US Navy Creates MMO To Fight Somali Pirates

dotarray writes "Ever wanted to fight Somali pirates without leaving the safety of your computer? Well, believe it or not, the United States Navy could use your help. MMOWGLI is a new video game project (that's Massive Multiplayer Online WarGame Leveraging the Internet, by the way) that is being used to crowdsource ideas on how to fight off maritime terrorists and hopefully secure the Horn of Africa."

Comments

put in music with the lyric, "Yvan eht Nioj"

[Joe The Dragon]

put in music with the lyric, "Yvan eht Nioj"

Re:put in music with the lyric, "Yvan eht Nioj"

[mug funky]

the only music going in this game is by Toto.

Re:put in music with the lyric, "Yvan eht Nioj"

[underqualified]

the bear necessities?

Re:put in music with the lyric, "Yvan eht Nioj"

[gmhowell]

the only music going in this game is by Toto.

How can it be the Navy without an appearance by Kenny Loggins and/or the Village People?

Re:put in music with the lyric, "Yvan eht Nioj"

[Canazza]

the only music going in this game is by Toto.

hold the line?

Too complex

[Anonymous Coward]

This game is too complex. To stop piracy: just sink these damned pirates. When they will all be in the depths of the sea the problem will be solved.

One pirate in the depths of the sea is pollution, all the pirates in the depths of the sea is the solution.

Re:Too complex

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what they currently try to do but the pirates move too fast and use dirty tricks such as fake mayday calls to divert/attract military vessels and other ships and they are also good at hiding their weapons and suddenly start fishing. So how are you going to deal with that?

Re:Too complex

[jandersen]

This game is too complex. To stop piracy: just sink these damned pirates. When they will all be in the depths of the sea the problem will be solved.

Reality IS complex; people in general don't turn to crime or become terrorists simply because they are evil - if you start smply killing "the evildoers" without addressing the reason why they got to be that. And the solution is not likely to involve dumping an American style reality-show democracy on them. We really need to solve issues of social/political need and instability in the whole of Africa.

Re:Too complex

[Joce640k]

...and Iraq/Afghanistan. Going in and shooting people isn't really really helping there.

Re:Too complex

[SpazmodeusG]

I was thinking the exact opposite. The game is too simple. There are just variations on combat missions to perform. There's no option to protect Somalian fisheries from the foreign trawlers that have taken advantage of the lack of government. There's no option to investigate foreign vessels dumping toxic materials in Somali waters.

Basically the game has no way to long term plan. Instead it's all about finding ways to "kill em faster than they can be made". An approach that's never worked.

Re:Too complex

[Runaway1956]

How much history do you know, regarding Somalia? What do you know of the people?

You MIGHT compare them with the America's Apache. If you even know anything about the Apache. The thing they have in common is, they are superb fighters, and have been for a long time, for basically the same reasons. They live in a hostile, barren land, and they are surrounded by peoples who have been trying to kill them off for thousands of years. Their history demanded that they fight or die, so they fought.

The major difference between the Somali and the Apache is that the Apache were more agrarian, and the Somali were nomads. Given a few years of peace, the Apache would settle in an area and farm, but the Somali never saw much point in settling, or in government, or much of anything the civilized world values.

So - enter the Brits during colonialization. They have an unruly, undisciplined, ungovernable people on their hands, who they are attempting to govern. And, they cannot govern. The Brits tagged a lot of peoples throughout the world as "savages" - and the tag fit the Somalis better than it fit any other. They had no government, didn't understand government, and wanted nothing to do with it. But, they WERE superb fighters! The Somalis handed the Brit's asses to them - repeatedly. The Brits left in disgust, and things are basically unchanged since then.

The Somalis are an unruly, undisciplined, ungovernable people who refuse to acknowledge ANY government.

If you even begin to understand all of that - how do you propose to solve any "socil/political" needs of these people?

I have some ideas that might work, but none of them are pretty, none of them socially acceptable, and certainly not politically correct. And, in view of Native American history, I don't even like my own ideas.

It's kind of funny, in a way. I imagine them breeding a truly charismatic leader, like a Genghis Khan, who unites them and leads them across Africa, raping and pillaging everywhere they go. The people are somewhat like the Khan's people were, after all - nomads who recognize only the law of "Might is right".

Re:Too complex

[LurkerXXX]

It's not a problem. You sell cruises to rednecks on decoy target ships armed with .50 cal machine guns. You could cover the whole coast in good 'ol boys paying for the chance to smoke some pirates with their buddies. The solution will pay for itself.

Re:Too complex

[Xacid]

"We really need to solve issues of social/political need and instability in the whole of Africa."

Do WE really? Personally, as a citizen the USA, I'm kind of sick of us intervening everywhere. Take the current situation in Libya for example - why isn't the Arab League handling it?

Re:Too complex

[peragrin]

Piracy is and always will be an economic problem. Right now the pirates make more money easier than CEO's do in the USA.

Think about it work for 6 months get one or two hundred thousand dollars. you get to shoot guns lots of water and if you get surrounded you surrender peacefully they feed you then release you no harm no foul, no courts.

To stop Piracy you have to find where they come from and fix that economic mess. It is cheaper to pay them off so that is what is happening. Since governments take to long to fix the core problems Piracy won't go away and insurance companies will pay out billions before pushing governments to fix it properly.

Re:Too complex

[MachineShedFred]

Ahh, the Civilization solution to barbarians: kill them all, take their gold, and burn down their stupid huts so that they can't easily come back and chase away your workers that are just trying to plant some corn.

Re:Too complex

[Lumpy]

Actually they would be the precipitate.. unless we ground them up first so they will dissolve into the sea water easier...

I am NOT against grinding them all up.

Re:Too complex

[dominious]

I remember while growing up people were showing me pictures of hungry Somalian kids, telling me that kids in other countries are poor and should donate to them. Now let me think this through. Somalians are poor and hungry, but large amounts of "treasure" just outside their country cross every day. Hmmmm, I think I would do the fucking same thing if I was them.

Re:Too complex

[peragrin]

The Arab leagues is made of dictators and kings who demand absolute control. They rule through fear.

Fear only works so long in controlling a given population. people get tired of being afraid and fight back preferring death over dealing with a given dictator.

Right now the people after 30 years are tired of being afraid and are currently tossing their leaders out the door the best they can. Jordan is doing so by appeasing them, others are using force.

Britian is an excellent example of a King(or queen) appeasing the population over time granting more and more power to the people and have less themselves. In the last 1000 years they went from monarchy to figurehead monarchy with a parliament governing the population.

Re:Too complex

[Lumpy]

Agreed, let them destroy themselves. just mark those waters as dangerous and allow freighters to arm themselves to the teeth and tell freighters to "blow out of the water" any boat that get's within 2000 feet of them.

Suddenly the pirate problem goes away when you launch harpoon missiles at fishing boats and chum the water with the pirates innards.

Yes, I am recommending overreaction. no bullets, a minimum of 500 pounds of explosive as your first response. no pieces of the ship left larger than 3 inches.

Re:Too complex

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Basically the game has no way to long term plan. Instead it's all about finding ways to "kill em faster than they can be made". An approach that's never worked.
I believe the carthaginians would disagree.

Re:Too complex

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems that the reason is well known (taken from Wikipedia

A United Nations report and several news sources have suggested that piracy off the coast of Somalia is caused in part by illegal fishing and the dumping of toxic waste in Somali waters by foreign vessels that have, according to Somali fishermen, severely constrained the ability of locals to earn a living and forced many to turn to piracy instead.

Re:Too complex

[Leekle2ManE]

And in 75-100 years, Disney will make a series of movies called 'Pirates of the Aden', depicting romanticized Somali pirates in captured cargo/combat ships searching for a lost treasure of nuclear arms while one of the main characters is haunted and chased by the Ghost of Bin Laden.

Re:Too complex

[mijelh]

But it took 119 years of Punic wars. Doesn't seem like a great strategy after all.

Re:Too complex

[Attila Dimedici]

The thing about your answer is that there have been people in the position like the Somalis for all of history, yet piracy was effectively wiped out for over 100 years. How did that happen? The British Navy made pirate hunting a top priority, and when they found pirates, they killed them. Many of these were summary executions, but some were brought back to port for trial. However, the purpose of the trial was not to establish guilt or innocence, it was to set an example to other sailors who might be considering turning to piracy.
So, history suggests that the solution that the poster you responded to recommended works. History, also, suggests that trying to "solve issues of social/political need and instability" does not work. Historically, when outside groups try to solve a problem by addressing the "social/political root causes" of the problem, the problem gets worse. On the other hand, when those same outside groups drive up the costs and drive down the rewards of the problem behavior, the problem behavior diminishes. Often times, when the problem behavior is no longer a viable response to the "social/political root causes" the people who before went into the problem behavior act to correct the "root cause" of the behavior.

Re:Too complex

[Dunbal]

Yup. They had no trouble sinking Osama, but some pirates are giving them headaches?

Re:Too complex

[Dunbal]

That's what they currently try to do but the pirates move too fast

Faster than a helicopter? Faster than a destroyer that can do almost 40 kts (or probably better than 40 kts, although classified)? Yeah it's a big ocean, which is why there are satellites and airborne/over the horizon radars and other little tricks. If a major power wanted to eradicate piracy it could easily do so. What is lacking is the political will. It's just not that big of a deal, especially when corporations are rolling over and paying ransom.

Re:Too complex

[Overunderrated]

If I had mod points, they'd be yours.

Large portions of the world hate America because of our intervention in foreign countries, and large portions insist WE have to be the ones to solve all the world's problems. And those populations even overlap!

Re:Too complex

[stdarg]

I don't know why we aren't using drones for this. A dozen drones should be able to patrol a 1200 mile long narrow strip of sea with a fairly quick response time.

If we don't want constant drone activity, which might be expensive, an easier option is to track pirates after they make an attack. Then we kill the pirates and economically harm their communities. For starters, sink every boat and burn every vehicle within 20 miles. Nobody needs to be killed if it can be avoided, but the idea is that the pirates won't/can't reimburse all the damage and eventually the communities stop supporting them, whether out of new moral understanding or fear.

Re:Too complex

[hairyfeet]

UCAVs. A combo of Firescouts and Predators armed with Mavericks and 20mm cannons can cover a hell of a lot of sea and should be able to find out if that mayday is for empty ocean or a pirate vessel.

Sadly I'm gonna have to agree with the others that dropping the pirates is pretty much the best bet unless someone wants to roll the tanks on Somalia. When you actually have a "pirate stock exchange" where you can kick in money to buy RPGs and AK47s in return for a percentage of the loot they rob? You can give up any kind of deterrence short of sinking the boats.

Re:Too complex

[cyn1c77]

Reality IS complex; people in general don't turn to crime or become terrorists simply because they are evil - if you start smply killing "the evildoers" without addressing the reason why they got to be that. And the solution is not likely to involve dumping an American style reality-show democracy on them. We really need to solve issues of social/political need and instability in the whole of Africa.

I think Africa needs to help itself. Why should the United States have to solve another entire continent's political and socio-economic problems?!

Have you not gotten your fill of that in Iraq and Afghanistan? Because I guarantee that trying to help all of Africa will be a lot messier!

IMO, we should first offer the new Somali government assistance with patrolling their coastlines in the form of US forces, training for Somali coast guards, and then boats. The assistance should be delivered in that order as well and we should expect to derive some benefits from that assistance (natural resources, military bases, Navy port, etc.) . If they don't want our help, that's fine... but when their citizens continue to attack US interests in international waters, it is within our rights to (1) kill the offending citizens and leave their dead bodies on shore as a warning to other pirates and (2) hold the country's government responsible for the attacks.

As a country, the US needs to stop offering no-strings-attached assistance to every underprivileged nation in the world. We simply can't afford it.

Re:Too complex

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a lot of flippant comments here along the lines of: "Kill everyone and then there won't be a problem anymore."

No consideration to the nuance of identifying who to kill (pirates can just chuck their guns overboard and say they're fishermen). Other suggest razing ports and villages, destroying lives and livelihoods of innocent and guilty alike, because if they're all dead, they don't matter, and the effects on the survivors don't matter because they're Somali and their lives don't matter.

I can be heartless too. When I find something unfair with no visible solution I consider violence. I can see myself being so detached or angry that I could gas trainloads of people, fly planes into buildings, or massacre a village, you name it. The fact that I can understand the motivation that drives men to do these things doesn't mean that those men may have been justified. They're terrible acts committed by terrible people and what my understanding teaches me is that I am never too far from being just like them.

Re:Too complex

[stdarg]

Really, you would turn to a life of crime rather than become a good and productive citizen?

Or do you think that people in countries without abundant natural resources can never accomplish anything? Like Japan?

Re:Too complex

[dvoecks]

That's no reason not to treat the "symptom", too. People respond to incentives. If you make the disincentive against piracy stronger, there will be a reduction in the number of pirates.

The problem lies in what the remaining pirates do to make it worth their while. They could become more violent in response, because they need to extract more money to make the extra risks worth taking (which could be a reason not to treat the symptom). It's also possible that the whole endeavor becomes too risky to make it worth doing... There's really no way to tell in advance. My hope is that no matter what they do about piracy, that they are wary about unintended consequences.

Re:Too complex

[geekmux]

This game is too complex. To stop piracy: just sink these damned pirates. When they will all be in the depths of the sea the problem will be solved.

Reality IS complex; people in general don't turn to crime or become terrorists simply because they are evil - if you start smply killing "the evildoers" without addressing the reason why they got to be that. And the solution is not likely to involve dumping an American style reality-show democracy on them. We really need to solve issues of social/political need and instability in the whole of Africa.

We've had 5,000+ years of religious warmongering that no form of democratic, socialist or even communist ideals has been able to stop or dismantle. I understand and respect your desire to chase after root cause here, but trying to convince man to simply be "good" is a lost cause, especially when there is so much money to be made in being evil and corrupt.

