Slashdot Mirror
Mariners Develop High Tech Pirate Repellents
Hugh Pickens writes "NPR reports that owners of ships that ply the dangerous waters near Somalia are looking at options to repel pirates including slippery foam, lasers, electric fences, water cannons and high-intensity sound — almost anything except guns. One defense is the Force 80 squirt gun with a 3-inch nozzle that can send 1,400 gallons a minute 100 yards in any direction. 'It is a tremendous force of water that will knock over anything in its path and will also flood a pirate's ship very quickly,' says Roger Barrett James of the the Swedish company Unifire. Next is the Mobility Denial System, a slippery nontoxic foam that can be sprayed on just about any surface making it impossible to walk or climb even with the aid of a harness. The idea would be to spray the pirate's vessel as it approached, or to coat ropes, ladders, steps and the hull of the ship that's under attack. The Long Range Acoustic Device, or LRAD, a high-powered directional loudspeaker allows a ship to hail an approaching vessel more than a mile away. 'Knowing that they've lost the element of surprise is half the battle,' says Robert Putnam of American Technology Corp. The LRAD has another feature — a piercing "deterrent tone" that sounds a bit like a smoke detector alarm with enough intensity to cause extreme pain and even permanent hearing loss for anyone directly in the beam that comes from the device. But Capt. John Konrad, who blogs for the Web site Gcaptain.com, says no anti-pirate device is perfect. 'The best case scenario is that you find these vessels early enough that you can get a Navy ship detached to your location and let them handle the situation.'"
An M-16 with a full clip.
Brett
a firearm, worked as a defense against boarding parties hundreds of years ago, it will work just as well now.
Piracy is a crime and should be treated as such. If there's a rash of break-ins in your hometown you don't recommend that every home owner goes out and buys a gun, you track down the criminals responsible and put them to justice.
It's well known that the pirates are getting inside information on ship locations and cargoes from associates in Europe. Feed a false tip into the system and arrest the pirates that come calling. Don't try to arm civilians to fight off what could be a relatively well trained and well armed fighting force, you'll just piss of the criminals and they'll be that much more likely to start killing people.
Actually, in their minds, it will make the pirates more willing to kill. After all, if people will potentially shooting at you, you're more likely to shoot first if someone looks funny. Frankly, I'm a fan of the convoy idea. Heck. One destroyer could protect a dozen commercial vessels, I'm sure.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
I thought the whole idea of not arming crews was to prevent possible death to the crews. Do these people think that only applies to GUNS, and not other forms of arms? The pirates are armed with guns, RPGs and the like, not fucking water pistols. They do not have a "stun" setting. Does anyone in their right mind think the pirates, after getting a ship flooded or tasered aren't going to actually use the weapons THEY have? Do they expect the pirates to say "Gosh, you fought fair and humanely. We'll just ignore all that extra effort, pain and discomfort."
Wrong.
How about just adding armed and trained guards to the ships? Maybe armed and trained escort ships? Q-boats? A Naval destroyer sitting in the main bay, shelling their HQ?
Or is this just the kinder, gentler pirates of the 21st century?
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
"pirate repellents"
WTF are we talking about... TICKS???
"We're getting boarded... must not have sprayed the pirate repellent last night..."
The best pirate repellent is two squads of armed marines. Just have the ships pick them up in the port before the gulf of Aden... and drop them off in the port after, where they can board the ship going the other way.
Much cheaper than flooding the area with warships... and more effective to boot.
I submit to you that stating "well trained and silent" before "ninja" is redundant. If one is lacking in either training or the ability to be silent, it precludes one's propensity for ninja-ness.
--Not to be worried, Pitr fix.
I wouldn't at all be surprised if the real problem is that the average commercial sailor would say, "Hey, if I wanted to be in the military, I would've joined the military! I don't want to shoot guns OR be shot at, thank you very much!"
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
To be fair, ninjas and special operations/forces are pretty much the same thing. Ninjas were pretty much feudal Japan's special forces. Their legendary superhuman abilities and magical powers are merely the results of their skill and efficiency. The incredible feats performed by the Navy SEALs and other special forces, while not as easily attributed to magical powers, their feats are often considered superhuman in that the average person could never perform the kinds of things SEALs can.
In short: NavySEALs == Ninjas
This really has to be the cheapest, most effective method - so there must be some, likely political, reason that it's not being used. Much of the issue with arming crew members seems to revolve around 1) training and 2) what to do with the weapons in whatever random port the ship ends up at where weapons aren't welcome.
Picking up then dropping off paid mercs or active duty soldiers would go around that problem. But it seems like paying ransom is the current preferred action.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Does not make sense. Pirates aren't movie aliens and Marines(TM) are known to work quite effectively against them. Marines cost to feed and shelter anywhere you put them so you might as well assign them to ships that are likely to be boarded and let them get some work in. Two squads of Marines do not take up very much space at all (particularly in respect to the capacity of these cargo ships). Their presence would have a negligible effect on crew and cargo. They do cost to train but that money is again going to be spent anyway no matter where they are stationed. They don't get paid all the time that they are on guard (assuming we are talking about United States Marines). They draw a monthly paycheck whether they are on guard duty off the coast of Somalia or stationed in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else. We have plenty of them, they are easily replicated to a point, and can be rapidly sent wherever they're needed. Slippery foam covered pirates wash off and come back to try again. Dead floating in the water until the sharks get there pirates are no longer a threat.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
I am sort of curious why this sort of a solution is not often suggested.
It has been said that the reason crewmen are not armed is that they are not trained, and that it is illegal to have armed crewmen at many major port cities where these ships are headed.
It has also been said that stationing mercenaries or marines on board all ships all the time is prohibitively expensive, and possibly has the same legal problems.
But the area in which these problems are occurring seems to be relatively small, compared to the entire trip these ships are taking. Why wouldn't it be reasonable to drop off 10-15 marines/mercenaries at a point before they get close enough for pirates to be a threat, and pick them up on the other side. You'd think that it would be getting cheaper than just buying insurance on the cargo pretty soon.
Or, for as bad as the news makes it seem, go back to the old World War II convoy system. If the gulf is too big to have warships patrolling the entire thing, have a convoy leaving twice a day with a bunch of tankers and 1-2 warships covering it.
The fact that these steps have not been taken must mean that the chances of any one ship being taken are still small enough that most companies can afford to take the risk.
> I understand the liability issues involved in stocking guns on a non-military ship
Do you?
Do you really?
Because if you do, I'd like to here it.
Nobody has ever published a single believable argument against having a small secure locker of arms on a merchant ship. Further, this practice was common in all merchant fleets right up to and through the 40s.
Its not a liability issue at all. There is a far greater legal liability to the shipping companies for failure to protect their crews.
Some ports have regulations against on-board guns, BUT nearly all such ports that do have ways around them, such as advance declaration, locked cabinets etc.
No, the only argument presented against arms on merchant ships has nothing to do with liability, and often boils down to "starting an arms race" with the pirates, which is a ridiculous example of reaching and scare mongering.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Yes lets debate between lethal and non lethal firearms instead of addressing the actual causes of the problem. Like an ineffective government and global inequality
Oh give me a fucking break. "Global inequality" doesn't give you the right to start holding human beings hostage for ransom money.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
All the testosterone and gung-ho aside, how about not giving them a reason to pirate? It seems that nobody here realizes that the Somali pirates are doing what they do because other nations illegal fishing (worth an estimated 300 million) in the region have depleted [freerepublic.com] their fish stocks while the UN turned a blind eye. To add insult to injury, there's been some toxic waste dumping off the coast.
That little bit of rationalization only goes so far. The fishing issue is why some people (fisherman who lost their livelihoods) turned to piracy but it's largely driven by a profit motive now. They've realized that they can extort money out of shipowners and have no reason to stop doing so as long as the reward is greater than the risk.
are doing what they do because they system has failed them and they see piracy as the most feasible method to force change.
How is piracy going to force charge in Solomia when the warlords that have ruined that country are the ones sheltering the pirates and taking a cut of the money they steal?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
You know, contrary to the liberal hype, firearms are NOT that difficult to use properly. US Army basic training includes an grand total of three weeks basic rifle marksmanship. Frankly, I could take a willing subject and teach them the basics in an afternoon. Every ship should have some crewmen cross trained in firearms usage. Weapons lockers should be on each ship, with locks and seals when in port. If a port city or country refused to allow such secured firearms, ships would simply no longer stop there. That would last, oh, a day before they changed their minds.
A firearm is simply a tool. The function of a hammer is to drive a nail. The function of a rifle is to send a projectile down range at a high rate of speed. Or, as the SEAL's recently showed, to rapidly empty the cranial cavities of pirates.
Firearms are not "evil", no more than a hammer is "evil". A hammer, properly handled, can drive a nail, or crack a skull. A rifle, properly handled, can do the same.
But what is causing piracy is extreme poverty and a shattered Somalia. Before reaching for the gun think how this situation can be changed.
The last time we tried to intervene in that situation it didn't end so well. If the Somalis want change I'd say that it's up to them to provide it. You can't impose freedom or change on a population that isn't willing to accept it.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Personally I am rooting for the pirates maybe they can drive up the cost of the goods being transported making more local or regional options viable in areas of commerce and energy supply.
Forget your anti retard pills today? If you're rooting for them, you have to realize that most of the shipping there goes INTO Africa. They would be raising the price of aid to areas where local and regional options are insufficient. The pirates are shooting their own region in the foot for their own profit... it helps no-one. I say nothing works better against pirates than hot lead.
That being said, I would love to be on the first ship equipped with anti-piracy non-lethal technologies.
I wouldn't want to be near such a ship. The pirates aren't limiting themselves to 'non-lethal technologies'. What are you going to do when they respond to your water cannon with an RPG? Sending people armed with 'non-lethal weapons' up against those armed with lethal ones seems pretty stupid to me.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
If the movie Aliens taught us anything, it's that sheer rough-n-ready manpower is not always the answer.
Remind us of the lessons from a work of FICTION next time you get taken hostage and half your traveling companions (including friends and possibly family) get killed.
Lever back on the testosterone, pal.
You carry a squirt gun, I'll take a fully-armed crew carrying M-16s.
I have to second the GP, I really can't believe anyone even wants to consider non-lethal means ("Anything but guns?" What sort of bleeding heart came up with that line of feelgood BS?) to deal with armed killers on the high seas. These people board mostly-defenseless ships and kill people, loot the cargo, and take the "important" people for ransom. Just fucking kill them. No "alternatives" necessary.
When container barges start carrying half a dozen 150mm guns, you'll watch this crap vanish overnight. Somehow I don't think various Three-Stooges-esque slapstick "solutions" will accomplish more than pissing the pirates off.
As an aside, these clowns only get away with this because they attack highly-multinational ships, crews, and cargos, so no particular country feels a need to respond. When they do go after, say, a mostly-American (or even mostly-French, recently) ship, we end up with living crew and a few less pirates. Good riddance.
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part2.htm
You may wonder how armed Naval ships can have and use weapons, but that is because they are not merchant ships and are ruled by other naval treaties in respect to international law.
If this law was changed, you have to keep in mind that would allow Chinese and Russian merchant vessels to be armed while in US ports so it is a very sticky situation.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Roger that. And the first way to promote change in productive directions is to stop them from thinking that "taking a ship's crew hostage for millions of dollars in ransom" will result in a change in anything but their body temperature.
These people aren't pirates because the see any "global inequality", they are pirates because they think they can make millions of dollars easily and face no consequences. It's no different than any criminal activity, white collar or blue.
Remember, terrorism isn't about money, it's about instilling fear in people, i.e. terrorizing. So if you start shooting down every hijacked plane, what actually happens, is that the terrorists will use their readily available supply of martyrs to continuously hijack airplanes with no other intent than getting shot down. Then you either keep your word, shoot the planes and the people within, and soon nobody in their right mind will ever board a plane again (public uproar notwithstanding), or you don't shoot the planes and start negotiating with the terrorists.