How to stop Pirates, Give the Crew all Hand Grenades

[Stinger2]

How to stop Pirates, Give the crew all Hand Grenades

Pirates get close to board ships, just lob them overboard, problem solved.

[Dogmudgeon]

1. Why not try water cannons first?

Using munitions anywhere nearby can be catastrophically dangerous to oil tankers and ships carrying flammable cargo.

--d!

[Stinger2]

8. All ships are not Oil Tankers, Some Hand Gernades are less powerful then others.

[damntexdem]

2. Hmm, lob a hand grenade off of an oil tanker -- great idea. What a blast!

I have a better one: have all the crew outfit themselves as suicide bombers -- those pirates will be sorry they tried to take hostages.

I'm all for arming crew members of ships, if they are given training; but some forms of armament just don't seem like a good idea.

[Renew Deal]

3. And Duct Tape

To close the holes in the side of the ship. :crazy:

[Politicalboi]

27. Ahhh you need plastic too

It works for dirty bombs in the streets to protect your home. No reason it can't work here either. I'm so glad Bush/Cheney kept us safe for all those years. :woohoo: :sarcasm: I say we hire Chuck Norris to kick those pirates asses.

[Renew Deal]

32. Please send chuck!

Our sailors need defending against the evil pirate scourge. He can finally make himself useful.

[MADem]

4. They cannot be armed in most instances. There's the little problem of

cargo (often volatile), there's international "law of the sea" issues (Navies are armed, peaceable vessels plying trade are not), and last but not least, there's the "mutiny" thing.

It's a tough nut to crack.

That said, your idea isn't totally off the wall. A while ago, pirates tried to jack a Chinese ship. The Chinese kept running away, and in that time, the crew made up a bunch of molotov cocktails with tee shirts, bottles and small engine gasoline, and they gave those pirates what-for!

They also used water cannon (the ship's fire hoses do well at this--the best ones, though, are remotely deployed, because your crew is small, you see) and beer bottles--how Churchillian!!!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/piracy/3849969/Chinese-ship-uses-Molotov-cocktails-to-fight-off-Somali-pirates.html



The captain of the Zhenhua 4 told how his well-prepared crew held off the pirates - who were armed with rocket-propelled grenades - when the ship was boarded by pirates on Tuesday in the Gulf of Aden.

The ordeal of the multinational crew of 30 men ended with the arrival of military helicopters and a warship despatched by the task force fighting the piracy menace in the region.

“Seven of the nine pirates landed on our ship, all with weapons,” said the captain, Peng Weiyuan, speaking to China Central Television.

“Our crew, who had been well trained and prepared, used water cannon, self-made incendiary bombs , beer bottles and anything else that could be used to battle with them. Thirty minutes later, the pirates gestured to us for a ceasefire.

“Then the helicopter from the joint fleet came to help us.”

The ship was one of four vessels seized by pirates on Tuesday, the same day the United Nations Security Council took a strong stand against the attacks and authorised countries to pursue the gunmen on to Somali soil.

Rampant piracy off the coast of Somalia this year has earned gunmen millions of dollars in ransoms, forced up the cost of shipping insurance costs and caused international alarm.

[kristopher]

11. What "law of the sea" forbids arming merchant vessels for self defense?

It isn't in the "Law of the Sea" treaty (UNCLOS).

I'd love to see a reference for this truism if it exists (I don't think it does). It keeps getting passed around and as far as I can tell, it simply isn't true. There *may* be certain problems on armed civilian ships entering certain ports of call, but *if* that's the issue it is a totally different policy problem than an international treaty would create.

[MADem]

13. The issue, really is "Law of the PORT" more than "Law of the sea."

It's also "Law of the Insurance Company." And, with some of these sketchy crews, "Law of the 'Let's Not Do Mutiny, Thanks, Anyway'." Further, there is the "Law of the 'Let's Not Bring Terrorists Disguised As Merchant Seamen Into Our Port'" as well.

A good article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/world/13shipping.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

Lastly, there's "Why arm them if you cannot arrest or detain the pirates?" And that's the nub of the issue, you see.


