PIRATES - Gulf of Aden (Sunday 22 June)

[Zanshin]

Cooper - "Going in peace" doesn't mean that you shouldn't be prepared to not be peaceful if necessary. The expression "Si vis pacem, para bellum" is thought to have been coined around AD400, but even Plato stated similar ideas in "Nomoi". I, for one, won't argue with that philosophy.

Translation: "If you wish for peace, prepare for war"

[S/V Elusive]

ALL AHEAD STOP!!!

This thread is about the pirates off of the Gulf of Aden. This is NOT a gun thread. If it IS a gun thread, it will go bye bye. PERIOD.

You all have been on this board long enough to know our position on this.

================================================== ===
EDIT IN: Several posts preceding this post were deleted as being OFF topic - gun related and not related to this topic.

[MoonlightShadow]

Piracy should have an international response, as it is all nations boats that are being hit. God knows the UN won't do anything about it very rapidly, but NATO could, as under the charter an attack on any member's vessels is an attack on them all. Escorting or a naval manned Q-ship as suggested above has got to be the answer. There would need to be different convoys though, for fast and slow vessels. It has got to happen, as the shipping companies are now putting pressure on their respective governments. This is another factor adding to rising fuel costs. Diesel in UK at the moment is £6.17 a gallon ($12)!!! Glad I don't have a Mobo. Feel sorry for those guys.

[David_Old_Jersey]

Yeah, I would have thought that running a convoy, maybe once a month? for yachts would be fairly simple. And the same for the ships.

Assets more or less in the area anyway. and good training.

But probably worried about the warships becoming targets........

[MoonlightShadow]

Understand they would be worried about that, but they are there anyway. See this months Yachting World. It appears there is a standing Naval Force of US, British, French and German warships "not far over the horizon" all the time. In June they responded to numerous Mayday pirate attack calls and saw off some of the piracy. The helicopter intercepts are detering a lot of attacks, but the rules of engagement are making it very hard. ROEs at the moment are that they can only fire on the pirates in self-defence. Trouble is, as soon as the Navy turn up the pirates skidadle quick. NAFO cannot then persue or attack them. It's good from the point that many attacks have failed/been prevented, but not good for the one's who slip through the protection net.

We really need the ROE to be changed at UN level before a meaningful solution can be found. Once (and if) it is, and the Naval Forces start shooting, the deterance of that will be a powerful dissauding force.

The Navys have stepped up their game in the past few weeks. They are doing something about it. But they need to be allowed to take the problem to its natural conclusion, and that's a political issue.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by MoonlightShadow

Understand they would be worried about that, but they are there anyway. See this months Yachting World. It appears there is a standing Naval Force of US, British, French and German warships "not far over the horizon" all the time.

Just for edification - the aforementioned naval force is not NATO - it's a combined task force that has included ships from non-NATO countries such as Australia and Pakistan. Currently it's commanded by a Canadian. Combined Task Force 150 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That said, the NATO standing naval force (SNMG1) has been through the region in the not-too-distant past, having just circumnavigated Africa.

Kevin

[exfishnz]

If you're going to make your personal security reliant on coalition military forces in these regions then one word comes to mind - “naive”. I can't repeat what I posted before because it appears that some it may have been taken out of context & removed (& my apology's to “GordMay” for his post's also being removed). Perhaps some people should just stick to carrying the following:

(click pic to enlarge)

[Jonesee]

There is one thing I don't understand. Why travel in an area known for piracy? This area has been a problem for years. Why do people feel it necessary to put themselves in harms way? If you stick your hand in the fire it will get burned. Why do it?

Every big city has areas that most rational men and women would not walk through alone at night. Isn't it the same principle? Make a choice to stay out of those areas and minimize the risks. In the case of cruisers they are often travelling hundreds or even thousands of miles to get there. It is a big world with a lot of water, CRUISE SOMEWHERE ELSE.

