Stopping the pirates

[BSmith1068]

Looks like India sunk one of the pirate mother ships yesterday:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27766333/

Looks like the owner of the ship sunk by India is now claiming it was not a pirate ship, but a Thai trawler…

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/11/25/thai.trawler.india.navy/index.html

Spoiler :

BANGKOK, Thailand (CNN) -- Fourteen sailors are still missing from a Thai trawler that was sunk last week by the Indian navy as a suspected pirate ship, the vessel's owner said Tuesday.

One crewman was found alive after six days adrift in the Gulf of Aden, and one is confirmed dead, said Wicharn Sirichaiekawat, owner of the Ekawat Nava 5.

Last week, India's navy reported that the frigate INS Tabar had battled a pirate "mother vessel" in the gulf November 18, leaving the ship ablaze and likely sunk. Wicharn said that vessel was his ship, which was in the process of being seized by pirates when it came under fire.

Indian authorities insisted that their ship had acted against a pirate vessel which had threatened to attack the Tabar.

"We fired in self-defense and in response to firing upon our vessel. It was a pirate vessel in the international waters and its stance was aggressive," Commodore Nirad Sinha, a navy spokesman, told CNN. He said the ship the Tabar fired upon was laden with ammunition.

Wicharn told reporters that the Ekawat Nava 5 was headed from Oman to Yemen to deliver fishing equipment when it was set upon by pirates off the Horn of Africa. The pirates were seizing control of the ship when the Tabar moved in, he said.

Wicharn said he learned the fate of his vessel from a Cambodian crew member who survived the gunfire and drifted in the ocean for six days before he was plucked to safety by a passing ship. The sailor was recovering in a hospital in Yemen, he said.

Wicharn said his ship made a distress call on November 18 as it was chased by pirates in two speedboats, but the connection was lost midway. The owners, Sirichai Fisheries, had not heard from the crew since then.

Later that evening, the Indian navy said it encountered a suspected pirate "mother vessel," with two speedboats in tow, about 285 nautical miles (525 km) southwest of the Omani port of Salalah. "Mother vessels" are often used as mobile bases to ferry pirates and smaller attack boats into deep water.

When the Tabar's crew hailed the ship and demanded it stop for inspection, the pirates threatened to destroy the Indian ship, the ministry reported.

"Pirates were seen roaming on the upper deck of this vessel with guns and rocket-propelled grenade launchers. The vessel continued its threatening calls and subsequently fired upon INS Tabar," the ministry said. The Indian frigate returned fire, setting the pirate ship ablaze and setting off explosions on board, the statement said.

An international fleet has been patrolling the waters off the Horn of Africa in an effort to crack down on pirates based in largely lawless Somalia.

Pirates have attacked more than 90 vessels off East Africa so far this year, according to the International Maritime Bureau's Piracy Reporting Center, which monitors piracy around the world, including a Saudi supertanker captured earlier this month.

The latest ship seized was a Yemeni freighter Adina taken last week with a crew of seven on board, including two Yemenis, two Panamanians and three Somalis, security sources in Yemen told CNN.

The government is in direct contact with officials in Somalia to work on rescuing the ship, for which the hijackers are asking for a $2 million ransom.

While the pirate take over of the Saudi super-tanker highlights the dangers facing cargo ships navigating the Horn of Africa, marine security experts are warning that racing boats, private charters and luxury yachts can be far easier pirate targets -- rich people usually carry cash, and jewels.

And competitors in the world's biggest ocean race made an unprecedented change of course this year as organizers mandated yachts steer clear of Africa's east coast.

 

[eoc]

Maybe China can use its new air carrier for this.

yeah planning this, China will row the boat to stop the pirates 100 years later.

 

[Newbunkle]

I think a few guys with machine guns would definitely help, but burning them alive would be better for the ones who upload the torrents in the first place.

 

[Bigfoot3814]

I think a few guys with machine guns would definitely help, but burning them alive would be better for the ones who upload the torrents in the first place.

 

[caketastydelish]

I apologize for bringing up an ancient thread, but I'm writing a novel about a fictional character who does this very thing (mercenary who defends a cargo ship from pirate attacks). So this topic is interesting to me.

Putting weapons on commercial shipping vessels is illegal according to certain treaties I believe. But I'd be all for having hidden machine gun turrets pop out of the deck if under attack and just open up on the pirates.

It isn't. Or if it is, it is obscure and doesn't apply the vast majority of the time. Or if it was illegal (in fairness you said this 9 years ago) it isn't illegal now. Pirate raids have gone seriously up. When a company hires you (whether you're a mercenary or literally anything else in the world) it's for the money you will make/save THEM. A company will hire a mercenary because they decide the cost of getting raided is more than the cost of buying protection.

Mercs get paid LOTS of money. They can make up to the range of literally 250,000 a year. There are doctors that don't make that much-- mercs don't have to put in the money (or time) of medical school either. To top it off their living expenses are paid for while on these ships.

The only reason there isn't more of the military becoming mercs is because a) not the same health benefits package/other government compensation b) bad reputation "you clearly only fight for the money and not for your country" c) typically longer times being deployed without seeing your family d) after a certain amount of years in the military they've developed PTSD/other mental or physical problems, so they've had enough.

So yes, mercs get hired to defend cargo ships, and they get hired on a regular basis. They DO make a difference. They don't make a ship invulnerable, but you'd be insane to say they make no difference. They are effectively a seat belt.

This is what happens when you decide to be cheap and a) don't hire protection b) take a 'shortcut' that involves pirate waters to save more money.

Effectively it is a cat and mouse game. The more pirates there are (and there have been a lot) the better it is for mercs - more jobs, more demand, more money.

 

[Synobun]

I imagine there aren't more mercenaries largely because military service is seen as an honourable duty. Your average soldier isn't going to shrug their shoulders and decide to instead risk their life defending commercial freighters for a few extra schmeckles per year.

 

[caketastydelish]

It is significantly more than 'a few extra schmeckles per year'. That said, you are otherwise correct.

 

[Yeekim]

I imagine there aren't more mercenaries largely because military service is seen as an honourable duty. Your average soldier isn't going to shrug their shoulders and decide to instead risk their life defending commercial freighters for a few extra schmeckles per year.

Arguably, there are bigger risks involved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Seaman_Guard_Ohio
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdvanFort
http://www.maritime-executive.com/features/seaman-guard-ohio-owners-contact-families

If your employer - or ship's navigator - effs up, you can easily end up serving time in some exotic jail.

On October 12, 2013, the 35 crew and guards on the Seaman Guard Ohio were arrested in India’s territorial waters for possession of illegal arms and environmental pollution. Indian authorities arrested six British nationals, three Ukrainians, fourteen Estonians as well as twelve Indians after they boarded the ship.

The men were thrown in jail and ordered to stand trial for crimes against the state. While all charges were eventually dropped in July 2014 by the High Court of India, the men’s passports were confiscated so that they could not leave the country legally.

But after almost a year of detention and living in limbo, the Supreme Court of India upheld the charges and remanded the men for trial. And, on January 11, 2016, after a brief trial all of the men were sentenced to five years of hard labor, and the nightmare continues for them and their families.

Meanwhile, it appears that AdvanFort Company, the vessel’s owners, have done little to help the men. The company’s owners, Samir Farajallah, the company’s chairman and CEO, and his son, Ahmed, who acted as the president of U.S. based entity, quit paying the crew’s salaries in November 2013. They have also done little to provide legal assistance insisting that they thought it was their insurance company’s responsibility.

For the wives and families of the crew, who are grateful for every media article that keeps their loved ones in the spotlight, it has been three long, brutal years. But, unfortunately, it could be many more years before the men are released and allowed to go home.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Why don't the shipping companies hire a 2-3 mercenaries to defend their ships? I mean it would be really easy to sink those rubber dingies.

They do... If by "hire mercenaries" you mean "buy insurance."

 

[caketastydelish]

Yes and no. Insurance helps but you're leaving out a factor of the equation - the human lives on the ship. If your crew gets captured (or killed), their lives are far more valuable than the contents of their cargo. Insurance won't weasel you out of that.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Yes and no. Insurance helps but you're leaving out a factor of the equation - the human lives on the ship. If your crew gets captured (or killed), their lives are far more valuable than the contents of their cargo. Insurance won't weasel you out of that.

Valuable to who? You're leaving the "shipping companies" factor out of the equation. If the question was "Why don't the families of the crew hire mercenaries?" I'd agree with you, but corporations care primarily (only) about their profits... human lives? meh...

 

[caketastydelish]

A lot of problems.

First, no one will be willing to work for these ships in the first place if they think there is a legitimately good chance they won't return home. Or if they do, they would demand an extremely high price for it to be worth it. Thus the mercenaries pay for themselves.

Second, you are leaving yourself open to malpractice and lawsuits if it appears you didn't even try to put any precautions to keep their lives safe.

Third, is simply bad publicity for your company. Nobody will want to be associated with your company if you treat human beings like cannon fodder.

edit: There's also a fourth factor, not related to the lives themselves but indeed the cargo.

Insurance has its limits. You can buy car insurance, but if you get in enough accidents your rates will go sky high. If a significant enough ship has no protection whatsoever, they will get raided time and time again. The insurance policy would get out the roof real quick.

 

[Sommerswerd]

A lot of problems.

First, no one will be willing to work for these ships in the first place if they think there is a legitimately good chance they won't return home. Or if they do, they would demand an extremely high price for it to be worth it. Thus the mercenaries pay for themselves.

Second, you are leaving yourself open to malpractice and lawsuits if it appears you didn't even try to put any precautions to keep their lives safe.

Third, is simply bad publicity for your company. Nobody will want to be associated with your company if you treat human beings like cannon fodder.

edit: There's also a fourth factor, not related to the lives themselves but indeed the cargo.

Insurance has its limits. You can buy car insurance, but if you get in enough accidents your rates will go sky high. If a significant enough ship has no protection whatsoever, they will get raided time and time again. The insurance policy would get out the roof real quick.

First, people already work on these ships without mercenary protection so your first point is incorrect.

Second, corporations can't be sued for malpractice, that's a term that applies mainly to doctors and lawyers, and you can't sue a corporations lawyer because the corporation failed to hire mercenaries to protect your loved ones. If what your trying to say is lawsuits in general... corporations are always open to lawsuits in general, regardless of whether they hire mercenaries. Hiring mercenaries actually potentially creates additional exposure to liability/legal losses because you then become liable for the mistakes of the mercenaries you hired. If they accidentally blow up the wrong ship or shoot an innocent person it comes back on your company. But most importantly, failing to hire mercenaries is not the same as failing to "even try to put any precautions to keep their lives safe". People already work on these ships with the existing safety precautions whatever they are, and without mercenary protection, so your second point is incorrect.

Third, again, failing to hire mercenaries is not the same as "treating human beings like cannon fodder". People already work on these ships with the existing safety precautions whatever they are, and without mercenary protection, so your third point is incorrect.

Your fourth point is also incorrect, because again, these losses are already covered by insurance rather than mercenaries... the insurance method is working.

 

[caketastydelish]

There are a certain number who go without protection - true. Similar to people have sex without condoms. That doesn't mean the condom isn't worth it, in and of itself.

Some companies take the risk of not hiring protection, and others do.

'malpractice' may have been the incorrect term, but the general idea was right.

My fourth point is still correct.

 

[Yeekim]

They do... If by "hire mercenaries" you mean "buy insurance."

They also do if by "hire mercenaries" one means "hire mercenaries".

 

[caketastydelish]

Sommerswerd is probably a pirate himself, and only wants to discourage others from picking up the mercenary trade because they'll pwn his pirate ass.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Correct.

They also do if by "hire mercenaries" one means "hire mercenaries".

Also correct. "Hiring 2 -3 mercenaries" doesn't necessarily stop pirates either... because like all criminals, they asses the protections in place and escalate accordingly relative to the prize sought. In that sense,hiring mercenaries might actually end up inducing a crew slaughtering bloodbath rather than preventing one... which is why the smart money goes with insurance.

 

[caketastydelish]

No. A ship mounted with several turrets would deter pirates rather than the other way around. Most burglars won't even consider a house with those 'this house is protected by blah blah blah alarm system' sign. Why would pirates specifically choose a ship mounted with turrets/mercs when there are defenseless ships they could get much more easily?

edit: You also seem to be missing the point. Condoms don't protect against all forms of STDs and its possible to die in a car accident with a seat belt. Does that make condoms and seat belts useless?

 

[Sommerswerd]

A ship mounted with several turrets would deter pirates rather than the other way around.

First...citation needed. Second... this is textbook goalpost moving... "several mounted turrets" is not "mercenaries". We're debating mercenaries. I'd speculate that being escorted by an Aircraft Carrier with a full complement of F-14s and Apaches on deck would deter pirates as well, but that's not what's on the table.

Most burglars won't even consider a house with those 'this house is protected by blah blah blah alarm system'

says the marketing brochure for "blah blah blah alarm system" company as the gullible customer takes out his checkbook.

Why would pirates specifically choose a ship mounted with turrets/mercs when there are defenseless ships they could get much more easily?

The same reason people rob banks and armoured cars when they could snatch purses and hold up bookstores so much more easily.

The nice thing ctd, is that I can tell that you have literally zero experience with crime or criminals... which speaks very highly of you.

 

[Yeekim]

...and you seem to think insurance companies are in fact charity ops not out to make a profit

Obviously, both mercs and insurance have their uses.