If you use PRIVATE people (like the new version of Blackwater, for example) to provide the protection, all you'll be doing is telling the pirates what you have, so they can go get bigger weapons and more people. The type of weaponry that can be carried, too, is limited by treaty (no automatic weapons, IIRC) assuming you could get all those ports to change their tune--I think it's the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) that governs that, but I am not positive.

Also, only a STATE (not a private vessel, or a private "army," a STATE) may seize a pirate vessel. This part actually IS covered in the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. 'PRIVATE' forces can't arrest or detain the pirates, only "STATE" entities can (and they have to be on the seas on STATE business, too). So really, what's the point of repelling them if they can 'fight and run away/live to fight another day?'

The money quote:

Article 107. Ships and aircraft which are entitled to seize on account of piracy

A seizure on account of piracy may be carried out only by warships or military aircraft, or other ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and authorized to that effect.

http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/conven/unclospart7.html

[endarkenment]

14. I think the OP is operating on the gungeon theory

that if everyone was simply armed to the teeth all the time everywhere then all problems would be solved. At any rate matching hand thrown grenades against RPGs is just massively stupid. Funny, but stupid.

[kristopher]

15. I'm very familiar with the LOS.

I don't think the crux of the issue is or has been the issue of pursuit or seizure; it is repelling boarders. I say send the crews to a good weapons training course, hire one person per ship that is highly qualified with weapons, tactics and the proper use of force, and then arm the ships to a level that exacts a stiff price from the pirates. The restrictions on certain arms - if there actually are any - could be addressed in a couple of ways depending on the nature of the obstacle. Whatever legalism might be an impediment, it is not worth putting these crews in the danger they are currently and unquestionably facing. Worrying about escalation is, at this point, pretty absurd, IMO.

[MADem]

18. The crux of the issue now is stopping piracy. Our SECSTATE had

a little something to say to the Dutch about the simple act of repelling boarders.

If you do nothing more than what you propose, then in no time, the pirates know your MO. In no time, they can overcome your MO with greater numbers and more powerful weapons. In no time, you're back to the same equation, only the weapons are bigger and the stakes higher.

Also, are you going to go 'round to every port in the world, to every nation-state in the world, and hustle through legislation in all of their varying parliaments, legislatures, majlises, and loyajurgas (to say nothing of jawboning assorted despots to change their laws) that changes a pretty common rule that there are to be no weapons on vessels in ports? That's what you'll have to do, in order for your proposal to work. Given that many ports are colocated with LNG and oil storage facilities, you'd likely have no luck with that effort.

I'm fairly familiar with law of the sea myself. The purpose of sea transit, with the exception of military (whose goal is national defense/show the flag) and passenger cruise vessels (whose goal is tourism), is trade. Arming vessels impedes trade (and tourism) because it makes almost all ports off-limits.

A far easier way to handle the situation is to develop a coalition that escorts these vessels in a convoy past the "danger corner" that is Somalia for the short term, and at the same time, aggressively interdict the activity of these guys, to include trials and prosecutions, while working with the nascent government of Somalia to find ways to knock this shit off.

It's the job of navies to interdict pirates and stop them from thievery and hostage-taking on the high seas. They simply need to pool their assets, develop a system, and get down to business. It's simply a question of will. Perhaps the insurance companies could donate fuel costs to a coalition effort for these warships, at a minimum--it's cheaper than the insurance costs they're paying now.

[kristopher]

19. You are eh?

Then why were you citing it as a source in prohibiting the arming of ships? You are all bluster and bluff with very little real substance to your comments. You don't know the law(s) regarding ports of call; so you don't have any idea of what might be involved in addressing the issue.

The only thing that is clear from your posts is that you know less about military matters than you do about marine law, if that is possible.

[MADem]

20. Did you follow my argument? They CANNOT be armed, because

if they ARE armed, they can't go into port. If they cannot go into port, the purpose of going to sea is negated.

That seems pretty clear to me.

"""Eh???????""""

I even cited the relevant article. Apparently you chose not to read what I provided for you. Either that, or it was too hard to wade through and you abandoned the task.


