[besson3c]

I thought this could be another one of those efficient threads where we combine two subjects into one...

I used to *love* Teen Wolf as a kid, did anybody else? I thought it was so cool dancing on top of a moving car, I always wanted to try that, and since I'm a horrible athlete when I played basketball I used to fantasize about turning into a wolf and owning everybody, dunking the ball in people's faces and stuff. Anybody have any Teen Wolf related stories?

Also, I'm hearing stuff about pirates in the news. Exactly how does a pirate take a ship hostage these days? Can't non pirate ships just avoid the pirate ships, or are they too fast?

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Also, I'm hearing stuff about pirates in the news. Exactly how does a pirate take a ship hostage these days? Can't non pirate ships just avoid the pirate ships, or are they too fast?

Pirates sit and wait for the ships to pass by and pounce on them with much faster and more maneuverable boats.

Commercial ships are unarmed. Some pirates have RPGs and antitank rocket launchers.

[besson3c]

That's pretty crazy, but I guess it makes sense. I had no idea that pirates still existed.

[moonmonkey]

I loved teen wolf II, it was so extreme even Michael J fox refused to do it.

FYI these pirates are not proper pirates they are just guys with modern guns and modern clothes, very disappointing.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Commercial ships are unarmed.

I really don't understand why that is.

-t

[adamfishercox]

Also, in that area, an approaching boat could be pirates, refugees, or just fishermen. So shooting blindly is not a great course of action. Though having a few firearms on board seems like a no-brainer, given that a ship is pretty much an isolated "town" and havoc could always be wruck. (Yes, wruck)

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by adamfishercox 

Also, in that area, an approaching boat could be pirates, refugees, or just fishermen.

Refugees or fishermen that look like this ?





-t

[adamfishercox]

Yep. You have no idea what hit you when it turns out they're shooting bullets and not fisherman "friend pellets."

[SpaceMonkey]

The thinking is also perhaps that you would not be able to arm civilian ships to the point that they would actually deter pirates of this sort, and so the chances of it becoming a bloodbath would be much higher. As it stands now, it's rare that the hostages are harmed.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

The thinking is also perhaps that you would not be able to arm civilian ships to the point that they would actually deter pirates of this sort, and so the chances of it becoming a bloodbath would be much higher. As it stands now, it's rare that the hostages are harmed.

So we just continue to send unarmed vessels into the arms of the pirates, and then pay up ransom ?

Genius plan.

-t

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

So we just continue to send unarmed vessels into the arms of the pirates, and then pay up ransom ?

Genius plan.

-t

No, we need to address the problem. But I don't think that arming civilian vessels is the best way to do so.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

The thinking is also perhaps that you would not be able to arm civilian ships to the point that they would actually deter pirates of this sort, and so the chances of it becoming a bloodbath would be much higher. As it stands now, it's rare that the hostages are harmed.

Another *slight* problem concerns ships actually entering another country's harbour - which is something that most ships are designed to do by their very nature.

Bringing weapons along on a trade vessel is way, way, WAY illegal in most any place on earth - or an expensive bureaucratic nightmare.

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

No, we need to address the problem. But I don't think that arming civilian vessels is the best way to do so.

Which is easier, changing an entire geographic region or arming a few ships with a minimal amount of weaponry? Maybe do both, but only one will work in the short term.

I've always thought that if I had a sailboat, it would have a hidden, easily accessible compartment with heavy weaponry. .50 cal sniper rifle, .308 rifle, submachine guns, shotguns, and pistols. If that arsenal could kill zombies from any distance, it can kill pirates. It's the best of both worlds, a haven from any land or sea based threat. Of course, I live in the middle of the AZ desert in a town where only a few years ago a couple was killed by pirates on their yacht. They weren't killed here if that sentence is kind of fuzzy

Also strange, I actually had a conversation about Teen Wolf at work yesterday..

[ort888]

What if we put a teen wolf on every boat? That would stop the pirates.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by iLikebeer 

Which is easier, changing an entire geographic region or arming a few ships with a minimal amount of weaponry? Maybe do both, but only one will work in the short term.

