Posted on 08/14/2009 9:21:54 AM PDT by marktwain
ISTANBUL (AP) - Challenging a global aversion to guns aboard ships, France has put troops on tuna boats in the Indian Ocean, and Belgium is offering military units to its merchant vessels off the Horn of Africa. Now, U.S. lawmakers are weighing similar action to fight piracy.
Opponents fear such moves will escalate the violence and raise a minefield of legal issues.
In June, the U.S. House of Representatives passed an amendment that would require the Department of Defense to put armed teams on U.S.-flagged ships passing through high-risk waters, specifically around the Horn of Africa where Somali pirates have become a scourge of world shipping.
The amendment now goes to the Senate. A separate bill introduced last month would grant immunity from prosecution in American courts to any "owner, operator, time charterer, master, or mariner who uses force, or authorizes the use of force, to defend a vessel of the United States against an act of piracy."
Both measures face tough debate - U.S. military resources are spread thin and onboard weapons, especially in the hands of civilian crew, are seen as an extreme option.
"Work and watch-keeping take up most of a seafarer's day," Sam Dawson of the International Transport Workers' Federation, which represents hundreds of unions, told The Associated Press by e-mail. "The practice, handling and use of weapons would be a duty too far."
But there is a strong push for action following the April seizure of the MV Maersk Alabama.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.myway.com ...
The fact this has to be “considered” is how far the west has sunk. We should sink any pirate ship and bomb the ports they come from, and we know where that is.
Kind of makes you question the "otherwise intelligent" assumption.
“The practice, handling and use of weapons would be a duty too far.”
What??? point and aim and be ready, if aproaching craft is non violent they can call or communicate. A fifty cal on deck will hamper most attempts Wait, Wait... A manned fifty cal.
Not according to Gary Kleck's article on resisting crime. Where did you get your assumption?
I think that's the point!
Right now the violence is all one way. A somali pirate doesn't want to sweat for his money, he sure won't want to bleed for it. So what will he do? Go back to fishing.
Sounds like the union leadership is a bunch of panty-waists who would rather see their members DEAD than armed.
Gotta get some testicles back on on the company boards before you can get guns back on the vessels.
Some of the policy makers need to read about armed merchant cruisers such as the Carmania http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Carmania_%281905%29 or the Jervis Bay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Jervis_Bay_%28F40%29
I suspect the thugs of east Africa would be a softer target that German battleships and cruisers.
Bull.
I would much rather roll the die that the criminal is a coward who will tuck tail and run when facing resistance rather than take the chance that the criminal will happily leave me alone if I just do what he wants.
Even better, a couple CROWS II’s with 50 cal mounts fore and aft. They’d never have to leave the bridge to fight the ship.
Think of it as Merchant Marine CIWS
;-)
Ahhhhhh good ol ciws, when it worked it did not miss. I got out in ‘89 so I assume it’s better.
Awhile back the guys on ar15.com were talking about how an armed cruise off the Somali coast would be the ultimate bachelor party outing LOL.
LQ
LOL. So true. The ward and the mess would be only tolerable, but there’d be lots of free time.
Not much typical bachelor ‘action’ though. No pick-up bars at sea.
I'll be blunt. The shipowners find the present method of no protection and paying ransom from insurance company funds if one captain's luck is bad to be cheaper than armed guards.
Yes, I know if you reward bad behavior, you get more bad behavior, but the shipowners are thinking short-term bottom line. So while I explain the thought process, don't complain to me about the thought process.
> It is hard to believe that otherwise intelligent people actually believe, contrary to all history and logic, that makeing yourself defenseless somehow reduces the chances of your being attacked or hurt.
It may not reduce your chance of being attacked or being hurt, but there is a very strong argument to be made that it does lower the stakes.
(and no, I do not necessarily subscribe to this belief)
For example, NZ Police patrol unarmed. They have for many years successfully resisted moves to make them carry sidearms. Their efforts have been successful on the basis that it does not force the Bad Guys to “raise the stakes” when confronted by the cops by also being routinely armed.
So far, history has borne this theory out, and proven it true — tho’ for how long that will last is anyman’s guess.
I suspect a similar logic is at work here: if the vessels are typically unarmed, there is little need to harm or kill the crew or to fire on the vessel. All that is needed is to wave their firearms around and scare the Hell out of everyone.
“The practice, handling and use of weapons would be a duty too far.”
I stood many watches and worked hard in the Coast Guard... and I was and still am a pretty good shot. It wasn’t a ‘duty’. It was fun.
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.