The US government doesn’t have to police every part of the world where its citizens decide to travel to. If you travel, you should be aware of the potential dangers.
Maybe. Maybe not. However, there is plenty of historical precedent to support the U.S. government for doing so, i.e., the Tripolitan Wars and the War of 1812.
Mitzi, Mitzi, Mitzi, why O why must I constantly have to school your giddy ass?
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
See, Push, I thought you were a constitution guy.
Where exactly is it written that the US government is compelled to police every part of the globe which it’s citizens hanker to venture?
I was making a historical observation that the precedent is there not a Push’s Supreme Court ruling. Both of the wars mentioned occurred when the Constitution was young and fresh and not riddled with “living documentitis”. So it is not some kind of outlandish idea conjured in the malignant mind of that scoundrel, George W.B. [/quote]
So, Mr. Aw Gee Golly Shucks I’m Only Observing, do you believe that that the US is compelled police parts of the globe it’s citizens wish to visit? Or are you just being contrary?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I believe a reasonable effort should be made. Now I guess we have to debate “reasonable”, huh?[/quote]
The US Government should make a reasonable effort to police all parts of the globe where it’s citizens wish to vacation? Are you looking for a one-world government or something?
Jeepers Criminy, have you EVER known me to be contrary? What does it take 'round here to get a lil s’pect?
[/quote]
Perhaps you could get some respect once you can spell it in English and not Country Boy Hick.
[quote]hedo wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
hedo wrote:
hungry4more wrote:
I’m no expert on the subject…but this?
The liner, carrying 656 international passengers and 399 crew members, was sailing through the Gulf of Aden on Sunday when it encountered six bandits in two speedboats, said Noel Choong who heads the International Maritime Bureau’s piracy reporting center in Malaysia.
The pirates fired at the passenger liner but the larger boat was faster than the pirates’ vessels, Choong said.
How did a cruise ship outrun speed boats? Aren’t speed boats generally…you know…speedy?
Not necessarily. They aren’t fiberglass racers or “cigarette type” boats like you see in the US. The pics I saw were open top wooden fishing boats with outboards.
In open seas an open top wooden boat like that may be able to make 15-20 knots and it will be rough going for them. A modern cruise ship can do 20-25knots and maybe more for short bursts. The deck level is also high above the water line. Probably about 75 feet or more.
Consider the cruise ship weighs in at about 30,000 tons and the speedboat less then 1 ton, it would be like a mouse taking down an elephant.
Unless the elephant voluntarily gives in, or succumbs to fear, the mouse doesn’t have much of a chance. The light weapons carried by the speedboats wouldn’t do much damage either. Unprotected personnel on deck are at risk or a lucky shot from an RPG may cause a fire but as to sinking the vessel…it’s not likely.
Now putting a couple of .50cal. M-2 Brownings on the deck of the cruise ship ,and some sailors with a little training ,would certainly make these pirates think twice about approaching the ships.
Hell I could teach someone to hit a target with an M-2 in about 2 hours. Tracer every fifth round would make the aiming easy and set the pirate boats on fire.
The War Nerd concurs:
It wouldn’t be hard to do. Most commercial seaman are mechanically inclined and comfortable around machinery. An M-2 is not a hard machine to operate and maintain.
Put 4 on each ship. Bow, stern, port and starboard. That way you can get two guns on a target in most cases and the pirates can’t easily supress fire from the guns. Put a shield for the gunner on the mount and you are all set. Walk the tracers in to the speedboat and you got dead pirates. A big .50 firing at you might even drive them off.
Shotguns or some AK’s wouldn’t hurt either if they got close to the ship and under the line of fire for the heavy guns.
Oh well…sounds like a good idea from my desk at the office. Hope they try something.
[/quote]
It works like this: the pirates, looking through their binoculars, will observe ships traveling through the shipping lanes at some undetermined point of their coast. Those with .50 cal guns will likely not be chosen for predation. In the pirate mind, such risks are simply not worth it. It’s much better to go after unarmed vessels that can be boarded without resistance.
If it actually does come to shooting at the pirates, aiming is not as hard as it’s made out to be. Having shot guns from vessels underway, there’s nothing complicated about it. You do a little motion compensation based on the swell direction and timing, but it’s something any deck seaman can and will manage.
Actually, .50 cals are one of the only things that protect our naval vessels as it is right now from small craft. That, and the goodwill of the terrorists. Recall the Cole incident that resulted in terrorists driving right into the ship on PWCs while it was pierside. I understand that the CIWS software on many of the ships in our surface navy has been upgraded so that it can be controlled via joystick for small craft defense, but the CIWS was often broken on our ship.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Christine wrote:
pushharder wrote:
I believe a reasonable effort should be made. Now I guess we have to debate “reasonable”, huh?
The US Government should make a reasonable effort to police all parts of the globe where it’s citizens wish to vacation? Are you looking for a one-world government or something?..
