Skip to comments.Arming sailors: Gun-free zones are dangerous at sea
Posted on 05/10/2009 10:04:53 PM PDT by JohnRLott
Somali pirates attacked a U.S. vessel and captured a Dutch ship on Thursday. These raids could be prevented if merchant mariners had guns and could defend their ships.
Richard Phillips, the heroic captain of the crew that fought off pirates on the Maersk Alabama a month ago, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee April 30 that armed crews "should be part of the overall debate about how to defend ourselves against criminals on the seas."
Capt. Phillips noted that protecting U.S.-flagged ships is the "responsibility of the U.S. government," but that he understands the limits of what even the U.S. Navy can do to protect all the commercial traffic spread across vast oceans. Just as police arrive on the scene after crimes on land have occurred, the Navy cannot be everywhere all the time. More than 25,000 ships travel off the Horn of Africa every year. That's a target-rich environment.
Whether it is on land or sea, gun-free zones are magnets for criminals and terrorists. . . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
We were always armed on the ship that I served on, laws be damned.
Just like in other Great Ages of Piracy, eventually it gets bad enough that someone goes and does something about it.
I’m just wondering what it’s going to take and who is going to put their foot down.
My money is on China. They suffer as much as anyone else. They have a lot tied up in Africa and they are not particularly concerned with “International Law” niceties.
Several afternoons spent delivering 100mm naval gunfire on several of these “pirate strongholds” would burnish their prestige as lord protectors of Africa and make them the new power in the Indian Ocean. It’s win-win for them.
Besides, the same people who would denounce us if we did it will hail the Chinese.
We’ve all seen the google satellite pictures by now. these places are small and well-defined on a barren coast. Easy targets.
3 “EM” one “NCO.”
All were armed with nothing heaver than 7.62x51. When a pirate assault boat got within 100 meters, they would open up. No warning. Remains would be left floating in area.
Crews would work a ship about 4-5 days outbound, then transfer to an inbound, then near port, to an outbound again. 8 hours on, 7 off for overlap and clock rotation. Work 21 days, off 14. Good pay.
Pretty soon, no more piracy.
If a ship going east to west carried a squad to the west side of the zone and then that squad hitched a ride on another ship going west to east and vice versa over and over it would solve many of the problems of having Marines at the right place at the right time. If there were times when more ships are going one way than are going the other way, as I would expect, the unbalance could be evened out by transporting Marines to where they're needed by Navy aircraft. There shouldn't be a problem of the Marines being outnumbered and/or outgunned, Marines usually fight numerically superior enemy forces, and a boatload of poorly trained teenage and 20-something ragtag pirates would be duck soup for a squad of well armed Marines.
That kind of operation would be expensive, but Marines are always training whenever they aren't fighting anyway, so it's not like they would be wasting time and money by providing a much needed service to US commercial shipping interests. And it wouldn't have to go on for a decade or two, after a relatively few pirate boats were destroyed along with their crews, word would get around that messing with a US flagged ship on the high seas is extremely hazardous to a pirates health. A young pirate watching a ship he had attempted to hijack sail safely away in the far distance while he dog-paddles to stay afloat 300 miles from shore after his boat was sunk by Marine gunfire would not make a very enticing lure for recruiting new pirates if he somehow made it back to shore.
Whether it is on land or sea, gun-free zones are magnets for criminals and terrorists...
The problem is that "International Laws" and some host nation laws have made the world's navigation routes and ports what amounts to as basically a Gun Free Zone.
Think of it is UN gun control run amok.
Technically correct, but not really in terms of what is happening.
For instance, the Military Sealift Command (MSC) ship that was forced to "outrun" pirates last week was not carrying weapons or security.
US and International policy has digressed to the point where nations are afraid of an "outcry" should they start blowing pirate vessels out of the water.
yes this is a big problem. while technically perfekt legal it´s still impossible to do because once you enter a forreign port you would be charged because of arms smuggeling, violation of the countries gun laws....
and last but not least if your “home country” doesn´t agree blowing pirates out of the waters you have a problem because once you leave international waters your country will convince you because of that.
It is a simply and logical progression based on the concept of Operant conditioning in psychology
An organism will continue doing when it is rewarded, and stop when punished
Pirates will continue preying on ships as long as they are rewarded for doing so, and stop when they perceive that it is too dangerous like if at least some ships can defend themselves with guns
[The very same logic follows on a city street, BTW]
WHY can't leftist's figure this out?
That cruise brochure looks great. Put me down for one cabin for a late July cruise, and reserve a .50 BMG Barrett rifle for me along with 100 rounds of incendiary ammo and a very thick shoulder pad. I’ll bring my own 1911 Colt .45 and a few loaded Wilson magazines, so I won’t need to reserve a sidearm.