I've always thought that if I had a sailboat, it would have a hidden, easily accessible compartment with heavy weaponry. .50 cal sniper rifle, .308 rifle, submachine guns, shotguns, and pistols. If that arsenal could kill zombies from any distance, it can kill pirates. It's the best of both worlds, a haven from any land or sea based threat.

Right. What would really happen is that the merchant crew would probably surrender rather than try to fight (most people are not very willing to risk their lives over someone else's property, especially if they know their employer will pay the ransom) and you'd end up with even better-armed pirates.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by iLikebeer 

I've always thought that if I had a sailboat, it would have a hidden, easily accessible compartment with heavy weaponry. .50 cal sniper rifle, .308 rifle, submachine guns, shotguns, and pistols. If that arsenal could kill zombies from any distance, it can kill pirates. It's the best of both worlds, a haven from any land or sea based threat.

That would work just fine as long as you never, ever called on a port outside of the U.S.

Land anywhere else, it would probably mean instant jail.

[SpaceMonkey]

Q ships might be an interesting strategy. Again, though, you run the risk of escalating the violence. I assume you'd also have to falsify shipping manifests/records, while somehow also simultaneously reassuring the destination ports that it's not actually a real ship.

[ort888]

This looks like a job for... Aquaman!

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

That would work just fine as long as you never, ever called on a port outside of the U.S.

Land anywhere else, it would probably mean instant jail.

Should I have bolded the "hidden" part? Besides which, there are plenty of laws that get overlooked. If every cargo ship had hidden weapons on board and a country arrested every crewman of every ship that carried those weapons, they can no longer do business. Shipping companies will stop dealing with them. Their economy suffers, they lose access to imports/exports...
It wouldn't be hard to make that law unenforceable if a company enacted that policy. If you meant my hypothetical sailboat, again, the keyword is hidden compartment. The weapons wouldn't be on any manifest or in plain sight. I wouldn't circumnavigate the globe with only a pocket mirror to blind the pirates as a possible defense.

And to stay on topic, I remember how cute I thought Boof was when I was a kid. You ever think of those old movies you loved as a kid, then IMDB or google the person you had a crush on when you were a kid, and see if they're hot now? We could never find the princess from The Neverending Story, but we assumed she was hot.

[Thorzdad]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

So we just continue to send unarmed vessels into the arms of the pirates, and then pay up ransom ?

Genius plan.

-t

NPR interviewed a guy who works with shippers on security. He basically said that the ship owners crunched the numbers a long time ago and decided that it was economically better to just pay the ransoms than it was to invest in arming the ships, training the crew, possibly staffing the ships with a dedicated security force, the liability to the owners of the cargo, the higher insurance cost when a ship is armed, etc, etc. The numbers for arming a ship just don't work.

The pirates just want the money. They don't want the cargo. Also, they actually aren't interested in using their guns.

It's just business.

[besson3c]

I'm on an 80s movie kick right now. It is fun to go back and watch the movies I adored as a kid through the lens of an adult. They seem so different!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ort888 

What if we put a teen wolf on every boat? That would stop the pirates.

I like the cut of your jib!

It would also provide solid basketball and dancing competition on the boats.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by iLikebeer 

We could never find the princess from The Neverending Story, but we assumed she was hot.

That was her only movie. She went on to become a dancer. She actually looks very much the same, just more aged.

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I really don't understand why that is.

-t

It's simple, really. The Good Guys are forced to follow and obey Rules of Engagement, and The Bad Guys are not. If The Good Guys were allowed to just kill the pirates with a bullet in the head and dump them overboard, there would be no more pirates.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

It's simple, really. The Good Guys are forced to follow and obey Rules of Engagement, and The Bad Guys are not. If The Good Guys were allowed to just kill the pirates with a bullet in the head and dump them overboard, there would be no more pirates.

Also probably much fewer good guys.

[ctt1wbw]

Yeah, but our Good Guys can kill more than their fair share of Bad Guys. Plus, we have Harpoons, Tomahawks, Special Forces, etcetera etcetera etcetera. They have caves, camels, anal lube (for the camels), and broken AK-47s.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Plus, we have Harpoons, Tomahawks, Special Forces, etcetera etcetera etcetera. They have caves, camels, anal lube (for the camels), and broken AK-47s.

-t

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

That would work just fine as long as you never, ever called on a port outside of the U.S.

