New Laser Makes Pirates Wish They Wore Eye-Patches

vieux schnock writes "The New Scientist has an article about a new laser developed by a company in Farnborough, UK, that aims to deter modern high-seas pirates. Devised as a 'warning shot' to 'distract suspected pirates rather than harm them,' the meter-wide beam can scan the pirates' 6-metre skiffs and make it difficult for them to aim their AK-47 or rocket-propelled grenades at the ship."

Comments

Cue something about sharks

[vakuona]

in 3...2...1

Re:Cue something about sharks

[badran]

Sharks

Re:Cue something about sharks

[Kitkoan]

World of Warcraft has an Undead guy riding with a mounted laser gun mounted on a flying shark. I think they have insiders...

Yeah, WoW does have a flying shark with a frikken laser beam. We are so screwed... THE END IS NIGH!!!!

I have a better idea

[Pharmboy]

Why don't they just put a sniper or two as look out on these cargo ships? Any small boat that approaches without radio, and they have arms, you start picking them off. I'm pretty sure that my idea will be more effective at preventing piracy on the high seas. Lots of ex-military guys who would be qualified.

Re:I have a better idea

[Jeremy Erwin]

It's actually quite difficult to snipe from a moving ship.

Re:I have a better idea

[wizardforce]

Because you generally leave killing as a last resort. If you use the laser and they keep coming with hostile intent, then you break out the sniper rifle.

Re:I have a better idea

[0123456]

I know it sounds crazy, but some people have moral hangups about killing people unnecessarily.

If you don't shoot the pirates then you may get away, but they'll attack the next ship. If you do kill them then they're no longer a problem, and it will help to discourage the others.

What's 'moral' about running away and letting these people attack someone else?

Re:I have a better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually quite difficult to snipe from a moving ship.

That's non-sense. These pirate boats are six meters per TFA. I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back home. They're not much bigger than two meters.

Re:I have a better idea

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Luckily, active-duty Navy SEALs are approximately representative of the sniping ability of your average nautical rentacop, so there should be no difficulties with applying this scheme more broadly...

Re:I have a better idea

[causality]

I know it sounds crazy, but some people have moral hangups about killing people unnecessarily.

If by "unnecessarily" you mean "when they decide to become a violent, unprovoked aggressor" then sure.

Arming the target ships is the best way to deal with this problem. It's also the one we consistently refuse to try. This is as simple as it gets: 1) pirates leave the mainland and they don't come back 2) other would-be pirates decide that robbery isn't the best way to improve their situation 3) piracy declines.

Many people fail to understand that for the same reason they fail to understand that states which enact conceal-carry laws experience lower rates of violent crime. That is, it goes against their religion because certainly no contact with the facts would cause one to miss the point. The point is: criminals love helpless targets who can't effectively fight back. Criminals really hate facing targets that are as well armed as they are, or better armed, because at this point their instinct for self-preservation kicks in.

The religion says that conceal-carry would lead to the Wild West all over again, with gunfights in the streets everywhere. The facts say that conceal-carry leads to more timid, less aggressive criminals who'd rather not end up in a gunfight, have no idea which person is armed, and cannot effectively choose vulnerable targets. The religion says that arming targeted ships would result in many more armed conflicts at sea. I believe the facts will be the same as they've proven to be for conceal-carry, only more so, since we can arm every ship that goes through dangerous areas and not just a fraction of them.

Whether it's on foot in the streets or on ships in the sea, the basic predator-prey nature of violent criminals and their victims remains unchanged.

It doesn't bode well for us as a society that we have such a large population of adults who are in strong denial of anything they perceive as an ugly reality. Rather than work to change an ugly reality, they pretend that the facts are just someone's perspective, like an opinion. It's ... disturbing when you really think about it.

Re:I have a better idea

[Pharmboy]

While your point is a valid concern, I have no reservation about killing a group of armed men looking to take over a ship by force, and who will gladly kill you in order to get money. I don't like the idea of killing someone, but by the same token, if someone breaks into my house and is holding a weapon, I will shoot to kill.

No, this is what is called "defending yourself" and I would wholeheartedly support. Is there a non-pirate scenario whereby a small, fast boat would approach a cargo vessel, with a bunch of armed men, without radio contact? Didn't think so. Shoot first.

Re:I have a better idea

[c6gunner]

It's actually quite difficult to snipe from a moving ship.

If by "ship" you mean "6 foot inflatable dingy", then yeah, it is. If, on the other hand, by "ship" you mean "cargo-hauler the size of several football fields" then no, it's not.

Re:I have a better idea

[Jeff DeMaagd]

We have different ideas of necessity. Wanting to put killer criminals in jail time vs. execution is fine if you can apprehend them. The apprehension is a very key difference here. If you can't apprehend them, and the people that you don't want to kill are out there, still with weapons, still killing other people, then what? These criminals clearly don't have the scruples that you do, and these scruples can end in even more unnecessary deaths, this kind of criminal is probably more likely to be willing to kill many people rather than allow themselves to be captured.

Re:I have a better idea

[causality]

While your point is a valid concern, I have no reservation about killing a group of armed men looking to take over a ship by force, and who will gladly kill you in order to get money. I don't like the idea of killing someone, but by the same token, if someone breaks into my house and is holding a weapon, I will shoot to kill.

No, this is what is called "defending yourself" and I would wholeheartedly support. Is there a non-pirate scenario whereby a small, fast boat would approach a cargo vessel, with a bunch of armed men, without radio contact? Didn't think so. Shoot first.

The idea of being able to effectively defend oneself against a violent, unprovoked aggressor really seems to bother the hell out of a lot of people. I can't be the only one to notice that. All kinds of people will come out of the woodwork with arguments amounting to "you should have sympathy for the devil" and/or "criminals somehow don't choose to disregard their own safety when they violently attack others". Both are bullshit.

If you're so worried about your own safety then don't become a criminal who violently attacks others. If you become a criminal who violently attacks others, understand that you have voluntarily chosen a dangerous lifestyle and will have to accept the consequences.

