|
|
Top Contributer
Louisville Slugger=Less Lethal,
Fire Hose=Less Lethal,
Box Cutter=Less Lethal,
Rubber Bullets=Less lethal,
all depending on how and where applied.
gCaptain Crew
Jeffrox,
You are correct. When you look at it, you are really never unarmed. In ship board defense, it is necessary to be able to reach out a bit more than a fire hose or a box cutter, but the whole point is you can defend without actual firearms if your defense is well planned in advance and is layered properly.
Old Salt
How about adding something from WWII?
Old Salt
Rules of engagement?
Originally Posted by seamarshals
Do we have "rules of engagement" when the opponents are pirates and terrorists? If so, who authored them and who among our enemies administers them?
That's a big part of our problem in dealing with these animals...we have rules and they don't.
It sounds like, from your explanation of "less lethal", that the defense mechanism you describe may or may not deliver lethal force, depending on the desired effect. Where I live, if someone is threatening my life there is only one level of response. You stop the fight...for good. Anything less is just delaying the inevitable. Shooing coyotes away from your calves doesn't protect the calves. It just gives the coyotes another opportunity to have beef for dinner.
I do appreciate your stance and I recognize that you are promoting a product and/or service. And I realize that arming the merchant fleet of the world is not a practical solution. I do think that a fleet of vessels in the WPC-179 class of vessel with well trained crews patrolling these vermin-infested waters could substantially reduce these incidents.
Nothing is going to eliminate piracy. We have laws and law enforcement in abundance here in the United States, but crime hasn't been eliminated. As a proponent of the death penalty, putting a criminal to death won't stop crime, but THAT particular criminal won't commit another crime. Elimination of the perpertrators is the solution. When putting to sea equals death for these vermin, then their numbers will be greatly reduced and only the very stupid among their population will attempt it. And the stupid ones won't find much success. They'll take care of themselves.
Nemo
Old Salt
LL vs. LTL
Hey Jeff,
All of those things can be lethal! I was referring to methods designed to be "less-than-lethal" (i.e. tazer) versus "lethal" (an M-14 or SIG 220). "Less lethal" makes me think of something that is still deadly, just a little less so. Kind of like being less dead or a little bit pregnant...either you are or you aren't. And I swear I'm neither
I prefer the slugger for close-in work. Just don't swing and miss. Bad things happen while you're trying to get it back into position!
Nemo
Just Browsing
Hello group
I have been hovering here for some time and following this thread closely.
I have to say that I am impresses with the discussion hereon and really appreciate everyone’s point of view.
Seamarshal and others have been discussing the applicability and viability of armed ‘guard’ on MVs. As a US Navy Vet and experience private security operator (including maritime) I tend to agree (generally) that firearms are the great equalizer. Professional military or private teams armed with antiquate weaponry, combined with a well thought out plan and careful utilization of a large ship’s natural tactical ‘high-ground’ can be wildly effective.
The point I have here, touched upon by some of you, is that it simply isn’t legal to put armed staff/arms on a private merchant ship in most situations. So until the laws change or the problem goes away, we (security providers) have to work within these laws. The only other option is to give the mariners fire hoses and bull-horns and hope the helmsman can turn the ship like a Corvette.
We can all lobby for a change in international law to allow for vessel arming – but in the meantime, we have to do something. Frankly, the laws will not change until the situation on the ground (water) becomes so untenable that there is no choice. Further, having a track record of safely protecting ships without firearms would go a log way toward opening up the possibility of firearms being allowed.
Everyone, government, insurers, and shipping companies, are terrified of a ‘Blackwater’ style company (reputation rightly or wrongly deserved) riding ships that cross international boundaries every few days getting into a running gun battle that ends up with dead civilians or crews, damage to vessels or causing a major international incident. Transiting through a country’s waters, armed, could be considered an act of war resulting in a Coast Guard/Navy response – god forbid the security teams/arms staff mistake some crappy government boat approaching their ship as a bad guy and fire upon them.
