Why aren't merchant ships armed?

[Poll_Blind]

  Really- does anyone know? Is there a reason or is it an option that some decide to exercise or not? I can imagine this could cause problems while they're in port but I guess they don't have to have .50 calibur guns on the deck- just sidearms or shotguns. I grew up in a reasonably rural part of the south and there was almost always a gun on board. Of course, that was due to the alligators and water moccasins, not pirates.

  Anyone? Or if there's some quick Wiki link or something which also explains it that would be appreciated.

Thanks,

PB

[NightWatcher]

1. I think they should have dedicated security professionals on board

and a shitload of guns.

hell out of a crew of 30 -35 there are 2-3 dedicated coos on board, why not a team of 4 or 5 private soldiers?

I know several people who own sailboats that hopscotch around the islands down here and they ALL have butt loads of guns on board. A cousin who lives on a sailboat has his old USMC footlocker full of 3 fully auto rifles, several handguns, and enough ammo to sink a skiff on board. He has been approached in his many years on teh sea, but never robbed.

[DKRC]

47. My thoughts exactly

You see these guys coming in & when they're in range you pop'em. Leave enough pirates floating in your wake they'll quit ambushing ships.

[leftstreet]

2. Why aren't bank tellers and Wal-Mart clerks armed?

:shrug:

[NightWatcher]

4. (re: wally world) because if they push an alarm the cops will be there in five minutes

Cargo ships are on the other side of the world from their friendly ports. The definition of alone without a friend in the world, applies here.

[leftstreet]

5. The vast US Naval Service is all about protecting commerce

Believe me, 'merchants' on the seas have plenty of friends.

[Xithras]

26. But the ocean is vast.

The response time to mid-ocean distress calls can be measured in hours when the weather is good, and days when it isn't.

[northzax]

9. why would they be?

the odds of getting hijacked are almost nil. Do you really want a bunch of perhaps poorly trained merchant men (it's not that hard to get a job on a lot of merchant men, in a lot of places. it's not like everyone has the equivalent of the US Merchant Marine) Do you really want a ship with marginal registration and an unknown owner sailing into San Francisco with a bunch of guns on board?

Also, few pirates actually kill people on board the ships they take, that's bad business (and the leaders of these criminals are businessmen, make no mistake about it, they want ransom, killing people only complicates that) you don't want people to fight back, and if they think they are going to die, they will. if they think they are just going to be held for ransom and their cargo taken, they are a lot more likely to be pliant about it. bloodshed simply complicates things. if you were a poorly paid merchant sailor, and your boss asked you to, in essence, die for his profit, would you be on board with that? if you fight, you might win. but is a lot more likely that you are going to die.

[doctor jazz]

14. Ah, the bendoverandtakeituptheass method.

I don't know much about shipping in int'l waters but if I owned a ship that was going to be in the area where scum were seizing ships I'd buy some RPGs and a few guys to shoot them at any little boat that kept coming after being warned to stay away...and blow the motherfuckers to kingdom come in 5 milliseconds. It would be WAY cheaper than paying ransom to these assholes.

[northzax]

18. as long as you get them off the ship before you get to port

since you certify entering your average port that you are not carrying any weapons. and if you were found out, your ships would be banned from basically every functioning port in the world. trust me, you aren't sailing into San Francisco with mercenaries carrying RPGs on board. it's obvious that you really don't know much about shipping in international waters. but you could call Gurkha Manpower, Ltd. they will be happy to provide you with mercenaries. the Hart Group in Bermuda is also capable of dropping them onto your vessel and removing them before landfall. they aren't cheap though.

as for the payments, well, that's when you call the good people at Lloyd's of London and let them deal with it.

in the past twenty years, there have been two incidents I am aware of that involve the killing of a crew: the M/V Hualian off of Taiwan where the crew has never been found, and the M/V Erria Inge, where the crew was found killed in freezers onboard.

Yes, it's a problem. primarily in the Straits of Malacca and off the Horn of Africa. And in those places, many vessels with perfectly fungible cargo (like oil) do employ security. but not al, frankly, since it's a lot cheaper to just insure the vessel and its cargo.

[doctor jazz]

19. So the international shipping community has decreed that boats just have to get fucked by the pirate

gangs and employing defensive measures is off the table. How fucking nice.
No wonder the whole goddamn world is FUBAR.
:grr:

[Statistical]

38. Not the international community.

There is no "world law on this thing" however many nations are extremely anti gun.

0% civilian ownership. Only police & military are armed. Period.

Penalties for civilian ownership can be extreme (like 20 years in prison just for possession).

Some of those countries prohibit merchant ships that are armed from docking.
So to do business the international shipping companies have accepted that they can't be armed.

If individual crew member smuggles weapon into port (say a personal 9mm) and they get caught by Customs then they would be subject to local laws. Get a conviction and you are looking at 5-20 years in foreign prison (could be somewhere like Russia, or Turkey, or Yemen).

US State dept will do nothing to help you. As far as they are concerned you a felon and broke a local law. End of story.

Now it would be possible to compramise.
Say weapons had to be declared.
Had to be turned over to port authority while in port.
There just is no politcal will to get something like that established.

The US could do it we have the weight due to our levels of trade.
The US doesn't really care though as long as the cargo keeps flowing.

[cliffordu]

65. I sooooo wish you knew WTF you were talking about....

Too bad for me, I guess.

[doctor jazz]

66. Well thank you so much for explaining it to me rather than just extending a juvenile insult.

...

[cliffordu]

74. OK.

Here's your homework:

Get on the google and look up "Maritime Law" Read it.

Then look up the history of merchant ships being unarmed. See how far back that goes.

Profit!

[olegramps]

59. No you don't ask sailors to do the task of protecting the ship.

You hire the services of people trained in weapons use. It becomes their responsibility to protect the ship and the crew and you provide them with adequate arms. I would think that if this continues to be a threat then this will be the norm.

This would not necessitate that they be on the ship they are protecting but could be a escort through dangerous areas. Seems to me that it would be a great opportunity but it would cost millions to start up. But with the cost of insurance it seems that it could be viable.

[northzax]

71. and it is

check out Gurka Manpower, Hart Group and yes, Xe. all will be happy to provide you with mercenaries to protect your vessel. even a heavily armed escort vessel. starts at about $20k a day.

[lumberjack_jeff]

84. Piracy is a huge problem for cruisers.

It is nearly as bad of a risk as life-threatening weather.

http://www.yachtpiracy.org/en/list_of_attacked_yachts.htm

[jeff30997]

8. WTF are you talking about ?

We're talking about damn modern days blood thirsty pirates that can kill everybody on a ship without

even blinking.And no cops around.They can kill,they can rape and so on.

[The Straight Story]

10. So folks here being raped and killed have time to call the cops and wait on them?

;)

[doctor jazz]

15. Of course. When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.

:eyes:

[northzax]

13. but they don't, do they?

can you link to a pirate takeover of a commercial vessel in the past decade that has lead to the killing of the crew?

[jeff30997]

16. Yeah they're all jolly good fantasy pirates.Like in Peter Pan.

Want link? First link that I found after using Google:

http://digg.com/travel_places/Pirates_Murder_English_Yachtsman_on_Dream_Trip

[northzax]

22. I'm sorry, I thought I asked for a commercial vessel

not a yacht. People on yachts do, unfortunately tend to get killed by pirates. but people taking large vessels, especially off the Horn of Africa, are more interested in ransom. it's tough to ransom a dead body, you know? crew are worth a lot more alive than dead. but by all means, call Gurka Manpower, Ltd or the good people (and I use that term liberally) at Hart Group in Bermuda.

in the straits of Malacca, violence is more common (although not all that common, there have been the incidents leading to deaths in the past 15 years, and several hundred vessels a day pass through)

think in pure economics. in order to protect say, a capesize container ship (like something that might go around the Horn) you would need perhaps 20 mercenaries to be sure (given that you need at least ten at any time on deck, the ship is probably 600 feet long, after all) a twenty day trip, 20 mercenaries at $1000/day. that's $400,000. XE (nee Blackwater) will be happy to provide you with an armed escort vessel carrying twelve mercenaries for roughly $30k a DAY. you know how valuable your cargo has to be to make that financially worthwhile?

[jeff30997]

69. "I thought I asked for a commercial vessel"

Well in life we can't always get what we ask for, Kid.