That's particularly true for the home-invasion scenario you bring up. I want breaking into the homes of strangers while they are at home to be as risky (to the perpetrator) as possible. The world is a better place that way. Why would you want to make that easier to do, or safer to do in the form of laws stating that a homeowner would ever face any kind of civil/criminal liability for anything that happens to those who do this? Anyone else notice that if you oppose things like warrantless wiretapping, then "you want the terrorists to win" but if you support bad laws no one accuses you of "wanting the home-invading criminals who threaten your family to win"?

Anyone see how one-sided that is, or how clear the message is? State power good; personal initiative and independence bad; know your role; submit. It extends to the point that they don't even want ships to be able to defend themselves but wouldn't dream of opposing the efforts of the Navy to rescue the hostages of said pirates.

Re:I have a better idea

[The End Of Days]

The only other option is to capitulate. It's not the fault of the people defending themselves that criminals decide to attack more viciously. The moral responsibility still lies with the pirates not to be criminals in the first place.

Re:I have a better idea

[clarkkent09]

Thank you for a textbook example of unprincipled utilitarian thinking. Perhaps we should send some offerings to the pirates too in the form of a few ships with some free booty and toss in a few virgins too if that would maybe cause them to be less violent? If the result is less violence overall, then sacrificing a few people is justified on utilitarian grounds, right?

Re:I have a better idea

[betterunixthanunix]

There might be some issues with international ports and armed vessels. Not every country will be happy to have an armed ship sail into its waters, even if the ship claims to be armed for protection against pirates. This is even more true if the ship is armed with weapons that can sink other vessels.

That being said, I don't think arming ships would be a terrible idea for any other reason, as long as there are international agreements in place to punish captains/crews that use their weapons offensively.

Re:I have a better idea

[couchslug]

"The religion says that conceal-carry would lead to the Wild West all over again, with gunfights in the streets everywhere. "

The "Wild West" beloved of writers wasn't constantly violent. People were busy working to survive and make money, not engaged in a perpetual Hollywood gunfight.

Re:I have a better idea

[hedwards]

Or you know, the owners of the ships could pay what it costs to defend them properly instead of paying the ransom. It isn't exactly a kill them or give up scenario. The corporations running those ships have decided that it's more cost effective to pay the ransom than fight it.

As it is, it's just too profitable for pirates to voluntarily stop.

Re:I have a better idea

[nosferatu1001]

You're forgetting that arms arent generally welcomed in commercial ports.

Re:I have a better idea

[peragrin]

There wouldn't be pirates if it wasn't profitable. Right now you can make a million dollars for 3-6 months worth of work, and you get to shoot a gun off without having to kill someone. Insurance companies are paying 100's of millions of dollars annually into the pirates coffers.

Also the pirates have had to go far from home in order to get around the naval vessels in the area. They are getting violent also because they are having to work harder. The real solution to the problem is to teach them something like fish farming, or other trade, and then pay them top dollar for it for several years. It would be cheaper in the long run, and they would become stabilized at the same time.

Of course because it is the smart thing it is the one thing that no one will do.

Re:I have a better idea

[Xaositecte]

There are all kinds of international laws and regulations that prevent civilian ships from being armed.

I mean, you could arm them properly, they'd just be denied entry into most ports on the planet.

Re:I have a better idea

[ae1294]

It's actually quite difficult to snipe from a moving ship.

That's non-sense. These pirate boats are six meters per TFA. I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back home. They're not much bigger than two meters.

Wow unsubstantiated teenage boasting! Someone get this guy a squadron of x-wings!

Re:I have a better idea

[amicusNYCL]

Arming the target ships is the best way to deal with this problem. It's also the one we consistently refuse to try.

It's not that we refuse to try it. It's that we look at the times when there weren't any restrictions on what you brought into port, and we see how that turned out. You know, it's the whole not-forgetting-history thing. We already did try it.

Would arming commercial ships decrease piracy? Obviously. The reason we haven't isn't because of an unwillingness to try something new, it's because we look back at why those laws were made in the first place. Maybe it's time to revisit those laws, maybe our advances in communication, aircraft, satellites, radar, etc have lessened the danger caused by potentially hostile armed ships.

Just don't act like it hasn't been tried before...

Re:I have a better idea

[DCFusor]

Legal issues have been cited on that one. Otherwise, I totally agree. Obviously, you'd not always want to have the other guy get to shoot first, if he's got an RPG, to make it "self defense"... The big, blinding searchlight idea (mine) is one I kind of like, who needs a laser anyway? You need a broad radiator, not a point source (no matter the eventual size of the beam) because a small source is easily shot out, temporarily blinding only one guy, and a monochromatic source easily filtered out. If the bad guy has a scope, he just doesn't get the point source in his field of view, and he's fine.

I'm a CCW holder but generally carry open when I do. People don't seem to mind, but the nastier looking types tend to avoid me. My bank, and the local liquor store both asked me to please carry -- they know I'm a good guy, and they figure the bad guys will leave them alone when they see me. Small town social dynamics, it's probably different in cities.

Re:I have a better idea

[houghi]

Many people fail to understand that for the same reason they fail to understand that states which enact conceal-carry laws experience lower rates of violent crime.

You mean states like Bavaria in Germany or Flanders in Belgium? They not only have no 'conceal-carry' law, but have lower murder rates then any state in the US.

And when talking about states, we could also extend to who countries.

So to get peace in Afghanistan and Iraq, all we have to do is to allow conceal-carry and not take away their weapons?

And on a bigger scale, we should have applauded Iraq if they actually HAD concealed weapons of mass destruction.

Or might it be that things are a bit more complex?

Re:I have a better idea

[causality]

"The religion says that conceal-carry would lead to the Wild West all over again, with gunfights in the streets everywhere. "

The "Wild West" beloved of writers wasn't constantly violent. People were busy working to survive and make money, not engaged in a perpetual Hollywood gunfight.

