Oh My GOD!!!! Don’t these people know that guns are dangerous????
Good to hear that American ships are protecting themselves. Why bring NOTHING to a gun fight?
Piracy is only profitable when the rewards exceed the costs.
Now all anyone will need to do to get through the pirate infested waters is fly an American flag.
ping!
bump for publicity
Good article
Good that the American shipping companies are getting away from one tenet of Liberal Free Trade Globalism.....that “International Community” garbage....that discourages ships from taking their own security measures. Suprised the Free Traders havent called the Maersk and other ships “isolationist”, “protectionist”, or the other Anti-American terms the Free Traders hurl out
The willingness of these shipping companies to pay ransoms rather than deal with piracy only encourages more piracy. Simply declaring that any unidentified boats in these waters will be presumed to be pirates and sunk on sight would quickly end the problem. Even just arming these vessels discourages the pirates. Perhaps someone should repeat the success of the German raider ships during WW-I and WW-II, using heavily armed vessels camouflaged to look like merchant ships or civilian yachts.
We can always depend on our lapdog media to keep us informed about things they don't like...
Scaring them off just means they attack the next ship passing through.
As reported by AP, the Euro-pacifists were aghast that the ship actually used guns (horrors!) to defend itself (see below).
I am still trying to understand why pirates are not immediately executed, as they are in gross violation of international law.
From AP: However, Roger Middleton, a piracy expert at the London-based think tank Chatham House, said the international maritime community was still “solidly against” armed guards aboard vessels at sea, but that American ships have taken a different line than the rest of the international community.
“Shipping companies are still pretty much overwhelmingly opposed to the idea of armed guards,” Middleton said. “Lots of private security companies employee people who don’t have maritime experience. Also, there’s the idea that it’s the responsibility of states and navies to provide security. I would think it’s a step backward if we start privatizing security of the shipping trade.”
I get the idea that most pirate boats would be deterred by a 30cal machine gun. Firing from high on the deck of a freighter would be easier than firing an RPG from a skiff.
This article says that it was a specially trained security force, not the actual crew, hired by the shipping line that opened fire on the pirates as they approached the freighter. Given the positive outcome, it hardly matters. It also says that this repeat on the Maersk took place 350 miles from Somalia. It looks like the pirates have greatly expanded their hunting area.
the US-flagged merchant vessel Maersk Alabama repelled a pirate attack off the coast of Somalia. This is the same ship that was boarded by pirates last April. At that time, the captain of the ship was taken hostage and was held by pirates in a lifeboat for five days. The incident ended when US Navy SEAL snipers simultaneously killed all three pirates aboard the lifeboat in a nighttime action. This time, the pirates never got aboard the ship. What was the difference? Guns. As the AP report makes abundantly clear, members of the "international community" are steadfastly opposed to having armed guards or crewmembers aboard their vessels.By "international community" the "journalists" of AP mean state sponsors of terrorist.