[northzax]

70. so I guess that's a no?

interesting. thanks for making that point.

[jeff30997]

77. Read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5417901&mesg_id=5420703

[lumberjack_jeff]

86. Then what was your point?

The post to which you replied makes clear your intent; you are obviously trying to make a point that the pirates aren't all that bad because they don't kill commercial crews.

[doctor jazz]

21. Maybe I'm totally misreading your comments, but it SEEMS as if you're defending the pirates.

Obviously that can't be the case, so could you clarify your position for me? Thankya!
:D

[northzax]

29. not defending them

I did call them criminals, which they are. but for the most part, they are rational criminals, especially off the Horn. they want money. and dead crewmembers don't pay ransom. it's like dealing with the Mafia. the mobs that are successful, the gangs that are successful, don't use violence for this sort of thing. once you start killing people, the next guys are more likely to fight back. and that raises the cost of doing their criminal business. it brings unwanted attention. These aren't one-off crimes, for the most part, it's a cottage industry of crime.

think of it like this. if you ran a crew of muggers in your city, would you start by cutting or shooting victims? isn't that going to actually draw enough attention to you that the police are going to pay attention and crack down? if you're just taking people's wallets and watches, the odds are good no one is going to come after you too hard. but once you kill someone...

let me put it another way. a few years back I lived in a 'transitional neighborhood' some nights I would come home and find guys playing craps on my front stoop. they knew me, I knew them. I knew full well that some of them were dealing drugs, of course they were. but they were never anything but polite to me, I was neither their customer base, nor particularly antagonistic towards them. and you know what? they actually kept the peace on the street well. one actually saved me from a crackhead mugger once. why? because the minute I start calling the cops, they get hassled and are out of whatever business they are in. (my downstairs neighbor was particularly a favorite of theirs, people didn't even catcall her) why attract attention to themselves?

is it ideal? of course not. and I support all relevant methods of stopping both the illegal drug trade and global piracy (including eliminating flags of convenience, the best way to handle a 'phantom ship' who's crew has been removed) and increased military patrols in the regions where piracy is common. it will never be eliminated, no crime ever has been, but it can be drastically reduced by some common sense methods.

[doctor jazz]

32. I understand. Paying protection is still a way for folks to coexist with thugs.

Got it.

[northzax]

33. not at all

tell me, if your boss asked you to defend his property with your life, would you?

[doctor jazz]

63. Of course, if it was in the job description.

...

[Marrah_G]

60. "Chinese sailor recounts murder and beatings by pirates"

A Chinese seaman who spent 202 days as a prisoner of pirates off the coast of Somalia has told of his fear and horror while in captivity, with the worst moment coming when one of his crewmates was murdered.

"I will never go back to sea," Jiang Lichun, 25, said yesterday. Jiang said pirates took control of a Taiwan- registered fishing vessel with 11 crew members as it was sailing more than 350 kilometers off Somalia last April 18.

The heavily armed pirates came aboard from three speedboats and appeared to know exactly what to do as they had the crew inside the captain's room within a few minutes.

"I heard the captain scream `run,"' Jiang said, but there was no time to react after the pirates fired gunshots.

Jiang said the pirates frequently beat the crew, but the most terrifying time was when a shipmate was murdered after the vessel's owner refused to pay a US$300,000 (HK$2.34 million) ransom.

[lumberjack_jeff]

85. Why is the concern limited to commercial crews?

They're only a problem if there's financial worth to the ship they hijack?

The reason the pirates don't usually kill commercial crews is because they are more profitable alive. Dead, they get no ransom.

Non-commercial shipping is a different story. Many cruising sailboats and their crews have disappeared, only to show up later with a new name painted on the transom.

[Bonhomme Richard]

3. Even in the old days merchants ships usually carried....

a cannon or two and there was certainly a cache of arms under lock and key.

[Statistical]

35. The world has become much more anti-gun since then...

many ports don't allow an armed merchant ship to dock.

The US early history was very anti-pirate. There is good reason why it has been 200 years since a US merchant ship has been hijacked.

Sadly as countries became anti-gun we allowed their internal policies to dictate requirements of our crews.

An armed crew will be unable to dock at a substantial portion of ports around world.

