To stop pirates, do ships need firepower?
Most merchant sailors are not trained to use weapons, but some maritime educators say that is changing.
By Mark Clayton and Bridget Huber | The Christian Science Monitor 04.08.09
After pirates boarded the Maersk Alabama, the unarmed crew did the unthinkable: They fought back and, apparently, regained control of the huge and lumbering container ship.
It’s not yet clear how the American crew was able to do it. Neither international nor US maritime regulations require shipboard crews to be trained in the use of weapons. But at least some of those aboard are known to be among a relatively small number of US merchant sailors who’ve been trained in weapons and defensive tactics at maritime academies.
In the wake of Wednesday’s incident in waters of Somalia, all aspects of security training for merchant marines are likely to be reexamined and, probably, intensified, say educators at the nation’s maritime academies.
“I can almost guarantee there will be a major review of course curriculum after this incident,” says Glen Paine, executive director of the Maritime Institute of Technology and Graduate Studies in Linthicum, Md.
That academy, which offers graduate training for seamen, is among the few that offers limited weapons training to meet requirements of the US Military Sealift Command, which requires weapons training for ship officers and other crew.
Most US maritime academies do not offer weapons or force-on-force training. That’s because most shipping companies follow a long tradition of merchant vessels remaining unarmed – which makes them easy prey for pirates, but prevents bloodshed and damage to the ship.
Except for using fire hoses and axes to try to prevent pirates from boarding, merchant crews have few options except to surrender. Many shipping companies remain opposed to weapons training for crews, but that could change, educators say.
“We’ve elected to do [marksmanship training],” says Capt. Thomas Bushy, vice president of marine operations and master of the training ship Kennedy, at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy in Buzzards Bay. “There’s a small probability that some companies may start to equip their vessel with firearms. So if they do, we want to make sure that the students have that training.”
Some shipping companies that serve the US Navy’s Military Sealift Command, including Maersk, are required to have crew members trained to use weapons. Of six merchant maritime academies in the US and other union-run educational institutions, at least two – the Massachusetts Maritime Academy and the union-run Maritime Institute of Technology and Graduate Studies – provide training in defensive tactics and weapons use.
Most US maritime academies graduate perhaps 200 students a year – for a grand total of about 1,000 to 1,200 new merchant marines per year, says Mr. Paine. Some 20,000 US mariners work in the shipping industry. Among those, a fraction have had weapons training.
In all likelihood, one of them is Shane Murphy, chief officer of the Maersk Alabama and a 2001 graduate of the Massachusetts Maritime Academy. It could not be confirmed if he has had weapons training, though it seems likely given Maersk’s service to the Military Sealift and company comments.
“All the crew members are trained in security detail in how to deal with piracy,” Maersk CEO John Reinhart told reporters Wednesday in a press conference. “As merchant vessels, we do not carry arms. We have ways to push back, but we do not carry arms.”
Some shipping companies, though, are moving beyond basic security training to include weapons instruction and other active defensive measures. At least one international company now issues rifles to its crews, according to a recent article in Professional Mariner, the journal of the maritime industry.
That flies in the face of current training for most US and international merchant vessels, maritime educators say.
“We do not have armed ships and mariners are not armed, so the unwritten message is that after the prevention procedures have failed, there isn’t much you can do,” says Dennis Compton, who heads planning and assessment for the US Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point, N.Y. “But now we’re looking at the first time a US crew was actually involved. It’s largely been a problem for other people and not the US. But not anymore.”
Besides weapons training, shipping companies are adding measures to beef up ship defenses. In November 2005, a cruise liner, the Seabourn Spirit, used a sonic blast from a “long-range acoustic device,” or LRAD, to repel pirates who were trying to board.
Shocks from an “electric fence” have also been tried, along with night-vision systems to prevent pirates from being able to get close to the vessels. Indeed, outrunning pirates is still one of the best approaches. Although pirate boats are faster, a large ship moving at 16 knots or more creates an enormous wake that makes it hard to board. Razor wire ringing the ship is another technique.