Just my thoughts
Top Contributer
Who says it isn't legal to arm a merchant ship? I've been on a ship with a whole chest full of weapons, and the crew trained to use them. Plus, I"m curious - if the ship I was on was carrying military cargo, which it was built to do, there would have been Marine's with .50 cal's arming the decks. What gives them the right to do so?
As for the lethal vs. less-than-lethal debate, I think the LRAD's are the way to go. Expensive, but they must be incredibly effective. I saw one demonstrated at 1/100 volume, and it was way to loud already. Turn it up all the way, and you're probably going to blow some eardrums of those guys on the grappling hooks. I don't think they come back after that.
Just Browsing
I am sorry, but the notion that you want to use minimum force is absolutly nuts.. Every successful Hijacking provides increased material resources in terms of the Pirates ability to embark with superior vessels, increase their weaponry as well as ship boarding and assorted "Pirate Skills".
The same is true for every attempt... Your argument for the use of minimal force with no threat of death for you opponent insures his success.
You all keep fooling around with these Turd Worlders and they will beging seizing cargo and killing crews. Do you think the Shipping Companies will give a crap if they get their vessel back in the end? Right now the Prates want cash and the Pimps who count beans at in the Shipping Companies and the Insurers will pay..
But it is the Mariners whose lives are endangered and who will be lost. I know most are just poor folks from Second World Countries so frack them.. Well just wait till all your "non leathal" response protocols results in the taking of a Passenger Vessel. The Hijackers or the rescuers actions result in beaucoup lives lost.
Why should any First tier Navy defend your merchant ships and bear the accompanying costs? You register in some poophole country to save the fees but want a first tier whitewater navy to defend you?
Bah.
Contact your country of registry..if they will not put 4-5 Marines, 3-4 Dragons and a couple M2 50s or Barretts aboard .. I suggest you find a Country to register your vessels that will.
But for goodness sake Captains and Crew... Kill the Pirates.. Go out of your way to do it. For surely in time if you do not they will kill you..
Victor 06
gCaptain Crew
piracy
Hi
I have pasted a blog from me from another area of this site below.
Hope it is of some use to you all.
Being new to this blog, first time, I can only say that I agree with you comments about security teams on ship. It should be left to the people who have been doing it for years, SSO's.
As an owner of a company that deals with maritime security, it may sound strange, but I am anti armed men on ship. http://www.over-watch.co.uk Look at my web pages and you may say you understand, but I think you may be wrong in you thinking. I set up Over-watch because I see a disaster waiting to happen when some guys open fire on a pirate ship and LOOSE the fire fight.
Top Contributer
I would rather die in a fire fight than with a bag over my head on my knees with my hands tied behind my back. Pirates want easy targets. Not one that fires back.
Old Salt
This is an excellent point.
I'm currently reading "Dangerous Water: Modern Piracy and Terror on the High Seas" by John S. Burnett (published 2002) In it he talks about Russian and Israeli ships being armed. This is an interesting passage:
"After the Russians went through a spate of attacks off the Phillipines, they followed the Israeli lead and equipped their vessels with small arms. In the mid eighties an armed gang off the coast of Nigeria attacked the Soviet flagged 'Slutsk'. The Russians won the battle and took the pirates out to sea; their bullet-riddled bodies washed ashore a few days later. Word gets around. In 2001 not one Russian or Israeli ship was attacked..."
gCaptain Crew
No single method will work as the Pirates will adapt and quickly. A variation of intelligence/ survelance systems, provide different ships with ships different types of responses from non-lethal to instantly lethal. Mix it up, keep them guessing. I personally lean towards a medievil style ( that will be another post). Does anyone know if pissed off pitbulls get seasick ?
gCaptain Crew
If you want eyes in the sky. Have a look at my company. http://www.over-watch.co.uk
What you say about early detection is the key and the training of the crews.
Top Contributer
At the expense of sinning in quoting myself frm a much earlier reply in this thread;
So a Burke class guided missle destroyer sits a few hundred yards from a lifeboat with a US mariner held in it as hostage and that billion dollar ship can't do shinola about his plight except monitor the situation. Seems kinda prophetic.