Well no. It was a heavily armed society and therefore it tended to be a polite society. Most people didn't want to end up in a duel, so most people minded their own business and didn't flagrantly disrespect others for no reason. Those who were belligerent assholes tended to eventually pick the wrong person to screw with, and so long as it was a fair fight, the law left that person alone. That is, in most places two men could fight a duel without the survivor being immediately arrested and imprisoned. If you didn't like that possibility then you didn't own/carry a gun, for it was dishonorable and illegal in the extreme to shoot an unarmed man.

Overall I'd say most people were kinder and more decent than they are now. What you didn't have back then were so many bleeding-heart types who think that all violence is always wrong even when it's against a bully or other aggressor. I don't think that's a coincidence.

In summary, you're nitpicking one metaphor I used while deciding not to respond to my overall point. We can talk about the good old days some more, or you could further tempt me to follow every single metaphor with a line saying "the previous sentence was just a saying, an expression, meant to illustrate a point and not intended as literal historical commentary about the Wild West or other object of metaphor, get over it". I find both to be unnecessary. That latter option definitely should be unnecessary.

Re:I have a better idea

[blind monkey 3]

That being said, I don't think arming ships would be a terrible idea for any other reason, as long as there are international agreements in place to punish captains/crews that use their weapons offensively.
Hmm, Venezuela allowing armed U.S. aligned ships into it's ports... I'd like to see that.
The U.S. allowing armed Venezuelan aligned ships into it's ports... I'd like to see that.
Being able to use a proper knife and fork on a plane instead of the flimsy plastic crap... priceless.
Countries trusting international agreements to punish errant vessels? Who will enforce it? The UN?
In all seriousness, it would be great if the ships could defend them selves but I can't see any way that countries will accept this. This could be used as a cover to smuggle arms to other countries. If any of the major powers are involved there is no way to police it (veto powers, back room coercion etc).
There are a couple of hot spots that could in theory be properly watched by navies and swiftly dealt with, this requires money and resources that will ultimately come out of our pockets and the amount of money required will be a lot greater than what is currently being paid to the pirates.
Arming ships will end up costing more than what is currently being paid to the pirates.
Collectively we are not a people that puts principles above profit so I suspect the current status quo will continue.

Re:I have a better idea

[causality]

Arming the ships is inherently a bad idea. The main reason why these hijackings haven't turned deadly is that neither side really wants to start killing people. I realize that there's a large number of rather stubborn people that think that arming everybody is the solution, but it's not.

So I am "stubborn" when I believe people should have the ability to defend themselves against an unprovoked violent aggressor? Please elaborate. Tell me how else you deal with someone who, by initiating violence, has already demonstrated that they cannot be reasoned with. Do you intend to send them a strongly-worded letter?

You cite these facts, but it's pretty clear that you've got no clue what's going on beyond what some NRA lacky told you about it.

WIth that line you suggest that I am unable to think for myself and need an organization to tell me how I should feel about a subject. How nice. I get the idea you'd be disappointed to learn that I am a free-thinking individual who is unaffiliated with the NRA. My suspicion is that you'd be disappointed because that's a much tougher target for rhetoric than a list of talking points.

Speaking of facts, what I don't see you doing is telling me why my facts are mistaken. I don't suppose you're about to do that, are you? That should be easy since I've "got no clue what's going on" to borrow your words. Except it's not really so easy, is it, or you would have done it already.

The reality tends to be that without a lot of training the weapons end up causing far more trouble than they're worth.

There are literally millions of people who have had some kind of military, police, or private security training in the USA alone. Especially if you are talking about military experience, they have already faced far worse than a few rag-tag pirates with shoulder-mounted weapons and small arms. People with this kind of experience are not hard to find. Make the price right and they'll be quite easy to find.

I agree with you that the untrained should generally not be handling weaponry, except maybe as a last resort. Because you argue from emotion, you think that's a reason for no one on any of the ships to have weaponry. Because I argue from reason, I think that means we should recruit people who have the necessary training. See the difference?

Even with training it's common for soldiers to intentionally miss the people they're supposed to be killing during their early engagements.

We seem to have no problems killing many more Iraqis and Afghans than either have killed of ours. This is a non-issue.

For pirates, I say fire a couple of warning shots at them. Give them an opportunity to reconsider their attack. If they keep coming, give other would-be pirates something to think about. That would be more than fair.

Re:I have a better idea

[lennier]

The religion says that conceal-carry would lead to the Wild West all over again, with gunfights in the streets everywhere. The facts say

that this would be awesome. Also there would be dinosaurs and space ships and ghost wizards who all shoot bullets from their nose when they roar.

Whether it's on foot in the streets or on ships in the sea, the basic predator-prey nature of violent criminals and their victims remains unchanged.

Because as we all know, the human species is genetically split into two completely non-inter-breeding subraces, the Victims and the Criminals, so all comparisons based on the Discovery Channel are completely valid.

And that, gentlemen and ladies of the Institute, is why we must arm the gazelles immediately. Because do we want an African veldt where only the lions have surgically implanted Uzis?

I know I don't, and that's why I created the hoof-held Stinger.

Re:I have a better idea

[Kitkoan]

Somalia needs a unitified government for that to happen. At the moment there are 2 major groups (which are at war) trying to control Somalia. On one side you have the Islamic Courts Union which is an Islamic group wanting to push Sharia Islamic law on the people. The other group is the Transitional Federal Government, which isnt a liberal democracy and is made up of the most powerful warlords (which sprang up during the last unitified Somalia government fall in 1991). With peace and these factions not fighting the people would more likely stop piracy (also if the ruling group is good to the people).

Re:I have a better idea

[causality]

In the home invasion scenario, how would police (who arrive after the incident) know the difference between a burglar shot dead after he broke into the house, and a murdered innocent (invited into the house) where the home owner manufactured evidence of a break-in?

Personally I deal with that by not hanging out with shady people who have homocidal tendencies. I'm also going to guess that the forensics labs are a lot more clever than the average homeowner and can identify manufactured evidence effectively enough that it's still an incredibly risky thing to try. That and .. believe it or not, most homeowners with regular jobs who are not career criminals have no desire to murder the innocent, nor to put their families through all of the trauma caused by doing it where they live.

If you really think you have a point here, reserach states like Texas which have Castle Doctrine. See if they have rates of in-home shootings far higher than states which throw homeowners in prison for not trying hard enough to turn tail when an armed assailant threatens their families.

If you make arms available on both sides, the pirates could just show up on a better armed/armored/powered cargo vessel and go about their business.

Things like capable vessels and military hardware cost money. That would certainly destroy the currently accepted theory that the Somalis are resorting to piracy because they are destitute and desperate. If that theory is found invalid, it would be grounds for using more of a military solution against a hostile nation that targets our vessels. I'm guessing that their improved cargo vessels wouldn't stand a chance against the U.S. Navy. Think about it: it's in the pirates' interests not to escalate this conflict.

If the navy shows up, both involved ships point their finger at the other one... The navy is forced to board both vessels, arrest everyone and go through all the paperwork (verifying it with the port of origin) to see where the cargo is actually supposed to be.

Do you seriously think a USA ship in waters near Somalia has travelled all that distance in order to pirate a few ragtag Somalian skiffs? Do you know anything about Somalia? I doubt they'd find enough plunder to even recover the cost of going back home. You talk like this is a law-enforcement issue where we have no clue which side is likely to be the perpetrator. That just isn't the case.

That's assuming the two ships don't just sink each other.

To a pirate, it doesn't serve any purpose to risk sinking a ship before it can be plundered. It would mean they risked their lives in a firefight for absolutely nothing. Again I believe you haven't thought this through.

Re:I have a better idea

[causality]

That's not a a valid analogy. Prior to 9/11 hijackings were operating under an informal agreement between the hijacker and the passengers. Namely that if they agreed to cooperate, the hijackers would leave them completely unharmed, albeit usually in Cuba or Libya. What you're proposing is changing the deal so that there isn't any sort of assurance that the pirates will let the crew go unharmed. And that's stupid, especially when there are lesser alternatives available. As it stands now, pirates expect that the crew won't be packing huge amounts of weaponry that would make a "hunting" trip with the Terminator and Rambo look piddly in comparison.

These pirates have a lot more in common with regular street thugs than the sort of organized criminals who can pull off something like an airplane hijacking.

Let's face it. There's another reason that past hijackers did not harm the passengers: they're extremely outnumbered. I don't care what kind of gun a hijacker has, if 200 people close by all decide to rush him at once, he might take a couple of them but he is definitely going down. The incentive not to try that is simple: you might be one of the couple he can take before he goes down, which is a risk, when you could just cooperate and remain unharmed, which is no risk.

All of that went out the window the moment hijackers started killing everyone aboard in big fiery crashes. Now in the event of a hijacking it's reasonable to assume that the perpetrators are trying to kill everyone anyway, so the passengers have nothing to lose. They may as well fight and have a chance of winning. I think this has more to do with how few attacks there have been since 9/11 than anything the TSA ever did.

The shoe bomber got the living crap kicked out of him and was tied up with seatbelts and cords. The TSA didn't do that, the passengers did. The message sent was clear.

Re:I have a better idea

[arivanov]

You have to train someone to use them or have it remoted to an ops team over satellite. Both cost more money than the average cheapskate who has deliberately chosen a Liberian flag to avoid taxes and bypass labour and safety regs would like to spend.

In fact, the problem would have been long solved by now if navies did what they are allowed to do by law - protect their _OWN_ country ships and make a special point that ships with flags from Liberia, Panama and their ilk get no protection.

Re:I have a better idea

[kanto]

Kennesaw, Georgia

From that link: "Statistical analysis of the data over a longer period of time did not show any evidence that the law reduced the rate of home burglaries in Kennesaw." so it's more a viral meme than a fact. Forcing people to own a weapon would imo lead to more weapons nobody will miss and that end up in the wrong hands; kids or burglars (hey, every house has to have at least a gun to steal).

Re:I have a better idea

[mrmeval]

Armed ships are forbidden by treaty unless the weapons are controlled by a countries military who happens to be in good standing with the rest of the world community, i.e. they don't commit piracy.

There are weapons systems where it would be trivial to turn that boat to scrap from 1000 yards and it's cheap to run. It's not person to person sniping but it's close enough. I would prefer a system such as the one mentioned as it temporarily blinds them but I'd want the lethal system run by a competent military to back it up when the thieves figure out that device won't aim to more than one place at a time.

Re:I have a better idea

[guruevi]

First of all, the grunt pirate is not making millions of dollars. He's lucky if he can come home with enough money to feed his family without getting maimed or killed. As always, the warlords are making lots of money without getting in harms way.

It's not like the poor chaps can't fish, the fact of the matter is that it is not profitable enough anymore for them to fish thanks to some of OUR companies depleting all THEIR fish reserves so we can get a $1 can of tuna at our local Wal-Mart.

Re:I have a better idea

[causality]

You mean states like Bavaria in Germany or Flanders in Belgium? They not only have no 'conceal-carry' law, but have lower murder rates then any state in the US.

That's correlation but not causation.

The fact of the matter is, precisely what causes a human being to want to bring unprovoked (keyword: unprovoked) violence upon another human being is an age-old question. I'm not aware of any final answer on the subject. Poverty, a culture which glorifies violence, poor parenting, childhood abuse, etc. are all factors, but it's very much a question that defies a final ultimate answer. It's like asking why there is evil in the world.

In other words, precisely why Bavaria or Flanders have so little lethal violence is an open question. They don't have the problem for which conceal-carry is a solution. Just as you presumably wouldn't use a crescent wrench to saw a plank of wood in half, it makes no sense to act surprised that places with inherently low murder rates haven't felt a need to enable conceal-carry laws.

