Pirates...

How about just having the naval forces in the area intercept and board every "suspicious" vessel and if they find guns onboard, simply dump them over the side, no drama, no arrests, just splashing weapons.

If the suspicious vessel runs or tries to fight, then sink them and sail away. The pirates will soon tire of buying guns or drowning.

If the only reason the military says they can't do anything is because the pirates will claim refuge then don't take them onboard the military vessel. Take guns, not prisoners.

Looks like the politicos (at least the Indians) are catching that hint. . . .finally. The kicker is that these pirates aren't even running go-fasts. If we can catch drug runners in scarabs and planes these guys should be a piece of cake.

Hi,

How about this puppie:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/52637/m60_machine_gun/

Read the first comment in the pane below the video if ya have time.

Did you notice how he moved the stump that was once a functioning right hand. He'll be a lefty for a couple of days. Looks like fun. DK too many people I'd trust with that behind me though.

for the pirates or for the navi ???
;-)

Defense against pirates must be a system not a single device. Combine a prudent watch on radar, fire hoses, LRAD's, and green lasers and you start to build a defensive platform. But then the problem soon becomes the cost - yes the Saudi super tanker would probably go for it, but some of the other second tier freight haulers?

Perhaps we should go back in history, and adopt the escorted convoy system for passage through troubled waters?

I like this idea...go on the offensive in this area off Somalia.

I'm not normally of the offensive nature, considering our recent mistakes around the world, but this situation demands it both logistically, and in thwarting an uneducated, brutal foe.

And don't take them into custody, let them swim for shore....they might not venture so far out next time, if at all

"And don't take them into custody, let them swim for shore....they might not venture so far out next time, if at all"
Oh if only that could be done.
No, I think MacMcL has it right: " adopt the escorted convoy system for passage through troubled waters" It's a practice that has worked very well throughout history.

Why couldn't that be done?

The escort system would be extremely hard to coordinate with multiple, multiple, ships arriving from the ocean side and from many different directions

I shouldn't be that hard. Simply set up convoy meeting locations and schedules.

"I shouldn't be that hard ..."

Unfortunately it is not easy or cheap to make up a convoy of merchant vessels. They do for the canal transit but scatter like cats once in open water again.

It is very easy and relatively cheap for a naval vessel to intercept "suspicious" vessels along the shipping lanes and board them.

Like I wrote earlier, if they have guns, toss them overboard and leave the crew to go home unarmed. If they resist, use overwhelming force to disarm them. If they run or fight, use enough ordnance to ensure destruction is complete then go look for another boat to check.

In a week or two there won't be many "pirates" to worry about.

I think the reasons the US is not getting more involved in this fight are more political than anything.

At this point we have plenty of firepower in that area of the world to end this little scrap in a week or two. Tactically there's no reason why we don't just get involved.

It's also not politically correct for us to do it. There's not much for the US to gain, and lots to lose in political terms.

Hi,

It should also be remembered that the last US involvement in Somalia was far from a walk in the park.

I would say given the current state of play in this region that political correctness is not high on anyone's agenda.

Actually it is. The reason we can't do much once an attack is underway is because of the multi-national crews involved and the fear of lawsuits and political wrangling if one gets hurt or killed in the process. We also can't invade another country's sovereign waters and start boarding boats without giving the world precedent to do it to us.

"Unfortunately it is not easy or cheap to make up a convoy of merchant vessels."
Those are numbers the shippers are calculating every time a ship heads for the region. When you start talking about supertankers filled with oil the cost starts getting reasonable.

Hi,

NYCAP- You might want to brush up on world events both current and past if you think this is normal US behavior to respect a sovereign countries rights to their own waters ...... and land.

It is when the cameras are on. Or at least it used to be before we got Bush-wacked. I think Obama would like us to be respected again (at least I hope so). Now as for a covert raid.......

"Those are numbers the shippers are calculating every time a ship heads for the region."

What numbers are those?

"When you start talking about supertankers filled with oil the cost starts getting reasonable."

The charterer determines what is "reasonable" for that ship and the trade route. More ship owners/charterers are avoiding the Suez and going around the Cape.

The territorial waters of Yemen extend 12 miles from shore, beyond that the military can board any suspicious vessel. The US has treaties with something like 28 countries that allow our forces to board and inspect vessels as part of a non-proliferation program. Yemen is not one of those from what I can determine but then again if they don't like it let them complain or send a warship beyond their territorial waters to stop us.

Most shippers couldn't afford that, and what happens to those who can't? Private yachts are just foolish if they don't convoy, and as a convoy they could probably afford to hire protection. The bottom line though is to set up convoys to make it easier to protect, then get the Navys involved.

The numbers are Cost/Benefit.
As far as the US treaties...Why is this a US problem?