Arm the GD merchant ships and let them kill pirates at will! The US merchant mariner will always choose to fight and the crew of the MAERSK ALABAMA proved that two days ago but they didn't have the ability to offer a lethal defense and thus the pirates survived leading to prove the impotence of the USN in these situations!
gCaptain Crew
I have done a bit of research (as a company owner that is my obligation) regarding the armed vessel escort and have to say it is a very dangerous option. should a vessel carry automatic firearms on board, it first has to have a permit and clearance from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls ("DDTC") Semi automatic exempted. As these weapons would fall under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations ("ITAR").
The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea ("UNCLOS") Articles 100 - 107 cover piracy. Article 107 would specifically prevent a private security vessel from seizing any suspected pirate craft as this right is reserved for military vessels and aircraft.
Also, should the private security escort vessel fire upon or attempt to board a suspect vessel, that act can be considered an act of piracy in itself. If so, the private security vessel can be seized and the crew prosecuted.
However, the security vessel has the right to defend itself if attacked or fired upon. However, as a private security vessel and not a military vessel, it is a far stretch to be able to defend another vessel against attack, unless you were considered an extension of the merchant vessel and defending the merchant vessel. you can not be an extension of the merchant vessel unless you are flagged and owned by the same company as the merchant vessel.
Therefore, in order to legally defend the clients vessel, you must be on board and comply with the DDTC and ITAR.
gCaptain Crew
Don't use the "patch" but use a solution
I think that the real issue is that the shipping industry is using the "patch" approach to security, in that too much emphasis is put on the Gulf of Aden and East Africa, by just hiring a security team for short transits. The shipping industry is truly global in nature and the ships and crews must be able to operate in a wide range of conditions. Additionally, the physical structure and operations of each ship are often different, as are the corporate approaches and tolerances to risk.
Security procedures and training need to be designed to provide maximum effectiveness in hardening your vessel against a range of attacks, the detection of threats, and anti-boarding procedures while maintaining the maximum safety of the crew and the vessel, whether in the Gulf of Aden, or sailing the coast of Peru.
A proper security solution based approach, would give the crew of the vessel the knowledge, tools, skills and abilities to maintain control of their environment, thus giving the crew the confidence necessary to maintain the control of their environment globally.
A solution based system would also bridge the gap between the vessel and the corporate structure on shore. Bridging this gap allows the corporation to play an active role in supporting its vessel’s security while also providing senior management with the information it needs to make timely critical decisions.
This approach utilizes leading edge techniques and technology in a system soundly based in security and emergency management practices. The methodology mitigates the risk associated with hostile threats by preparing your vessel and its crew so that it can respond to threats effectively under a range of conditions.
gCaptain Crew
Let's make it simple then.
2 LEVELS
1) Low Threat Environment - Use basic Shipboard Systems and solutions along the lines we do now - but we won't expect them to do the job in a High-Threat environment. We put that job in the hands of professionals where it belongs. Procedures, passwords, hoses, flares, sirens, maneuvers and radio calls for help are adequate to handle thieves and minor pirate encounters.
2) High Threat Environment Solution - have your national service put an armed guard detachment aboard during that part of the trip. This detachment should be under the command of a commissioned officer, and have their own communications so that they can reach their own command authorities. Combine it with a large national ensign flown from the masthead, instead of steaming colors from the stern. (I'm talking a 20-30ft hoist). Should the detachment remain aboard on entering port - as a commissioned unit they should be treated properly in most cases. I could easily see the US, British, French, Germans, Spanish, Italians, Russians and a few other nations doing it.
True, Flags of Convenience won't be able to do it. But this may incline some owners to reconsider their flag choices.
Soon, many ships will be flying that large flag - even if they don't have a detachment aboard as a deterrent. Rather like the painted white stripes with black checks used 180 years ago for the same purpose. This helps make the pirates' job a lot harder. They will go to easier pickings. As the senior security manager of a retail firm I worked with put it - "We aren't trying to catch the roaches and rats, we're just trying to make them want to go somewhere else, because it's too hot for them here."