Land anywhere else, it would probably mean instant jail.

This, to me, is a bizarre failure of the "other" authorities to understand that boats move in to and out of international waters, where they can't rely on local police enforcement to get them out of trouble. There needs to be some kind of international protocol whereby boat owners can carry weaponry (i.e. law-aiding owners are met at countries' border and have their weapons lockered by the authorities until they leave).

Oh, and for all those thinking that arming the civvies would escalate the violence, strafing a pirate's vessel with a full auto from a couple hundred metres away is usually enough to convince the pirates to disengage and go home.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Oh, and for all those thinking that arming the civvies would escalate the violence, strafing a pirate's vessel with a full auto from a couple hundred metres away is usually enough to convince the pirates to disengage and go home.

Yes, maybe the first time. The next time that group of pirates goes out, they are probably going to bring some bigger guns with them. Or are you expecting that they are going to give up their life of piracy in exchange for the rich employment opportunities of Somalia?

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Yes, maybe the first time. The next time that group of pirates goes out, they are probably going to bring some bigger guns with them. Or are you expecting that they are going to give up their life of piracy in exchange for the rich employment opportunities of Somalia?

So your Rules of Engagement involve the anal lube, then? You don't believe in killing them, preventing them from coming back out with bigger guns? Like I said somewhere's else, a dead pirate is the same thing as a dead terrorist.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Yes, maybe the first time. The next time that group of pirates goes out, they are probably going to bring some bigger guns with them.

No, they'll give up. They're mostly a bunch of chickenpoops, and will act like chickenpoops when push comes to shove.

[ctt1wbw]

No, not really. They are very rich chickenpoops. The kind of money they have gotten from being allowed to live to commit further piracy on the open seas is going to buy some bigger guns. That's why you kill them BEFORE they can spend the money. To get bigger guns. Why can't people come to the realization that you are supposed to kill your enemy, the enemy...? And not have "dialogue" with them? Talk gets nowhere. A bullet to the head stops everything.

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Yes, maybe the first time. The next time that group of pirates goes out, they are probably going to bring some bigger guns with them. Or are you expecting that they are going to give up their life of piracy in exchange for the rich employment opportunities of Somalia?

Compared to the standard defense of water hoses at the rear of the vessel? Yeah, that would be an upgrade to bringing nothing to a gun fight. Why do anti-gun people not understand deterrence? Would you rob someone you knew was carrying a weapon? What if you knew he was trained to use that weapon? What if you knew he was both trained and willing to use that weapon? If you're headed to a ship on a high speed zodiac and watch your friends get picked off by a sniper rifle, or you see a lot of bullets spraying around you, you'd be stupid to attack that ship. Take a look at a cargo vessel. They have very high sides with very few boarding points. 3 or 4 crew could easily defend every point of the ship.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No, they'll give up. They're mostly a bunch of chickenpoops, and will act like chickenpoops when push comes to shove.

I wouldn't expect them to give up, because even in an optimistic scenario, many (if not the vast majority) of merchant ships would still be unarmed.

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

That was her only movie. She went on to become a dancer. She actually looks very much the same, just more aged.

Yet another thing we talked about at our boring job the other day. This thread actually inspired me to re-research that one and I found that very same website you linked to. I think maybe google got better recently as I found an old friend with a unique name that had never showed up before. Or I liked beer entirely way too much on all of my previous google searches and missed the obvious.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by iLikebeer 

Compared to the standard defense of water hoses at the rear of the vessel? Yeah, that would be an upgrade to bringing nothing to a gun fight. Why do anti-gun people not understand deterrence?

Why do people who talk about deterrence so rarely understand it?

Would you rob someone you knew was carrying a weapon?

In the piracy situation, the pirates will probably not know if the merchant ship is carrying weapons. The merchant ship might somehow announce that they are armed (perhaps in stencils?), but then there is the question of credibility. Once some merchant vessels are armed, there will clearly be an incentive for even unarmed vessels to lie. Very quickly, even the stated declaration of a truthful vessel will have no credibility. Once the pirates are close enough that the bullets are flying and they know the vessel is armed, then deterrence has already failed and the danger is to the crew just as much as it is to the pirates.