If anyone is showing a lack of knowledge, it's you, with your "blow 'em all up" idiotic plan. Plus, you're going out of your way to behave like a pouting ass, too. Why, I've no idea.

That, in and of itself, is a clue as to how grounded your knowledge base is--which is to say, it's floating free.

Happy sailing, there, Cap'n Kangaroo!

:rofl:

[kristopher]

22. You just get in deeper and deeper...

Show me where they "can't go into port". There may be requirements for inspections, but it is highly unlikely that any port would ban a merchant ship equipped and manned as I suggested. And contrary to your strawman, I'm not advocating a "blow'em all up" strategy or anything like it.
Because of the size of the area under threat and the number of ships involved, your proposal is a continuation of the status quo with us spending even more vital money spinning our wheels and chasing our tails instead of actually putting force where it is required.

As I said, you don't know anything about marine law nor do you grasp even the most basics issues involved - especially the COST of putting a ship to sea in both money and people. So go on believing that UNCLOS prohibits ships from defending themselves if you wish, or the equally false idea that armed merchant ships are somehow forbidden. You were wrong when you started pontificating, you are wrong now, and since you don't seem to learn very easily, you'll probably continue to be wrong long after I've forgotten your affinity for ignorance.

TTFN.

[MADem]

23. Gee, deeper indeed. I thought you were the expert?

Apparently you're not. You're also quite pompous, too.

Try getting into the average port with a cache of weapons or armed personnel aboard, unless you're a warship that has gotten country clearance well ahead of your visit. The ports that don't object outright to weapons on vessels will like as not confiscate your weapons and make you go through an onerous process to both check them in and check them out when you are trying to leave (which, if you are a commercial vessel, comes down to a "time is money" exercise). Once you're in their waters, you're subject to their laws. Unless you just want to sail around and never hit a port--in that case, knock yourself out--but we're talking about merchant, commercial vessels, or so I assumed. The laws of the nations where the ports are located control what happens once you hit their territorial waters, unless you're transiting.


Jurisdiction isn't clear in international waters, making a fatal shooting aboard a complex legal matter. Lawsuits associated with firearm accidents would add a further financial risk.

Many ports would balk at allowing in armed commercial ships. The U.S. government worries commercial shipping with armed sailors could pose a terrorism risk in U.S. ports.

Shipowners also maintain that unless they arm seafarers with heavy weaponry, they'd be no match for pirates, who have been known to carry rocket-propelled grenades and automatic rifles.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123940951424510221.html

Pirates tend to use long-range assault rifles capable of firing up to 600 rounds a minute, he said, whereas sailors or guards carrying weapons must satisfy the laws of both the ship's flag carrier and the nations where the vessel will dock. Many countries will only allow shotguns - traditionally used for bird control - with a much shorter range than the pirates' weapons.
http://www.komonews.com/news/national/42801962.html

Depending on the ship's flag, its destination port and the relevant maritime law, firearms may be illegal aboard ships. Even if firearms are legal, guns can add exposure by increasing the likelihood of cargo being damaged and the crew being hurt or killed in a firefight, insurers and industry representatives say. Somali pirates generally have returned hijacked ships and crew uninjured in exchange for a ransom payment.

Even some security consultants discourage using firearms.

Most ports severely restrict vessels from having weapons on board, and changing those regulations in each country would be difficult, Mr. Flynn said. The United States Coast Guard has been especially wary, fearing that the weapons could be used for terrorist attacks.

Because a commercial vessel might stop in a dozen countries during a voyage, it would be hard for it to carry weapons if any port along the route forbade that, Mr. Flynn said.

International regulation of shipping has shifted heavily away from the countries that register vessels and toward the local and national governments at the ships’ ports of call. This has made it even more complicated to come up with common international standards, because so many countries are involved.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/world/13shipping.html?hp


But putting firearms aboard a ship, even in the hands of trained professional security services, is a threshold most ship owners are hesitant to cross, observers say.

"In general and historically, ship owners have been reluctant to have weapons on ship," said Rich DeSimone, president of the New York-based Ocean Marine division of Travelers Cos. Inc.

"The potential issues it could create are greater than what it might prevent," he said.

Depending on the ship's flag, its destination port and the relevant maritime law, firearms may be illegal aboard ships. Even if firearms are legal, guns can add exposure by increasing the likelihood of cargo being damaged and the crew being hurt or killed in a firefight, insurers and industry representatives say. Somali pirates generally have returned hijacked ships and crew uninjured in exchange for a ransom payment.

Even some security consultants discourage using firearms.

"Getting armed guards is a massive risk; it could escalate a situation dramatically," said Jereon Meijer, the national practice leader for crisis consulting in North America at London-based Control Risks Group Ltd. "What if you shoot a pirate and they get on board? What is the consequence then?"
http://www.businessinsurance.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?articleId=26828

Question: Is the crew allowed to carry firearms in a cargo ship?

Title 46 of United States Code applies to U.S. Merchant Mariners. There is no provision within the code allowing crew to carry firearms. In fact, mariners are subject to standing regulations defined by the Master of the vessel. Typically, prohibitions include drugs, alcohol and weapons being brought aboard the vessel. Violations can result in punitive measures, including a charge of misconduct resulting in suspension or revocation of their license or document as noted in 46 U.S. Code § 7703, “Bases for suspension or revocation. “

Additionally, the regulation pertaining to Personnel Action against mariners is included in 46 Code of Federal Regulations 5.27:

“Misconduct is human behavior which violates some formal, duly established rule. Such rules are found in, among other places, statutes, regulations, the common law, the general maritime law, a ship’s regulation or order, or shipping articles and similar sources. It is an act which is forbidden or a failure to do that which is required.”

That’s the long answer. The short answer is: No.

http://www.maritimeterrorism.com/2008/12/02/piracy-and-the-rules-of-engagement/

An Australian sailor, who friends describe as an adventurer who carried guns for protection against pirates, was arrested after Indonesian police seized guns and ammunition on his boat will be charged with illegally possessing firearms - an offence that carries a maximum punishment of 20 years in jail, a police spokesman said today.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/11/20/1100838274440.html?from=storylhs

[kristopher]

24. What exactly do you think that supports?

You stated that the UNCLOS made arming merchant vessels illegal. I said that it wasn't and that any problems that existed were of a nature totally dissimilar to those associated with a violation of a negotiated and ratified international treaty. I further suggested that the most direct and easily implemented solution would be special training in weapons use for merchant seamen with an addition of a new specialty crew position for a weapon's/special tactics officer to oversee the use of force in the event of an attempted boarding. Other propositions have been to create a sort of "sky marshal" service where random ships are manned by special strike teams.

Your C&P from the NYT totally refutes your prior posts and, even though it is oriented to argue against the arming of merchant ships, it makes clear there is NOTHING that I've posted which isn't both doable and effective. "In fact, mariners are subject to standing regulations defined by the Master of the vessel."

Citing an individual sailor as some sort of proof that the concept of concerted UN action to establish a system such as I've suggested is as absurd as everything else you've posted.

Look, if you would rather waste money on useless DOD expenditures instead of things like health care and education, then that is how your priorities are ordered. It just isn't the way I see it.

[MADem]

25. Now, you're shopping outright falsehoods that show you're either spoiling for a fight or can't read

I said NOTHING about "illegal." That's what happens when you're so quick with preconceived notions and "ass-ume." You made that up because you wanted to fight with someone about this matter.

My precise remark was this: .....there's international "law of the sea" issues (Navies are armed, peaceable vessels plying trade are not).... "Issues" is not "illegal."

And then, I went out of my way to EXPLAIN those issues, and the reasons why vessels plying trade are not armed.

IF you look at UNCLOS, you see that the decisions as to what happens in littoral waters and most specifically, in ports, is left to the NATIONS in question. THAT's where the problems arise. So you see, the difficulties presented in carrying weaponry ARE present in the document. I went out of my way to explain that to you, too, when I discussed "law of the port." But no, you've got some need to be a Smackdown Rambo Smartass. It's going over poorly.

You have a nice day, now, Rambo. Learn to read carefully before you shoot off your sea cannon next time.