The extra security isn’t cheap. Sonic deterrent equipment and operators can cost $20,000 to $30,000 per trip, according to documents on the US Maritime Administration website.
But training crew members is key.
“We have an exercise that takes place, in a full mission bridge simulation for entering Singapore, a known area where pirates work out of,” says Capt. George Sandberg, director of maritime simulation at the US Merchant Marine Academy. Such training can help crew members know how to go into “lock-down,” or “citadel,” mode to defend against an attack.
Hector Morales, a former Navy Special Warfare Combatant Crew Member, who also teaches security at the Maritime Institute of Technology and Graduate Studies, notes that simply arming crew members is not the solution. But something has to change, he says – and training in the use of weapons should probably be included. [Editor’s note: The original version misidentified Mr. Morales.]
“We have to give these seamen the tools and training,” he says. “They need proper intelligence, less-than-lethal technology, and all the ways for self-defense. Weapons are just one more tool.”
For his part, Captain Bushy won’t say whether he would arm merchant ships like the Maersk Alabama. “If this ship had had weapons, it may have helped, but I’m not so sure.”
On one hand, arms could escalate the situation so that more people are killed.
Still, he notes, “if you’re going to put weapons on a ship and train people to use them, you have to have plenty of firepower and know how to use it.”
“Use of armed crews who didn’t sign up to fight is a bad idea,” says Giles Noakes, chief maritime security officer for BIMCO, an international association of ship owners. “The industry believes very strongly that it’s not for the companies to train crews to use firearms and then arm them…. If you open fire, there’s potential for retaliation. Crews could get injured or killed, to say nothing of damage to the ship.”
Putting armed teams on board isn’t a good idea either, he says.
While it “might be successful initially, the pirates will look at this problem and come back with bigger weapons and fire them from a distance.”
One option is to have actual military teams from various countries on board, but the industry is on the fence about implementing it.
“With support vessels in proximity, it does make some sense,” Mr. Noakes says. “It’s not ideal. But it’s an idea that some companies and [ship] masters feel can work.”
<< Moldovans erupt in protest after decades of silence | MainComments
2. geo mangn | 04.08.09
Awacs patrol so as to initiate a fast response against gunboats with high speed fighters.
3. Jerome Little | 04.08.09
Hector Morales is not a former SEAL he is a former Special Warfare Combatant Craft Crewman.
4. erin | 04.08.09
Let me get this straight–one of our American ships goes into a known dangerous area w/out weapons or backup and is surprised that something happens! Why don/t these folks carry weapons to defend themselves before these pirates (who are in a smaller vessel) are able to board a BIG SHIP! and create an international issue. These shipmates from our country should be able to defend themselves, because they are like soldiers from the US. These invading, pirate criminals should be shot as soon as they present a life-threat to our US guys and gals. These pirates are committing an act or war!
5. John Kooms | 04.08.09
If suddenly some of these small attack boats used by the pirates were blown right out of the water on their approach they would begin to think twice and you would see this problem diminish . These bandits are sitting ducks , no cover and almost defenseless , to me it’s incredible that the crews do not have arms or training at this point or that these shipping companies won’t spend a little money to hire a few trained guards as insurance on cargo and ransom dollars in the millions of dollars .
6. Roger Hartley | 04.08.09
I can’t believe it, huge merchant ships not allowed to have defensive weapons on board in case of Somalian pirates. One Barrett 50 cal sniper rifle and those Somalia idiots would be running for their lives, if they’re not actively sinking.
7. Mr Piedmont | 04.09.09
It’s about time all ships in the area have the firepower/know how to shred these pirates long before they get close enough to board……….
How simple is that?
8. Mike G | 04.09.09
Thanks to SOSUS and its successors, the US Navy knows exactly where all US flagged ships are, all the time, and knows exactly where the pirate ships and motorcraft are.
Looks like good target practice for America’s submarine force.
Frankly, there can’t be too many of the pirates. We could probably drown most of them within weeks, and who could argue?
9. Brian | 04.09.09
Teams placed on random ships, if not all ships, while the ships transit a hostile area should be an effective tool against pirates. It’s been done for years with sky marshals. It’s flexible, uses highly trained experts, and would be cheaper than trying to rely on naval ships to cover large areas.