Most merchant marine contracts prohibit any firearms because the loss of port privileges could cost a major shipping company million in fines and lost contracts.

[Bonhomme Richard]

58. Did not know. Thanks. n/t

[MnFats]

6. armor..

I think they do carry small arms........but nothing like that can duplicate the capabilities of a warship. (ok, the attackers in these cases may have small craft but they are armed to the teeth and they'v been trained for guerilla war.

plus, the crews probably don't want to get into a gunfight. to them it's just cargo and nothing to get shot to pieces over....

[northzax]

12. very few actually carry small arms

among other things, many ports forbid them. (do you want a bunch of sailors with random backgrounds carrying guns into your ports?) it's all insured and if no one fights, no one dies. and as you note, who wants to die for someone else's stuff?

it's much easier to simply increase speed, ring some netting and use things like water cannon on small craft that get too close.

[Statistical]

36. Nope.

Virtually all merchant ships are 100% unarmed. Not even a single 9mm pistol on board.

Due to fact that some nations will not let an armed vessel dock.

[Historic NY]

7. A fast approaching boat should be vaporized by whatever means..

the skipper comes up with. Since thats not happening they need to put an armed guard on these ships like we had in WWII. Once this starts happening I'm sure the pirates that survive will think twice. The big mistake was when the first ships owners paid them off. If all else fails call on the US Marines they have experience in this department.

Why the hell the US Navy wasn't shadowing this ship is beyond comprehension.

[dysfunctional press]

41. "Why the hell the US Navy wasn't shadowing this ship is beyond comprehension"

it seems pretty comprehensible that there probably aren't enough u.s. warships in the region to shadow every american freighter around the horn of africa.

[Sherman A1]

62. Correct You Are!

However, a couple of Carrier groups in the area might make this a much more dicey proposal for the guys in the little boats.

More assets need to be deployed to the region and this nonsense ended.

[TheMightyFavog]

76. Kind of hard to attack a motorized dinghy with an F-18.

A Harrier (or any other aircraft with VTOL capabilities) or a Sea Cobra Attack Helo would have a better time of it, though.

[Sherman A1]

78. In the case of the dignhy you are correct, but the CV's

bring more search capability and more interdiction capability. An F-18 is overkill for a motorboat, but the motherships when identified can easily be taken out by jets, helicopters or the 5" mounts on the escorting vessels.

[Statistical]

42. You can put armed guards on board then you can't dock in foreign ports.

Kinda defeats the purpose of a cargo ship that can neither pick up or drop off cargo.

[dysfunctional press]

44. maybe they could arm themselves for passage thru the region- then toss the guns overboard.

it would definitely be cheaper than a million-dollar ransom.

and once a few pirates started getting whacked- the shit would start to die down.

[Historic NY]

49. we are dealing with the law of the sea not the law of the land... very big difference if one checks.

[dysfunctional press]

55. meaning what...?

that you're not allowed to shoot at someone climbing your stern using grappling hooks and ropes?

as far as i know,if you shoot someone enough- they're dead, whether it's on land or sea.

[Historic NY]

48. Stupid logic when your bringing in relief supplies..it was done in WWII..

no guard no cargo..that makes it easy to choose.

[virgogal]

11. As a lifelong Bay Stater I think the crocs and water moccasins would

frighten me more than the pirates. :-}

[flvegan]

17. Maritime law, I think.

Especially in regards to territorial waters.

[MercutioATC]

56. Gee, at least one person got it right. If it's armed, it's legally a warshiip.

What I don't understand is why they don't start traveling in convoys...with armed escorts.

[cloudbase]

20. When I started in the merchant marine

in the early '70s, the captain would have a revolver in the safe in his office. I doubt the weapon was ever taken out and cleaned, but it was there for whatever reason. In the mid '90s there was a captain aboard a U.S.-flag bulk carrier who used the pistol on himself. The company I retired from didn't even have them aboard.

Merchant seamen are engaged in commerce. They're considered non combatants, and their traditional weapon has been the fire hose. Hell, the entire reason for the existance of the navy was to protect merchant shipping and seaborne commerce. Of course, the navy's mission has changed a bit over the years, but merchant seamen are still out to make a buck.

[Poll_Blind]

52. Hunh! When I first posted this, in the back of my mind, there were...

...a few thoughts about weapons on board a cargo ship like this potentially being a problem if a member of the crew had some sort of breakdown- yours is a good example. I don't know how long the average run is, whether a few weeks or longer, but I imagine like any kind of extended period where a few people are (essentially) alone with each other, it can bring out otherwise-unseen cracks in their personalities.

Thanks.

PB

[footinmouth]

61. Typical time at sea ...

When they ship out it is typically for 60 - 75 days at a stretch. When they are in port, it's usually only to load or unload cargo. The crew is still on duty while in port.

[Obamanaut]

23. Why don't warships carry cargo? nt

[doctor jazz]

24. Never mind

:eyes:

[Xithras]

25. Because most sail into nations where private posession of firearms is restricted.

Civilian ships are subject to the laws of whatever harbor they sail into. If an American merchant ship manned by civilians sails into a British harbor, and that ship has a locker full of M-16's for defensive use, the British police are going to have some not-so-polite words for the crew and captain. Arguing that the arms are legal in your home country aren't going to get you far.

Military vessles are considered "sovereign territory" when visiting foreign harbors, but that courtesy is not extended to civilian vessles.

[Canuckistanian]

45. That's the correct answer

Most port authorities won't let armed vessels into their area.

The world is violent enough without allowing the possibility of turning places of business into a war zone.

[Poll_Blind]

53. Thank you for that!

It makes so much sense when I think about it.

PB

[Stinky The Clown]

27. There is no reason I know of not to arm them. It has been done before

I suspect they're unarmed simply because there hasn't been much need for it since the end of WWII.

They might do well to follow old WWII Liberty Ship practice and put a few low angle gun tubs on wings port and starboard and make sure the tubs are armor plated.

I think there may be a bigger diplomatic (as opposed to legal) issue to consider. Who mans the guns? If they're manned by official government personnel, would their firing on, say, Somalis, be grounds for the act being considered an Act of War? I don't know. I'm asking.

[madville]

31. I doubt it would be considered an act of war

Does Somalia even have a government? Are the pirates government soldiers acting under the country's authority?

It would be like me hopping in my boat, heading over to Cuba and hijacking a Cuban fishing boat. If the Cuban Navy shot me, would the US consider it an act of war? I hope not.

[Statistical]

37. Many nations will not let an armed ship dock so they are not armed. Its that simple. n/t

[footinmouth]

28. I can actually answer this one

My son spent 5 years as an officer on a merchant ship. He graduated from an accredited 4 yr Maritime Academy where he received a Bachelor's Degree in Business and a Coast Guard License as a 3rd Mate. The deck officers & engine officers are well-trained and well educated with many hours at sea under their belts. He's left that field of employment because of the amount of stress involved.

I gave him a call today and asked about the arms. As per orders from Homeland Security none of the crew on US Merchant Ships are allowed to carry arms. They are not trained in arms and they are not permitted on the ship. The ships themselves are not armed either. The pirates boarded the ship armed with automatic weapons and the crew had fire hoses for defense.

I think the US ships usually stay in American waters, unless they are pressed into duty by the government, which was the case with this ship. That's why any licensed seaman is also part of the Merchant Marines. I hope this was some help.

[Poll_Blind]

50. It was, thank you! n/t

PB

[madville]

30. The best solution would be temporary armed security onboard in high risk areas

You have a base ships for the armed security on either side of a high risk area. The commercial ship picks up the security detail at sea on one side of the area, passes through and drops them off on the other side. THe armed security never has to enter a foreign port, they just ride along through the high risk area. Arm and train them with .50 caliber sniper rifles, should be no problem discouraging pirates in small boats since they have the high ground and a large somewhat stable platform to fire from (more stable than pirates speed boats anyway).

Hell they could start off firing at the engines like the Coast Guard does to drug go-fast boats in the Caribbean and they are firing .50 caliber sniper rifles from helicopters.

[Mugu]

39. I like most of your plan.

Except I would arm them with a Ma Deuce and a few thousand rounds of ammo. Somebody is going to get religion.

[Statistical]

40. I remember reading that Blackwater had recently acquired a couple of freighters n/t

[Statistical]

34. Had buddy who was a merchant marine.

Many foreign ports will not let a armed ship dock. Period.
Fines to the ship/company for non compliance can run into the millions.

If customs finds a hidden weapon on board the crewmember could be looking at 5, 10, 20+ years in prison depending on local law.

Stupid system but that is the way it is.
Likely will never change unless US exercises our substantial trade muscle.

[Canuckistanian]

46. Yup.

Cargo ships are for cargo. Warships are for fighting.

If the sea lanes are getting too dangerous, then stop using them. Or pay for an armed escort.

[Poll_Blind]

54. Makes so much sense- especially thinking about places like Japan or...

...the UK or other places where firearms are pretty heavily restricted- at least compared to the U.S.

PB

[doctor jazz]

64. Well, that's easy enough to get around...just dump the guns before entering the port.

Buy new ones as needed...still way cheaper than paying ransom to thugs.

[Posteritatis]

75. You didn't think that one through that well, did you? (nt)

[dysfunctional press]

43. maybe they should start adding 'panic rooms' to freighters...

:shrug:


i'd imagine they aren't armed because some countries won't allow an armed ship into their waters/ports.

perhaps the ships could arm themselves for passage thru the area, and then just skuttle the guns overboard once they're safely thru the region...it would have to be cheaper than a ransom.

[datasuspect]

67. or maybe they can have mel gibson or bruce willis escort merchant ships

[Poll_Blind]

51. Thank you folks so much for the answers and the ideas.

  As always, the reality of the situation is much funkier than I'd imagine. Thank you again for sharing the wisdom!

PB

[Smith_3]

57. Because that would offer a loophole to undermine disarmament agreements?

I would guess if countries could arm merchant ships, they would not even bother to have an "official" navy in some cases.

There has to be something about that in the hague convention, regarding the seperation of military and civilian ships. An armed merchant ship could be viewed as a means of "illegal" guerilla warfare.

[ItNerd4life]

68. They are in Sci-Fi books and in Star Trek. nt

[slackmaster]

72. Most countries have restrictive gun laws, and sailors aren't paid enough to fight

Those are the basics.

[Seeking Serenity]

73. Why not have the Congress issue a few Letters of Marque and Reprisal?

That's even constitutional. Hire us some privateers to go after the pirates.

[upi402]

79. careful what you ask for... Blackwater, Xe, is looking for a new gig. n/t

[Deputy]

80. Berserk crews!!!???

I have seen the excuse that "armed merchant ships aren't allowed in some ports". Also the fear that crews may suffer some kind of mass insanity and shoot up the ports or each other. The first excuse is easy to solve. Countries simple STOP TRADING with ports that don't allow armed merchantmen. Watch how quickly that rule is eliminated. The second excuse sounds like a talking point right out of Sarah Brady's Gun Control Incorporated handbook. Merchant ships WERE armed during WW2 and there was no instance of a crew going berserk and shooting up a port or each other. The small arms were kept in a gun locker. So why should it suddenly happen now? If you don't trust the merchant crew because they are untrained, then Blackwater (I don't use the new name) or plenty of other trained security consultants are available and would be a lot more inexpenisive than paying the millions in ransom. Another possibility is to send some "Q Ships" into the area and let the pirates attack them. They would be in for a BIG surprise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_ship

[havocmom]

81. Just a guess, but perhaps foreign ports don't do business under guns?

Think about it: How would you feel if you lived in a US port city and ships under other flags were all armed when they came in?

Just a thought.

[Deputy]

87. Wouldn't bother me at all

How do we REALLY know they aren't armed right now? As long as they didn't start shooting, who cares?

[lumberjack_jeff]

82. Because if you don't declare your weapons when you enter the waters...

... of a country which forbids it, your ship can be siezed.

If you do declare your weapons, they will be held until you exit the country. Of course, that means you have to enter and exit the country from the same port of call. Kind of inconvenient for a Madrid-based, Tokyo-bound ship which enters, (for example) US waters in New York.

[Deputy]

88. Welcome to the real world

Time for shipping laws and regulations to reflect the REAL world. If a country forbids armed cargo ships, no more goodies for them...including food and trade dollars. Watch how quick they change their minds

[lumberjack_jeff]

89. They forbid armed ships to discourage a prominent kind of armed ship; pirates. n/t

[Deputy]

90. Discourage?

Gee...that's working real well. Like the UN wagging their finger at them and saying "don't do that". Pirates understand one thing...armed force. They use it. The only way to fight them is on EQUAL TERMS. Not with water cannons or laws that are ignored by the very people they are aimed at.