:eyes:

[kristopher]

26. Another strawman and dishonest cherry picking to boot...

"They cannot be armedin most cases. ... there's international "law of the sea" issues (Navies are armed, peaceable vessels plying trade are not).

You very specifically cited the UNCLOS as a legal basis for your claim that "peaceable vessels" cannot be armed. At this point, any claim that you were not saying there was a prohibition on arming ships contained within the UNCLOS simply isn't credible. The strawman enters with the notion that my restatement of your meaning was somehow a significant deviation from the original. It isn't.

You clearly cited the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea as a basis for a claim that merchant vessels "cannot be armed". It is reasonable to paraphrase "cannot" in the context of a document setting international LAW as a claim of illegality. You are grasping at straws, MADem.

And as much as I appreciate your efforts to educate me with your self serving arguments, that simply doesn't make your arguments persuasive. For that, they have to be based on more than a NYT article you read and some hasty internet research you've done in responding to these posts.

The meat of the issue remains the same as it was when we began this exchange, do we engage in a totally ineffective, horrendously expensive display of military muscle; or do we devise an approach that puts an appropriate amount of force and resources at the precise location of the problem?

There is no "quick fix" to this matter or it would have been settled years ago. We've beefed up our presence in the area, and we have done it in cooperation with other nations - that has done nothing to improve the situation. Please take a look at the map to get a feel for the area under duress; next consider how long it takes the pirates to board a ship; then estimate a number and distribution of Naval ships that will allow a response to any attacked ship before its crew can be taken as hostages.

The problems you point to in ports of call are real, and if I remember correctly, I raised the issue first. Your original reasons for disputing the OP were listed in your opening post: "There's the little problem of cargo (often volatile), there's international "law of the sea" issues (Navies are armed, peaceable vessels plying trade are not), and last but not least, there's the "mutiny" thing."

Cargo sensitivity to damage, the supposed prohibition against arming merchant vessels contained in the LOS, and fear of mutiny were they problems you cited. Now that you've actually read a bit, you think you are even more of an armchair expert than you were when you cited those three issues, right? However you still don't have a proper grasp of the matter. As I have repeatedly said, the issue of how to treat armed merchant vessels at ports of call is a different problem than what would be extant IF your assertion regarding UNCLOS were true. Revising a treaty would be a massive undertaking. Revising international standards on how a maritime merchant vessel may be configured is a totally different process. It is also one where there is significant precedent since not so long ago it was common practice to configure merchant vessels to accept light duty weapons of war for self defense.

If you want to implement large scale changes in how ships are configured it really isn't that difficult because the ports need the business of the ships. There is strong competition to get that business and the people who pay for the decisions of the ports regarding what ships to turn away would largely be the locals around the port and the industries the ports serve. If a port wanted to assholish about the issue, the cargo would just start going through another geographically suitable port that wanted to get the business of the assholes putting the ships in danger.

But hey, you already know everything so why am I wasting my time boring you with redundancies?

[MADem]

29. You're dead wrong. But then, you have been. And you're a champion misrepresenter.

Why are you repeating the information that I offered just above, as though it's "news" or proves your lame case?

If anyone is trying to cherry pick my intent, it's YOU, Mr. Knows a LOT about LOS (which was considerably more boastful than my "fair amount" of familiarity--but never mind that).

You apparently didn't know about the UNCLOS deference to nation states, which gives rise to the port restrictions that make your not-terribly-genius plan unworkable. If you had, you wouldn't have painted yourself into that "attack as a defense" corner you're in.

Way to bold CANNOT BE ARMED and ignore the IN MOST CASES, either. The "cannot," you deliberately obtuse internet bully, has to do with the PORTS and their restrictions. If you want to sail around in a circle, load up. If you want to go to most ports, you can't have more than pissant shotguns aboard without either having your weapons confiscated or having to go through an onerous check in/check out process.

But I explained that. You ignored it. Or more likely, you didn't bother to read it, because you know all.

Go kick your dog or scream at your kids or your spouse, and may your neighbors call the cops who will maybe get you the "anger management" help you need. Your attitude sucks. You are behaving like a childish blowhard.

