Hostages Taken off Somalia

[bobfnbw]

How do you isolate a isolated country?
What do you get when you have nothing left to lose?
Seriously, if this was a big problem for the rest of the world, it would be handled with military force, but the truth is, so far the UN, and the rest of the world stand back and let this happen.
Of course the only real way to stop it in the short term, is to bomb the shit out of them. Go in and take as many of them out as possible, including the villages and towns where they live, and base out of. That would of course mean killing woman and children, old and young, as well as combatants. And of course most have no stomach for this.
In the long run what those people need is education, clean water, food, security and a sense of purpose. I suspect that what they are doing now provide them with many of these, hence the only way to stop them is to kill them.

If I was contemplating a cirmumnav at this point, I think I would give it up, or go the very long way around that area, which would not be to comfortable I suspect...
There are other places to go.

During WW2 one other thing the allies used that were very effective were the Q boats.
These were merchant ships that were heavily armed, and when the subs surfaced to use the deck gun, where fired on by larger guns on board armed vessels. Seems that would be a good way to go. Just hire blackwater or some other mercenary firm to do it, build 4 or 6 ships like that, filled with weapons, into harms way, and let the sea take them.
My guess is within 6 months to 2 years it would be over. At a far less cost. But then knowing blackwater they would screw it up.....

[David_Old_Jersey]

I think the use of Q ships is the way to go and robust rules of engagement to sink all captured vessels - both those anchored off Somalia (and making it a crime to pay ransom for ships / fund terrorists)........as well as any captured vessels found at sea.

If they don't surrender don't blow 'em out of the water with one salvo , but damage at the waterline enough so she will sink. thats for ships & yachts..........and pick up the survivors from the sea (hard to hold an RPG when treading water )..........obviously not an exact science and won't be without casualties but has several benefits - removes the economic reward (no ship / crew to ransom), degrades the Pirate personnel capability / knowhow (especially deepsea) and costs the onshore financiers money in lost equipment (someone may have stolen the Pirate ship / guns - but they all have a value).

Long term the solution to Somalia is to realise that it is not a single nation state - created as an administrative conveniance in colonial times. Already it has defacto split into 3 countries, only 1 of which is a complete mess.........simply recognise the reality on the ground and you have 2 new states that could be funded to suppress the 3rd.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

I think the use of Q ships is the way to go ...

During the First World War there were 193 Q-ships in service (1914 - 1918); resulting in 70 engagements between Q-ships and U-boats; in which
44 Q-ships were lost, vs 15 U-boats destroyed.

I'm sure we could do better against these pirates, though.

The problems would be "probable cause", and what to do with "captives". We can't have vigilantes out there, shooting up everything that moves.

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The problems would be "probable cause", and what to do with "captives". We can't have vigilantes out there, shooting up everything that moves.

Probable Cause? international waters

Captives? Should be easy enoough to do a deal with a nearby African country to try and then imprison Pirates brought ashore - just a large enuf cheque.

[MarkJ]

Q ships? Armed merchant ships?

You allow one country you will be allowing them all.

So that would then allow Iranian flagged armed merchant ships to berth in your local port.

[Rhoel_Asia]

Originally Posted by MarkJ

Q ships? Armed merchant ships?

You allow one country you will be allowing them all.

So that would then allow Iranian flagged armed merchant ships to berth in your local port.

Good point though many merchant ships already carry side arms which are bonded during port.

As for Q ships, no need - the navies are enjoying themselves blowing things out of the water at the moment. And they also shepherd ships and other craft through the more problematic areas. This has forced the pirates to the more outlying areas like the Seychelles.

The solution is on land - the need for a proper government/s to police the rogue cartels currently operating as criminal states. But military action at sea in the short term is an excellent deterrent which is showing signs of success. Also the fact pirates are being sent to the country of the hijacked ships registration is also excellent. Getting jailed in Saudi Arabia or Liberia is as great disincentives - Somalia may not be the best place to be but an overcrowded sweat box of a Mauritanian jail cell must be 100 times worse that what they currently enjoy.

Rhoel.

[JiffyLube]

Originally Posted by MarkJ

Q ships? Armed merchant ships?

You allow one country you will be allowing them all.

So that would then allow Iranian flagged armed merchant ships to berth in your local port.

I don't think the Iranians would join in if they had to abide by a UN ruling of cooperation, and have to be under the command of a western nation...the only ones that could make it work.