What if you knew he was trained to use that weapon?

The pirates will probably not know this.

and willing to use that weapon?

The pirates will not know this. Perhaps some high profile incidents might help convince them, but as I stated earlier, I strongly expect that even armed, trained merchant crews could be compelled to surrender if they are attacked in isolation on the open sea. This is why during WWI and WWII we formed convoys, and didn't just arm merchants. If one isn't motivated by a higher calling of, say, patriotism, there's not a lot to gain by fighting for someone else's property, and a lot to lose. The norm right now is that the company pays the ransom, and the crew knows that just as well as the pirates.

[ctt1wbw]

Okay, will the Pirates try to board and capture a Navy destroyer?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Okay, will the Pirates try to board and capture a Navy destroyer?

No, because in that situation the answers to iLikebeer's questions are clearly known: the vessel is identifiably armed, the crew is trained, and the threat is credible (the crew and the pirates also presumably know that the United States government, as a matter of policy, will not pay their ransom). These statements are all not necessarily the case if we were to arm merchant vessels.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by iLikebeer 

Yet another thing we talked about at our boring job the other day. This thread actually inspired me to re-research that one and I found that very same website you linked to. I think maybe google got better recently as I found an old friend with a unique name that had never showed up before. Or I liked beer entirely way too much on all of my previous google searches and missed the obvious.

I actually found it out several years ago when I was looking up all the kids from that movie. For instance, Atreyu went on to become a motorcycle engineer.

[Eriamjh]

I don't know much about Teen Wolf, but I do know this.

Perhaps the global temperatures will start decreasing as the number of pirates increases?

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

In the piracy situation, the pirates will probably not know if the merchant ship is carrying weapons. The merchant ship might somehow announce that they are armed (perhaps in stencils?), but then there is the question of credibility. Once some merchant vessels are armed, there will clearly be an incentive for even unarmed vessels to lie. Very quickly, even the stated declaration of a truthful vessel will have no credibility. Once the pirates are close enough that the bullets are flying and they know the vessel is armed, then deterrence has already failed and the danger is to the crew just as much as it is to the pirates.

It's simple, there are very few shipping companies. If a company makes a policy of being armed, the credibility lies within the first time they back up their announcement with armed force.

The pirates will probably not know this.

They will learn when their friends die.

The pirates will not know this. Perhaps some high profile incidents might help convince them, but as I stated earlier, I strongly expect that even armed, trained merchant crews could be compelled to surrender if they are attacked in isolation on the open sea. This is why during WWI and WWII we formed convoys, and didn't just arm merchants. If one isn't motivated by a higher calling of, say, patriotism, there's not a lot to gain by fighting for someone else's property, and a lot to lose. The norm right now is that the company pays the ransom, and the crew knows that just as well as the pirates.

Norms change, people adapt. Once again, look at a cargo ship. Most of the time they are raided from the rear. It's a natural choke point. Defending a large cargo vessel would be extremely easy. The insurance reason and worldwide gun laws sound like the typical reasons that practicality doesn't win out. My hypothetical sailboat won't have a whistleblower to tell the local ports about my weapons cache. You can argue the effectiveness of an armed crew all you want, but you'd be wrong. You haven't given any facts or shown any logic as to how a large ship with sides dozens of meters high can easily be boarded if the crew is trained and armed. High ground? Fortified high ground? Fortified high ground with automatic weapons? What is an RPG going to do to a modern ship? These aren't anti-ship weapons we're talking about here.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by iLikebeer 

You can argue the effectiveness of an armed crew all you want, but you'd be wrong. You haven't given any facts or shown any logic as to how a large ship with sides dozens of meters high can easily be boarded if the crew is trained and armed. High ground? Fortified high ground? Fortified high ground with automatic weapons? What is an RPG going to do to a modern ship? These aren't anti-ship weapons we're talking about here.

I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but I do know enough to not dismiss the willingness of people who take hostages for a living to continue to take risks. I do not think that simply having weapons will be a deterrent, and the rah-rah posturing in some of the commentary about this incident bothers me because it's just tempting fate.