My sig speaks volumes...yet again.

Re:Too complex

[dominious]

I'm talking about the people who don't really get a chance to become good and productive citizens as you say.

Re:Too complex

[Anonymous Coward]

They do turn to to crime because they are evil. Its liberals like you that can't face reality that prevents us from enacting tough crime laws to deal with them that causes no working solutions to happen. You'd probably have the government steal from the producers and give to these thugs to appease them!

Re:Too complex

[Anonymous Coward]

But terrorism and piracy are different in one fundamental aspect. Piracy is a job.

You can't deal with terrorists by shooting them because they're zealots. Shooting them makes them martyrs. However, pirates have no fundamental ideology that makes them pirates. They're only pirates because it makes the best economic sense for them. If you change the rules so that it no longer makes sense, they'll find another job. There are several ways you can go about doing that. Solving the social/political issues is one way, but making their job too dangerous (by blowing them out of the water every time they attack a ship) is another. And it's probably far easier.

Re:Too complex

[DerekLyons]

There's no option to protect Somalian fisheries from the foreign trawlers that have taken advantage of the lack of government. There's no option to investigate foreign vessels dumping toxic materials in Somali waters.

And unless you've bought into the pirate's propaganda hook, line, and sinker - there doesn't need to be.
 
Seriously, people interested in taking matters into their own hands and establishing law and order form police forces and coast guards. People interested in taking advantage of the lack of law and order prey on innocents. They sail hundreds and sometimes thousands of miles to take hostages and demand ransoms without speaking a word about fisheries or toxic waste.

Re:Too complex

[Anonymous Coward]

I was thinking the exact opposite. The game is too simple. There are just variations on combat missions to perform. There's no option to protect Somalian fisheries from the foreign trawlers that have taken advantage of the lack of government. There's no option to investigate foreign vessels dumping toxic materials in Somali waters

Some non-Somalian people went fishing therefore all non-Somalians can be held for ransom or murdered, anywhere they may be? If you truly think this than you're a vile racist.

Basically the game has no way to long term plan. Instead it's all about finding ways to "kill em faster than they can be made". An approach that's never worked.

Don't know much about history either

Re:Too complex

[stdarg]

My point in bringing up Japan was that people in a resource-poor country still have the option to become good and productive citizens who improve their own society without harming others. It may take longer, it's not easy money, but in the long run it's much better. If you can put yourself in the pirates' situation and decide that you would also rather be a murderer than earn an honest living, just because murder pays more, there's something wrong with you!

Re:Too complex

[jandersen]

Do WE really? Personally, as a citizen the USA, I'm kind of sick of us intervening everywhere

Well, OK, then put it another way: We have to stop contributing to "social/political need and instability in the whole of Africa"; it is a sad fact that our wealthy lifestyle is directly linked to the misery of people in poor countries.

Re:Too complex

[jandersen]

... trying to convince man to simply be "good" is a lost cause ...

Perhaps - I personally think that the idea that being good is somehow something we have to work hard to achieve; maybe I am only dreaming, but to me it seems "good" is the natural state, and evil is what we become when we go against our nature. Just look around: who is more evil, the average guy in the street or the guy who tries so hard to be pious, that he mentally cripples himself and his children? I think it is a no-brainer.

Re:Too complex

[Runaway1956]

2000 feet is rather close range. In fact, that is hailing distance today, even without a radio. It's much to close to allow potential hostiles. Anything within range of a mounted machine gun - an old Mk 2, or newer, is fair game to be blown out of the water.

I went looking for machine gun ranges, and found some cool numbers - but this little sweetheart would be perfect for the job!
http://www.pcf45.com/misfire/mortar.html Incendiary rounds in the machine gun, and HE rounds with proximity fuses in the mortar - that will take care of anything the pirates are ever likely to own!!

Re:Too complex

[aevan]

Great advances in the field of genocide have been made since then.

Re:Too complex

[Anonymous Coward]

I too think that the pirates have to be killed. No detentions, no arrests, no trials... kill them. The problem is that the pirates are somewhat similar to the mules used by drug smugglers in that there is a very long line of desperately poor people willing to take whatever risks they have bear. Pirates in the Indian Ocean are simply the first link in a complex chain with most pirates merely being employees of Somali businessmen who equip the pirate vessels with electronic equipment and telephones.

Q-ships appear to be the only answer. Small, heavily armed vessels disguised as yachts. The military only seeks to protect the major shipping lanes, not pleasure craft. Most of the EUFOR nations are afraid of adverse publicity and asylum claims. No one wants to go out and kill the pirates. First shot success rates with an RPG are surprisingly high since these Somalis have so much experience with AK-47s and RPGs. A fiberglass yacht is usually undermanned, un-armed and has too few crew to even detect an attack in time much less repel it. A small skiff with heavily armed men aboard are not fishermen, they are pirates.

Before Rhodesia became Zimbabwe there were ads in a variety of publications offering Adventurous Work Abroad for young men with prior military experience. I think those ads may soon start appearing again. There is no other solution but to kill the flies irrespective of how many other flies are nearby.

Re:Too complex

[Chris Burke]

And unless you've bought into the pirate's propaganda hook, line, and sinker - there doesn't need to be.

They sail hundreds and sometimes thousands of miles to take hostages and demand ransoms without speaking a word about fisheries or toxic waste.

Yeah, and the burglar who robbed some houses just sold the loot for profit, without once making a political statement about the issues of poverty. Therefore, poverty has nothing to do with crime and you don't need to deal with poverty to deal with crime. If you do, then you're just buying into the criminal's propaganda and excusing their behavior.

Except that's not how it works. That's the "Trying to understand the bad guys is to justify the bad guys as if they're really nice guys" BS that has utterly failed us in the last ten years. Reality is that even criminal assholes are still human beings with the same motivations, and only by dealing with that can you ultimately fix the problem.

The pirates aren't political activists, they're people whose previous jobs dried up and decided to turn the lawlessness that caused their problems into an opportunity. In a violent and despicable way. They aren't insane, though, and their actions have reasons. Reasons that won't go away just because we crack down on them harder. It's not like there's a cushy desk job waiting for them that they just don't want to take, but would if piracy became too dangerous. If we actually push hard enough on piracy, then the problem will just pop up somewhere else.

We have to deal with the destruction of environments and its effect on local populations. That part of the population turned to violence doesn't excuse us from that responsibility. Just the destruction of their environments excuses the pirates violence.

Reality isn't about excuses and justifications. That's just human psychology. Reality is about cause and effect.

Re:Too complex

[neonfrog]

Congratulations! You just justified slavery!

Re:Too complex

[Chris Burke]

"Just as the destruction of their environments doesn't excuse the pirates' violence." is what I meant to say.

Re:Too complex

[Xacid]

I feel like it's such a hit or miss thing. Take China, for example - from what I gather conditions are actually improving from some perspectives due to our mass consumption from them. But then that creates all the problems of a new massively industrialized nation.

So at what point does it stop being our fault and when do countries work to fix themselves?

I have a hunch we're probably after the same goal in this debate - but I wish more for more self-sufficiency in the world. But I'll be perfectly honest with you - I don't know much about the African nations or why so many of them seem to fail to become stabilized. Can we (the USA) really be a part of the solution?

Re:Too complex

[blair1q]

We're not intervening everywhere for the sake of intervening.

We're intervening because this country is stable* and happy and we think the world could use some of that.

* - well, it is when the GOP isn't trying to turn it into a third world country like Somalia, where the average citizen has three guns and pays in newborn children for water service.

Re:Too complex

[blair1q]

That transition wasn't exactly bloodless, though the threat of blood was generally sufficient. And a thousand years is a little long to wait when there are already viable democracies all over the world.

Re:Too complex

[blair1q]

there have been people in the position like the Somalis for all of history,

And that's no reason to allow that to continue to be history on the planet Earth.

They can't solve it internally. So we're going to help them.

Re:Too complex

[Attila Dimedici]

Actually, the British Navy used the same strategy to stamp out the slave trade. And there is no justification for slavery. Slavery is economically inefficient. Slave labor results in a lower return on investment than free labor.

Re:Too complex

[Anonymous Coward]

My point in bringing up Japan was that people in a resource-poor country still have the option to become good and productive citizens who improve their own society without harming others. It may take longer, it's not easy money, but in the long run it's much better. If you can put yourself in the pirates' situation and decide that you would also rather be a murderer than earn an honest living, just because murder pays more, there's something wrong with you!

My point in bringing up Japan was that people in a resource-poor country still have the option to become good and productive citizens who improve their own society without harming others.

And we all know what a long, peaceful struggle it was for the Japanese to rise to their current status as an industrial power (ie: Nanking, the Rape of..).

Re:Too complex

[h4rr4r]

Tough crime laws don't work. Look at places that have them, they have more crime. Those folks aren't evil, just poor and stupid.

Re:Too complex

[neonfrog]

I agree that there is no real or current justification for slavery, but you brought up "history" and "effective." Those pyramids are pretty effective historical monuments to what one can do with slavery - it may have been inefficient by any measure of capitalism, but it certainly was effective. History has all kinds of effective and bloody solutions employed by the Imperial powers of their day. There is a reason why "History repeating itself" is often considered a bad thing. Historically suggested solutions, especially bloody and "simple but effective ones," can easily ignore where civilization has made gains. If one does not care about history's lessons in this manner, or the gains apparent in modern civilization, one can easily justify slavery by simply moving the historical point of "effective" around.

Re:Too complex

[Attila Dimedici]

Yeah, that has always worked out well in the past.

Re:Too complex

[DerekLyons]

The pirates aren't political activists

Then why do you and the grandparent insist on treating them as such? If they aren't political activists (or more correctly, terrorists in the normal sense of the word), then they're criminals.
 

Reality isn't about excuses and justifications.

Then why do you go to such lengths to provide excuses and justifications? As above, you're saying one thing and then blithely saying another without the foggiest clue as your inconsistency.
 

If we actually push hard enough on piracy, then the problem will just pop up somewhere else.

Yet another inconsistency due to utter cluelessness.
 
In the first place, pirates arise independently where piracy is profitable. Stopping piracy off of Somalia won't make a bunch of fisherman off of Chile (grabbing a country at random) suddenly go "yo! let's all be pirates". In the second place, history has shown again and again that when you make piracy unprofitable and dangerous - it stops.

Re:Too complex

[Attila Dimedici]

There is actually serious question as to whether the pyramids were built with slave labor. The other point is that it depends on what one is attempting to accomplish. If one is attempting to put a stop to piracy, then looking at historical models that have worked in doing so is a good place to start. Especially when the alternatives that are being suggested have historically been shown to not work. Personally, I am unaware of any thing that I consider a problem that slavery is historically demonstrated as a solution for (or at least any problems that do not have better historically demonstrated solutions).

Re:Too complex

[stdarg]

Exactly. Japan tried the bad way because they thought it would be easier and quicker, and it wasn't.

We have to teach the Somali pirates that the bad way is not easy. The good way is the only way we will tolerate. Those who try to profit by killing, raping, and kidnapping will be killed. The rest of the society will say "Hmm maybe there's another way" -- and they will be correct.

And part of that teaching process is to refrain from pitying the "poor murderers" and "heroic kidnappers" just because they are from a poor country with few (explored) natural resources. A murderer in Somalia is not more noble than a murderer in France just because he has fewer options or any such nonsense. We all have the basic option of being a good person or not.

Re:Too complex

[Chris Burke]

Then why do you and the grandparent insist on treating them as such? If they aren't political activists (or more correctly, terrorists in the normal sense of the word), then they're criminals.

I'm not treating them like political activists, I'm treating them like criminals -- or terrorists, if you prefer.

We're just talking realistically about underlying problems, the causes and effects.

Or do you really think that saying poverty is a cause of crime means treating the burglar like a political activist instead of a criminal? If you do, then that's your problem. I don't have that problem. I can both treat the criminal as a criminal, and think logically about why crime occurs.

Then why do you go to such lengths to provide excuses and justifications? As above, you're saying one thing and then blithely saying another without the foggiest clue as your inconsistency.

This just demonstrates your utter inability to distinguish between excuses and explanations. Explanations are why things happen, reality, cause and effect. Excuses are saying that therefore peoples' choices are Okay. Notice how I'm saying the opposite of that, took great pains to point out the distinction? No, because noticing that would mean separating understanding with justifying, and you won't do that.

Because to you explaining something means excusing it, and because of course piracy is inexcusable, you cannot accept the explanation. This means you are deliberately, if unconsciously, refusing to understand. And when you refuse to understand a problem, you fail to solve it.

Yet another inconsistency due to utter cluelessness.

In the first place, pirates arise independently where piracy is profitable. Stopping piracy off of Somalia won't make a bunch of fisherman off of Chile (grabbing a country at random) suddenly go "yo! let's all be pirates". In the second place, history has shown again and again that when you make piracy unprofitable and dangerous - it stops.

Another response due to a refusal to think.

I'm obviously talking about the problem of the Somalis popping up again. In the case of Somalia, piracy arose because it was profitable, and because the fishing jobs dried up. Piracy doesn't spontaneously appear everywhere on earth where it would be profitable, or they'd be a lot more pirates. And if you really give the boot to piracy and don't deal with the underlying problem as you propose, then they aren't just going to go back to being quiet fishermen, because they can't. And they aren't going to quietly lie down and die, either. So, instead, the problem will just move from piracy to something else.

Cracking down on the pirates is fantastic. However, fail to deal with the underlying issues, and the problem won't actually be solved. You have to do both.

But you won't think about those issues as being related. Because acknowledging cause and effect would be an excuse. Because you're an idiot. On purpose.

Re:Too complex

[Anonymous Coward]

"yet piracy was effectively wiped out for over 100 years."

What? No it wasn't, there was just less of it. People desperate enough to turn to piracy have continued to exist, ever since then. Killing pirates never made a whit of difference, either -- it was invading and crushing their safe ports that ended the so-called "Golden Age" of piracy. That's why you hardly ever see pirate vessels large enough to require docking facilities anymore.

Right now, there's a lot of it around Somalia, because Somalia's in a pretty unique situation, that no people in history has ever really been in, ever. The original pirate havens occurred as an outgrowth of piracy, but Somalia's the reverse of that situation.

The entire Somalian Pirate problem was a direct result of people going into their waters and fucking with them, under the assumption that since they didn't have a government, there would be no ill consequences for anyone except the Somalians. We've seen how THAT's worked out, haven't we.

The entire Somalian Pirate problem could be solved by NOT LETTING FOREIGN SHIPS SAIL THROUGH THAT AREA. Done and done. The Somalians have done their level best to make that happen, but nobody's listening. Time for an internationally-co-operative naval blockade.

Yes, it will cost more, but the Somalian pirates won't have any more prey and will starve, while the shrimpers and fishers, who turned to piracy when foreign corporate operations came over to take food out of the mouths of their children and dump toxins off their shores, will be able to go back to making a fucking living again. Everybody wins!

"killing the pirates" will end one of two ways:

1) Continued piracy and escalating violence for ever and ever, see "The War on Drugs"
2) The death of nearly everyone in Somalia.

Not sure which you're rooting for, but it's kinda sick either way.

Re:Too complex

[blair1q]

Fallacy. The fact that something has failed before doesn't negate its past or future successes.

Re:Too complex

[bughunter]

Actually, my solution to Barbarians was to cultivate them and farm their huts for gold...

Re:Too complex

[geekmux]

... trying to convince man to simply be "good" is a lost cause ...

Perhaps - I personally think that the idea that being good is somehow something we have to work hard to achieve; maybe I am only dreaming, but to me it seems "good" is the natural state, and evil is what we become when we go against our nature. Just look around: who is more evil, the average guy in the street or the guy who tries so hard to be pious, that he mentally cripples himself and his children? I think it is a no-brainer.

It's a no-brainer to certain generations. However, the line between good and bad in the criminal sense has become fairly blurred these days with the younger generation. 30 years ago, you had to steal physical media from a store to get music for free, which maybe only 10% of the population had the guts or "evil" in them to go and do. Today, it's merely a few mouse-clicks to commit the exact same crime and the youth of today weigh that crime about as heavily as the effort it takes to do it.

Going from cheating in games to cheating on tests. It starts with a simple MP3...then downloading music, then movies, then entire research papers...If you really look at it, the average 18-year old has technically committed more felonies than most hardened criminals sitting in prison right now. What truly happens to society when these "innocent" actions become the natural state? The answer is simple. Evil itself becomes a "no-brainer".

And all that happens BEFORE they even enter the cesspool of greed and corruption that is Corporate America.

Re:Too complex

[Attila Dimedici]

The fact that every time I hold a pencil three feet off of the floor and let go of it, it falls to the floor is a pretty good indication that if I do it again, the pencil will end up on the floor once more. You may choose to repeat the experiment as often as you like.

Re:Too complex

[neonfrog]

Too simplistic and binary. There are choices other than "historically effective, but bloody solutions" and "historically ineffective solutions." History has shown us where we can be bloody and where we can be ineffective. Let's use history to help us find effective non-bloody solutions. Are you suggesting that bloody history is the *only* effective option available? Then just like your aversion to topics of slavery, I have an aversion to such simplistic absolutes. "Shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out" may be historically effective, but I reject the premise that it is the best or only solution available that works relative to a modern civilization - I have a huge problem with death as a solution to problems of capitalism (the core issue) as it sets a bad precedent.

Re:Too complex

[Attila Dimedici]

There are two solutions to problems that involve people who are willing to use violence. The non-violent solution is to give them everything they want. The other solution is to apply a greater amount of force than they are able to bring to bear.

Re:Too complex

[neonfrog]

You neglect so much while putting yourself in the exact same category of "willing to do violence for the sole sake of capitalism." Eye for an eye does not work long term (your favorite teacher, history), especially when the key harm is "you hurt my wallet.". History teaches repeatedly, "the best way to not get hurt is to not be where the hurt is." Avoid them - use routes that cost money, not lives. Inconvenience them in less costly ways (both in terms of life and money) - break their boats, not their bones. Be creative with political solutions. Look forward to a better humanity, not backwards to our primitive beginnings, like we have done by reducing the death penalty. But I see that you are inflexible by repeatedly presenting only one solution - you believe that making ANY change equals "giving them everything they want" and money outweighs the chief benefits of hard won civilization which is that we shouldn't need to kill each other to solve our differences, or to maintain profit margins.

Re:Too complex

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen. Mount a .50 cal on the stern and the bow. Ma Deuce will beat the snot out of most ships they're likely to field - 2000m effective range. An RPG is probably only effective to 10% that range (the LAW has and effective range of 200m) Hell, use tracers and really make their day bad and help the gunner out.... http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m2-50cal.htm

Re:Too complex

[Attila Dimedici]

No, I believe that as boats do not enter the waters they currently practice their trade in, they will expand the areas in which they practice their trade (something they have already done). Certainly breaking their boats is a perfectly viable option, but not if you spend a significant amount of time extracting the pirates on the boats first.
The reason I do not "look forward to a better humanity", is that I do not see any evidence that humanity is any better today than it was 1,000 years ago (or 2,000, or 3,000, or whatever number you want to pick).

Re:Too complex

[Anonymous Coward]

You misunderstood. Rephrased: The pirates make their moves too fast.

But you do have a point in that a number of countries do have the resources to eradicate piracy but nobody wants to bear the costs of doing it alone when all seafarers would benefit. And whilst it was possible to reach international consensus on action in Libya, it's a lot harder when it's not a matter of helping out some other party (i.e. the rebels) and contributing what you can afford but instead trying to agree on how much every nation should be obliged to contribute if they will also benefit from it.

Re:Too complex

[blair1q]

So "that has always" when you use it sarcastically means "that has never", and there's no middle between them. Fallacy of false dichotomy/no middle ground.

Re:Too complex

[Attila Dimedici]

"They can't solve it internally. So we're going to help them." Is an example of hubris. It is their problem. If they are unable to solve it, what makes you think outsiders can do any better? There are things that individuals and groups can do, but the only thing that government actors can do is make them understand that spreading their problem outside of their borders will not be tolerated. The only thing that governments do well is the controlled application of violence.

Re:Too complex

[Archwyrm]

> Those pyramids are pretty effective historical monuments to what one can do with slavery

The idea that the pyramids were built by slaves comes from the ancient Greeks (who were not contemporary with the Egyptian builders). Among other things, they were wrong about this and the idea has been dismissed by modern archaeology. The Egyptian Pharoahs were very wealthy, they could afford to pay workers to build their monuments.

Re:Too complex

[RespekMyAthorati]

If they don't want our help, that's fine... but when their citizens continue to attack US interests in international waters, it is within our rights to (1) kill the offending citizens and leave their dead bodies on shore as a warning to other pirates and (2) hold the country's government responsible for the attacks.

And that is the principal problem: there is no government in Somalia. Indeed, Somalia is not a country in any meaningful sense. It is just a geographic region.

That is also why diplomatic initiatives to "help" Somalia is a waste of time. Anything we do to aid the Somalis will end up in the coffers of the gangster warlords who are the only real power there.

At the same time, talk of arming the ships that being targetted by the pirates is silly as they are manned by merchant sailors with no military training. Also, an armed ship would never be allowed into any international seaport to exchange cargo. To me the obvious solution is to have shipping companies provide freighters with armed escort ships, manned with experienced mercenaries. Unlike the huge lumbering freighters, these smaller escorts would have the speed and manouverability needed to deal with pirates.

Re:Too complex

[lsatenstein]

Would another way be to hide GPS sendors in cargo, so that when stolen, or ransom paid, the GPS device would be with the pirates, and lead the armed forces to their pirates lair.

Re:Too complex

[Anonymous Coward]

This game is too complex. To stop piracy: just sink these damned pirates. When they will all be in the depths of the sea the problem will be solved.

Reality IS complex; people in general don't turn to crime or become terrorists simply because they are evil - if you start smply killing "the evildoers" without addressing the reason why they got to be that. And the solution is not likely to involve dumping an American style reality-show democracy on them. We really need to solve issues of social/political need and instability in the whole of Africa.

And so games, not being realistic really at all, do not make good tools for solving real world problems.

Re:Too complex

[jandersen]

Can we (the USA) really be a part of the solution?

I think so. One part of it is to bring the part of Western influence under control that isn't: big business. It doesn't have to be by nationalising them, but as long as big multinationals make up their own rules as they go along, they are hurting our national interests, and I think we have a right to have a say in that. To achieve this we probably need some sort of super-national government with real power.

The other part is to find an effective way to educate people - not so much about knolwedge, in a way, but about qualities like tolerance, fair play and what one could vaguely call "sportsmanship": the idea that it is OK to lose a game because you get the chance again another time. This is fundamentally important for having a stable democracy - it is no use having an election, when the losing party doesn't want to accept that they have lost, or if the winner refuses to govern for the benefit of all, including their opponents. A people needs to feel convinced that whatever the differences, they are still one people.

Re:Too complex

[Xacid]

Well said.

With that said - have you read the Ender's Game series? Your mention of a "super-national government" reminds me of the Hegemony in one of the books.

Re:Too complex

[jwhitener]

Except the cost of entry into pirating much higher 100 years ago. Enormous wooden ships, sails, crews, massive cannons and/or grappling hooks and boarding maneuvers.

Now all you need is small rubber raft with a rebuilt engine and a half dozen AK-armed men who require no sailing experience. When there is no money to be made on land, and a cheap entry cost to making money off land, I'm pretty sure that will continue to attract desperate young kids into going on pirate runs.

It would probably be cheaper if all nations that pass through that region just combine some amount of funds for an aid package and basically pay them off. The alternative is a fairly sizable naval force operating in the region for a long time.

Re:Too complex

[blair1q]

Is an example of hubris

I didn't realize they were gods, or that it requires us to believe we're gods to help people who need help.

But, just on the off-chance they aren't, then we're going to send in a police force that is better-armed and organized than the criminal forces who are oppressing the piss-poor, disenfranchised, starving, vulnerable population.

Re:Too complex

[Attila Dimedici]

So, you think we should invade Somalia? Did you support or oppose invading Afghanistan? Did you support or oppose invading Iraq?

Re:Too complex

[Anonymous Coward]

In Germany it worked well.
In Iraq helped a lot.
In Afghanistan it would help to shoot people more.
The point is to start shoot them in Pakistan, also, as they continue to pour in Afghanistan from there.

Re:Too complex

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol, piracy has not been wiped.

it happens to every one of us every day. in different levels.

its probably just turned into a business model. i mean it has been privatized and now works for private (corporate?) interests.

arm the ships with miniguns

[evanism]

brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr..... bbbrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Problem fixed.

Re:arm the ships with miniguns

[Neil Boekend]

A GAU-8A Avenger could probably be mounted on a commercial vessel and used very efficiently to give the pirates some rather large holes (splatter bonus!)
The problem is: the ships would not be allowed in most marines. I am quite certain you can't simply float a ship with a large mounted gun in the harbor of Rotterdam for example, and I do not think most other countries would be welcoming you.

Re:arm the ships with miniguns

[Anonymous Coward]

I am quite certain you can't simply float a ship with a large mounted gun in the harbor of Rotterdam for example

That's OK, there aren't very many Somali pirates in Rotterdam anyway.

Re:arm the ships with miniguns

[Neil Boekend]

True, at least I hope so. But you have to load and unload some day. In these cases it is customary to enter a harbor.
Theoretically you could remove said gun and transfer it to a US Navy ship, but I have to wonder about the practicality of that.

Re:arm the ships with miniguns

[DriedClexler]

First, the pirates don't care if you shiver. Second, the climate where this piracy takes place is warm all year. Third, miniguns would, if anything, heat the surrounding air, albeit not in a way noticeable to most people in the area. Fourth, pirates *want* their timbers to be shivered anyway.

Re:arm the ships with miniguns

[Anonymous Coward]

There is that whole problem of international law too. See, you can't arm a boat, even in international waters. It's an act of war to do so. Obvious exceptions exist for military vessels.

The way it lays right now, it's simply against the law to put a big ass gun on a commercial vessel. Oddly that doesn't stop guys with AK's and RPG's, but it really hampers those international shipping companies.

Re:arm the ships with miniguns

[Rich0]

So, just have a floating arms markets outside of Somali waters in various convenient locations. Ships planning to sail through rent guns on the one end (maybe crews also), and drop them off when they're past the danger zone.

LFG Pirate Den 2/5 need healer

[j-b0y]

Or give the pirates WoW subs. They'll be too busy with the rep grind to do anything else

Re:LFG Pirate Den 2/5 need healer

[sabt-pestnu]

Not necessarily rep grinding, but gold grinding. Ask:
"Is it more profitable than piracy?"

Re:LFG Pirate Den 2/5 need healer

[Archwyrm]

I don't know what you just said, but when I saw the headline I thought the MMO was for the pirates to keep them busy indeed.

Re:LFG Pirate Den 2/5 need healer

[Anonymous Coward]

So what happens when a pirate grinds their way to neutral with Booty Bay?

And???

[lennier1]

Where's the "nuke the site from orbit" button?

Re:And???

[Luckyo]

Mothballed along with "just bring a battleship near shore and flatten all potential harbors"

Re:And???

[mjwx]

MJWX: Server, sgt kokonface TKed me
MJWX: Again...
Sgt Kokonface: LOL PWND noob
Dixin hoars: I can haz ur container ship.

using MMOWGLI to fight Africans?

[mentil]

Rudyard Kipling would be pissed.

Arr?

[Anonymous Coward]

JckSparrow logged on.
JSprrow12 logged off.
JackSparroz logged on.
JackSpzrrz logged on.
JackSparrow323 says: "But why is the rum gone?"
Jacksparrow1337 says:" HARRRRR"!

Just a summary of how it'll go.

The problem is a lack of will power

[harrytuttle777]

I was with one of the first groups that 'went out to fight pirates' I was with the coast guard, traveling on a Dutch oiler is support of a bunch of navy and coast guard coast guard patrol craft that were supposed to take on the pirates. At one time we knew the location of 7 ships whose crew were actively being held hostage. What did we do? Absolutely NOTHING. At the time all the hostages were Indian of Filipino, and none of the vessels flew a U.S. flag. Also, were were always worried about invading Somali territorial waters (TTW).

One of the problems was that we had three different services from two different countries operating under 3 different combined task forces. We also had 2 Navy lawyers on-board, where were there to make sure we didn't violate any sovereign territory (I kid you not).
Every time someone wanted to like maybe do something, we had to run it by three different chains of command plus the JAG.

If you want to fight pirates, fight pirates don't play games (MMO's). Fighting pirates (unlike fighting an imaginary war on terror) is something that the whole world can get behind. No-one would really care if we invade Somali TTW in order to kill pirates. This was about 5 years ago. At the time perhaps little bit of force could have made a huge difference. My understanding is that the Somalis have gotten a lot more organized in the time. But I really don't know. I no longer am in the service, but somehow I doubt that the U.S. military has (gotten more organized). With that said, I think the U.S. Navy could probably win a war with Somali pirates. It is just that the U.S. Navy is more worried about an incident where say a 20 people die trying to rescue the fillipino crew from a non u.s. flagged vessel. Heaven forbid some of the innocent crew members get killed in the rescue operation.

Providing every crew member of a vessel going through the area with access to a rifle would probably go a long way to combat the problem.

Re:The problem is a lack of will power

[Vectormatic]

We also had 2 Navy lawyers on-board

Was one of them an ex-tomcat pilot, who picked up naval law because of his night blindness, and the other a slightly unconventional but seriously hot chick?

Re:The problem is a lack of will power

[Anne Thwacks]

I think you will find it was Shakespeare who said "the first thing we do is kill all the lawyers!"

Sometimes the old ways are the best!

Re:The problem is a lack of will power

[Anonymous Coward]

As a member of a private security team we have no Lawyers on board. We board the vessels by chopper in international waters and leave once the vessel is out of hostile waters. We do not board the vessel at port (marine lawyer would be needed) We have a group commander and that is all. No red tape. If they try to come aboard the vessel they are toast. We do report incidents to NAVFOR. though.

Re:The problem is a lack of will power

[gmhowell]

I know that chick. She keeps telling me I need to get hooked up to an e-meter and need my body thetans purged.

Re:The problem is a lack of will power

[gmhowell]

I think you will find it was Shakespeare who said "the first thing we do is kill all the lawyers!"

Sometimes the old ways are the best!

Most likely, some douchebag attorney will tell you how you are interpreting that line incorrectly. I'm here to pre-emptively say right on!

Re:The problem is a lack of will power

[Veggiesama]

No, one was pretending to be blind, and the other was named Cherith Cutestory.

Re:The problem is a lack of will power

[Dails]

The legal issues are what make counter-piracy hard (there are other factors, of course). That's setting yourself up for failure, though, if you have to work through the rules of engagement for three different countries. The Navy works very hard to make sure its actions are in line with US and UN law, hence the JAG presence. It sucks from a warfighter's perspective, but the fact is that legal conduct goes a long way toward enabling what the Navy does. It's pretty easier to ignore the idiots that like to chime in on subjects like this when I can clearly connect what the US military does and the laws governing the actions, whether they're US laws or international. Having been in operations that face such sticky legal issues, it's easy to see why we care; ignoring just a few laws makes it very easy to slip into indiscriminate killings or outright aggression. Laws hamper operations, but are important, perhaps because they hamper operations.

Re:The problem is a lack of will power

[Yvanhoe]

What do you think about the fact that counter-piracy forces killed more people than pirates themselves ? Before 2011 it could even be said that more hostages were killed by counter-piracy forces than Somali pirates.

If we want peace on these coast, we need to have a police that really enforces every law. Some Somali pirate groups began as a vigilante group to prevent the dumping of toxic wastes (including nuclear wastes) off their coasts. (it is a little mafia business that is being judged in Italy by the way)

Re:The problem is a lack of will power

[Runaway1956]

Simple solution. Kill all the lawyers.

We all know that our forces are hamstrung by "rules of engagement", yada yada yada. I'm in complete agreement with you. All the naval forces in the area - China, Spain, US, UK, France, ALL of them should be inspecting all boats and ships. When they find a band of men aboard a ship or boat who are armed, take them into custody and sink their boat, incarcerate them for a few years while one or another court system deals with them, and let them go when they are old men.

If anyone resists inspection or arrest, blow them away. Resistance includes fleeing, of course. Either it's 100% cooperation with the naval forces, or it's death, simple as that.

I've heard far to many bullshit ideas about "nonlethal" means of "repelling" pirates. That shit's for idiots without a clue!

Re:The problem is a lack of will power

[Runaway1956]

I have zero idea who AC is, or how truthful he is - but he describes the single best way to deal with pirates. Put a killer team on the lucrative targets, and kill the damned pirates when they get close enough. It works. No fuss, no muss, no repeat offenders, no fortunes spent on idiot lawyers.

Re:The problem is a lack of will power

[mjwx]

I have zero idea who AC is, or how truthful he is - but he describes the single best way to deal with pirates. Put a killer team on the lucrative targets, and kill the damned pirates when they get close enough. It works. No fuss, no muss, no repeat offenders, no fortunes spent on idiot lawyers.

The lawyers were from the Navy, I doubt they were paid for.

Secondly, violating international waters legitimises attacks. It gives the attackers reason to say "they strayed into our territorial waters and opened fire on us" and legitimises the price tag they ask for ships and lives because essentially, the cargo vessel commuted an act of war.

Staying legally kosher when shooting up shit on the water is very fucking important.

Re:The problem is a lack of will power

[Runaway1956]

See, that's the problem. You see it as a legal problem, when in reality, it's a military problem. When the pirates are going about in armed vessels and attacking passersby, it's a military problem. It doesn't take a lawyer to understand that - it takes a lawyer to obfuscate it.

Oh - I'm sure those Navy lawyers are paid. I pay them, and so do you if you're an American citizen. I don't much like the idea of subsidizing lawyers who make a military problem more complex than it need be.

Re:The problem is a lack of will power

[Lumpy]

"The lawyers were from the Navy, I doubt they were paid for."

Three is one constant in the universe that is even more solid than any other...

Lawyers are NEVER free... they cost, they cost a lot.

Re:The problem is a lack of will power

[Minwee]

I have zero idea who AC is, or how truthful he is - but he describes the single best way to deal with pirates

...with more pirates?

Re:The problem is a lack of will power

[argStyopa]

1) A number of governments across the world are uncomfortable with the idea of random sailors being armed in their ports (some out of paranoia, certainly, but I think it's a justifiable fear of escalated violence/danger in a rough business with lots of transient people), thus there is a worldwide DISincentive to giving crews access to small arms.

2) Stephen Decatur showed us how to deal with pirates almost precisely 200 years ago - they operate out of bases, ports, and with the acquiescence if not outright cooperation of local leadership. That's where you attack them. Except you're wrong - LOTS of people care if we invade anywhere, for any reason. Even a simple strike on a Somali base port is likely to kill some 'innocent' people (I put this in quotes, because I would expect that in any place where pirates flourish, pretty much everyone benefits directly or indirectly), leading to protests and great hand-wringing across the Western world.

It would be very simple to deal with pirates, if we had adequate will.
Surveillance could easily identify the origin ports for the motherships. Raze them.
Every mothership or pirate vessel caught dealt with quietly, summarily, and totally. Once this happened a few times - whole shiploads of men disappearing regularly - the appetite for piracy would disappear.

But that simply won't happen.

Re:The problem is a lack of will power

[savanik]

Secondly, violating international waters legitimises attacks. It gives the attackers reason to say "they strayed into our territorial waters and opened fire on us" and legitimises the price tag they ask for ships and lives because essentially, the cargo vessel commuted an act of war.

Staying legally kosher when shooting up shit on the water is very fucking important.

If the attackers are saying the cargo vessels are straying into our territorial waters and opening fire when they attempt to board the vessel, then they're representatives of their government and committing an act of war by boarding a foreign nation's vessel and killing its crew, and we should treat this as an act of war and declare war on Somali.

If they are not representatives of their government, then Somali should be actively taking measures to eliminate piracy in their waters.

Since Somali is obviously not actively taking measures to eliminate piracy in their waters, the government is either in direct collusion with the pirates, and they are acting as privateers under tacit Somali authorization, or the government is incapable of enforcing their borders, thus not a legitimate nation, and we should have no need to comply with their borders in order to defend our ships.

Re:The problem is a lack of will power

[Runaway1956]

Being intentionally obtuse wins no points with me. There is a tremendous difference between a defensive force stationed aboard a ship, and an offensive force intent on taking over a ship. If there is no other distinction that you are capable of grasping, then consider the INTENT of each force. The defensive force focused on surviving passage along the coast of Somalia with their possessions intact. The offensive force is intent on taking something that does not belong to them. It's as clear cut as any cops 'n robbers show on television. Somewhat good guys against evil sumbitches.

Re:The problem is a lack of will power

[demonbug]

It is just that the U.S. Navy is more worried about an incident where say a 20 people die trying to rescue the fillipino crew from a non u.s. flagged vessel. Heaven forbid some of the innocent crew members get killed in the rescue operation.

Providing every crew member of a vessel going through the area with access to a rifle would probably go a long way to combat the problem.

I think the issue has more to do with the questions of why the US Navy should be expending resources to protect a ship flagged in the Philippines. I can see protecting ships of close allies, but it is the responsibility of the Flag nation to protect sips sailing under their flag. Of course, the majority of merchant ships sail under flags of convenience from nations that have no chance of protecting them, but you get what you pay for. You want the protection of the U.S. Navy, you're going to have to register with the U.S. and follow the rules that go along with it. You want to cheap out and avoid the costs associated with meeting the requirements of being U.S.-flagged, you're on your own.

Re:The problem is a lack of will power

[sabt-pestnu]

It's a military problem right up until it becomes a legal problem. Or vice versa. If you do something and, say, it causes the neighboring government to declare war on you, you've got a military problem out of a legal one.

Or if you kill a bunch of pirates and the company that owns the "freed" boat sues you because the crew died and the ship sank, you've got a legal problem out of a military one.

The only thing you can do that doesn't have consequences it ... Hmm.... I'm drawing a blank here. If you fail to consider the consequences, you're liable to repeat past mistakes.

Re:The problem is a lack of will power

[Rich0]

What do you think about the fact that counter-piracy forces killed more people than pirates themselves ? Before 2011 it could even be said that more hostages were killed by counter-piracy forces than Somali pirates.
 

That would be important if the primary purpose of counter-piracy forces was to save people who are already being held hostage. Their primary purpose is to eliminate piracy, and keep future sailors from being taken hostage in the first place.

How many hostages would have been killed by pirates if there were no counter-piracy efforts limiting their numbers?

The pirates are still responsible for hostages that die in rescue raids. The hostages wouldn't need rescuing but for their actions.

I'm sure that if you always paid off kidnappers that a higher percentage of kidnap victims would come out unharmed, but the number of kidnappings would also likely go WAY up. Appeasement isn't usually a good solution. I'm not saying the solution is as simple as killing pirates, but I suspect that killing pirates will be a big component of any good solution.

Re:The problem is a lack of will power

[c6gunner]

What do you think about the fact that counter-piracy forces killed more people than pirates themselves ? Before 2011 it could even be said that more hostages were killed by counter-piracy forces than Somali pirates.

I think you're making shit up. Next question?

Re:The problem is a lack of will power

[Anonymous Coward]

I SERIOUSLY hope you arent an american. Due process? Innocent before proven guilty? Do these words mean anything to you?

MMO, really?

[Vectormatic]

i really doubt teabagging and grieffing the pirates is gonne be the solution.

Also, i agree with some earlier posters, just sink the damn pirates, the only modification i propose is leaving one pirate from every ship alone, to return home and tell the other would-be pirates of what happens to pirates. But you can just set that one adrift in a life-raft somewhere near the cost, the rest can be made to walk the plank after seeing their ship burned and sunk.

Re:MMO, really?

[AmiMoJo]

i really doubt teabagging and grieffing the pirates is gonne be the solution.

One word: strafing.

Or splash damage.

Re:MMO, really?

[blair1q]

Pirates have satellite dishes. They get CNN. You don't need to leave one alive to send a message.

Take the Israelian aproach

[Anonymous Coward]

Should work if implemented with enough force:

1. Satellite tracks all sea traffic in the Aden bay.
2. Pirates seize vessel.
3. Geek in tech bunker in Texas uses movement tracking software to stipulate probable home port(s) for the boat(s) most likely to be the pirate ships.
4. USAF 2d and 5th Bomb Wings load up all the good ol' fashioned dumb ass high explosive bombs those B52s can carry and carpet bomb the entire harbor village and everything else within a couple of miles from where the boat was launched.
5. Repeat until pirate attack stops, US runs out of old school ammo or no living creature left on the Somalian coast.

For added efficiency: Invade a country in close proximity to the operational area and establish a bomber base.

Re:Take the Israelian aproach

[Luckyo]

4.1. Entire crew on captured ship killed, ship scuttled in revenge. Cameras get beautiful shots of small pieces of children scattered across burning remains of bombed village. Massive calls go for war crime tribunal for people who ordered strike on civilians. US loses essentially all political clout it had with "human rights issues" worldwide. Company that owned the ship/its insurers and teary wives and children of killed seamen go to court against US and likely win huge damages, as potential ransom costs but a small fraction of ship and its cargo's value.

Re:Take the Israelian aproach

[stdarg]

US loses essentially all political clout it had with "human rights issues" worldwide

That would be great. Maybe we could stop all the bitching and whining about China's "record" and get on to making money through profitable trade.

Company that owned the ship/its insurers and teary wives and children of killed seamen go to court against US and likely win huge damages, as potential ransom costs but a small fraction of ship and its cargo's value.

You're wrong there. In the hypothetical where our government orders the Air Force to indiscriminately bomb Somali pirates and the communities that harbor them, it's likely that our government would also "intercept" troublemaking Somali nationals who want to abuse our court system.

Re:Take the Israelian aproach

[Luckyo]

That would be great. Maybe we could stop all the bitching and whining about China's "record" and get on to making money through profitable trade.

You massively underestimate the political capital hidden in the "human rights" claim. It's not just about China - West has used "human rights" as an excuse to for a lot of land and resource grabs in the last few decades. They make for an easy and generally acceptable reason both to outsiders and their own population. Losing this would cause significant amount of damage both home and abroad.

Crowdsourcing? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me get this straight... the US Navy... made a videogame... in hopes that someone playing it will provide them insight into how best to deal with Somali pirates.

Last time I heard, the piracy problem in Somalia was due to the complete breakdown of law and order in their society with the only organization coming from any warlord with enough guns to carve out a territory. A variety of religious, economic, and social factors come into play as various power groups struggle to impose what they feel to be the best system for them.

This is either a huge waste of money or it will be the best game ever. Guess which way I'm leaning?

"terrorists"

[Kirth]

Now "piss poor fishing men who had their fishing grounds ravaged by international fishing-fleets and turned pirates because of that" have become "terrorists".

Re:"terrorists"

[Anonymous Coward]

poeple do mind poor people that already got fucked being killed. They dont mind terrorists being killed.

Re:"terrorists"

[Anonymous Coward]

When the pirates hold people for ransom and KILL them, what the pirates used to
do for a living has no relevance. Whether the pirates are called terrorists or
criminals is not of much significance. The acts perpetrated by the pirates are.

Re:"terrorists"

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree terrorist is not the correct term, very few Somali pirate attacks occur in Somali waters.

2010 attack map

I'm also not sure how committing a crime against a person gives them moral justification to commit crimes against anybody, anywhere. Surely this is not what you're suggesting?

Re:"terrorists"

[Anonymous Coward]

damn right they have, as soon as they picked up guns and decide to take a bunch of people hostage for ransom.

Re:"terrorists"

[c6gunner]

Yeah, jackasses like you - and whatever twats modded you "insightful" - are exactly why we'll never really do anything serious to combat piracy. The US takes enough flack without needing to be accused of butchering "poor innocent fishermen", and the rest of the naval powers don't individually have the capability to do anything effective. So we'll continue to dick around and hand millions of dollars over to your "poor fishermen" until either the problem gets so bad that we can't ignore it any more, or we manage to install a puppet government which can rein them in.

Re:"terrorists"

[Anonymous Coward]

... they picked up guns and decide to take a bunch of people hostage for ransom.

Some call this self defence. What else should they do, starve to death?

do nothing

[Hazel Bergeron]

Here's my proposal: do nothing. For once, America, keep your fucking nose out of another continent. I realise it'd be lovely to pincer what with being under your best buddies (when they're not killing you and/or women in general) the Saudis, so this will be hard for you. "Secure the horn of Africa"? What is this, the 18th century?

Also, when the US does it = securing.
When Somalians do it = piracy.

As usual, if the US wanted to, they could wipe out Somalian piracy within hours. The real question: who stands to profit from a long, drawn-out, ineffective war?

Re:do nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

long live pirates
down the police

Re:do nothing

[spokenoise]

If it starts costing the US war machine then they might do something. If you actually want an effective result send the Russians to do it.

Re:do nothing

[nedlohs]

No they couldn't. There's the requirements you are ignoring like "without invading Somalia". Sure we ignored that recently in Pakistan, but do you really want that to be the norm?

Protecting shipping in international waters is part of the Navy's job. It's in their god damn mission statement: "maintaining freedom of the seas".

Which other of their reasons for them existing do you want them to ignore?

Re:do nothing

[Hazel Bergeron]

(1) This is the bit where you deny that European and American influence has anything to do with the existence of these pirates in the first place. It's so easy to push desperate people into doing something which, on the face of it, seems so unreasonable that you can hand wave the right to sail half way across the world to stop them.

(2) While the US extending its territorial claims (i.e. countering the "freedom of the seas") was one of the moves bringing about UNCLOS, the US is - as always in matters like these - one of the few states not to have ratified. The "freedom of the seas" to the US means nothing more than the freedom to selectively enforce the interests of whoever has the Navy's ear - sometimes not even the Navy itself.

Re:do nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Even by /. standards this has to be the most incredibly dumb comment ever.

Sea piracy is a significant problem that affects all nations with shipping in that region. It's been happening for years and it's getting worse and worse. Many nations have a naval presence in those waters for that reason. It has nothing to do with American military aggression. You'd do well to read up on the that issue.

Re:do nothing

[Hazel Bergeron]

To solve a problem, you look for a cause. It has everything to do with American aggression: specifically, wanting to keep Ethiopia as an ally.

The piracy is a symptom and "oh we're just protecting the freedom of [oil tankers to carry our legitimately obtained oil over] the seas" is a hilarious excuse.

Re:do nothing

[Dails]

You clearly know neither the history nor the content of the UN Conventions of Law on the Sea. It's impressive, though, that you manage to spin a document to aid safety of navigation into a UN attempt to check unbridled American imperialism. You tip your hand, though; you won't get many people hating the US with that kind of sudden intensity.

Re:do nothing

[Dails]

US does nothing, people complain that we can't do anything with our super-powerful navy. US does something, people complain that we're sticking our noses into blah blah. It's getting hard to give a shit about generally uninformed opinion in the face of piracy.

Somali MO: Attack unarmed vessel, capture crew, demand ransom, kill crew if no money transferred, steal ship, sell cargo.
US MO: Approach armed hijackers, negotiate first, offer to pay ransom, honor ransom negotiation if accepted, escort rescued ship's crew, even if not American.

Oh yes, I see the hypocrisy in using different terms for what amount to basically behaving the same way.

As for your last point, maybe you should do some research into the operating cost of a single destroyer vs. what percent of shipping is affected by piracy. While you're at it, check out the legal ramification of attacking pirates. My guess is since you haven't yet, you won't do it now.

Re:do nothing

[Hazel Bergeron]

So, which parts of the rules on exclusive economic zones and the continental shelf documented in UNCLOS "aid safety of navigation"? You're embarrassing yourself.

Re:do nothing

[Eivind]

You mean it's not the norm already ? Could've fooled me !

Re:do nothing

[Dails]

You're right, I do feel pretty embarrassed. Except for the fact that I said it's a document to aid in safety of navigation and it has all kinds of rules for safety of navigation, I'd positively die of embarrassment.

Re:do nothing

[metacell]

Of course the Americans are ultimately hunting the pirates because they think it benefits their trade. That doesn't make it less beneficial.

Re:do nothing

[Hazel Bergeron]

-- story so far --

Hazel: UNCLOS.
Dails: *armed with only ignorance and the Internet* That's about maritime safety! You're spinning!
Hazel: It has sections related to ownership on the seas. Let me highlight some for you.
Dails: But it has stuff about maritime safety in it!

In other news, a car is for holding cups because some cars have cup holders in them.

Re:do nothing

[Hazel Bergeron]

Through support for Ethiopia, America in large part contributed to the instability in Somalia which produced the pirates. To band-aid over the symptom of the disease you caused is less beneficial to everyone, including your own people.

Re:do nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

States are not in the business of charity. They are first concerned about their interests. It's in the interest of western nations to maintain free trade there and we should stop caring if it's unfair to retaliate against pirates because of perceived past wrongs against Somalia. First, their excuses of how we wronged them are most likely bullshit justification for their criminal activities. Second, even if they were genuine, we should not care and do what is in our (not their) interest.

Re:do nothing

[Hazel Bergeron]

If I took your property by force, it'd be OK to kill you if you tried to take some property from me because I'd just be concerning myself with my interests, right?

I just want to be clear about the basis on which you're arguing.

Re:do nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

>US does nothing, people complain that we can't do anything with our super-powerful navy. US does something, people complain that we're sticking our noses into blah blah. It's getting hard to give a shit about generally uninformed opinion in the face of piracy.

The solution is not having a super powerful navy capable of blasting flat any foreign country shore. If you have a bazooka in your house and show it to everyone, you can expect that your neighbors will be afraid of you

>Somali MO: Attack unarmed vessel, capture crew, demand ransom, kill crew if no money transferred, steal ship, sell cargo.

>US MO: Approach armed hijackers, negotiate first, offer to pay ransom, honor ransom negotiation if accepted, escort rescued ship's crew, even if not American
may I propose a little correction?
US MO: give weapons and money to local revolutionaries, when they became the goverment, start giving orders, if the orders are not carried out, invade the country destroying all the infrastructure and killing all the civilian "resistance". After this, send your companies to rebuild the country and charge what you want for this rebuilding.

US MO2 (not used anymore): If you are winning a war but your ally is going to end it for you, put 2 a-bombs in planes and blast 2 entire civilian cities. For some reason you are not going to be labeled terrorist, the terrorist is the guy that blast ony 2 buildings, not 2 cities. After this, send your companies to rebuild the country and charge what you want for this rebuilding.

Re:do nothing

[metacell]

You may be right about that part. I just don't think we should excuse the pirates - they're not helping their countrymen and contribute to the corruption and instability themselves..

Re:do nothing

[Lumpy]

That is why we need to overreact. overreact so badly that the whiners of the world will be scared to say anything...

"American is not helping the pirate problem"

Launch a mirv 12, neutron bomb a 600 mile radius.

"America overreacted!"

Launch a Mirv12 nutron bomb a 600 mile radios centered on the home of the asshole that complained...

".,.... America is great... woooo!... where can we buy American flags to wave? please don't nuke us!"

That way all the infrastructure is safe and the area is clean to re-inhabit after 30 years. WE can be eco-friendly!

Re:do nothing

[Hazel Bergeron]

This is what the US is perceived to do already. This is also why suicide bombers exist: because people would rather die than be subject to US domination.

Re:do nothing

[DarkOx]

There are only legal ramifications if there is some controlling legal authority with :

a interest in doing something about whatever happened in the first place

the resources and process in place to create some sort of finding others will see as legitimate

a workable amount of leverage to use against the party you find against.

Who is going punish the United States for violating Somali territory or acting against Somali citizens the rest of the world regards as pirates? The UN? nope first they probably can't we have veto power on the security council, and second they consequences of setting themselves at odds with the US with sanctions or anything else are probably fewer than we could retaliate with by simply not paying our dues and not making our military resources available to enforce their policy. There is no reason to think the nascent Somali government would even respond and they can't do anything anyway, what restrict trade? The various African bodies if anything want to see the pirates go away.

  I am not saying we should just solve the piracy problem militarily. I am just saying fear of reprisal is not a reasons not to do it. There are plenty of ethical arguments for not getting evolved, though.

Re:do nothing

[nedlohs]

(1) That's irrelevant to the Navy doing the job it exists for. The Navy does not set European or American policy.

(2) Sure freedom of the seas includes not letting the Nazi's control shipping, but that's hardly the exclusive meaning. It is broader than it should be - it should only include maintaining freedom of the seas for ships under an American flag, but that would probably be even worse in your "selective" complaint.

Re:do nothing

[Hazel Bergeron]

(1) "I was only following orders". The Navy is a tool of the US government and cannot legitimately act without context.

(2) I have no problem with a country not wanting to be a policeman for the world.

Re:do nothing

[kevinNCSU]

US MO2 (not used anymore): If you are winning a war but your ally is going to end it for you, put 2 a-bombs in planes and blast 2 entire civilian cities. For some reason you are not going to be labeled terrorist, the terrorist is the guy that blast ony 2 buildings, not 2 cities. After this, send your companies to rebuild the country and charge what you want for this rebuilding

You need to check the facts of your revisionist history. I don't know what ally was on the verge of winning the war with japan "for" us considering Hiroshima got nuked August 6th, 1945 and Russia finally decided they'd join the fight and declare war against the Japanese on August 8th, 1945. Not that I blame them for being late to that party after the weight they pulled fighting the Germans. Russia handled the Germans pretty soundly but trying to claim they were winning the war with Japan for us is 7 different colors of revisionist bullshit.

Re:do nothing

[stdarg]

Yes, which is exactly why there are sooo many Native American suicide bombers.

You do realize that the vast majority of suicide bombings are in Islamic-majority, Islamic-controlled countries... right? Suicide bombing is not because of US domination, it's because of Islamic domination.

Re:do nothing

[Hazel Bergeron]

The path of Native Americans, Irish Republicans, Basque separatists, etc., all possessed a common feature: they stopped attacking the ruling group when the ruling group was prepared to do some redressing for their grievances and allow them a degree of voice and independence rather than total military subjugation.

There's currently no greater global subjugation than by the US neocon movement against "the Islamic threat" (although this includes fairly secular governments ruling a Muslim population, e.g. Iraq), so you can expect certain individuals to make the ultimate sacrifice for their cause. Similarly, freedom fighters / terrorists throughout history have put themselves in harm's way for their cause.

Re:do nothing

[hairyfeet]

Riiiight, because refusing to support a lose coalition of Islamic courts run by thugs whose answer to pretty much everything was 'Jihad!' makes the US the bad guys. In case you haven't noticed radical Islamists aren't exactly nice folks and you sure as hell can't blame the Ethiopians for not wanting jihadist neighbors.

Like it or not too damned much trade goes through those waters to allow radical Islam to control them. If the US Navy has their hands tied with too much bullshit it is time to call in the mercs. It ain't pretty but then again neither is Islam and we can't afford to have international shipping held hostage by pirates or the jihadists. Whether you wish to accept it or not fundamentalist Islam is run by thugs that refuse to acknowledge your right to exist as anything other than a Muslim and handing waters crucial to international shipping to a bunch of sharia courts ruled by warlords would have been even worse than what we have now. At least the pirates are in it for the cash, the islamists would treat it as a holy war.

Re:do nothing

[stdarg]

The path of Native Americans, Irish Republicans, Basque separatists, etc., all possessed a common feature: they stopped attacking the ruling group when the ruling group was prepared to do some redressing for their grievances and allow them a degree of voice and independence rather than total military subjugation.

Completely true but you're ignoring that every Muslim society is already in that end-game where peace with the West is an option. They're not being attacked or genocided. There are absolutely zero US army operations designed to "convert by the sword" all the Muslims in an area.

There's currently no greater global subjugation than by the US neocon movement against "the Islamic threat"

That doesn't make any sense. Who is being subjugated? Are peace loving non-terrorist Iraqis paying US income tax? Last I heard we're paying for everything, including rebuilding their country.

I'd say the greatest global subjugation today is the plight of religious minorities in Muslim countries. Millions of Christians fled Iraq, not because US forces were persecuting them but because Muslims were persecuting them. When you look at the millions of Copts who are being terrorized in Egypt, that's subjugation. They are under the control of the Muslim state and are being abused even though they have submitted completely. And there are STILL no suicide bombing children sent by the Copts to blow up Muslim mosques, but maybe that will change.

Re:do nothing

[Hazel Bergeron]

That doesn't make any sense. Who is being subjugated? Are peace loving non-terrorist Iraqis paying US income tax? Last I heard we're paying for everything, including rebuilding their country.

Argh. Lots of people don't want the US coming in and rebuilding their country in the US image, particularly not after installing US companies to mine the most valuable resources and US-friendly representatives in government. How would you feel if some foreign country overthrew the US government and paid to "rebuild it" as it thought right? You couldn't have illustrated the white man's burden fallacy more succintly.

I'd say the greatest global subjugation today is the plight of religious minorities in Muslim countries.

Woohoo. Let's see what you're referring to here...

When you look at the millions of Copts who are being terrorized in Egypt, that's subjugation.

Do you have one piece of credible evidence that millions are being terrorised, or would you like to adjust each of the italicised words in order to better reflect reality? There are certainly religiously motivated attacks in Egypt which seem to be Muslims vs Copts, and the religious freedom which is(was) supposedly granted in Egypt doesn't always seem to translate into equal treatment of all religions - a common feature of all countries where one religion dominates. The behaviour is indefensible.

But how you can compare this to wholesale invasion and occupation is beyond me.

Re:do nothing

[Hazel Bergeron]

thugs whose answer to pretty much everything was 'Jihad!' [...] It ain't pretty but then again neither is Islam [...] the islamists would treat it as a holy war.

I can almost taste the prejudice and hatred from here. It's like listening to people talk about Jews 70 years ago.

handing waters crucial to international shipping to a bunch of sharia courts ruled by warlords would have been even worse

Ah, the pre-emptive non-evidence-based strike. The US government is just so good at that.

Re:do nothing

[blair1q]

Also, when the US does it = securing.
When Somalians do it = piracy.

The Somali pirates are kidnapping people and demanding ransom. I didn't realize the US Navy was in that business, too.

"Secure the horn of Africa"? What is this, the 18th century?

In Africa, or the rest of the world? Because much of Africa is living in 1800, B.C.

Re:do nothing

[Fedarkyn]

I think the AC is trying to tell that WW2 was not against the Japanese, but against the Axis, and with German out, the war was already lost. The bombs were completely unnecessary as a tool of war, but great as a propaganga of "we finished the war" and "we can blow anyone into dust"

Re:do nothing

[stdarg]

Argh. Lots of people don't want the US coming in and rebuilding their country in the US image

I get that and agree that it's stupid and wrong. However it's not what you could call subjugation. What freedoms has the average Iraqi lost due to the American presence? Has Islam been banned? Have onerous taxes been levied, stripping the Iraqis of the ability to prosper?

Do you have one piece of credible evidence that millions are being terrorised, or would you like to adjust each of the italicised words in order to better reflect reality?

There are millions of Copts and they are all under attack by Muslim radicals. I don't mean that they are being exterminated.

Clearly you understand that you don't need constant 100% imminent threat of death to be (or to feel) subjugated. Even you wouldn't claim that Iraqis are being systematically exterminated by the US occupation forces, would you? So what do you see as the great burden on Iraqis that entitles them to be called "subjugated" that doesn't exist for non-Muslim Egyptians?

My reasoning in calling the Copts subjugated is that they are segregated within Egyptian society and they lack freedoms that Muslims in the same society have. They are exposed to violence and not protected or given justice by the government. They are discriminated against legally. They truly are a people living under the rule of another people without freedom. That's subjugation.

If Muslims were going into Copt areas and saying "Look we really want to get out of here, we're building new churches for you, we're building new schools, then we want you to rule yourselves" I guarantee I would not be calling the Copts subjugated! And yet you find some reason to call Iraqis subjugated? It makes no sense to me.

Re:do nothing

[kevinNCSU]

War is not a computer game where everyone quits once one of their teammates get knocked out because they know they can't win. In real life you can't just keep pumping out people from barracks who are willing to throw themselves on your enemies defenses until they eventually get worn down. Japan wasn't going to win the war, but they weren't defeated either, and they were betting on the fact that we were going to lack the resolve and tolerance for casualties necessary to successfully invade and force a total surrender. The casualty predictions for an invasion were enormous for both sides. The bombs were a tool of propaganda true, but it was offensive propaganda aimed at creating fear and helplessness in the Japanese command that we'd keep using the terrible weapon they couldn't defend against until they surrendered or there was nothing left. Terrible? yes. Inhumane? yes. But that describes the entirety of total war which was World War 2, and in the end those two days of destruction and lives taken saved both countries from an invasion which would have claimed orders of magnitude more. Your viewing history through the tint of the cold war. The bombs weren't a warning to future enemies, they were a tool of war that ended up avoiding an invasion with casualty estimates in the millions on our side and multiple millions on the Japanese side at the cost of ~250k. Any leader who wouldn't make that same decision after years of total war is a fool.

Re:do nothing

[c6gunner]

This is the bit where you deny that European and American influence has anything to do with the existence of these pirates in the first place.

Oh, no, I would never do that. You're absolutely right; we sail these huge shiny ships full of expensive goodies through international waters, and expect people not to hijack them. How ridiculous is that? Clearly we're provoking them.

By the way ... where's your car parked? I could use a new set of wheels ... and I'm feeling rather provoked right about now.

Re:do nothing

[Fedarkyn]

Exactly because war is not a video game that when your allies fall, you dont continue the war, usually war is a costly and messy thing that you cant do alone for much time.

In the long run, a war will exaust your economy and the support of your population. when you fight "to the last man" usually you end in what is called a "Pyrrhic victory" that is a win that cost so much that is not much different from a loss.

The japanese army was already in no contition to do much damage to anyone, specially US since their support fleets were already destroyed (so they couldn't attack american territory effectivelly) and only US had in that time aircraft carriers (I think it was 4 of them at the time).

So the bombs were not "tools to end the war with minimum pain and casualties". That would have happened without them. It was only a way to show off the international community that US have a big gun and is not to be messed with (this and some other factors created the perfect environment for the cold war later, but that is another issue). As a bonus whey could teach in the history classes that ww2 ended with this attack and the D day operation (kudos for US, yay!) and ignore the battle of berlin.

Maybe you had better history classes than me and known this for a long time, but I wasnt aware of the nuances of the ww2 until much later than high school.

Re:do nothing

[kevinNCSU]

You just don't get it. Your putting your detached, logical, present day hindsight (who gives a fuck when they surrender, not gonna change anything) and western values in the position of Japan and ignoring the facts of both what happened, and interviews of leaders that tell us what their plans were. One thing is very clear, before the atomic bombs they had no plans to surrender unconditionally. After the atomic bombs dropped pro-war military elements actually tried to launch a coup against the emperor in order to prevent him from recording a message to surrender and instead issue an edict to CONTINUE fighting!! History channel has some good documentaries on this, you can also check out this book, The Last Mission.

Some of your confusion might be thinking that you end a war like that when your enemy can't launch attacks anymore. That's not the case. You end the war when your enemy accepts unconditional surrender. You NEVER leave an army in the field to deal with another day, and when a country declares total war on you and your allies you don't stop fighting until your troops control every inch of their soil because otherwise neither they nor their people feel beaten and like with Germany, in a couple of decades you'll be fighting the war all over again.

I'm not sure what better way you see of forcing an unwilling enemy to surrender with minimum pain and casualties (especially to your side). "Waiting" them out means just dropping tons (literally tons and tons) of conventional ordnance in daily and nightly bombing raids until they capitulate. All the while they can be building up forces and defenses and digging in making them even more prepared, secured, and confident that they don't need to surrender because they will be able to repel an invasion so effectively

Re:do nothing

[Fedarkyn]

>You end the war when your enemy accepts unconditional surrender unconditional surrender is something very rare in a war, usually, when the army is drawn out the government agrees to a cease-fire. or a conditional surrender. It is less fancy than a complete and unconditional surrender, but is more effective in avoiding unnecessary blood spilled.

>you don't stop fighting until your troops control every inch of their soil because otherwise neither they nor their people feel beaten and like with Germany, in a couple of decades you'll be fighting the war all over again. this is naive. the german call to arms had a lot more reason than simply leftover grudge for the ww1

Keep in mind that fighting to the last man and rebuilding entire armies to continue a losing war only happens in videogames. Countries have economies to run and population to support.

Dont be fooled by the stereotypes that are sold to us all the time like "the japanese were samurais that yould never surrender", sure there were ppl like this, but not in numbers to depose the emperror and drive a nation to a mass suicide/berserk situation.

and now we got completely off-topic, I love /.

Re:do nothing

[Hazel Bergeron]

c6gunner, why do you have such a hard-on for the US military?

If you destabilise a country then its residents are going to collect compensation. Somalia loses its government and a chance at internal peace; the US loses a few ships. Baw. Given that the US has enjoyed not one retaliatory attack on its own shore and activity is limited to the seas to which Somalis have been pushed, the US has got off surprisingly well. If Somalia supported, say, another attack by Canada on DC, do you think the US would leave the territory of Somalia alone?

Re:do nothing

[c6gunner]

c6gunner, why do you have such a hard-on for the US military?

Hazel, why do you support terrorism?

If you destabilise a country then its residents are going to collect compensation.

Yeah, I mean, just look at all the compensation that Japan and Germany collected after WW2! All those Japanese pirates were a HUGE problem.

Actually, the REALLY funny part about what you just said is that you apparently think Somalia was stable at some point!

Re:do nothing

[Hazel Bergeron]

Hazel, why do you support terrorism?

I'm trying to understand it, including why acts are selectively labelled as it. But I still don't know why you have such a hard-on for the US military.

Actually, the REALLY funny part about what you just said is that you apparently think Somalia was stable at some point!

Well, imperial Britain was fairly good at taking on the white man's burden, but no, Somalia's never had the chance to be left the fuck alone to prosper over the past century, thanks to Britain, Italy, France, the Soviets and the US, the influence of the last two eventually felt through Ethiopia.

Re:do nothing

[c6gunner]

Nice! I've never seen ANYONE pull the white-mans-guilt card so smoothly before. Be honest: you've been practicing, haven't you?

Re:do nothing

[kevinNCSU]

Keep in mind that fighting to the last man and rebuilding entire armies to continue a losing war only happens in videogames. Countries have economies to run and population to support. Dont be fooled by the stereotypes that are sold to us all the time like "the japanese were samurais that yould never surrender", sure there were ppl like this, but not in numbers to depose the emperror and drive a nation to a mass suicide/berserk situation.

They aren't stereotypes that are sold, it's documented and factual history that is confirmed by both sides of the war. I'm not sure if you arguing out of historical ignorance or a belief that everything written, recorded and filmed (including Japanese soldier's personal stories) is propaganda but if it's the latter perhaps you should go to Japan and talk to some family members of survivors so they can set you straight on what life and culture was like in that time period. If it's simple historical ignorance lets look at the Battle of Saipan as an example:

By 7 July, the Japanese had nowhere to retreat. Saito made plans for a final suicidal banzai charge. On the fate of the remaining civilians on the island, Saito said, "There is no longer any distinction between civilians and troops. It would be better for them to join in the attack with bamboo spears than be captured." At dawn, with a group of 12 men carrying a great red flag in the lead, the remaining able-bodied troops—about 3,000 men—charged forward in the final attack. Amazingly, behind them came the wounded, with bandaged heads, crutches, and barely armed. The Japanese surged over the American front lines, engaging both Army and Marine units. The 1st and 2nd Battalions of the 105th U.S. Infantry were almost destroyed, losing 650 killed and wounded. However, the fierce resistance of these two battalions, as well as that of Headquarters Company, 105th Infantry, and elements of 3rd Battalion, 10th Marines (an artillery unit) resulted in over 4,300 Japanese killed. For their actions during the 15-hour Japanese attack, three men of the 105th Infantry were awarded the Medal of Honor—all posthumously. Numerous others fought the Japanese until they were overwhelmed by the largest Japanese Banzai attack in the Pacific War.[6]

By 16:15 on 9 July, Admiral Turner announced that Saipan was officially secured.[7] Saito——along with commanders Hirakushi and Igeta—committed suicide in a cave. Also committing suicide at the end of the battle was Vice-Admiral Chuichi Nagumo—the naval commander who led the Japanese carriers at Pearl Harbor and Midway Atoll—who had landed on Saipan to help lead the ground defense. A U.S. Marine retrieves a living baby from a cave full of corpses. June 1944.

