[Steven P Allen]

What is the best way for the USN to address the resurgeance in piracy, especially since US ships have again become prominent targets of opportunity?

[Lampshade111]

Best way? Probably a 5 inch gun. In a few years however the USN will have to resort to piracy to get new ships.

[Ken Estes]

Steven P Allen, on Wed 8 Apr 2009 1453, said:

What is the best way for the USN to address the resurgeance in piracy, especially since US ships have again become prominent targets of opportunity?

has it happened yet? - prominent targets you say?

[swerve]

Steven P Allen, on Wed 8 Apr 2009 1553, said:

What is the best way for the USN to address the resurgeance in piracy, especially since US ships have again become prominent targets of opportunity?

That's one US ship, out of over 100 attacks off Somalia in the last year. It's prominent, in that it's prominent in the news, because it's a US ship. That's all. These people attack anything they think they can get away with, & don't always know what they're attacking. One bunch tried to seize the German navy tanker Spessart recently :lol: - all captured*. There is no evidence whatsoever that they are singling out US ships.

And what's with the "again"?

*She has a security squad aboard. Better armed & much better trained than the pirates, & when the pirates fled, they ran straight into the Greek frigate the Germans had called up. Nice.

This post has been edited by swerve: 08 April 2009 - 1716 PM

[Christian Lupine]

I don't understand what the problem is with a few PMC's on these ships while in dangerous waters. It doesn't seem like rocket science to see the need for security on a multimillion dollar cargo.

[Steven P Allen]

swerve, on Wed 8 Apr 2009 2214, said:

And what's with the "again"?

Again? Historical perspective.

You don't think it significant that these people see US ships as potential targets (prominent = US because of our high visibility and claims to a powerful navy)?

US ships went long years without such groups considering them to be targets because they expected a serious repsonse.

That's my question: what should be our response? We once fought a war over this, you know (twice, actually, with sideshows and sequels). Unless this incident is met with a credible response, what are the odds this won't be the last incident.

[Mike Steele]

Steven P Allen, on Wed 8 Apr 2009 1649, said:

US ships went long years without such groups considering them to be targets because they expected a serious repsonse.

You actually expect a serious response from the current regime? They cant even get their DVD's straight. :rolleyes:

Quote

That's my question: what should be our response? We once fought a war over this, you know (twice, actually, with sideshows and sequels). Unless this incident is met with a credible response, what are the odds this won't be the last incident.

What should be our current response? Gather intel and launch air strikes I suppose. But that has lots of risks and this administration is risk adverse(at least where Muslim nations are concerned.) And yes its not the last incident.

[swerve]

Steven P Allen, on Wed 8 Apr 2009 2349, said:

Again? Historical perspective.

You don't think it significant that these people see US ships as potential targets (prominent = US because of our high visibility and claims to a powerful navy)?

US ships went long years without such groups considering them to be targets because they expected a serious repsonse.

That's my question: what should be our response? We once fought a war over this, you know (twice, actually, with sideshows and sequels). Unless this incident is met with a credible response, what are the odds this won't be the last incident.

You didn't understand what I wrote about their targeting? I'll repeat it:

SOME SOMALI PIRATES TRIED TO SEIZE A GERMAN NAVY AUXILIARY. Gettit? An almost suicidally stupid thing to do. It didn't have fixed weapons, but it did have a squad of marines, who were a lot more than a match for the pirates. The pirates may, sometimes, attack carefully selected targets, but a lot of the time it's pretty well random. That particular bunch may not have even known it was American. As for not attacking US ships, well, that's explicable in terms of their number & where they operate. The US merchant fleet is about 4% of the world total, & trades mostly out of US ports.

There is no reason to think this was a deliberate selection of a US ship because it was a US ship.

This post has been edited by swerve: 08 April 2009 - 1834 PM

[Ken Estes]

Mike Steele, on Wed 8 Apr 2009 2314, said:

You actually expect a serious response from the current regime? They cant even get their DVD's straight.

What should be our current response? Gather intel and launch air strikes I suppose. But that has lots of risks and this administration is risk adverse(at least where Muslim nations are concerned.) And yes its not the last incident.

Most people have access to intl machines, can ignore the DVD 'zones.'

There is no evidence [in how many days?] that the present US regime is risk averse, nor coddling the Muslims. Launching armed UAVs to strike in Pakistan is as risky as the previous regime's actions, all of which you have adored, blindly. OTOH, there is little risk [or gain?] associated with bombing or attacking the coast of Somalia. It's maybe useful though to have a president not harrying his staff, "are bombs dropping yet?"

There has been a JTF Horn of Africa since 2002, so intel is being collected, as usual. Maybe there is no hurry to invade this time.

[Mike Steele]

Ken Estes, on Wed 8 Apr 2009 1803, said:

Most people have access to intl machines, can ignore the DVD 'zones.'
I'm sure they thought of that :rolleyes:
There is no evidence [in how many days?] that the present US regime is risk averse, nor coddling the Muslims. Launching armed UAVs to strike in Pakistan is as risky as the previous regime's actions, all of which you have adored, blindly. OTOH, there is little risk [or gain?] associated with bombing or attacking the coast of Somalia. It's maybe useful though to have a president not harrying his staff, "are bombs dropping yet?"

There has been a JTF Horn of Africa since 2002, so intel is being collected, as usual. Maybe there is no hurry to invade this time.

Blindly? You have no room to talk. Oh grandmaster of BDS. :lol:

[TSJ]

Any American should realize that if he gets held hostage in that part of the world there is a good chance he wtll be turned over to al qaeda and get his head slowly sliced off.

[Luke Y]

Interestingly it is being reported that the US crew also attempted to defend themselves with firearms but failed.

Interesting to find out the details when this is over.

A fleet of Djibouti based predators or global hawks? With hellfires?

[Ken Estes]

TSJ, on Thu 9 Apr 2009 0238, said:

Any American should realize that if he gets held hostage in that part of the world there is a good chance he wtll be turned over to al qaeda and get his head slowly sliced off.

In Somalia? What examples do you have of such events. Do tell all.

[shep854]

From WSJ, a discussion of options and consequences:

http://online.wsj.co...emEditorialPage

[Steven P Allen]

swerve, on Wed 8 Apr 2009 2332, said:

You didn't understand what I wrote about their targeting? I'll repeat it:

[snip]
There is no reason to think this was a deliberate selection of a US ship because it was a US ship.

Oh, I got it, but I don't buy it yet. There is no reason to think this was NOT a deliberate selection, either. I think somebody's poking with a sharp stick to see if there's any life in the beast. No conspiracy or anything, just a group getting too bold for comfort. But a LOT of people will be watching to see how we react to this provocation.

[Steven P Allen]

shep854, on Thu 9 Apr 2009 1217, said:

From WSJ, a discussion of options and consequences:

http://online.wsj.co...emEditorialPage

Thanks for the link.

Mike: I don't expect much at all. That's why I'm wondering out loud what we should (but won't) do.

[Mike Steele]

Steven P Allen, on Thu 9 Apr 2009 1017, said:

Thanks for the link.

Mike: I don't expect much at all. That's why I'm wondering out loud what we should (but won't) do.

http://cei.org/news-...-pirate-problem

This would work. :lol:

[Luke Y]

Steven P Allen, on Fri 10 Apr 2009 0141, said:

Oh, I got it, but I don't buy it yet. There is no reason to think this was NOT a deliberate selection, either. I think somebody's poking with a sharp stick to see if there's any life in the beast. No conspiracy or anything, just a group getting too bold for comfort. But a LOT of people will be watching to see how we react to this provocation.

We're talking about the same clowns that have mistaken naval vessels for soft targets of opportunities.
Others might be watching to see the reaction to 'poking with a sharp stick to see if there's any life in the beast' but its going to be pretty short odds these morons who actually did it aren't amongst them...

[swerve]

Steven P Allen, on Thu 9 Apr 2009 1711, said:

Oh, I got it, but I don't buy it yet. There is no reason to think this was NOT a deliberate selection, either. I think somebody's poking with a sharp stick to see if there's any life in the beast. No conspiracy or anything, just a group getting too bold for comfort. But a LOT of people will be watching to see how we react to this provocation.

No, I don't think you do get it. You're making the classic mistake of seeing what others do from your viewpoint, and attributing your perceptions to them. You are Galtieri et al in 1981-2, and innumerable others, in many places, in many times. You think that because you are the most important thing in the world to yourself, everyone else sees you as equally important

These guys are strictly commercial. The footsoldiers have bugger-all idea of the difference between one ship and another. They know not to attack things with visible guns, & sometimes their masters direct them to a specific high-value target, but in general, they pick on targets of opportunity. Apart from your belief that the USA is special to everyone in the world, because it is special to you, there is no reason whatsoever to think this is other than yet another opportunistic attack. Statistically, the lack of previous attacks on US ships is perfectly understandable. Hardly any US ships ply the vulnerable routes.

Give us an argument - just one - or a single piece of evidence - to support your view. I can't think of any. You're putting forward the "you can't disprove it therefore it's true" argument. Not valid. You're the one making the claim, you have to back it up. An absence of disproof is not proof. Only proof is proof. And you not only don't have proof, you don't even have any evidence.

BTW, what's this "getting too bold for comfort"? Whose comfort? They've been too bloody bold for comfort for at least three years. What part of "attack naval ship" don't you understand? Do you think that was a deliberate provocation? Or just stupid? And why do you think the attack on a US ship was different, apart from your personal emotional reaction?

[Steven P Allen]

swerve, on Thu 9 Apr 2009 1858, said:

No, I don't think you do get it. You're making the classic mistake of seeing what others do from your viewpoint, and attributing your perceptions to them. You are Galtieri et al in 1981-2, and innumerable others, in many places, in many times. You think that because you are the most important thing in the world to yourself, everyone else sees you as equally important

These guys are strictly commercial. The footsoldiers have bugger-all idea of the difference between one ship and another. They know not to attack things with visible guns, & sometimes their masters direct them to a specific high-value target, but in general, they pick on targets of opportunity. Apart from your belief that the USA is special to everyone in the world, because it is special to you, there is no reason whatsoever to think this is other than yet another opportunistic attack. Statistically, the lack of previous attacks on US ships is perfectly understandable. Hardly any US ships ply the vulnerable routes.

Give us an argument - just one - or a single piece of evidence - to support your view. I can't think of any. You're putting forward the "you can't disprove it therefore it's true" argument. Not valid. You're the one making the claim, you have to back it up. An absence of disproof is not proof. Only proof is proof. And you not only don't have proof, you don't even have any evidence.

BTW, what's this "getting too bold for comfort"? Whose comfort? They've been too bloody bold for comfort for at least three years. What part of "attack naval ship" don't you understand? Do you think that was a deliberate provocation? Or just stupid? And why do you think the attack on a US ship was different, apart from your personal emotional reaction?

Let me see if I can make something perfectly clear to you: I am under no obligation whatsoever to repsond to your demands. If you want to respond to the epremise of the thread, fine: do so. If you think it has no merit, then don't bother wasting your (and my) time on reading or responding to it. And to further clarify, I resent you attributing and opinons or emotions to me other than those I have explicitly stated. To assume my question is motivated by chauvinism is to sidestep the issue at hand and attack ad hominem.

Insofar as I am making a claim (rather than asking questions), I claim that it's been nearly 200 years since a US ship has been attacked by pirates, and the reason for that gap has a great deal to do with the perceived likelihood of an overwhelming reaction to the attacks. Shores of Tripoli, and all that jazz. More recently--that is, since WWII--the USN has dominated the world's oceans just as the RN once did before. Piracy and other sea-borne crime have flourished at a level just below the threshold necessary to invoke wide-spread response, and the distraction of the cold-war followed by the US' legacy of military power meant both that the US public imagined piracy to exist only in Disney films and--here I speculate on the historical pattern--AND that pirate groups have given US shipping wide berths. The one scenario that has seen US shipping at risk since WWII was the escorting of reflagged tankers into and out of the Persian Gulf, and the entire exercise was predicated on the intimidation factor of that US flag (and the legality of response). Think of Operation Preying Manits, for example.

Without delusion but with a firm eye on historical context, I claim that the US needs to think about how to respond to these situations because US shipping is special to the US (though our almost criminal neglect of it sometimes suggests otherwise). It is our responsiblity to protect it. Part of our national identity has been built about the freedom of the seas and defense of our trade. And an attack on it is different because it is so nearly unprecedented.

And I further repeat that intention on the part of these Somalian clowns is irrelevant. This event may be an accident, though I am not all reluctant to believe it purposeful. But what matters is our response because--and this IS a claim (whose vailidity will be borne out out or not in the future)--the likelihood of future attacks--quite deliberate ones--increases rapidly if our response is seen to be impotent. Therefore, I am asking what kind of response we should be looking at and what kinds of preventitative measures we should take.

So, swerve: if you think the premise silly, skip the thread. If you have something useful to add about effective response, please do. But leave your pointless speculation on my motivations or my emotions out of it.

This post has been edited by Steven P Allen: 09 April 2009 - 1450 PM