If I want to go in a rough bar (been there, done that, sometimes still do) I shouldn't expect to be able to drag along a cop to "escort" me. I make a choice I take the risk, or I stay the hell out of there!!!

There are always complaints on this board about the cost associated with a Coast Guard rescue, yet people are advocating a battle group escort a dozen yachts. My gawd what would that cost???

And I am not a liberal, when navies encounter pirates, they should kill them all, sink their little boat and move on. Live ammo, real fire target practice.

Sorry for the rant, maybe I am missing something. If I am let me know.

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by Jonesee

Sorry for the rant, maybe I am missing something. If I am let me know.

It is the dangers of one passage versus another.

Both are dangerous but weighted against rounding Africa and it's long coast and it's coastal inhabitants.........hummmmm.

[David_Old_Jersey]

It's effectively about access to the Suez canal - the alternative being a trip around the Cape of Good Hope. Cutting that out of the loop was the reason for building the Canal.

The various navies are in place anyway (what with that being a busy area anyway!) - and IMO doing escort duties would give a legit reason to take on Pirates.

[Hud3]

And a lot of circumnavigators want to pass through the Med.

[Jonesee]

But there are other alternatives too. You can have your sailboat shipped on a cargo ship through the Suez and claim it on the other side.

Hud, you live in God's Garden in Nevis, but if there was that much piracy there that the UN approved of any and all force to stop it (which they have done in the Gulf of Aden), I would not come visit.

And while researching it I learned commercial and research vessels have been advised to stay 50 nm offshore. At least if these people are going to sail it, get way offshore. 18 nm doesn't count.

Gang I am not risk adverse by nature, actually I am an adrenaline junky. But I believe in prudence. Especially if my wife and family are on board. Heck life insurance replaces me, nothing replaces my wife!!!

I am not trying to stir anything up here. It is just one of those things that makes me scratch my head and wonder. In my life everytime I have said I would NEVER do something fate made me eat my words. I wonder when my trip to the Gulf of Aden is??

[exfishnz]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

The various navies are in place anyway (what with that being a busy area anyway!) - and IMO doing escort duties would give a legit reason to take on Pirates.

As some of you are aware, we're currently in a global downturn. Now I ask you, where does the extra money come from for these extra navy patrols to protect the yachtie's??? Oh & don't forget the cost of fuel nowadays, of which navies pay market rate[1]

A couple of months back, the navies couldn't even get to the French mega yacht that was boarded by pirates (although they did send a chopper to take some very pretty pictures). Yes I know they did a recovery operation upon the exchange of hostages/cash, but that was over a mega yacht, not really something that's going to be done for the average yachtie now is it.

This talk of the temporary UN resolution to enter territorial waters chasing after pirates is “just talk” (political BS). It would be a major logistical & expensive operation, & although they may conduct operations from time to time, the reality is that it would be a fraction of what is required to solve the problem, of which is going to get worse during a global downturn.

[1] I read an article about a month ago that stated the daily US military fuel usage is the same as the population of Sweden. Also, they were not very happy with paying market rates.

Originally Posted by Jonesee

And while researching it I learned commercial and research vessels have been advised to stay 50 nm offshore.

50nm from shore is not going to solve much if you come by a mother ship. Once they see you on radar, they'll dispatch the smaller & faster boats.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Anyone have any idea what it cost to operate a warship?
I don't think I'd want to be part of a small fleet sharing those costs.

Swagman's suggestion has a lot of merit and I think one UN funded well armed gunboats stationed at each end to make escorts would send the right message to both taxpayers and pirates that we will not put up with this.

Those boats sat for years in Sharm el sheik

[exfishnz]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

would send the right message to both taxpayers and pirates that we will not put up with this.

The number one issue on the minds of the significant majority of worldwide taxpayers today is the price the oil. They're not going to care about some yachtie that went into waters known for piracy. In-fact they may even become upset if their govt spends their tax dollars on yachties wanting to go through waters known for piracy.