10. Professor R. | 04.09.09
I personally don’t understand the aversion to arming crews with semi-automatic rifles/pistols, and even mounting .50 caliber machine guns/20mm cannons to thwart the approach of pirate boats. The advantage of using semi-automatic small arms is that they require less training than fully automatic weapons, and will encourage crew members to choose their shots–a valuable constraint in a shipboard combat environment.
Note that most Navy ships not protected by Marines relied on semi-automatic M-14’s, shotguns, and 9mm pistols for ship defense in the 80’s/90’s. The crews should be armed, but I don’t see the need for fully automatic small arms.
11. Jeff | 04.09.09
These pirate attacks are frustrating, but it is unwise to arm merchant vessels for a very simple reason - a merchant vessel is inherently difficult to defend. The biggest difference between a merchant vessel and a warship isn’t the number of guns on board, it’s the armor. No matter how many small arms a merchant vessel has on board, it’s a sitting duck to a small, fast, maneuverable boat armed with rpgs.
If you hit a destroyer with a few rpgs the ship can still fight, but one rpg through the hull of a ship carrying crude oil could cause an environmental disaster. For the shipping companies it’s a question of economics. They would rather ransom an undamaged ship than risk the lives of their crews, a sinking or an oil spill.
12. Dave | 04.09.09
I think putting armed teams on the ships IS the answer, and here’s why. These pirate attacks have started because these ships are soft targets. The pirates know that the people on board aren’t armed, so its pretty much like shooting fish in a barrel. You need to make the ships a hard target, and that requires weapons. Remember, these pirates are after one thing: ransom money. Why? Because given the current security situation, piracy is a pretty attractive prospect, and they can do it relatively easily. All they need is half decent boat, a few guys, and guns. Up until recently, there has been no push-back force stopping them. Imagine if armored trucks were phased out, and Brinks or Wells Fargo decided to use 1994 Honda Accords, and have the guards stop carrying guns. There would probably be a whole lot more problems.
So IMHO the obvious answer is the answer this time. Put armed teams on the boats. I don’t agree with the notion that the pirates will find a bigger gun and fire on the ship from afar. They sink a big boat, they don’t get any money. Its that simple. The pirates like to walk the line between low key attacks and major incidents, just brazen enough to keep them relevant, but not enough to make them public enemy #1. They know if they sink a ship or kill an obscene amount of crew members, there will be more severe repercussions.
So, in summary, I think that an armed and trained team of maybe 15 people should be aboard these ships, similar to the Air Marshal program. The only question is whether or not to make it a federal program, or let private security firms take over completely. Either is acceptable, however, if you want action sooner, rather than later, give it to the private firms.
P.S.: I am former USAF Security Forces. I’d gladly sit on your boat with a 240B, for a price to be negotiated at a later date. InfernoX51@gmail.com
13. CAPT Ira S. Richman, CEO IMSSCO Corporation | 04.09.09
100% support for MITAG’s Glen Payne statement of small arms training and at the same time, the one US Company that is arming their commercial ships. . More support, based on other comments regarding arming our US Merchant Mariners who sail on US Flag Ships into dangerous waters to be outfitted with 50 cal machine guns and in addition, defense weapons that have a significant range over what the pirates are armed with thus, giving us the tactical advantage at all times. Again, in support to posting US MARINES on our ships, making this dangerous transit through pirate infested waters safer. It is the US Merchant Marines that first armed our commercial cargo sailing ships to fight against and attach the British in our war of independence and we, in fact, were the US Navy by taking the initiative. At that time, American armed civilians from humble background also manned the rigging as sharp shooter and these brave chaps became our US MARINES. We armed our commercial merchant marine ships during World War II and we provided cover fire for the US Army’s retreat from Manila, for just one example of the right to defend our freedom and protect our own. Time to hoist the “Don’t Tread on Me” ensign (flag type pennant) on our US Flag Ships. I closing I say one for all and all for one in spirit while at the same time keeping in mind the we American’s are free men and women which will not tolerate capture and detainment therefore, “Don’t Give Up the Ship”!