[lumberjack_jeff]

95. Within their territorial waters, people have the right to set their own laws.

If they don't want visitors to bring guns into their country, that's their call.

There are a number of countries which do an inadequate job of stopping pirates, Somalia is one of them.

[Deputy]

97. No problemo

First of all, Somalia isn't in the LEAST BIT interested in STOPPING PIRATES. It's a major source of income for that country. Don't think for a minute that there is a functional government in Somalia. It's the same scumbag warlords that killed and mutilated our Rangers when we were trying to feed the civilian population back during Bill Clinton's regime. The best solution for Somalia is to bomb the hell out of their ports so that they can't even launch a rowboat. As to the other hostages still being held, it's up to the parent countries of those hostages to take whatever action is necessary to get them rescued. I'm sure they all have special ops people that can get the job done.

And if they don't want armed ships in their country's waters...no problemo. Let's see how long they exist WITHOUT armed cargo ships visiting their ports.

[rampart]

83. nordoff and hall wrote a great book about it

pirates are not the only danger at sea.

[Thothmes]

103. HMS Bounty was a warship of the Royal Navy

she was suppose to have arms on board.

[nadinbrzezinski]

91. Two words: International Law

to be specific the 1952 protocols we pushed for and signed

Aka national law

[Blue_In_AK]

94. Thank you, Nadin...

I posted that a couple of places last night, but apparently the word didn't get out.

[nadinbrzezinski]

108. People are unaware of US Law and you want them to

even know there is this thing called International Law?

You silly

:-)

[Deputy]

98. Got a link to these "protocols"

How about a link? I searched 1952 protocols and found nothing about armed merchant ships. What I hear is the UN was the one that recently passed a law preventing armed merchant ships. No big surprise...they've been anti-gun for a long time.
Funny...but the pirates don't seem to worried about violating that armed ships rule. Does it not apply to small rowboats or what?

[nadinbrzezinski]

107. yep

http://www.jamestown.org/programs/gta/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=5112&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=167&no_cache=1

You may try in the search string, law of the sea

Armed merchantment (which will give you the reason for this silliness, aka WW I) or UN Convenstions

Took a minute

[Edweird]

92. The joy of gun control. Armed bad guys, unarmed law abiding citizens....

[Blue_In_AK]

93. My husband, who was a merchant marine engineer

for 25 years, told me that if they have ANY arms on board, they're not allowed to go into foreign ports. Merchant marines are civil, not military. Even when they were delivering cargo and supplies to Vietnam during the war, they couldn't be armed, even though they were in danger.

[Deputy]

100. Not really dangerous in Nam

Not unless they were delivering supplies into North Vietnam. The US Navy had a heavy presence in and around South Vietnam, including everything from aircraft carriers and battleships to PBR boats. There was zero chance of any naval attack. At the ports, the biggest risk was rocket attacks. And small arms wouldn't have done squat to protect them. Try again. :-)

[Blue_In_AK]

104. Try what again?

I was just making the point that merchant ships aren't armed even in war zones or whatever. Why don't you try again?

[Deputy]

105. You said...

"Even when they were delivering cargo and supplies to Vietnam during the war, they couldn't be armed, even though they were in danger."

I simply threw the BS flag on that. It's not true. Their only "danger" was from enemy rocket attacks, not from those guys in the black pajamas. And even the alleged "maritime laws" don't SPECIFICALLY prevent the crew members from carrying weapons. NOBODY has cited a specific reference. Just lots of opinions.

[ColbertWatcher]

96. Obama took their guns? n/t

[DailyGrind51]

99. "Caine Mutiny", "Mutiny on the Bounty", etc.

[anigbrowl]

101. Same reason people don't search wikipedia or google before asking such obvious questions.

[cap]

102. Port Security would be a nightmare

imagine a Liberian chartered vessel coming into New York City harbor with a multicultural crew. Armed. Can you say Al Qaeda? Imagine the Mayhem it would cause if they opened fire while they were in port.

Department of Homeland Security would have a hissy fit.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.