaching the country is hit, more like one or two a month. A Q-ship would cost a lot of money and be a significant liability that needs to have a US warship close at hand, and yet it’s just not going to be very likely to actually work.

Ritterin Sophia · Post by **Ritterin Sophia** » 2007-10-30 04:52pm

Destructionator XIII wrote:
Gil Hamilton wrote:I mean, most shipping companies actually have money specifically set aside in their budgets for paying randoms and getting hostages back.
Is there some reason they can't use that money to hire some security guys with guns to guard the ship? It seems to me that that would be a better solution than just taking it. Or would that end up being more expensive?

Wouldn't it be cheaper to just set that money aside for a new ship and let the USN deal with the pirates? That way you don't have to worry about the same pirates going out a week later and taking your ship again.

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2007-10-30 05:10pm

Sturmfalke wrote:
What prevented the navy from executing this plan except the part where they actually take the ship back? If it would have been possible to shell land-based installation then, it should have been possible to destroy them and the pirate camps, say, a week later after the hostage crisis of the Feisty Gas has been resolved. Or did the Somalis deny authorisation for such an operation as long as there is no merchantman in danger?

No government in Somalia at the time, and in any event a decision seems to have been reached that the smart thing to do is pay the Ethiopians to do most of the Grunt work. Saber-rattling at Iran not withstanding, putting large numbers of troops on the ground in another Muslim country would be a Bad Thing, even with (*gasp*) French support.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2007-10-30 05:21pm

Rogue 9 wrote:Ghetto edit: Which isn't really a problem, of course, but it doesn't accomplish the intended purpose.

I said American owned, not American flagged. That is a very large difference.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2007-10-30 11:15pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: I said American owned, not American flagged. That is a very large difference.

Wouldn't that encourage pirates to just murder ship crews rather than take hostages?

Ryan Thunder · Post by **Ryan Thunder** » 2007-10-31 10:32am

Gil Hamilton wrote:
The Duchess of Zeon wrote: I said American owned, not American flagged. That is a very large difference.
Wouldn't that encourage pirates to just murder ship crews rather than take hostages?

A very good point, actually.

By paying the ransoms, the shipping companies may simply be avoiding unnecessary loss of life.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2007-10-31 11:27am

Ryan Thunder wrote:A very good point, actually.

By paying the ransoms, the shipping companies may simply be avoiding unnecessary loss of life.

I think it's because it's the cheapest of all options, for the shipping company. Boat captains may be important to them, but they can always get more sailors.

Fingolfin_Noldor · Post by **Fingolfin_Noldor** » 2007-10-31 11:31am

Gil Hamilton wrote:
The Duchess of Zeon wrote: I said American owned, not American flagged. That is a very large difference.
Wouldn't that encourage pirates to just murder ship crews rather than take hostages?

Well, why be a pirate then? After all, the whole point of the hostages is to have bargaining chips. Hard cash is more valuable to them than the goods on the ship on average.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2007-10-31 11:31am

But if no one pays ransoms anymore, and ransom is why the pirates are doing this, then wouldn't they just stop pirating since they're no longer getting anything out of it?

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2007-10-31 12:02pm

Rogue 9 wrote:But if no one pays ransoms anymore, and ransom is why the pirates are doing this, then wouldn't they just stop pirating since they're no longer getting anything out of it?

I think they'd probably brutally slaughter for a little while to convince people ransoming is better.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2007-10-31 05:09pm

Rogue 9 wrote:But if no one pays ransoms anymore, and ransom is why the pirates are doing this, then wouldn't they just stop pirating since they're no longer getting anything out of it?

No, because in fact most pirates do not bother with kidnap and ransom as that takes a fair bit of organization to pull off, and you need some absurdly remote lawless area to hide the ship and crew in. Most pirates either steal cargo or most often steal the contents of the ships safe. Ships normally carry around enough cash to pay off the crew should they decide to quit the ship, so the amounts involved can be several tens of thousands of dollars or even more.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2007-10-31 06:47pm

Thanas wrote:So if I understand this right - the US has sunk some abandoned skifs tied to the stern of a captured vessel, but has failed to ascertain the safety of the crew of the captured vessel and so far has not caught up with the pirates?

I'll celebrate when the criteria listed above are fulfilled. Right now a modern warship sinking some boats is not a great cause for celebration.

So you'll celebrate when the USN violates the territorial waters of a foreign nation and conducts boardings of privately owned ships against the owner's wishes?