14. Paul Sedan | 04.09.09
Bullies and crooks will continue to be bullies and crooks until you use force and convince them you will not be intimidated. I cannot believe that we know where their base of operations is and have done nothing about it. Send in the SEALS.
15. Shaun | 04.09.09
Hundreds of years ago, pirates were dealt with MUCH more swiftly and devastatingly by our repsective governments. It was not unusual to see pirates hanging from the starboard by a noose, as a warning to other pirates. Today, the sight of several 50 caliber mounted machine guns along the bow would be just as frightening a deterrent. These pirates are dirt poor, and desperate, but their not stupid.
16. Caitlin | 04.09.09
I couldn’t agree more with Dave – pirates (terrorists @ sea) want the ransom money and the shippers want their crew, ships, and cargo unharmed & undamaged – which is what they pay for. For the pirates to start attacking from afar would be totally detrimental to their whole agenda.
I would rather see the U.S. fight the war on terror and take the stand of “if you mess with U.S ships and her citizens, you can count on the U.S. messing with you” (e.g. treat them as the pirates/terrorists they are and blow them out of the water), as opposed to negotiating with them, or capturing them so they can be read our ‘U.S. civil rights’ and provide them with U.S. taxpayer-funded attorneys so they can have their ‘day in court’ just as if their acts of terror don’t really make them terrorists.
17. Terri S. | 04.09.09
I think the our government should hire the Blackwater people and let them clean up/out the pirates!
18. T. Gunter | 04.09.09
It seems to me that these ships need to be equiped with adequate firepower to ensure that they are not fired upon but once and sufficient radar information to know when they are being approached by any craft. If this means a contingent of Marines on board, so be it. It is far cheaper than paying out millions and risking the lives of crewmembers and passengers. Cruise ships are not immune.
19. Frank J | 04.09.09
I am guessing that many attacks take place at night. Will normal ship radar pickup these small fiberglass skiffs so that the .50 cal’s can be manned?
21. Tanya Wodarczyk | 04.09.09
As americans, we fight for whats right. A missionary once told me she was on a crowded train in Hungry and a gypsy held her up with a nife. Everyone on the train knew it was happening but did nothing as he searched her cloths for her wallet. In American we fight for whats right. Its like having police all over the place. I would have run at that robber to push him with all my might and would have fought him for the knife and robbed him afterwards. We are like the police over here except we have to watch that we don’t go over the line of right and wrong in the process. I think its time the rest of the world took notice and followed our lead. It is each one of ours duty to fight for whats right as best we can without getting hurt. If I could I would donate $100 to a shipmate to cary a gun right now if their was a place to do this. Lets stop playing games and do what needs done in the safest maner for our people and societies. Its CRAZY government garbage to think arming salors will cause more deaths when American sailors are going to fight whether their armed, maries, or even capable. Truth is, they will fight no matter what.
22. D.B. | 04.09.09
All I kept thinking, as I heard the reports today, was that these ships need to be armed. The pirates must be dealt with an iron fist. There may be some casualties, but ultimately far fewer than will be experienced if we continue to placate the pirates, paying ransom and enabling them to grow and strengthen. Some strong weapons in the right hands will insure that these pirates do not get to board more vessels.
23. wunsacon | 04.09.09
This is a job for UAV’s.
Maybe the current generation can’t stay aloft for long enough to cover so much of an expanse of ocean. (Okay, they can’t yet, AFAIK.) But, I think we’re getting there. In the meantime, I imagine military experts are trying to figure out a way to leverage existing technology.
24. wunsacon | 04.09.09
>> I think the our government should hire the Blackwater people and let them clean up/out the pirates!
Years ago (probably immediately after watching “Commando”), I had the absurd idea that merchant ships should buy classified ad space in magazines like “Soldier of Fortune” to say something like: “free cruise aboard container vessel, bring your weapon and determination to use it against pirates”.
I’d love to read the legalese for the contract. 