[ctt1wbw]

Tempting fate? Tell that to President Thomas Jefferson when he faught the Barbary Pirates in this circumstance. The same exact thing was going on in 1804 as it is today. And Jefferson put a stop to it. Protecting the open seas for freedom of trade and commerce is one of the US Navy's Prime Objectives. I should know. I'm retired now.

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but I do know enough to not dismiss the willingness of people who take hostages for a living to continue to take risks. I do not think that simply having weapons will be a deterrent, and the rah-rah posturing in some of the commentary about this incident bothers me because it's just tempting fate.

It can't hurt. Having a gun in a house won't guarantee you never get robbed either. BUT, if someone does break in, the sound of a shotgun racking a shell can make people seriously reconsider their choice. The same could be said of knowing for a fact that your target is able to defend itself. Pirates in that part of the world have no reason NOT to attack. Right now, they are guaranteed to have free reign if they can find a target. Arm the ships and they might have second thoughts.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

Tempting fate? Tell that to President Thomas Jefferson when he faught the Barbary Pirates in this circumstance. The same exact thing was going on in 1804 as it is today. And Jefferson put a stop to it. Protecting the open seas for freedom of trade and commerce is one of the US Navy's Prime Objectives. I should know. I'm retired now.

Ironically, James Madison had to have the United States and its allies go back and fight the pirates again 10 years later, because apparently Jefferson's war didn't put a stop to it for good.

It should be noted that what we were debating here was the virtue of arming merchant ships for their own protection, not using U.S. military forces to seek out and defeat pirates.

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Ironically, James Madison had to have the United States and its allies go back and fight the pirates again 10 years later, because apparently Jefferson's war didn't put a stop to it for good.

It should be noted that what we were debating here was the virtue of arming merchant ships for their own protection, not using U.S. military forces to seek out and defeat pirates.

Since this is a Besson thread, I'll try to skew it off topic in an on topic way. I work in a gun factory. This is a right to carry state, which means anyone can openly carry a weapon and it's easy to get a concealed carry license. But a place that manufactures and has on hand beaucoup $$$ of guns is completely undefended. Security, no guns. Us, no guns. We're allowed to carry knives though. We've been told it's likely that something will happen to us on nights. You have to love stupid laws.

Also, if you get into a fight in a gun factory, it is an automatic felony. If you're defending yourself, you're only likely to lose your job. If someone loses it and starts a fight, "If you want to keep your job, run away." "If you don't want to go to jail and fight a felony that will get dismissed, don't defend yourself." "If you don't mind getting the charges dropped through the system, kick his arse." All this in a town that hires from a temp agency in a small town known for it's rehab centers around the country. I'm not going to say I'm surrounded by pirates, but I'd say I know what they mean if they want to be able to defend themselves.

[Captain Obvious]

Well, this is turning into a the plot of a Steven Segal movie.
Pirate motherships are steaming to the scene? I didn't know there was such a thing. And there are pirate bases?

I really hope the navy clears out all the media from the area and just slaughters everyone. Sink everyone and just pick them off when they try to abandon ship. I really don't understand why they don't just bomb these bases. Its not like the African countries who are allowing them to exist have the global prominence or ability to do anything but protest after its all said and done.
Negotiating is stupid at this point. If the U.S. Navy balks after all of this its only going to strengthen the resolve of these and future pirates that they can get away with it.

Also I don't think arming the commercial ships is going to help. The hulls of those things have to be pretty easy to punch a hole into. If they can't get aboard I assume the pirates would just sink the ships instead.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

The thinking is also perhaps that you would not be able to arm civilian ships to the point that they would actually deter pirates of this sort, and so the chances of it becoming a bloodbath would be much higher. As it stands now, it's rare that the hostages are harmed.

I read that there are currently 14 ships and 260 hostages from the last two months.

"Rare" is poor comfort for the families of those being held.

You know, if we sent in some ships and killed all the pirates that we found (we could start with just a few and work our way up) then there wouldn't be any piracy (by definition). That would probably offend someone though. That probably makes too much sense.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

The next time that group of pirates goes out, they are probably going to bring some bigger guns with them.

Not if they're dead.

Worked for the Med, it can work for Somalia too.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by finboy 

I read that there are currently 14 ships and 260 hostages from the last two months.

"Rare" is poor comfort for the families of those being held.

You missed the point.