It doesn't make you any more RIGHT either, there, Cap'n Kangaroo. You have permission to leave the ship.

[kristopher]

30. Project much?

It's pretty obvious who is having a meltdown; but at least you restrain yourself from using all caps...

[MADem]

31. I'm not the one using aggressive and bullying language. You are.

Have a nice day, Cap'n!

[endarkenment]

5. Massively stupid. nt.

[Sinistrous]

6. How about posting a squad of military personnel on some ships.

Not all ships, just a few. The pirates would not know when they were going to run into a hornets nest of trained, armed defenders when they challenge a ship.

Each nation could supply soldiers for the ships flying its flag.

[TheWraith]

7. There's issues with the ports, though.

Many ports wouldn't like allowing in an armed military force from another country.

The simplest thing would be to have a small cache of weapons on the ship, say a couple of long-distance sniping rifles and a few shotguns. Enough to provide the crew with a credible chance to fight back, not enough that it would be present a problem making port.

[Selatius]

34. You could conceivably station naval vessels off the coasts to off-load military personnel.

That way, the ships could enter ports and avoid asking for permission from the host country entirely because the military personnel were off-loaded in international waters.

[salguine]

9. Epically dumb idea, for several reasons:

1) All you'd need is for one crew member to pull the pin and then fumble the grenade on the deck before he can get it overboard.
2) You're on a big ship, thirty or forty feet—or more—above the waterline. Even if the pirate boat is stopped alongside you, it's bobbing up and down, and chances are, with the pirates most likely able to shoot at you with small-arms fire all the while, you're not going to get the grenade in the boat.
3) Even if you did manage to get the grenade into their boat while they were attempting to board you, and it does go off, you have an explosion going off right next to your own hull. Not good.

A much better idea would be to allow merchant ships to equip themselves with a couple of these. No explosions to worry about, and any pirate skiffs would be shredded to bits before they even got close enough to touch you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWIGfRsGMqw

Problem solved.

[Stinger2]

10. If a Grenade or a small boat that blows up takes out a tanker or any monster ship we have more probl

1) You lock up Hand Grenades with the Captain in a box.

2) You train one or two crew members how to use and throw a grenade.

3) If a Grenade or a small boat that blows up takes out a tanker or any monster ship we have more problems then Pirates.

[salguine]

12. Don't be dense. A single hand grenade isn't going to "take out"

a tanker. That wasn't the point. But it'll probably damage it, and why risk that damage when there are better alternatives? Pragmatism and common sense should tell you that your best option is to either eliminate or drive off pirates well before they even come within hand grenade range.

[Stinger2]

16. Blow them out of the water will eliminate the drive, they will not know who has them or not

[salguine]

17. That sentence makes no sense.

[HooptieWagon]

21. REALLY dumb idea.

First of all, many countries and ports don't allow arms aboard ships entering port. Second, merchant ships operate with a skeleton crew - barely enough to operate the ship. There simply aren't enough men on board to repel a boarding, even if they are armed with hand grenades. Third, the crews would have to be trained, and since crews frequently shift - they would have to be trained each voyage. Fourth - liability, what happens if a crewman is killed or kills another crewman in case of a mishap? And what would insurance companies charge for liability to the owner of an armed merchant ship? Fifth, how about the security of these hand grenades? Are the crew going to steal them? Are the crew going to use them on each other or against the captain in a mutiny?

[tomreedtoon]

28. So, you Loss Of Signal people are saying...

...that any troops we bring home from Iraq must now go on ships to protect our shipping. Or we should go invade Somalia and clean up their non-government. Two solutions that won't be very popular here on DU.

I don't think hand grenades are a solution. Grenade LAUNCHERS have enough range to keep the pirtes from approaching ships. I can clearly visualize this kind of armament being accepted by international law. Or, ships can accept not being docked, and make the ports send barges or something out to pick up cargo from armed ships (which should make those impoverished ports some money).

[8 track mind]

33. i'd prefer dropping some anvils on them

one or two well place drops should render the offending pirate boat useless