25. Hauer2841 | 04.09.09
The British Navy of 1600 - 1800 would have known what to do. Blockade the ports, sink their boats, hang the leaders, and shut the area down! There’s no reason to be nice to these guys.
26. Michael M | 04.09.09
Armed or unarmed merchant vessel protection is actually no the right question, Go to the link here at PlanetData, a security related site that gives news about various global security issues and read the article.
http://www.planetdata.net/sites/maritime/articles.php?story=86
27. Joe | 04.10.09
Don’t shoot at the pirates. You might hurt Johnny Depp.
Seriously, the US constitution guarantees the inalienable right to arms, i.e. you have a right to self defense. If treaties need to be modified, so be it. Small arms fire isn’t going to go through the deck or containers to turn the ship into a ball of flame or a source of spewing toxic gas.
And I wouldn’t be waiting for a bunch of guys to board the ship before fighting either. If fully automatic weapons are good enough for the military, then they seem the appropriate weapon for ship and crew protection.
28. TCfromPA | 04.10.09
We’re being too polite with the pirates. They release their hostages unharmed for ransom, so the cat and mouse game continues. Enough. Time to turn the tables. Send in a few decoy ships, apparently unarmed freighters but in actuality highly defended craft with extensive offensive firepower. The pirates will take the bait. Terminate the pirates ships and their crew. A quick, decisive total destruction of craft and personnel. Do not even call attention to the action. Just bait another pirate ship and repeat procedure. In time, they will hesitate to approach any ship while their personnel and equipment inventory will become depleted. Fight fire with fire. Send in legal pirates to quell the illegal pirate operations.
30. Larko | 04.10.09
In all practicality, a 30 man crew defending a 1000 foot ship from adroit boarders is almost impossible. That’s almost ½ mile of coastline to protect These pirates are not peasants of the sea but athletic, experienced sailors that can get up a grappling line in the middle of the night and face down the crew with AK-45’s all within 20 minutes.
It doesn’t help that many of these ships are staffed by overworked, underpaid multi-national crews that are not likely to take up arms to save the property of ship owners who could care less about them. The American crew on the Maersk Alabama did a nice job getting them off the ship, but at what cost?
The Blackwater Inc. crew idea was pretty good idea. Fly teams in and land them on the ships for the transit. That won’t stop someone from firing a RPG into the side of a super tanker. The only answer is to convoy the ships and sink anything that comes near them and send the bill to the ship owners. It is a tough one.
31. Sean | 04.10.09
The US only really has jurisdiction over ships registered in the US flying the US flag, and only a tiny fraction of the gross world tonnage of ships is registered in the US. Whether or not most US-owned merchant ships get armed or not depends more on the laws of Panama, Liberia, Greece, and the Bahamas, since those are the countries where most are registered. It was a sort of market economy that put all maritime states into competition for shipping registration, and I think that a market economy will decide the best answer to piracy. If I personally were an insurance company or a merchant shipping company then I would want to talk with a PMC like Blackwater.
Although I don’t think that US taxpayers should be burdened with an anti-piracy campaign, I think taxpayers monies would be better spent on anti-piracy than anti-terrorism. I believe that the anti-piracy mission is achievable and agreeable to all legitimate states worldwide, while the so called anti-terrorism mission may not be achievable and is certainly not agreeable to all states.
32. Reasonable Tangent | 04.10.09
Guys, guys, guys… c’mon! We can’t just sail into the pirate town of Eyl and wipe them out, they currently have over 200 hostages! You would be singing a different tune if one of your loved ones was included among them. While I agree that arming commercial crews stirs my American spirit, three words may explain why this simple solution has not been employed before: liability, liability, liability.
Imagine the scene: pirates get on board (big boats are easy to access even with a mounted .50 cal on the bow) and a gunfight ensues. Bullets are flying all over the ship, hitting cargo, equipment, and crew members. A single wrongful death lawsuit would easily account for $10M, the equivalent of 10-20 ransoms. It just isn’t worth it to the shipping company.
Ship owners will arm crews once the financials justify it. It’s just business. Sorry to rain on the patriotic parade but if guns were the answer, it would have been implemented a long time ago.
34. Keith Nealy | 04.10.09
Whatever happened to the idea of convoys?
The British navy used to send warships to lead convoys of merchant ships in the 1800’s to protect them from pirates. That way you don’t have to arm the commercial ships, but you do protect them. Assign a couple of destroyers or Coast Guard cutters to convoy merchant ships through the pirate infested waters. Countries could share the duty.
All the military ships would have to do would be to delay the takeover long enough for reinforcements to arrive. Give them sophisticated radar and sonar.
35. Don Uthole | 04.10.09
We also need to ask why Somalia is ungovernable. I think it is the outcome of Sharia Law. We are non-Muslims and therefore open to exploitation in many Muslim’s minds. Islam is essentially supremacist and piracy has long been associated with it. I don’t see any predominantly Christian countries engaging in piracy.
36. Joe in Portland | 04.10.09
Is it possible with high tech radar to track any small vessels within a perimeter? If so, why not fire warning shots, then blow them out of the water if they continue their approach? Seems like a simple solution.
37. Dan Schwartz | 04.11.09
The arguments about arming merchant ships in the article and in the comments mirror those of the gun control debate here in the United States, specially with respect to CCW (concealed carry) restrictions. Just look at the higher crime & murder rates in cities (such as Chicago & DC) where it’s all-but impossible to get a handgun &/or CCW permit.
Moreso, when you’re ot on the open seas (as is the Maersk Alabama), it’s like on land in some cities where calling 911 is like “Dial-A-Prayer.”
38. Marty | 04.11.09
Will someone please tell me how these pirates get onto these cargo ships. I’ve been in the Savannah river beside of these monstrous ships and the wakes are enormous and I don’t understand with the ship moving or not moving how the pirates get on board. Thanks, Marty
39. Jay | 04.11.09
Put armed guards on United States ships only. That will force other Nations to get involved when the Pirates leave us alone and go after the remaining easy targets.
40. Glenn | 04.11.09
I hate to sound stupid, but how are guys in small boats able to stop a large steel ship with only machine guns? I mean the ship could simply keep going couldn’t it? They have no weapons to sink the vessel. They would have to stop the ship, lower ladders and let them on wouldn’t they?
41. David Chidakel | 04.12.09
The comments here are unusual for their clarity, civility, and thoughtfulness and I share the frustrations of those who believe that g better protection for the crews is important (and just posted to that effect in my own blog, Science Ain’t So Bad).
To Reasonable Tangent, ships are NOT so easy to board against defensive fire. It’s akin to storming a steel castle from a rocking platform with a hail of bullets coming at you. I don’t recommend it. I grant that it would be a mistake to mount the sole defensive weapon in the bow.
42. J.J. aka dude damn dude | 04.13.09
Arming sailors is the only end solution, either vicariously via marine complimemt, or directly. I wonder ? how long did the airline industry pay out ransoms because it made sense according to an acountant. The only way to stop the epidemic is a no negotiation policy, unfortunatly this is extremely difficult for loved ones already held captive, however not turning this situation around only guarantee’s more civilians will be placed in that situation. Not arming vessels basically ensures their business plan will continue to succeed. There is a reason no one hijacks planes anymore, it is dealt with swiftly, and the ending is predictably always the same, poor business strategy, with strong deterrent. solution will also have to include some form of radar designed to detect the type of vessels used for the attacks, advanced warning would be key in thwarting an attack.
43. MikeS | 04.13.09
Blockade until Somalia has a navy which can come out to discuss the issue. A major problem is there are many small fishing boats dancing around the big boats. You can’t tell if that little craft which you’re about to pass is fishing or lurking. Make the fishermen and everyone else stay close enough to see the shoreline; if there isn’t enough fish there then that’s too bad. The pirates might starve along with everyone else until everyone else stops accepting the pirates among them.
44. Reasonable Tangent | 04.13.09
Perhaps the US has the means to sufficiently train and equip merchant mariners to employ small arms like an AK-47 to repel pirate attacks.
Perhaps they should do that now that we’ve struck a chord of enmity with the pirates and will most likely treat American hostages with much less mercy than they have in the past (if you do a little research, you will discover that up until now the pirates have treated their hostages like “honored guests” within the port-towns, albeit honored guests that can’t leave or contact loved ones, but not shut away in prison cells or physically harmed).
But it still seems to me that the liability of accidents occurring on board international merchant vessels are increased drastically as soon as you start distributing firearms to crew members.
But again, I want to stress the point that this is a management issue, not a moral issue. As a shipping company my concern is not “How do I stop pirates?” it’s “What is the most cost effective way to transport my goods from A to B?”. Period.
If arming crews of often varied nationalities and backgrounds and trusting them to engage experienced enemy combatants to defend my profit motives with their lives without a cost prohibitive increase in their salaries is the answer, then my CFO will likely recommend that to our board of directors.
Just remember for the sake of this discussion, it’s about the bottom line, it’s not about getting the bad guys.
45. roger | 04.13.09
Why not set up a bissness in Somali ant hire the pirats to work and feed there family so they don’t have to resort to this they only want to feed there family and most of youwould do what ever you had to to feed yours if push came to shove you woulden’t let them starve.
46. Mark | 04.13.09
I agree, ships need to be armed. Presently, there is no downside to piracy. If you can take a ship, it’s yours to ransom with willing ship owners. Heck, I’m surprised they don’t have a pirate school, or a help wanted section dedicated to pirate jobs in the Mogadishu Times classified.
47. Theexhaustedmom | 04.13.09
Who pays the ransoms? Is it the shipping companies, or the merchant companies, or organizations whose cargo is shipped, or governments? Could monies used for ransom be traced? Has it been established(or definetly not)that some of these ransom monies are going to terroist organizations via 16 yr old pirates? As we move forward to determine whether we should, as a world, pay ransoms, or defend the shipping lanes, we should examine who gets the money, exactly. We should ask who is defending the regulation and insurance policies that keep in place ransom as the cheaper route. We do not want even one ransom to be a covertly planned way to support terroism.
May God ride the currents of sea, and policy to bring defense and mercy to our world.
48. Jim | 04.14.09
I could’nt agree with Dave (who posted his blog on 4-9-09) more. We need to provide real security training and arm these merchant mariners now. As proud americans we should be appalled that this can happen to one of our ships (military or not) flying OUR FLAG!!! I stand with Dave and as a retired Naval security officer and one time Anti-Terrorism Training Officer aboard a nuclear submarine would be more than willing to get into the fight. The training provided at the MMAs (Merchant Marine Academies) is top notch I’m sure, but we need to go a step further and provide real maritime security training on the same level that is provided to our US Navy and arm these merchant mariners. Our government has already passed the legislation in the form of the MTSA (Maritime Transportation and Security Act) of 2002 and defined the ISPS (International Shipping and Port Security) codes that lays the ground work for providing this training and for the implementation of a sea marshall program. These shipping companies should be federaly mandated to ensure their mariners are trained to a certain level in “repel borders” to use a naval term. They must NEVER submit to these thugs by paying a ransom. One argument made by another blogger was that we could not risk an envirinmental tragedy or have seamen killed by confronting these so-called pirates. A 50mm machine gun operated by a trained AND PROFICIENT merchant mariner and trained (on target) fired at these small craft before they can come within range can ensure that does’nt happen. Remember the pirates want to capture the vessel not damgage it with the hope of never seeing there ransom money. A few of their boats and the thugs along with them visiting Davie Jones’s locker will begin to put a permanent end to this criminal activity and keep it on their shores. We as the most able country and self-proclaimed leader of the free world should take the lead now. If these shipping companies can’t afford this security training requirement (I know they can if they are willing to pay millions in ransom) then Washington could funnel some of that stimulous money their way. A long term goal that should be encouraged at the same time should be to empower the country of Somalia to democratically govern themselves. Respond to me at jmpyat@aol.com with your serious thoughts and discussion.
49. Former Coastie | 04.14.09
Why not hire some former/ex pirates to perform “security details” on the vessels as they pass through the area. Giving them jobs to protect the ships from other pirates. They are apparently fearless, know the likely tactics and need jobs.