Key word is “reasonable”. If the scenario is specified as “police all parts of the globe where it’s citizens wish to vacation” then a reasonable person might conclude that that is unreasonable.[/quote]
Reasonableness is something you shouldn’t be the judge of.
Are you admitting your first post on this thread, being all contrary to what I wrote, is wrong then?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Christine wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Christine wrote:
pushharder wrote:
I believe a reasonable effort should be made. Now I guess we have to debate “reasonable”, huh?
The US Government should make a reasonable effort to police all parts of the globe where it’s citizens wish to vacation? Are you looking for a one-world government or something?..
Key word is “reasonable”. If the scenario is specified as “police all parts of the globe where it’s citizens wish to vacation” then a reasonable person might conclude that that is unreasonable.
Reasonableness is something you shouldn’t be the judge of.
Are you admitting your first post on this thread, being all contrary to what I wrote, is wrong then?
My first post on this thread said, "…However, there is plenty of historical precedent to support the U.S. government for doing so, i.e., the Tripolitan Wars and the War of 1812.[/quote]
LOL. Try quoting the entire thing, darling! Is this really how you back up your point? With bits and piece of evidence. Taking what you like and discarding the rest?
[quote]Mitzi, Mitzi, Mitzi, why O why must I constantly have to school your giddy ass?"
Now why in the gawddamngotohail would I want to admit that it’s wrong? It wasn’t. It isn’t.
In fact, a few days ago I got to thinkin’ that maybe I’d been wrong somehow, somewhere in the distant past…about something…and then it hit me…I was wrong to be thinkin’ thataway…and I realized that THAT was the only thing I’ve been wrong about fer as clear back as I can 'member…
[/quote]
Maybe we should ask your family what they think about this?
Since we are wanting to talk about reasonableness, which is more reasonable: Use the least force that is sufficient to stop aggression, or use massive force in an effort to make an example of some pirates.
Anti-Piracy Maritime Security Solutions is a British firm that has been offing protection against pirates. APMSS likes to hire ex-SBS, so these are people that could kick my ass. See British and Irish anti-piracy experts rescued - after pirates attackhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article5253731.ece for what happens when a three man team, armed with water canon tried to hold off pirates with RPGs and AK-47s.
Contrary to some of the comments about how easy it would be to hold off pirates with deck guns, it needs to be remembered that guns are not allowed on civilian ships that carry flammable cargo. Still, I would not like to face a SBS veteran with a diving knife.
Contrary to some of the comments about how easy it would be to hold off pirates with deck guns, it needs to be remembered that guns are not allowed on civilian ships that carry flammable cargo. Still, I would not like to face a SBS veteran with a diving knife.
[/quote]
Perhaps that rule ought to be changed? It seems silly to me that those same ships are able to travel unprotected through shipping lanes full of pirates yet they can’t arm themselves for fear of what? fire? an explosion? – seems a little ridiculous. Kind of penny-wise, pound-foolish if you ask me. (Although, I don’t really know what the hell I’m talking about, so…)
Contrary to some of the comments about how easy it would be to hold off pirates with deck guns, it needs to be remembered that guns are not allowed on civilian ships that carry flammable cargo. Still, I would not like to face a SBS veteran with a diving knife.
Perhaps that rule ought to be changed? It seems silly to me that those same ships are able to travel unprotected through shipping lanes full of pirates yet they can’t arm themselves for fear of what? fire? an explosion? – seems a little ridiculous. Kind of penny-wise, pound-foolish if you ask me. (Although, I don’t really know what the hell I’m talking about, so…)
[/quote]
Many M-2’s have been fired while sitting on top of vehicles filled with flammable fuel and explosives. Trust me on that.
(see my avatar)
It’s not the travelling on the high seas part that jams the ships up it’s the port calls. It’s perfectly alright to travel the high seas heavily armed. It’s when you call on a port that the problems arise with governments. The pirates don’t seem all that concerned with the hazards or regulations.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Many M-2’s have been fired while sitting on top of vehicles filled with flammable fuel and explosives. Trust me on that.
(see my avatar)
[/quote]
Without a doubt. Of course there are levels of flammability and chemical reactivity, so rule that would make sense for a pressurized container of chlorine gas may be way to restrictive for crude oil. This is obviously a balancing act, and you are right that the presence of pirates has altered the balance.
Even so, if you really can drive them off with sound, why not? I have no idea if good earplugs or noise canceling headphones give the pirates a sufficient defense, but I’m sure this will be tested in the upcoming months.
We can’t police the Horn of Africa, let alone the world:
"My good friend Pierre Sprey forwarded this amazing quote by Vice Admiral Bill Gortney. Pierre?s comments are in BLUE and Vice Adm Gortney?s comments are in italics. My comments follow and are so marked.
An utterly convincing testimonial, from an expert witness with flawless credentials, regarding the benefits of quality over quantity for the fleet:
?The U.S. commander in charge of the waters off Somalia, Vice Adm. Bill Gortney, told CNN on Monday that he thought it would take a force of 61 warships to safeguard the sea lanes just in the Gulf of Aden, compared with the 14 international ships now patrolling off the Horn of Africa. If the U.S. Navy alone had to provide a force that size, it would take every destroyer and cruiser in the fleet, plus three frigates. ( Navy Times, 12/09/08 )?