And when talking about states, we could also extend to who countries.

So to get peace in Afghanistan and Iraq, all we have to do is to allow conceal-carry and not take away their weapons?

And on a bigger scale, we should have applauded Iraq if they actually HAD concealed weapons of mass destruction.

Or might it be that things are a bit more complex?

It seems so complex because you are making extremely flawed comparisons. You're doing that based on emotion and reactivity, not based on a spirit of genuine inquiry.

First, conceal-carry is a strictly civilian matter of law. To compare that to places which are literally warzones and have little or no rule of law is not intellectually honest. It's comparing an apple to an orange and acting surprised when they taste different. These are not civilians fighting in those warzones. These are one army of combatants against another army of combatants. These are not peaceful civilians against street thugs, which is the problem conceal-carry is designed to answer.

If you really insist on distorting the issue to talk about state actors, the correct analogy would be the policy of MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction - that existed between the USA and the Soviets. The USA had nukes and the USSR had nukes. The very real threat of mutual destruction was an effective deterrent against nuclear aggression. Likewise, with civilian conceal-carry, the criminals have guns and now the law-abiding citizens have guns. The very real threat of ending up in a gunfight against an equally armed citizen has proven to be an effective deterrent against violent criminal aggression.

Re:I have a better idea

[draxbear]

I'm amazed someone hasn't organized a Survivalist Cruise Ship of some sort and loaded the boat up with a bunch of trigger happy types who will pay hard cash for a chance to be shot at and return in kind (and then some). A few innocent looking luxury ships that suddenly bristle with well armed "sports fishermen" itching to test out various high-powered ballistics would no doubt go a long way towards curbing the problem in a pay-for-itself kind of way. Insurance would be an issue, but perhaps at this rate it already is if you say where you're planning on sailing. Perhaps a deal could be cut there anyway given how beneficial the insurers may see this activity...

Re:I have a better idea

[frosty_tsm]

It's actually quite difficult to snipe from a moving ship.

If by "ship" you mean "6 foot inflatable dingy", then yeah, it is. If, on the other hand, by "ship" you mean "cargo-hauler the size of several football fields" then no, it's not.

Agreed. Remember the incident where the captain was held hostage by 3 pirates in a covered life raft, only to be saved by 3 simultaneous sniper shots from Navy Seals on a ship?

Re:I have a better idea

[Archangel Michael]

Why?

Why not start at the "last resort" when you may never reach the "last resort" if you do incremental aggressive resposnes? Especially in light of the fact that you may end up "dead" yourself taking that approach.

You see, the difference between a good guy and a bad guy is fairly simple, a bad guy has bad intentions the whole time, a good guy does not. After that, it doesn't matter. If anyone means me ill will, they better be sure of it, because I'm not incrementally going to kick their ass, I'm gonna do it as fast as I can and get it over with.

And why hasn't our government issued Letters of Marque against the pirates is beyond my imagination.

Re:I have a better idea

[Archangel Michael]

Problem with your line of thinking, is that to get the subsidized "fish farming education" you speak of, they would have to be pirates in the first place. Anyone not getting the subsidy would begin piracy just to tap that new source of funds. Increasing piracy in the end.

And people not fond of fish farming would probably go towards piracy because criminals are basically lazy. Your proposal cannot solve this part of that problem. This is the problem with most left wing style "let's help them" approaches. They don't want help or it screws the hard working people who've played by the rules.

In other words, DON'T FEED THE BEARS, it just makes them lazy and viscous.

Re:I have a better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

DON'T FEED THE BEARS, it just makes them lazy and viscous.

Ah, just imagine all these viscous bears flowing down the hills...

Re:I have a better idea

[ravenshrike]

No, just no. Rocket launchers may not have the same recoil as a piece of artillery, but there is still quite a bit.

Re:I have a better idea

[JockTroll]

When you have heavily armed gangs around you have a big social problem that should be addressed head on, but disarming the citizens for this makes about as much sense as lobotomizing the internet and installing mandatory spyware on all computers because there are criminals around using the Net. Oh wait, that's what's happening now.

Re:I have a better idea

[JockTroll]

Only because you're a wimp it doesn't mean everybody else has to be one. I've beaten up my fair share of bullies in my life, never had to confront the same one twice. If they formed into a gang, we would form another and strike them. Of course, you're a born loserboy and I'm a jock and that's the difference. I could probably kill you with a cold stare that would make your fat-encumbered cardiocirculatory system to explode in a shower of sweaty rotten flesh. Dismissed.

Re:I have a better idea

[Just Some Guy]

And who cares about sniping anyway? "Oh, no! I was aiming for the first pirate, but accidentally drilled a hole in the guy next to him. We are doomed!" If they haven't actually boarded your ship and taken hostages yet, I see no moral or logistical problem in opening up a chain gun on them.

Don't look at approaching ship

[line-bundle]

with remaining eye.

related?

[Jeek Elemental]

Import of mirrors and mirror related paraphernalia spiked sharply in Somalia, leaving traders baffled.

meter-wide bean?

[theskunkmonkey]

> meter-wide bean

That's a huge bean!

Re:meter-wide bean?

[SeaFox]

meter-wide bean

That's a huge bean!

This UK company's plans must be to combat pirates with the Creature from the Black Legume.

Re:Foiled

[Dan Morenus]

This is then foiled when pirates spend $10-20 on a pair of tinted glasses that filter out red light.

Except that it's a green laser. If they can find a pair of sunglasses that filters out the right frequency of green light without filtering out the rest of the light they'll still need to see and operate, then that could be a countermeasure. At the least it would force them to change their mode of operations somewhat.

Will not work

[Kupfernigk]

This will not work because:

• Have you ever considered the difficulty of using, say, an Armalite on the bridge of a cargo ship? Last time I checked, snipers did not use moving platforms, or aim at rapidly moving targets . Therefore, range would be greatly reduced.
• It could be several seconds, or even tens of seconds, between clear shots. So: you wound one pirate. The others start firing RPGs and AK-47s. These do not need to be accurate.
• If pirates assume armed response, they will start shooting the moment they come within range. Therefore, casualties will mount.

Bottom line: I suggest before coming up with idiotic suggestions, you actually google a bit of naval history. (And yes, I did do a feasibility study on missile attack defenses based on cannon, not rifles, and even they are not a very good defense.)

Re:Will not work

[HornWumpus]

Cargo ships are large stable platforms.

Sniper rounds have much better range then 7.52x39 (AK rounds).

Moving targets are a challenge but not an insurmountable one.

The main problem with putting snipers on cargo ships is lack of snipers.

I suggest machine guns instead.

They still have the range to reach out and touch someone before they can shoot back effectively.

Plus they can take out the whole boat full of pirates, or at least leave them to die in a disabled boat..

Regarding your suggestion: Ironic at the end of an idiotic response that obviously has not considered the extensive history of sharp shooters in navel warfare.

Re:Will not work

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

So, 1.5 million a pop(not counting the necessary radar, integration, staffing, and maintenance), per turret(larger ships would almost certainly need more than one, to prevent attacks on their blind spots), to deal with a problem that affects under 1% of the ships passing through that area?

I'm fairly sure that that sound I hear in the distance is the actuaries at Lloyds laughing through their stiff upper lips...

Re:Will not work

[Pharmboy]

I think the point that is being missed (although I thought it was obvious) is that the moment you put a bullet in one of the guys on the boat, they are going to turn away. They will have no idea how many people have guns on the cargo ship, they will only know that they are now vulnerable. Pirates are cowards, they aren't wanting to get in a gun fight, they want to be the only ones with the guns during the fight. These Somalian pirates are not military trained, hell, most are likely not even literate, and certainly not the most disciplined. They ARE determined, but only when they have the upper hand.

Also, it is the pirates that will have trouble shooting from their small craft, which will be rocking back and forth. As you point out, a large cargo vehicle is rather stable in comparison.

Re:Will not work

[HornWumpus]

Any port that doesn't have gun emplacements big enough to stop me.

Re:Will not work

[Pharmboy]

Have you ever considered the difficulty of using, say, an Armalite on the bridge of a cargo ship?

Yes I have, it would be quite easy to crank off shots. We aren't talking about a crab boat, these are huge, stable platforms that don't pitch and sway nearly as much as you might think.

So: you wound one pirate. The others start firing RPGs and AK-47s. These do not need to be accurate.

And they won't be accurate, because their TINY craft will be pitching back and forth. Particularly if they are stupid enough to try to shoot an RPG from one. And I'm pretty sure that once you start dotting their eyes with bullets, they will run away. These aren't disciplined, trained military men. They are thugs with guns that operate using the same tactics as any other bully. Ever see what happens when someone finally pops a bully in the eye?

If pirates assume armed response, they will start shooting the moment they come within range. Therefore, casualties will mount.

Again why I said snipers. They will turn around before they get into range. Also, cargo ships are not exactly teeming with humans on the deck, they look abandoned even when they have a full crew. You could likely go wild with an AK47 using a dozen clips from just inside range, and never hit anyone. Particularly since everyone go below deck (except the sniper) and they will be shooting UP at the boat. And an AK47 isn't going to pierce the hull by any stretch of the imagination. I'm pretty sure that at that distance, it couldn't even penetrate a shipping container. Even Mythbusters uses them for that purpose, at near point blank range.

Re:Will not work

[Clueless Moron]

Some years back I read about a guy cruising around the world, and the hassle of gun regulations discouraged him from carrying arms.

So he built an imitation rocket launcher out of tubing and other plumbing equipment. Whenever a suspicious looking speedboat seemed to be heading his way, he'd haul it out and stand there in his cockpit with it on his shoulder.

On more than one occasion the speedboat in question would do a U-turn and leave...

Re:Will not work

[Joce640k]

1.5 million is about what a big ship spends on fuel per journey.

Re:Will not work

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Given the relative rarity of hijackings(compared to the scale of shipping through the area) and the comparatively low ransoms(precise amounts are rarely available; but such reports as exist seem to top out under $5million) and the fact that none of the naval underwriters seem disturbed enough to be doing anything other than bumping rates a touch; it would appear that the answer is "Not very much, on average."

While the pirate attacks really push the "They are attacking Us" buttons, and the outcomes are occasionally really bad for unlucky crew members, none of the responses from shippers, insurers, or countries involved suggest that they are a serious economic nuisance. Where the costs really that high, ships would either be skipping the Suez entirely and going round the horn(at which point Egypt would probably flip out and let the seas run red) or every ship passing through the area would be taking on a bunch of somewhat sinister "contractors" at the start of the danger zone and unloading them again before they reached port...

Actually... green light.

[denzacar]

From TFA:

"Sunglasses wouldn't help," he says – in fact, wearing them would only exacerbate the effect. That's because the glasses would not affect the green laser light – chosen because that colour is particularly irritating – but the laser would appear even brighter contrasted against the darkened background.

I'm guessing they think that people who can put their hands on automatic weapons and RPGs, sales and purchasing of which is regulated/prohibited in most of the world - won't be able to put their hands on some $25 protective glasses sales and purchasing of which is not regulated/prohibited anywhere in the world.

Re:Actually... green light.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

More to the point, laser power levels are rather tricky because anything on the low end can be blocked with relatively cheap optical safety hardware which(while it probably isn't currently available at Arms 'r Us' Mogadishu branch it is quite easily and legitimately available for not much money) and anything on the high end, high enough to avoid such cheap and simple countermeasures, will blind unprotected human targets in moments. Given the, no doubt excellent, quality of care for burn victims and the blind in the area, that may actually be less humane than a bullet to something vital.

Since dealing with pirates is not considered "war", the fact that using weapons designed for blinding is a war crime probably won't be an issue(in the same way that cops can use chemical weapons, even though soldiers can't); but any laser powerful enough to discourage all but serious n00b pirates is really not a nice device. Blinding, burns, the whole deal. If you are willing to blind and burn, you might as well skip the pricey, unproven wiz-bang shit and just use lethal weapons.

Re:Actually... green light.

[marcansoft]

To throw some numbers in: The glasses that the GP linked to are OD 4 for 532nm light (i.e. green Nd:YAG lasers, which are basically guaranteed to be the type used by this weapon). That means they block 99.99% of the beam at that wavelength. That's quickly going to turn any beam designed to be borderline non-permanently-damaging into barely a bother.

In fact, I just ran a quick test. I have a 30mW green pointer, which is definitely unsafe for direct eye exposure. I expanded the beam with a lens to about a 20cm radius, which is eye-safe at this power level. Looked at it thought my glasses (I actually have that same model), and it was just a very slight orange glow, about on par with an indicator LED. Took the goggles off and it was very annoying (I had an afterimage for a few minutes). I imagine the laser weapon will be closer to the damage threshold than my quick test, but still, the glasses will totally destroy any effect unless the laser runs at power levels much higher than eye-safe ones.

Or, testing with the (definitely eye unsafe) collimated 30mW, through the glasses, onto a wall: the green dot is barely visible. I'm going going to try pointing it into my eye (see below), but that mount of light is not going to bother anyone.

Note for anyone wanting to try this: don't unless you really know what you're doing. In particular, looking into the bare beam with glasses on is a very bad idea. You probably won't damage your eyes with the green light, but these cheap chinese pointers tend to lack IR filters, and that can screw you since the glasses won't block IR (worse, your blink response won't trigger and you'll slowly cook your retina). In fact, I can see a slight deep red glow around the projected green dot going through the glasses, which indicates there's a considerable amount of leaked IR, probably well above the damage threshold (if you can see IR, there's a lot of it).

Re:Actually... green light.

[GameboyRMH]

Wow, looking into a laser as part of an experiment for a post definitely deserves a Slashdot achievement!

Aren't lasers intended to blind "illegal"?

[Culture20]

I thought there was some international weapons treaty that said developing laser weapons with intent to blind is a no-no (burning enemies to death is okay).

Re:Aren't lasers intended to blind "illegal"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects

Protocol IV on Blinding Laser Weapons prohibits the use of laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision, that is to the naked eye or to the eye with corrective eyesight devices. The High Contracting Parties shall not transfer such weapons to any State or non-State entity.

Re:wise investment?

[0123456]

Pirates only do what they do because they are poor and are just trying to feed their families.

I'm assuming you're a serious lefty bleeding-heart and not just a troll. Apologies if you were just trying to satirise said bleeding-hearts.

The pirates do what they do because they know the good guys won't shoot back, so it's an easy to way to get rich; there was a news story a while back about some Somali businessman who had invested his money in piracy because it was so profitable. He sure wasn't doing to 'feed his family'.

Root cause of the problem

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

The root cause of the problem is that, most port authorities and countries prohibit a merchant marine ship from having arms on board. So cargo ship with machine guns would not be permitted to dock on most harbors and ports in the world. That is the reason for these ships from being armed. These guys are coming up with stupid weapons like water cannons, beamed sound waves, and now lasers, because they would not be called "arms" by the ports.

Simpler solution would be to have a ship or a platform offshore, just on the international waters as close to the port as possible to act as an armory. Cargo ships check in their weapons into the armory, sail into the port, unload, reload, return, pick up their weapons and go their way. Between the armory and the port, a distance of about 10 or 20 miles, the Navy or the Coast Guard of the country should provide escort and patrol services with destroyers and cutters.

That would be a sane and cheap solution understandable to one and all. All the news reports about gizmos like laser beams really have an entirely different purpose. Some company somewhere making a key component of such a system is looking for investment or begging to be sold out. The PR firms step in, come up with such "news" stories and create some media interest. Once the company got bought out or got its investment goals met, these news reports also would melt away like fog.

Re:Root cause of the problem

[Rich0]

I agree - the solution to pirates isn't lasers/etc, but to make merchant ships something other than sitting ducks.

There are also other options. Most piracy occurs in certain regions - just charge a tariff for safe passage through those regions, and patrol them with naval vessels. Or, just organize convoys. We're not dealing with serious adversaries here - one coast guard cutter or destroyer will be more than adequate to escort 50 merchant ships/etc. You just need to price the protective services so that they're self-funding, plus/minus whatever incentives/penalties you want to impose on the route. Plus, it is probably good practice for the escorts anyway - it isn't like they just sit in dock all year when there isn't a war going on.

Re:Root cause of the problem

[Securityemo]

This assumes that a few untrained men in little boats could reliably stand up against an armed merchant ship manned and patrolled by hired PMC thugs. Even if it's technically possible, it's a matter of deterrence - the pirates are only going to risk their lives so far.

Re:Root cause of the problem

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Simpler solution would be to have a ship or a platform offshore, just on the international waters as close to the port as possible to act as an armory.

I don't claim to be an expert, but it's my understanding that most merchant shipping runs on pretty thin margins, and port fees are already a major expense. Who would pay for this undoubtedly expensive setup?

Cost and international treaties are why no weapons

[fantomas]

Cost and international treaties are two big reasons why merchant ships aren't armed. If you want military on board with weapons, well a 24/7 hour crew is going to cost a fair bit of money. Merchant shipping tries to cut costs as much as possible.And you aren't just going to put a crate of machine guns and sniper rifles on board and hope that the ship's cook or the 18 year trainee engineer on a cruise ship are going to know how to operate them correctly in an emergency situation, probably more likely to end up hurting themselves or the passengers than anybody else.

Plus international treaties come into play. It's all well and good suggesting you're going to mount miniguns etc or even just AK47s on your ship but a lot of countries aren't too happy about armed merchant ships turning up in their harbours. Can't imagine American authorities would be too happy about accepting an Iranian ship sailing into New York with a crew of marines on board manning deck mounted rapid fire machine guns.

Re:Bean?

[maxwell demon]

Wait, this laser is operated by Mr. Bean?

Re:You do realize that...

[HornWumpus]

Excuse? WTF. I don't need an excuse.

Self defense is justification.

You think that after I kill a boatload of Somalian pirates in international waters I'm going to submit myself to Somali justice?

I'm just going to go on sailing and pick up another thousand rounds at my next port of call.

Killing a pirate is morally different from killing a random person.

One is morally required. I'll leave it to you to figure out which.

Re:Cost and international treaties are why no weap

[Pharmboy]

What do you think they're going to do? Invade America with a few marines and machineguns?

Thank you for saying what he should have already known. It won't take crates of weapons to start with, and the only time you need to have anyone armed is in KNOWN dangerous waters. The route between NY and UK? Um, probably don't need it for that route. Going around Somalia? Good time for weapons. You don't need the snipers on guard for the entire journey, or even most of it.

Personally, I say you take a fake cargo ship and roam around the area with a full compliment of trainees and give them some real world experience. I have no moral problem with taking out people who are armed and dangerous and whose only goal is to harm others.

Being a pirate is all fun and games

[billstewart]

As the song says, being a pirate is all fun and games till somebody loses an eye...

Deep waters

[jovius]

Other side of the story is that for example on the Somalian waters the international navy basically gives cover to illegal fishers and waste dumping passers-by. Lasers and other kinds of experimental weapons can also be tested to real live subjects (and later deployed back in the home countries). Of course piracy is a profitable business too, but the moral baseline here is really fluid.

Re:Deep waters

[John Hasler]

Other side of the story is that for example on the Somalian waters the international navy basically gives cover to illegal fishers...

Unfortunately most of those fishing boats are technically legal, having purchased licenses from the UN-recognized government (which controls no territory outside a few blocks in Mogadishu). The previous Islamic Courts government had the piracy problem under control, but the US and the EU hired the Ethiopians to knock it over, replacing it with the current mess.

MA-DEUCE

[krygny]

Why are we talking about non-lethal defensive measures? These people aren't peaceful protesters who are getting a little out of hand. They are predatory, blood-thirsty profiteers.

What's wrong with .50 BMG M2 machine guns? Effective range, 2000 M.

Need Letters of Marque and Reprisal

[dirkdodgers]

Are you listening Obama? Do you care about jobs?

Then authorize Blackwater (Xe) and Dynacorp to go after these scallywags in exchange for bounties put up by shipping companies. Pay out $100,000 an ear.

It will stimulate the economy, create jobs, and provide gainful employment for ex-military facing challenges reintegrating into the domestic laborforce. I see no downsides. It will cost the taxpayers nothing.

Then the next time these pirates approach a merchant vessel, they'll see a gunboat coming around the stern of the ship flying a US flag and ready to kick ass and take names.

It will be the economic gift that keeps giving. Just wait until the movies start to come out. "Pirate Hunter", "Pirate Hunter 2: With a Vengeance", "Rambo V: Arrrr!". America could become known worldwide as the finest mercenary exporting nation since the middle ages.

Re:Need Letters of Marque and Reprisal

[mjwx]

Then authorize Blackwater (Xe) and Dynacorp to go after these scallywags in exchange for bounties put up by shipping companies.

I gather you know nothing about the Somali pirates or letters of marque.

Letters of marque were issued not because people were enemies but because their ships and cargo were so valuable. Governments issued letters of Marque on pirates and nations they were at war with precisely because building a new ship was so expensive, they could get a privateer to do the dirty work and get a shiny new ship for pennies compared to building one. During times of war this would deprive the enemy of an expensive resource whilst providing one to you.

Now the Somali pirates are using small boats, not worth anything. Further more the pirate leaders are safely hidden away in their land side fortresses. So all you're doing is capturing and killing cheap foot soldiers, which given the poverty Somalia is in would give no short supply of eager recruits for a few USD a day. Any such bounty program will be broke before the week is out.

Pay out $100,000 an ear.

Because someone from Blackwater would never wade ashore, de-ear a few dozen innocent somali's and claim a bounty would they. They're far to moral and upstanding to stoop to that aren't they.

You didn't think this through very well did you

Hostages

[sveinb]

So, you're a pirate and the merchant ships have started firing back and sinking your colleagues. What's your next move? Might I suggest that you bring a couple of hostages, staff from one of the ships you currently have captured perhaps. Now, that makes everything a bit more complicated, doesn't it?

@nomadic

[pgmrdlm]

I believe the ORIGINAL suggestion was to hire x military. NOT have the people from here do the sniping.

And the military DOES have a PROVEN history of being able to take out pirates from a moving ship.

Navy SEALs' Simultaneous Headshots on Somali Pirates Were Procedure

Taking this a step further, following the original suggestion of x military personnel being the snipers.

\

Let's carry this further shall we? How many troops have served in Afghanistan and Iraq? Collation troops, not just American. Snipers are a very active part of that. You telling me nomadic that these shipping companies couldn't entice x military snipers to guard their ships?

So basically.

• 1. Your reading comprehensive skills are shit.

• 2. Your knowledge of current events are worse then your reading skills.

You really should take time to think about your posts

Re:Pussyfication

[Shadow of Eternity]

Yknow what? Enough of this "disproportionate force" bullshit. When someone wants you dead its not disproportionate to fucking curbstomp them before they have a chance to kill you.

How do you think wars are won? Do you think that we keep careful records of how many casualties we inflict so we can go and execute some of our own guys to even it up if we do to well?

We're not nuking cities to take out a single bread thief, we're dealing only with people who are explicitly combatants. Blowing them straight to whatever god they worship right off the bat instead of making sure that the violence is "proportional" is not only perfectly acceptable but in fact generally the whole freaking idea of combat.