50. john | 04.14.09
In reading thes comments it appears some merchant seamen would be opposed to using arms to protect their cargo or themselves. If this is the case, just move on to the next applicant.
51. Laura | 04.15.09
I agree that the crews of these merchant ships should be armed, but it is not the responsibility of the US government to arm commercial vessels flying under our flag, nor to provide security via members of our military. These ships aren’t owned by countries; they are owned by companies. It is the company owners who don’t allow their crews to carry arms. Those same owners have for years been satisfied with paying the ransoms demanded by pirates. For them, the “bottom line” is all that matters. Those who wish to thwart piracy could hire private security details to take care of their ships and personnel, but alas, there is that pesky “bottom line” again. It is far cheaper for them to pay a ransom than to lose their ships and cargo.
It is interesting to note that these pirates have been operating with increasing frequency since the fall of Somalia’s government in 2006. In 2008, there were over 100 hijacking attempts by Somali pirates. Right now, more than a dozen ships and over 200 crewman are being held for ransom just off that country’s coast. As traumatizing as it must have been for Captain Phillips, his ransoming and subsequent rescue have served a higher purpose. It took concern about the life of one of our citizens to rouse our concern about a problem that we have ignored for far too long. Perhaps our outrage will convince the shipping companies that fighting lawlessness and securing safe passage for merchant seamen is more important than the “bottom line.”
53. LT Bailey | 04.15.09
It would be simple and relatively cheap to either train ‘company’ security details (2-3 men per ship) or hire some from Dynacorp or Blackwater and give them rifle and a deck mount MA-2 .50 cal. The ‘Ma Duece” would solve 99.9% of all pirate encounters. A WHOLE lot more efficiently and cheaply than a US Navy escort.
54. Carol Draime | 04.15.09
I keep “varmits” off my property with electric fence. Why can’t the ships be
equiped the devices around the metal hull that can be turned on to conduct
electricty and “fry” pirates trying to board a ship.
One or two armed crewmen firing down at them could do a lot of good.
Bomb all ports in Somalia until there is nothing left.
55. Robert Howard | 04.15.09
I didn’t see any mention of any covert action among the Pirates. In order to operate they need weapons, boats and trained thugs. Get in where the system is organized and led, and do them hurt at every stage of their operations.
How about “sting ships” - boats that appear to be easy juicy targets but are really highly armed and filled with expert pirate fighters.
56. ic | 04.16.09
how about just putting an aircraft carrier or two over there, with armed UAV’s keeping track of the merchant ships?
57. Thomas | 04.23.09
UAV’s would work even better from the Merchant ship. Let the same air force soldiers back in the U.S. who remotely control Predator Drones in Afghanistan control a UAV on each merchant ship. A single Predator costs 4.5 million, which is considerably less than some of the ransoms paid. The Navy could put a locked container on the merchant ship when it enters pirate waters, then another Navy vessel could collect the UAV container when they leave dangerous waters. The captain would have an emergency code he could enter into a panel on the outside of the container that sends a satellite signal to the Air Force. The Predator would be remotely launched and controlled by the Air Force just like they do in Afghanistan. This way, the Navy doesn’t have to be everywhere, and the Merchant ship won’t be armed when they enter a foreign port.
58. Bryan Morton | 04.29.09
I thought that since this is a Christian site, perhaps we should hear His opinion.
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
One of the previous posters states that the US would never engage in piracy. I would humbly ask you to consider the following;
59. stefani | 07.05.09
I’m from greece and do practice as a cadet for the second time starting in a few days.merchant marines’ academies in greece accepted as many women as men for 2nd year.Unfortunately we still don’t feel safe on board when we sail near somalia.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. SeaRation | 04.08.09
On US ships all that needs to be done is to put a contingent of armed Marines on board while these waters are transited. At the end of an eastbound transit, this contingent could be off loaded and put on the next ship going the eastbound. The manpower involved would probably not totally exceed a battalion of Marines (approximately 1500) It would be cheaper than keeping destroyers and their crews in the area, and the Marines could take care of the pirates.