Pierre continues: In other words, the USN?s pursuit of ever more ?capable? ships has provided America with a fleet that is incapable of handling the Somali pirates.
Spinney?s comment: In January, it is my understanding that the Pentagon will request a budget of about $581 billion for its core budget, i.e., not including the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Department of the Navy?s share of this budget should be something on the order of $150-160 billion a year, yet Admiral Gortney is telling us that securing the Horn of Africa from a gang of rag tag Somali pirates will take every cruiser and destroyer in the Navy plus 3 or its Frigates. This means the Navy would not enough surface warships left over to configure the normal defense screen for even one carrier battle group."
[quote]hedo wrote:
hungry4more wrote:
I’m no expert on the subject…but this?
The liner, carrying 656 international passengers and 399 crew members, was sailing through the Gulf of Aden on Sunday when it encountered six bandits in two speedboats, said Noel Choong who heads the International Maritime Bureau’s piracy reporting center in Malaysia.
The pirates fired at the passenger liner but the larger boat was faster than the pirates’ vessels, Choong said.
How did a cruise ship outrun speed boats? Aren’t speed boats generally…you know…speedy?
Not necessarily. They aren’t fiberglass racers or “cigarette type” boats like you see in the US. The pics I saw were open top wooden fishing boats with outboards.
In open seas an open top wooden boat like that may be able to make 15-20 knots and it will be rough going for them. A modern cruise ship can do 20-25knots and maybe more for short bursts. The deck level is also high above the water line. Probably about 75 feet or more. Consider the cruise ship weighs in at about 30,000 tons and the speedboat less then 1 ton, it would be like a mouse taking down an elephant.
Unless the elephant voluntarily gives in, or succumbs to fear, the mouse doesn’t have much of a chance. The light weapons carried by the speedboats wouldn’t do much damage either. Unprotected personnel on deck are at risk or a lucky shot from an RPG may cause a fire but as to sinking the vessel…it’s not likely.
Now putting a couple of .50cal. M-2 Brownings on the deck of the cruise ship ,and some sailors with a little training ,would certainly make these pirates think twice about approaching the ships. Hell I could teach someone to hit a target with an M-2 in about 2 hours. Tracer every fifth round would make the aiming easy and set the pirate boats on fire.
[/quote]
If the pirates are scouting vessels that are un-armed, would the sight of 50 cal guns on the deck deter them ?
Then, even if it does not, if you start shooting at them, even if you are missing, I would think just the threat of those bullets whizzing by would head them off.
I think it’s a good idea to have those vessels ( at least those under the US flag), armed. And I don’t think it would take much to train some officers on how to use the guns and be proficient at thwarting off a pirate attack. If they end up killing a pirate or two in the process, good for them.
Because even though this ship out ran the pirate boat due to it being wooden with an outboard, you know at some point they are going to get better, faster boats that can get them closer to possibly do damage.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
We can’t police the Horn of Africa, let alone the world:
"My good friend Pierre Sprey forwarded this amazing quote by Vice Admiral Bill Gortney. Pierre?s comments are in BLUE and Vice Adm Gortney?s comments are in italics. My comments follow and are so marked.
An utterly convincing testimonial, from an expert witness with flawless credentials, regarding the benefits of quality over quantity for the fleet:
?The U.S. commander in charge of the waters off Somalia, Vice Adm. Bill Gortney, told CNN on Monday that he thought it would take a force of 61 warships to safeguard the sea lanes just in the Gulf of Aden, compared with the 14 international ships now patrolling off the Horn of Africa.
If the U.S. Navy alone had to provide a force that size, it would take every destroyer and cruiser in the fleet, plus three frigates. ( Navy Times, 12/09/08 )?
Pierre continues: In other words, the USN?s pursuit of ever more ?capable? ships has provided America with a fleet that is incapable of handling the Somali pirates.
Spinney?s comment: In January, it is my understanding that the Pentagon will request a budget of about $581 billion for its core budget, i.e., not including the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Department of the Navy?s share of this budget should be something on the order of $150-160 billion a year, yet Admiral Gortney is telling us that securing the Horn of Africa from a gang of rag tag Somali pirates will take every cruiser and destroyer in the Navy plus 3 or its Frigates.
This means the Navy would not enough surface warships left over to configure the normal defense screen for even one carrier battle group."
If you don’t know who Chuck Spinney is, Google him.[/quote]
I don’t think the good Admiral has his head screwed on tightly enough. 61 ships seems a tad excessive. I don’t think the East Coast of the US had that much iron defending it when they faced the German U Boats in WW2.
What they need is the an ROE that allows them to kill the pirates without delay. This might include hitting the shore bases they are using. “Shores of Tripoli”…it’s more then a line in a song.