BTW - why not use barbed wire in place of boarding nets they used to use in the days of sailing ships? Just remember to keep it loose so it won't support a grapnel well.
Just a few thoughts from NimitzFan in Texas.
gCaptain Crew
Being Prepared
In my last post I said
"Security procedures and training need to be designed to provide maximum effectiveness in hardening your vessel against a range of attacks, the detection of threats, and anti-boarding procedures while maintaining the maximum safety of the crew and the vessel, whether in the Gulf of Aden, or sailing the coast of Peru.
A proper security solution based approach, would give the crew of the vessel the knowledge, tools, skills and abilities to maintain control of their environment, thus giving the crew the confidence necessary to maintain the control of their environment globally."
The reason for this is the piracy is not confined to what most are perceiving to be the only high threat area, the Gulf of Aden. The threat of piracy is global. Lately there have been a number of boardings in the Indonesia area and South china Sea, and that just shows that the crews must be ready to respond and control their environment no matter where they sail.
We are not talking about training the crew to be special ops guys, we are talking about a well defined objective, being properly prepared with the proper tools, skills and abilities to confidently control their environment safely.
gCaptain Crew
Seamarshals - I think we are complimenting each other.
In no way would would I detract from the need to protect a ship from unexpected situations that can happen nearly anywhere. That's what you are concerned about.
My suggestion was to have a detail of military or law enforcement personnel supplement the existing defense methods used to protect vessels. This is for a narrowly defined situation - a known high-threat environment involving pirates who are openly attacking vessels. As I mentioned, I'd expect that such a detachment would not only have suitable capability to resist - they'd also have their own communications. For reasons of law enforcement, I believe it is important that the detachment's presence be visible from a distance. That's why I suggested a battle-flag - (which can be illuminated at night.)
There are two objectives for this kind of program. First, to protect a specific ship and crew from hijacking in a specific region. Secondly, to suppress open piracy in that region by making it too costly for the pirates to continue to operate as they have. Not only can the vessels effectively resist the pirates, the detachment can also alert nearby authorities to the presence of suspicious craft.
Overall - the pirates aren't stupid. They will quickly learn that not only can these ships resist with lethal force - they can call up military assistance to deal with them. The pirates will flail around for a bit, but soon learn that they have to go "covert." They will have to depend on low-intensity methods to continue their depredations. Unfortunately for them - such covert methods will render them vulnerable to exactly the kinds of programs that you are discussing.
I'm talking about having existing professionals use Special Ops stuff to change the nature of the pirates - and then only in a high threat environment.
A few more thoughts!
gCaptain Crew
Morning all.
I have read the last few posts from Seamarshals and Nimitzfan and what you are both saying is true, but what you are missing from the plan is finding the pirates before they do there thing.
Seamarshals and I have talked many times on this subject and having a company like mine www.over-watch.co.uk searching for the pirates from the air and passing all information on to a central base is the best way forward (in my opinion).
Give these guys no where to hide, go on the attack, instead of the defence as we are now. At the moment we are reacting to the attacks by the pirates in a defensive way, which includes the world navies. They do not have enough Maritime Patrol Aircraft to do the job they are there for and like everyone else are reacting to attacks, instead of hunting the pirates. The law does not help either, when the navy does catch them they take the weapons and then let them go, unless they catch them in the act.
We have seen how the pirates have changed tactics in the last year, moving further away from the coast of Somalia, moving into the navy transit route. These are not stupid people, just desparate. If you have armed, un-armed, have a plan or no plan, this will not stop these guys trying. It may stop them getting on board your vessel, but not before a few 7.62 and RPG rounds have come your way. Find them first, deal with them before they have a chance to attack a ship, (which means getting the intel to the navy), get the law changed to work for us, not them and then deal with Somalia as a country, sort it out and you sort the problem.
The last two points, the law and Somalia should take about 10 to 15 years if not more........No one wants to take on those two minefields.
Just a few of my thoughts guys.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks