Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rescue Fuels Debate Over Arming Crews
New York Times ^ | April 12, 2009 | Keith Bradsher

Posted on 04/12/2009 6:41:35 PM PDT by reaganaut1

A spate of attacks on ships off Somalia and the rescue Sunday of an American captain held hostage by pirates have reinvigorated a long-simmering debate over whether the crews of commercial vessels should be armed.

While the arming of merchant vessels was commonplace for centuries, it faded in recent decades because of ship owners’ concerns about liability and the safety of their sailors.

Despite repeated problems with pirates in the Strait of Malacca between Indonesia and Malaysia and now in the waters of the Arabian Sea, ship owners worried that their crews would be killed instead of held for ransom if the crews tried to defend themselves and failed.

But the expanding range and seafaring skills of Somali pirates are prompting some experts to start calling for changes. The killing by United States Navy personnel of three Somali pirates during the rescue on Sunday of Richard Phillips, the American captain of the container ship Maersk Alabama, has further raised the stakes, with at least one Somali pirate on shore threatening vengeance on the next American seafarer captured.

Barry Parker, a shipping consultant in New York and former ship broker, predicted that an international agreement would be drafted to allow captains to keep firearms and distribute them to crew members during times of potential danger from pirates. New international rules pushed through by the United States after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, authorized captains to monitor maritime security in their vicinity and maintain their vessels at elevated levels of vigilance in response to dangers.

If that antiterrorism system were expanded to include piracy and ships were armed, Mr. Parker said, captains could be authorized to take greater measures. “The captain declares there’s some elevated level and they open up the gun locker,” he said.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: armthesailors; banglist; guns; maritime; piracy; pirates; selfdefense
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last
Previous discussion on this topic here based on Wall Street Journal article.
1 posted on 04/12/2009 6:41:35 PM PDT by reaganaut1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

If ever someone needed an example against gun control, this is it.


2 posted on 04/12/2009 6:43:34 PM PDT by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

DUH. If you don’t want untrained sailors bearing arms, then put a couple of trained armed guards on the ship. You have millions of dollars in cargo, and the stakes are high. I would put a .50 cal MG on both sides and keep a radar watch 24/7. These pirate skiffs are easy to sink if you see them coming. This is a no-brainer. If international ports don’t allow armed ships in port, then don’t go to those ports. The laws will change quickly.


3 posted on 04/12/2009 6:47:14 PM PDT by Sender (It's never too late to be who you could have been.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
If the decisions are based on common sense, this is a no-brainer. Arm them & let nature take its course.

But we know that it won't be based on common sense. Not only that, the blowhard Somali who has vowed vengeance should be challenged, in the open, to come out to sea and "Put his money where his mouth is." Let's see how bold he is when he's staring down the business end of a 50-caliber deck gun.
4 posted on 04/12/2009 6:47:18 PM PDT by HotLead61 (Death as a Free Man is much preferred to "life" as a slave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Don’t arm the crew, arm the CAPTAIN!! After all, he’s in charge, and he ought to have every means at his dispoal to protect the ship he’s charged with.


5 posted on 04/12/2009 6:51:43 PM PDT by smalltownslick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
The killing by United States Navy personnel of three Somali pirates during the rescue on Sunday of Richard Phillips, the American captain of the container ship Maersk Alabama, has further raised the stakes

Obama's Fault!

6 posted on 04/12/2009 6:52:34 PM PDT by neodad (USS Vincennes (CG 49) "Freedom's Fortress")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
I've never figured out how these stone-age denizens with AK-47's can seize a supertanker or large freighter anyway.

Isn't it like 90' vertical from gunwale to gunwale?

7 posted on 04/12/2009 6:56:07 PM PDT by elkfersupper (Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
"a long-simmering debate over whether the crews of commercial vessels should be armed."

Yes.

...whether public school teachers should be armed.

Yes.

...whether all law-abiding adults should be armed.

Yes.

Pretty simple, no?

8 posted on 04/12/2009 6:57:06 PM PDT by ChicagahAl (Don't blame me. I voted for Sarah.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
American flagged ships transiting dangerous waters should have a naval detail on board much as was the case in WWII. They just won't need the five inch deck gun of the era. But some mini guns and M-2 machine guns as well as small shoulder fired missiles for mother ships.
9 posted on 04/12/2009 6:57:07 PM PDT by AlaskaErik (I served and protected my country for 31 years. Democrats spent that time trying to destroy it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sender

Excellent Post!

The solution to the problem of dealing with Somali piracy is as simple as you indicated.

These ships are big enough to accomodate a small contingent of armed guards. 50 cal MG’s, rocket launchers and automatic weapons ought to be good enough to deal with any Somali attack.

For some reason, the shipping community seems stuck on stupid as to dealing with this issue. There’s gotta be some other reason (other than liability) for their reluctance to deal with this issue.


10 posted on 04/12/2009 6:57:44 PM PDT by MplsSteve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh; reaganaut1
If ever someone needed an example against gun control, this is it.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

And it wouldn't take much for the crews to be armed either;

Just 3 items per crew member:

( Anti boarding pikes)

( Anti Tank Shoulder launched Missiles)

( Auto Shotguns with Hi Cap Mags, with a variety of shot size selections)

11 posted on 04/12/2009 6:58:40 PM PDT by Candor7 (The weapons of choice against fascism are ridicule, and derision. (member NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MplsSteve
There’s gotta be some other reason (other than liability) for their reluctance to deal with this issue.

Actually, liability is a VERY big deal. Adverse legal judgments can, and have, rendered many businesses "dead in the water" [appropriate use of words in this case, no?]
12 posted on 04/12/2009 7:00:48 PM PDT by HotLead61 (Death as a Free Man is much preferred to "life" as a slave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
I've never figured out how these stone-age denizens with AK-47's can seize a supertanker or large freighter anyway.

They generally carry RPG-7's along with their AK's. Those things will rip through a ships hull like it wasn't even there. There's a very real risk of these savages actually sinking a freighter.

They then use grappling hooks and climb up the sides. All they're facing is fire hoses. So all the bad guys have to do is back up and point an RPG at the ship and threaten to blow holes in it or stand off and launch them at the wheel house.

Personally I think there's an excellent business plan in here somewhere.

L

13 posted on 04/12/2009 7:04:24 PM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: HotLead61

Dead crews, crews being held hostage, ships and cargos being held ransom and/or sold are big liability issues too - albeit in different ways.

Maybe the shipping community has said “Oh well, stolen ships and dead hostages are just one of the risks of the business”. But it shouldn’t be.


14 posted on 04/12/2009 7:07:41 PM PDT by MplsSteve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MplsSteve

I agree, Steve. An ounce of prevention...


15 posted on 04/12/2009 7:10:59 PM PDT by HotLead61 (Death as a Free Man is much preferred to "life" as a slave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh

In the early eighties, I was crewing on a small ship that was in the Caribbean waters. At that time, there was a lot of “Piracy” taking place in those waters.
The Captain of our ship was a Aussie Vietnam Veteran. He had lost a brother there.
We were always armed, despite foreign laws, and were very willing to use them, if needed.


16 posted on 04/12/2009 7:14:07 PM PDT by gigster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
CHange carjackers to shipjackers (pirates) and the concept is the same.


17 posted on 04/12/2009 7:20:18 PM PDT by Travis McGee ("Foreign Enemies And Traitors" has gone to the printer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Well, making the shipping companies pay for their own protection certainly makes better sense than making the American taxpayer pay for a problem that the U.S. never created in the first place.

The U.S. hasn’t been paying ransoms like the other shipping companies and the countries that they are from, have been doing for years. They are the ones who have created this mess in the first place.

There’s no way the American taxpayer should have to pay for our military to take care of problems created by other countries and their shipping companies. No more *bailouts* and *especially* not for other countries and foreign companies...

So, sure..., make the companies take care of themselves...


18 posted on 04/12/2009 7:21:05 PM PDT by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

This is such nonsense. Ships always used to be armed in the old days, as this article points out. Since no one wants gangs of armed sailors getting drunk on shore and shooting the place up, the usual custom was to keep the arms in an arms locker and issue them when needed.

The captain has responsibility for his ship. He should also have responsibility over the arms locker.

There’s no reason why hired guards couldn’t also be used, but many shipping companies and independent traders probably couldn’t afford them.


19 posted on 04/12/2009 7:22:40 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
While the arming of merchant vessels was commonplace for centuries, it faded in recent decades because of ship owners’ concerns about liability and the safety of their sailors.

Safety? What about their liability for sending the crews through pirate infested waters with no protection and no means to protect themselves?

Hmmm?

20 posted on 04/12/2009 7:27:39 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson