Whoops. _____ Sunken 'pirate ship' was actually Thai trawler, owner says 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. 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. YARRRRRRR
This flies in the face of the argument that many people have made that we need to bring our military back home and stop risking American lives over oil.
Refman, I've never believed in "pulling back" from our presence overseas. I've just been against the Iraq adventure since Bush and company started whispering about the possiblity, thinking that it was a disaster waiting to happen. Sadly, that proved to be true.
For historical precedent, the first thing that comes to mind is the British navy patrolling for and stopping illegal slave ships in the 19th century, or our own early history with the Barbary Coast pirates ("the shores of Tripoli"). Saudi tankers are undoubtedly carrying oil purchased (or even extracted?) by American companies. Do you like the idea of this happening everyday, and what that would do to shipping costs (which I then assume would be passed on to gasoline prices)? Considering some of the heinous and stupid ***** we've done over there over the last half century to preserve (favorably priced) oil supplies, this one probably passes the economic, security and even ethical smell test. This is the kind of thing we should have Blackwater doing full time.
Pirates back in the news. Crazy stuff. http://abcnews.go.com/International/Story?id=7287055&page=4 [rquoter]American Crew Overpowers Somali Pirates Captain Held Hostage Despite Crew Overpowering Pirates to Regain Control of Vessel By LUIS MARTINEZ, DANA HUGHES, MARTHA RADDATZ and ZOE MAGEE NAIROBI, Kenya, April 8, 2009 — The captain of a ship hijacked by armed Somali pirates is being held hostage today despite the fact that the crew of American sailors overpowered the pirates to regain control of their vessel. A crew member told CNN this afternoon that the captain is on the ship's lifeboat with negotiations ongoing. He said the crew tried to exchange the captain for a captive pirate, but apparently the pirates reneged on the deal. The crew had turned the tables on the pirates who hijacked their ship after a high seas chase. Once overpowered by the crew, the pirates tried to board their skiff, but the motor wasn't working, a Defense Department official told ABC News. The pirates are now in one of the ship's lifeboats with the ship's captain in their custody. The Defense official added that there are no pirates on board the ship. The pirates picked on the wrong ship when they went after the Maersk Alabama, a 17,000 ton container ship carrying relief aid to Mombasa, Kenya. At the State Department this afternoon, acting spokesman Robert Wood said the situation was "fluid at the moment," adding, "I'm seeing contradictory reports." Wood also said he could not confirm reports of a U.S. diplomat on board the ship. "I can just confirm that I think there were 20 American citizens on board," Wood said. The pirates attacked the Alabama, formerly named the Maersk Alva, in the Indian Ocean about 300 miles from the Somali coast. The ship was under the command of Capt. Richard Phillips of Underhill, Vt. Also on board is Capt. Capt. Shane Murphy, 34, the ship's chief officer, according to the Cape Cod Times. Both men are graduates of the Massachusetts Maritime Academy and Murphy's father, Capt. Joseph Murphy is a professor at the academy. Today, Joseph Murphy told ABC News that his son had called to say the crew had regained control of the ship. Murphy said his son and other crewmembers used "brute force" to overpower the pirates who were armed with AK-47 assault rifles. Earlier this morning, Shane Murphy's wife Serena also received a cell phone call from her husband. "He wanted me to know he was okay," she told Fox TV. "He said he was not quite safe yet, but he would be soon." One pirate was believed to be in custody while the others had fled the ship, Defense Department officials said. The crew of the Alabama turned the pirate raid into a long running battle. A Defense Department official said when the pirates first tried to board the Alabama, the crew contacted the British Maritime Trade Organization which advised the crew to take evasive action and turn their powerful firehoses on the pirates' skiff. The tactic succeeded in repelling the pirates and the Alabama broke away, the Defense official said. A five-hour chase began before the pirates tried to board a second time. The crew again called the British Maritime Organization during a 15-minute struggle with the pirates. The pirates came aboard firing their AK-47s, Shane Murphy told his father. The call to the Maritime Trade Organization ended when someone with a non-American accent yelled, "Put the phone down," and the line went dead, the official told ABC News. Four pirates were reported to be aboard the Alabama and they almost immediately demanded a ransom, although it was now known how much they wanted, the Defense official said. The ship was reported to be "dead in the water" and operating on auxiliary power. It had food and fuel for 30 to 45 days, indicating the negotiations could be a long haul, the official said. It wasn't such a long haul after all. Hours later reports came back that the crew was back in control of the Alabama. Maersk President Can't Confirm Crew Retakes Ship John Reinhart, president of Maersk Line Co., cautiously declined to confirm that the crew had taken the ship back. "We had a communication about an hour and a half ago from the vessel that said the crew was safe," he said about 12:15 p.m. "He did not say they had taken back the vessel," Reinhart said. "Called to let you know we are all safe right now and then the call was cut off." He also said that the crew was unarmed and he did not expect them to battle pirates. "Once boarded, the crew has safe rooms and they're not to take on active engagement because they have no weapons, it would be a risk to their lives," Reinhart said. "They'd be outgunned." 'It would be inappropriate for them to try to be heros," he added. "We want them to come home safely." Before the ship was recaptured, the hijacking caused international alarm. The White House issued a statement saying, "The White House is closely monitoring the apparent hijacking of the U.S.-flagged ship in the Indian Ocean and assessing a course of action to resolve this situation. Our top priority is the personal safety of the crew members on board." The capture of the Alabama marked the first time that American seamen have been seized by pirates who infest the shipping lanes off the east coast of Africa. Andrew Mwangura of the East African Seafarers' Assistance Program also confirmed the ship's seizure to ABC News and said the crew is reported to be "safe." Mwangura said it is the first time he can recall that American seamen have been seized off the pirate-infested Somali coastline. Mwangura could not recall the last time Americans were captured by pirates. "Over 100 years ago," was his estimate. "To take away an American ship is not easy," Mwangura said. "Maersk is a big company, with good security and good management. It's one of the companies with proper security training for seamen." Destroyer Bainbridge Heads to Hijacking Location The U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet, based in Bahrain, said the ship was seized at 7:30 a.m. local time in the Indian Ocean, about 240 nautical miles east of the Somali town of Eyl. There was a U.S. Navy warship 300 nautical miles away when the Alabama was boarded, but the Navy is not discussing what operations its ships in the area might be undertaking in the wake of the attack. A Defense Department official told ABC News that the U.S. destroyer Bainbridge was heading toward the location where the Alabama was captured. The official said the Bainbridge intended to get close enough to the container ship to be able to monitor the situation. The Bainbridge was not expected to take any military action, the official said, because the shipping line had indicated it would handle the crisis through negotiations with the pirates and the Navy usually defers to the ship owners as to what course of action will be taken. Roger Middleton, Somali piracy expert from the London-based think tank Chatham House, said the capture of American sailors "puts the stakes much higher, and the U.S. will be watching them very closely." For the pirates, "this is not necessarily a bad thing, as Americans are more valuable than say Fillippinos or even Brits. Their ransom demands will be commensurately higher, but it comes at a much higher risk." Fifth Fleet heads an international naval task force to deter piracy off the coast of Somalia. The European Union and NATO also have naval task forces in the area to combat pirates. Just Tuesday, they issued a new warning to mariners in the region about increased pirate activity. Mwangura said the attack on the Maersk Alabama demonstrates the change in the pirates' tactics by attacking ships away from the Gulf of Aden to the Indian Ocean where most of the Navy task force is concentrated. The pirates are now hunting in the Indian Ocean east and south-east of the Somali and Kenyan coastline. Five Ships Seized in 48 Hours Maersk Alabama was the sixth ship to be taken hostage in five days, and five of them have been captured in the last 48 hours. At least three have been hijacked near the Seychelles Islands, some 400 miles south of the Somali coastline, and well out of the range of the Gulf of Aden where the Navy is patrolling. A U.S. Defense Department official said one reason there has been a sudden increase in the number of seizures is because the waters off of Africa's east coast have become calmer following an extended period of choppy waters. But Middleton thought the sudden jump in pirate activity is due to a change in their strategy. "The weather is definitely a factor, but I don't think the main one," Middleton said. "It seems the pirates would be operating from a mother ship far out at sea away from the military presence, further out in the Indian Ocean where there is a freer environment for them to operate in." Somali pirates, armed with rocket propelled grenades and plying the seas in small, fast craft, have thrived in recent years in the chaos of a country with no working government and have collected tens of millions of dollars in ransom from shipping companies for the safe return of the their vessels and crews. The pirate attacks have surged in recent months, however, and gained global attention after pirates grabbed a ship loaded with Russian tanks, rocket propelled grenades and other assault-type weapons. That attack was followed by the seizure of a Saudi supertanker laden with millions of dollars worth of crude oil. Both ships were eventually freed after lengthy negotiations and air drops of ransoms that contained millions of dollars in cash. ABC News' Sean Duffy and Kirit Radia contributed to this report. Copyright © 2009 ABC News Internet Ventures[/rquoter]
I am woefully ignorant of maritime law, so please help me out here. For the life of me, I can't figure out why the shipping companies don't mount twin .50-caliber machine guns fore and aft. When a skiff overloaded with armed men approaches, the target ship could shred them long before the men got close. Now, someone is going to say, whoa, the skiff could be a fishing boat. However, when you've got a small boat 350 miles from shore filled with armed guys, well, I couldn't blame the endangered sailors for feeding the sharks.
the pirate boats have much larger guns than that. It would require much more hassle in ports and extra personnel to be security. Plus, we have these guys
First, I don't think the skiffs they use to attack could carry anything larger than a twin 50. They have RPGs but even those don't have the range to compete. As far as the port hassles, a port official could take charge of the guns just before arrival. Second, there is no contest between a pirate ship/skiff and a gunship, but the patrol area is much too large for the gunship to effectively protect the merchant ship. They can follow up, but by the time the gunship arrives, the ship is boarded.
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZLsJyfN0ICU&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZLsJyfN0ICU&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
I am not really gonna delve into this fantasy of yours but those smaller ships easily carry 20mm cannons and a small boat is a much harder target than a huge ship. Plus it is in no way profitable to get into gun fights. Those helos tend to follow a few of these and boarding hostile ships is KINDA one of their hobbies
"To take away an American ship is not easy," Mwangura said. "Maersk is a big company, with good security and good management. It's one of the companies with proper security training for seamen." Proper security training, yet they are unarmed? That works out well. If these pirates get away, I'll call it a failure for the US. With the location known, a destroyer on it's way, and hundreds of miles of open sea, these punks shouldn't be able to get away in their dinky boat. If the dinky boat is allowed to get away, it damn well better be tracked back to the "mother ship".
I wouldn't be surprised if more cargo ships at least start having armed security aboard the ship. A small boat is a sitting duck to several gunmen on the deck of a big ship. Keeping pirates off of the ships will lessen the chances of onboard fighting.