[JiffyLube]

Originally Posted by GordMay

During the First World War there were 193 Q-ships in service (1914 - 1918); resulting in 70 engagements between Q-ships and U-boats; in which
44 Q-ships were lost, vs 15 U-boats destroyed.

I'm sure we could do better against these pirates, though.

The problems would be "probable cause", and what to do with "captives". We can't have vigilantes out there, shooting up everything that moves.

The probable cause issue would be satisfied the first time they tried to hold up a Q boat.

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by bobfnbw

If I was contemplating a cirmumnav at this point, I think I would give it up, or go the very long way around that area, which would not be to comfortable I suspect...

I think I would aim for Oman or UAE and then truck the boat straight across the desert to somwhere like Jeddah and be done with the problem completely. How safe is the Yemen? I thought Somalia ot the idea from them?

Pete

[JiffyLube]

Originally Posted by bobfnbw

How do you isolate a isolated country?
What do you get when you have nothing left to lose?
Seriously, if this was a big problem for the rest of the world, it would be handled with military force, but the truth is, so far the UN, and the rest of the world stand back and let this happen.
Of course the only real way to stop it in the short term, is to bomb the shit out of them. Go in and take as many of them out as possible, including the villages and towns where they live, and base out of. That would of course mean killing woman and children, old and young, as well as combatants. And of course most have no stomach for this.
In the long run what those people need is education, clean water, food, security and a sense of purpose. I suspect that what they are doing now provide them with many of these, hence the only way to stop them is to kill them.

The islolation thing was just an idea, but I hear what you're saying about their situation.

Originally Posted by bobfnbw

If I was contemplating a cirmumnav at this point, I think I would give it up, or go the very long way around that area, which would not be to comfortable I suspect...
There are other places to go.

During WW2 one other thing the allies used that were very effective were the Q boats.
These were merchant ships that were heavily armed, and when the subs surfaced to use the deck gun, where fired on by larger guns on board armed vessels. Seems that would be a good way to go. Just hire blackwater or some other mercenary firm to do it, build 4 or 6 ships like that, filled with weapons, into harms way, and let the sea take them.
My guess is within 6 months to 2 years it would be over. At a far less cost. But then knowing blackwater they would screw it up.....

I've thought about they Q boat idea too, and I think that would work.

[Blue Stocking]

My father told me a long time ago that good luck was usually the result of advance planning. Don't put yourself where bad luck can happen to you. (I am not talking about the expectable risks, such as weather)
Where did I read "It seemed like a good idea at the time??" OH YEAH!!--on a head stone.

I wish the captives well. phew!! $7 million huh!!

[s/v Jedi]

The only problem is the current hostages. It's easy enough to blockade their ports so they can't get out to sea, sent in navy seals with rebreathers to put explosives under their hulls etc. But, before all that, an assault by elite forces is needed to free the current hostages.

Convoys of yachts are good targets for pirates. They can come and choose. Only when there are armed escorts with very fast boats that can intercept the pirates before they get to their target, hostage taking can be prevented.

I think the UN has already passed all the resolutions needed for decisive action.

cheers,
Nick.

[TaoJones]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

The only problem is the current hostages.

This is exactly right! And while DOJ's solution is very creative, I don't doubt that they will soon be taking a few of their current crop of captives along on future raids. They may be doing that already.

So while it might be easy to pluck a few of the rats out of the water who've deserted their sinking vessel, the unfortunate hostages they have on board probably won't have that option and will go down with the ship.

It's the same problem that accompanies a large-scale military assault on their land bases: how many innocent hostages are you willing to sacrifice?

[Blue Stocking]

IMHO, this situation of taking civilian hostages, and demanding ransom, will continue to deteriorate.
WHY?, because the taking of large vessels must be reaching the stage of diminishing returns.
Navy task forces are looking after the big ships, the pirates are not able to sell the cargoes off these ships,---and what do you do with a coastline littered with ships.
These pirates (freedom fighters?) leaders have political savvy--they beat the US back, didn't they?
Don't get me wrong, I don't condone this for one second. I just think that this is what happens when greed and power benefits the ruthless few.
If you want to see how we get to this state of affairs, read the book written by Lt.Gen. Romeo Dallaire, "Shake hands with the Devil, The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda". It is a vivid and horrible picture of what happens when "our way" of thinking doesnot match "their way".

[Hugh Maclean]

BBC report $7million ransom. UK Government say - no money to pirates. Couple now held with other hostages in Container ship at anchor.