In the end, almost the entire garrison of troops on the island—at least 30,000—died.

And if just fighitng to the last soldier isn't bad enough:

Emperor Hirohito personally found the threat of defection of Japanese civilians disturbing.[2] Much of the community was of low caste, and there was a risk that live civilians would be surprised by generous U.S. treatment........At the end of June, Hirohito sent out an imperial order encouraging the civilians of Saipan to commit suicide.[2] The order authorized the commander of Saipan to promise civilians who died there an equal spiritual status in the afterlife with those of soldiers perishing in combat........ By the time the Marines advanced on the north tip of the island, from 8–12 July, most of the damage had been done.[2] Over 20,000 Japanese civilians committed suicide in the last days of the battle to take the offered privileged place in the afterlife, some jumping from "Suicide Cliff" and "Banzai Cliff". In all, about 22,000 Japanese civilians died.

I don't know about you, but if I fought on some islands where 2 out of 3 civilians killed themselves or fought to

The pirates better

[lul_wat]

drop some good loot.

I would bombard them

[Chrisq]

I would bombard them with burning Qur'ans

What's the problem?

[bradley13]

There is no reason for this poorly equipped scum to be any sort of threat to civilian shipping. Just blow the pirates out of the water. Use normal warships. Use air surveillance, Use Q-ships. Put armed marines on civilian ships. In short, use all the standard naval strategies for commerce protection. Make it a death sentence to attack civilian traffic, and the problem will end.

The only reason there is any sort of problem is the weird desire to treat the pirates gently.

Re:What's the problem?

[PhilHibbs]

First, try making it a death sentence to drive Somali fishermen to starvation by overfishing Somali territorial waters, and make it a death sentence to dump toxic waste in their waters.

If a people are being exterminated, they will fight.

Forgot the Marines' Hymn?

[gadget junkie]

Funny that americans should ponder how to fight pirates.

the American Navy and Marine Corp have their root in the fight against Barbary Coast pirates in the Mediterranean Sea, where the solution was to bring the fight on land to deny to pirates access to the sea lanes. In short: sink the ships, ANY of them, on the whole coast, and watch the somalis try to walk their way to the targets. What part of "to the coast of Tripoli" baffles you?

Re:Forgot the Marines' Hymn?

[Anonymous Coward]

What part of "to the coast of Tripoli" baffles you?

Shores, bubba. That's "to the shores of Tripoli". Sheesh.

Re:Forgot the Marines' Hymn?

[gmhowell]

What part of "to the coast of Tripoli" baffles you?

Shores, bubba. That's "to the shores of Tripoli". Sheesh.

C'mon, you corrected a rant like that? I bet you're the guy who bitched because Blutarski mentioned the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor.

Re:Forgot the Marines' Hymn?

[Anonymous Coward]

sink the ships, ANY of them

This is one of the reasons why local population, specially local fishermen, see what we call pirates as their legit army and coastguards. They feel they are being protected from douchebags such as yourself.

Re:Forgot the Marines' Hymn?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is back the the US navy was 6 frigates, and a number of privateers. Any major sea-faring nation watching a US naval operation like that would point and laugh at the victim thinking "you just got owned by a frigate rush! what a noob move!" Now were're a super power. The political climate has changed and we're up against the "mouse that roared" problem.

Sure the US navy could invade Samalia and firebomb their coast to slag, but every other nation in the world would see them doing that and think "holy crap, what's stopping them from doing that to me?". Simply put the lives of those merchant marines and the value of their ensured cargo isn't worth the political fallout for the US.

Re:Forgot the Marines' Hymn?

[KingRatMass]

10 Marines were involved in the Battle of Derna... Don't buy the hype!

In the end, The US Government still paid a $60,000 ransom for the release of the crew of the Philadelphia. The total ransom paid through the conflict was over $2,000,000.

Re:Forgot the Marines' Hymn?

[stdarg]

And that's why we have to show them they are wrong. The pirates cannot protect them from douchebags like us. The best option has to be cooperation. It's the "stronger douchebag" theory of international relations, and history shows that it works.

Re:Forgot the Marines' Hymn?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that would be TOTALLY fair to all those hundreds (thousands?) of honest fishers, cargo transporters and other non-pirate boat owners... I mean they happen to live in the same country as pirates so it's clearly their fault. That's how it's always done isn't it? Group punishment FTW!

Re:Forgot the Marines' Hymn?

[jwhitener]

Unlike the pirates of 100 years ago, these pirates use small rubber rafts that can be easily carried anywhere, hidden, and bought again very cheaply.

The old fashioned way

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the game allow for old fashioned methods? Flogging around the fleet seems a bit mean spirited (or possibly too honorable since it was a punishment associated with a seaman serving under colors). However I would endorse that anyone caught in the act of piracy, or anyone serving on a vessel caught in the act of piracy, be bound with an 18lbs round shot attached to their feet and tossed overboard.

Sic the RIAA on them

[Arancaytar]

Maybe they'll have better luck fighting that kind of piracy.

Re:Sic the RIAA on them

[Anonymous Coward]

you've got to be kidding me...

somalia doesn't have any money... that's why they go after american citizens...

Oh the irony

[Noishe]

Click the link and a pdf opens with a wonderful graphic on the front... a somewhat familiar graphic....

So, they want to fight piracy by stealing the cover off of the pirates of the Caribbean movie?

Fight pirates... with piracy!

This OUGHT to work!

[Anonymous Coward]

IOW an elephant (grown too big) is trying to get rid of mice biting his nails so he decides to use his weight and force to kill them... bingo!

Terrorists?

[Chicken_Kickers]

Somali pirates are not terrorists.Terrorists are individuals or organizations that use force to advance a political agenda. The Somali pirates are only in it for the money. In fact, they are not even proper pirates. They rarely plunder the goods on the captured ships, usually they take just the salary money in ship's safes. They also mostly hold the ships and crews to ransom since shipping companies always pay as a matter of convenience. So, stop applying the label terrorists to everything.

Re:Terrorists?

[Anonymous Coward]

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion;

Hmmm, RIAA/MPAA/etc need to pay attention to this. They want to call people pirates then we should start calling them terrorists!

Re:Terrorists?

[c6gunner]

Somali pirates are not terrorists.Terrorists are individuals or organizations that use force to advance a political agenda. The Somali pirates are only in it for the money.

While I agree with your general premise, you're ignoring the possibility that some of the money being taken by pirates is being used to fund their own local territorial battles, as well as international terrorist organizations. While I haven't seen any actual figures, all the intel I've seen on the area indicates that the former is a near-certainty, and the latter a distinct possibility. So no, the pirates aren't necessarily "terrorists", but there's little doubt that their actions fund terrorism.

How about let them fish?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, maybe it's too late now.

EU ships (British, for instance) have emptied Somali waters, no fish left near the coast!

What are starving fishermen to do? Hi-jack ships, that's what. And now it has grown to a pirate industry - with organized pirates on one side and western security companies on the other side.

Learn some naval history

[Kupfernigk]

A number of posters above are suggesting solutions which have, in the past, been shown not to work (in Moby Dick, despite having small arms on board, Ahab decides to outrun the pirates. Think for a while about why. But then Melville had actually crewed on a whaler.)

The problem of the US Navy is that it is not set up to combat piracy economically. Its ships and munitions are too expensive to operate, and its systems are intended to detect tactical level threats, not identify which of a hundred similar fishing boats is in fact a pirate boat. It would probably be cheaper and more effective just to give the pirates reasonably well paid jobs, lack of which explains why they are involved in piracy in the first place.

In this country, General Wade was once despatched with an army to deal with the rebellious, raiding Highlanders. When he got there he decided that the problem was poverty. He set them to building roads in the Highlands, bringing trade to the area. It worked. Later, the Caledonian Canal was built for much the same reason: it wasn't economic as a canal but it brought employment and opportunity. These are the examples that the US should be looking at.

Re:Learn some naval history

[stdarg]

It would probably be cheaper and more effective just to give the pirates reasonably well paid jobs, lack of which explains why they are involved in piracy in the first place.

That only partially explains it. When you don't have a job you can either get a job that harms others or get a job that benefits others. Japan tried to solve their natural resource problems by invading others with more resources, and it didn't work. What made them one of the largest economies in the world was not fishing, farming, oil production, or any kind of natural resource lottery, it was a willingness to swallow their pride and be friendly with people with abundant natural resources to trade. Honey vs vinegar.

In this country, General Wade was once despatched with an army to deal with the rebellious, raiding Highlanders. When he got there he decided that the problem was poverty. He set them to building roads in the Highlands, bringing trade to the area. It worked.

Can you explain why the Highlanders couldn't build roads and increase trade themselves? What about today, when even Somalia has the Internet and access to the entire world's history and educational resources, as well as billions of dollars of international charity and aid?

Re:Learn some naval history

[Anonymous Coward]

It also meant there was no place in the rebellious highlands his armies couldnt get to easily!

Re:Learn some naval history

[CrimsonAvenger]

(in Moby Dick, despite having small arms on board, Ahab decides to outrun the pirates. Think for a while about why. But then Melville had actually crewed on a whaler.)

Hmm, Ahab has small arms, the pirates have cannons. Yah, I'd run if the choice were my rifle against your 12 pounder cannon too.

Re:Learn some naval history

[blair1q]

a willingness to swallow their pride and be friendly

Not on their part. That "willingness" was created with the greatest weapon ever devised (at the time).

And their prosperity was imposed on them.

By us.*

One of the reasons we think we can do it elsewhere.

* - yes, America.

Re:Learn some naval history

[perpenso]

... in Moby Dick, despite having small arms on board, Ahab decides to outrun the pirates. Think for a while about why. But then Melville had actually crewed on a whaler ...

I think one of the things I enjoyed most about the novel was the window into history that it provided.

The problem of the US Navy is that it is not set up to combat piracy economically. Its ships and munitions are too expensive to operate, and its systems are intended to detect tactical level threats, not identify which of a hundred similar fishing boats is in fact a pirate boat. It would probably be cheaper and more effective just to give the pirates reasonably well paid jobs, lack of which explains why they are involved in piracy in the first place ...

I think naval history shows that appeasing or buying off the pirates does not work. What did work was threatening the financial well being of the pirate leadership. If the warlords that send out today's pirate, and who keep the bulk of the ransoms, had their luxury homes, cars, etc threatened then piracy would lose its attraction. I think the real solution is to make piracy personally uneconomical for the warlords that send out the kids with rusty AKs. Note that history also shows that these warlords resist bringing assistance to the hungry unemployed masses. I don't think the strategy you suggest could be employed.

Re:Learn some naval history

[Rich0]

Just require all vessels at sea in a designated safe-passage corridor have an operational transponder issued by the USN. The transponder would of course broadcast a unique ID, and would only be issued after appropriate registration. A safe-passage fee would pay for the economic costs of administering the program and for the ordnance expended on vessels that lack a transponder.

Vessels that lack a transponder would be immediately seized and a fine would be required for return of the vessel. Vessels whose value (including cargo) clearly does not warrant the cost to tow to port would be scuttled. Since the fine would be designed to recover the towing costs the vessel owner isn't really out anything.

Legitimate merchants would not mind the intrusion - the transit fees would be lower than their insurance savings. The safe passage zones would be far enough offshore that things like recreational or small fishing boats would not be impacted. The zones would be wide enough that anyone penetrating the corridor would be detected and intercepted before reaching any merchants inside.

My understanding is that the pirates travel hundreds of miles to find ships to capture - so the goal isn't to secure the beach, but rather the middle of the ocean where there can't be that much legitimate traffic.

Why only Somalians?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is USA fighting only somali pirates and not for example nigerian pirates? A cynical person might note that it's because Somalia's coast has oil.

Re:Why only Somalians?

[FTWinston]

Yeah and there's no oil in the Niger delta?

Re:Why only Somalians?

[gmhowell]

Why is USA fighting only somali pirates and not for example nigerian pirates? A cynical person might note that it's because Somalia's coast has oil.

Because we're working with this Nigerian prince who is helping us with our financial crisis. We've sent him the PIN for the Federal Reserve accounts and Obama's signature so that he can transfer some money over. Getting violent could fuck up the sweet, sweet payday that is coming any day now.

Re:Why only Somalians?

[MachineShedFred]

An informed person might note that there is a whole lot of oil in the Niger Delta - somewhere around 30 billion barrels and 180 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. In fact, Nigeria is Africa's largest producer of oil - much larger than Libya, and it's the light sweet crude which the petroleum industry is always looking for.

Re:Why only Somalians?

[Attila Dimedici]

Lok at a map, the Somali pirates are located near a major shipping lane that a large portion of the world's ship traffic goes through, whereas Nigeria is in an area that all but a fraction of the world's ship traffic can avoid.

Terrorists?

[mr100percent]

Can we stop overusing the word terrorists? They're pirates and criminals, nothing more. Are they committing "a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State, and appears intended
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government and by assassination or kidnapping."

(according to the definition of "terrorism" defined by the US Congress)

Rules of Engagement

[jerralb]

There's no need to waste time by playing games. Change the rules of engagement to allow anyone merely being approached by pirates (the gun-toting in small water craft type) to fire at will.

Re:Rules of Engagement

[blair1q]

There's already a rule for that. It's called the principle of self-defense. You're allowed to shoot when you determine you're in danger. Armed unfriendlies approaching your boat in pirate waters? That's danger.

Reminds me of Ender's Game

[Metiu]

In that novel, smart children are raised in military academies, which test their skills by having them play "virtual" games against the enemy alien race, only to know that the advanced levels are not as virtual as they are said to be.

Take a 3-pronged approach

[jonwil]

1.Do something like what they did in the second world and escort civilian ships through the (relatively small) danger zone. Any pirates that show up get to find out just what the massive deck gun or missile launcher of a navy destroyer does to a small pirate boat. Enough pirates will get back to Somalia and tell all their pirate buddies about it that many will think twice about taking the risk.

Or another alternative would be to provide guns (or armed officers) on shops as they enter the danger zone and remove them when they leave. Any pirates that try to board get shot at with a large caliber rifle. I am not a Somali pirate but I suspect even Somali pirates dont like being shot at (and possibly seriously injured or killed).

2.Apply international pressure on the government of Somalia to clean up its act and clear things out. Offer them incentives (foriegn aid, support to eliminate the warlords and guns or whatever else) if they are willing to clean up their country and stop the pirates.

and 3.Offer direct aid to the Somali people (aid that comes with checks to make sure it ends up in the hands of the right people and not the warlords). Find things the Somali fishermen-turned-pirates can use to earn a legitimate living. If they have enough money to live off without piracy, they are much less likely to take the risk (especially given #1 above).

These people arent terrorists, they have no political agenda, they are only in it because they feel like they have no other choice if they want to survive. So you attack in 3 ways, you increase the risks for the pirates (so that the risk vs reward equation changes), you offer them incentives to stop being pirates and you apply political pressure to the government to make it illegal (if it isn't already) and to enforce the law.

If the law in Somalia doesn't make piracy illegal, it should be changed. And it should specify that any pirates who are caught have their ships impounded by the government and destroyed/sunk/on-sold.

Re:Take a 3-pronged approach

[Malc]

Hang on, that sounds like heavy handed government intervention. Surely Somali offers a model of a better solution

Re:Take a 3-pronged approach

[arcite]

The pirates are an international operation. They receive financing and logistics from Europe, financing and support from all over East Africa, technological support from such things as Sat-phones as well as insiders. The pirates reinvest their ransom earnings into their ship and equipment, the local economy, and the region as a whole. Until Somalia has a semblance of a government, piracy will continue to prosper.

Re:Take a 3-pronged approach

[91degrees]

Apply international pressure on the government of Somalia to clean up its act and clear things out. Offer them incentives (foriegn aid, support to eliminate the warlords and guns or whatever else) if they are willing to clean up their country and stop the pirates.

Does Somlia have a government? I thought that this was the problem.

Re:Take a 3-pronged approach

[Anonymous Coward]

You really know what you are talking about, eh ? :D
"2.Apply international pressure on the government of Somalia to clean up its act" - I almost pissed my pants here :DD

Re:Take a 3-pronged approach

[Anonymous Coward]

1) I should add that "relatively small danger zone" is probably a fourth of the surface area of the Indic Ocean... and let's not blow up cheap ships with million-dollar missiles when you can do it much cheaper. It isn't like the pirates have actual warships with active, or even passive, defenses...

2) Government... of Somalia? Umm. You mean the government propped up by an african union military force and which doesn't even control its own capital, Mogadishu, completely? Or perhaps you mean Puntland's authorities, who either don't care, have no means to oppose or are in cahoots with the pirates? Or Somaliland who vie for international recognition and are actually trying to deal with the pirates but just do not have the means to do so?

3) It was attempted about a couple decades ago. Didn't turn out so well. Watch Black Hawk Down for a small sample.

Basically, to sum up... Somalia is still in civil war. I don't think piracy is much of a concern to the people actually on the ground, even if they had the means to deal with it.

Re:Take a 3-pronged approach

[pehrs]

1.Do something like what they did in the second world and escort civilian ships through the (relatively small) danger zone. Any pirates that show up get to find out just what the massive deck gun or missile launcher of a navy destroyer does to a small pirate boat. Enough pirates will get back to Somalia and tell all their pirate buddies about it that many will think twice about taking the risk.

The zone is not very small. Pirates strike half way to India and down by madagaskar. We are talking about an area about half the size of the USA to monitor and convoy ships through. In addition, convoys are not very efficient against pirates. Ship-to-ship missiles and deck cannons are designed to hit ships, not small motorboats... which means you have to get close to stop the pirates. Not an easy task if you have a convoy of perhaps 30 ships to watch over and the pirates show up with 10 boats. And once the pirates are aboard a ship it gets a lot more complicated, as they can use the crew as a shield.

Or another alternative would be to provide guns (or armed officers) on shops as they enter the danger zone and remove them when they leave. Any pirates that try to board get shot at with a large caliber rifle. I am not a Somali pirate but I suspect even Somali pirates dont like being shot at (and possibly seriously injured or killed).

When the options are "starvation or earn the equivalent of $100 million in the local currency" people suddenly get much more likely to take risks. Being shot is a risk they accept. In addition, you are talking about starting a shootout between a few sailors and a bunch of random people from a country in civil war. It's not especially certain that the sailors will win that shootout.

2.Apply international pressure on the government of Somalia to clean up its act and clear things out. Offer them incentives (foriegn aid, support to eliminate the warlords and guns or whatever else) if they are willing to clean up their country and stop the pirates.

Government? Somalia? The closest thing you will find is the Islamic Courts Union, which is a radical Islamic group. They do stop piracy, but I kind of doubt anybody in the western world wants to support them. In fact a lot has been done to arm everybody else in an effort to stop the ICU.

and 3.Offer direct aid to the Somali people (aid that comes with checks to make sure it ends up in the hands of the right people and not the warlords). Find things the Somali fishermen-turned-pirates can use to earn a legitimate living. If they have enough money to live off without piracy, they are much less likely to take the risk (especially given #1 above).

How? You have no banking system in Somalia, no working government. It is extremely hard to distribute aid in that situation. The waters outside Somalia are outfished, and it will take generations before the fishery industry recovers.... Not to mention that the large amount of toxic waste dumped in the water will prevent them from selling the fish.

These people arent terrorists, they have no political agenda, they are only in it because they feel like they have no other choice if they want to survive. So you attack in 3 ways, you increase the risks for the pirates (so that the risk vs reward equation changes), you offer them incentives to stop being pirates and you apply political pressure to the government to make it illegal (if it isn't already) and to enforce the law.

No, they are not terrorists, but sadly none of the methods you mentioned are likely to have a large effect on the current situation.

If the law in Somalia doesn't make piracy illegal, it should be changed. And it should specify that any pirates who are caught have their ships impounded by the government and destroyed/sunk/on-sold.

There is no law in Somalia as there is no unified governement. The closest thing is a Sharia based law in the ICU region, which is mostly in the south. They have taken a stance against piracy.

Re:Take a 3-pronged approach

[Anonymous Coward]

2) and 3) were tried already. You can find the outcome if you watch Black Hawk Down.

Re:Take a 3-pronged approach

[Sierra Charlie]

1.Do something like what they did in the second world and escort civilian ships through the (relatively small) danger zone.

It's not a "relatively small" zone. Somali pirates are operating over 1,000 miles from their shore.

Any pirates that show up get to find out just what the massive deck gun or missile launcher of a navy destroyer does to a small pirate boat.

The Navy can't go around shooting up boats because they look "piratey". And only the stupidiest pirates run up to a destroyer and try to attack it (it has happened though).

2.Apply international pressure on the government of Somalia to clean up its act and clear things out. Offer them incentives (foriegn aid, support to eliminate the warlords and guns or whatever else) if they are willing to clean up their country and stop the pirates.

Somalia is the definition of a Failed state. Their "government" doesn't have any control over the areas the pirates call home. It's not like they can just send the police in to "clear things out". It would be an invasion, which the government would probably lose.

Find things the Somali fishermen-turned-pirates can use to earn a legitimate living. If they have enough money to live off without piracy, they are much less likely to take the risk (especially given #1 above).

These people arent terrorists, they have no political agenda, they are only in it because they feel like they have no other choice if they want to survive.

Let's not romanticize this. The idea that these are fishermen-turned-pirates just trying to defend their home waters and/or provide for their families is ridiculous. These are organized crime rings who are willing to steal, kidnap and murder for a chance to strike it rich.

The truth is the only likely way to solve the problem is for interational forces to invade and occupy the coast. But the world already tried the "peacekeeping" approach there in the 90's, and I don't think anyone has the stomach to repeat the experience.

Re:Take a 3-pronged approach

[Anonymous Coward]

What government of Somalia? What "law in Somalia?"

Re:Take a 3-pronged approach

[blair1q]

"An armed society is a polite society," as the saying goes.

Re:Take a 3-pronged approach

[Anonymous Coward]

Failure with point 2, there IS no government of Somalia.

Re:Take a 3-pronged approach

[Malc]

Errr, where did that come from? Shouldn't it be "an unarmed society"? Americans are rude; the British and Japanese are not. (sorry for expressing stereotypes, but there is some reality there)

Re:Take a 3-pronged approach

[perpenso]

"An armed society is a polite society," as the saying goes.

An assault rifle and 300 rounds of ammo in most Swiss households does indeed support that notion.

Note the word "society" in the quote. Somalia's civil society has regrettably collapsed into anarchy. No one is claiming that an armed anarchy is peaceful.

Re:Take a 3-pronged approach

[blair1q]

No one is claiming that an armed anarchy is peaceful.

Except NRA members. They don't make any distinctions other than guns/no-guns.

As for Switzerland, their politeness has nothing to do with their government-mandated guns, which are military equipment that they don't carry around all the time. It's illegal for them to break the seal on the government's ammo unless they're ordered to. They have to buy their own for practice or self-defense. Their politeness is because they're stuck-up white folks with a massive conformist streak and severe judgmentalism.

Re:Take a 3-pronged approach

[perpenso]

No one is claiming that an armed anarchy is peaceful.

Except NRA members. They don't make any distinctions other than guns/no-guns.

Given that the NRA is all about electoral participation I'd say they are very much on the pro civil society side and not really on the anarchy side.

Also, IIRC, one of the conditions of NRA membership is that you do *not* advocate the violent overthrow of the government. Seriously, this was actually in the membership applications that the hunter safety instructor was passing out.

Re:Take a 3-pronged approach

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Their politeness is because they're stuck-up white folks with a massive conformist streak and severe judgmentalism.
Much like the British and the Japanese(minus the white folks part). See armed or unarmed is irrelevant in this context.

Re:Take a 3-pronged approach

[blair1q]

The quote is a broad hint that people not being polite will be shot. Nothing about political systems at all. Nothing about historical correlations. Just gun-nut claptrap.

Re:Take a 3-pronged approach

[blair1q]

A repressed society is a polite society. With very kinky sex habits behind closed doors (brits and bondage, japanese and bukkake). I've never seen much of Swiss porn. Can only imagine...

Re:Take a 3-pronged approach

[spiralx]

Somalia :)

Re:Take a 3-pronged approach

[eriqk]

Or perhaps you mean Puntland's authorities, who either don't care, have no means to oppose or are in cahoots with the pirates? Or Somaliland who vie for international recognition and are actually trying to deal with the pirates but just do not have the means to do so?

Why look. I just spotted some potential solutions right there.
Note that Somaliland is the closest thing to a functioning nation in the region.

That would not work

[arcite]

There is a limitless supply of pirate wannabes, and there is a limited supply of relatively cheap boats for the pirates to use. Far better to target the kingpins, organizers, and financiers of piracy. The facts are, the pirates have better funding.

Re:That would not work

[Attila Dimedici]

If you increase the "cost" of piracy by increasing the odds that the pirates will be killed and reduce the rewards of piracy by not negotiating ransoms, the number of pirate wannabes will diminish rapidly. The strategy of killing pirates, also works because there will be fewer experienced pirates who have learned what strategies don't work

Re:That would not work

[Dunbal]

Go after their logistics. It takes a support network to keep a "mothership" fed, manned, fueled and armed at sea for any length of time. Find out where those support vessels are and sink/capture them. Strength vs weakness - something the US military never seems to remember.

Re:That would not work

[Attila Dimedici]

Yes, that would work as well. With rare exceptions, captured pirates should not be released. Knocking out the logistics structure would help as well. Additionally, pick a port that pirates use to hold captured ships. Announce that in 48 hours,every ship in that port will be sunk unless all of the captured ships are returned to their rightful owners. Follow through. Move on to next such port. If at the first two ports all ships have moved before the 48 hours are up and no ships have been returned to rightful owners (a likely outcome), when you announce that the next port will be attacked inform them that all port facilities will be destroyed as well. Rinse and repeat, until people living in port cities realize that the cost of harboring pirates is greater than the reward.

How much would that cost?

[arcite]

Much cheaper to just pay the ransom. Let the insurance companies take the hit. Pirates got kids to feed to ya know.

Deal with an economic problem economically

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a percentage of the monies currently being expended by the world's naval anti-pirate efforts - to include commercial expenditures - and use the monies to employ the pirates in locally viable aquaculture/agriculture projects. For the remainder who don't comply and continue piracy, let very public application of force serve as a disincentive. Simple carrot and stick solution.

Talk to Indian Navy

[tanveer1979]

They are having good success in recent times in dealing with these pirates.
Piracy was a big problem for India, as many of the ships registered in entire south and south east asia have a large contingent of India crew. So every time hijacking took place, a bunch of Indian nationals got caught in the crossfire.
To fix this problem, the Navy has started patrolling the international waters, and they have sunk quite a few pirate ships!

We Used to Have a Pretty Good Solution

[Greyfox]

Didn't we used to hang them at sea with relatively few questions asked, way back when the country was just being founded? I'm all for going back to that. The current goody-two-shoes crap is only going to encourage them.

The problem is Somalia

[chrb]

Somalia is a failed state. Piracy is just a symptom of the underlying problem, not the problem itself. There can be no lasting security on the seas until there is security on the land - the pirates are able to project their attacks across thousands of kilometers of ocean stretching from Somalia to the Maldives, and it is very difficult to patrol and police such a large area. The potential profits from piracy versus the risk and investment are good, and as long as this continues then Somali entrepreneurs are going to be attracted towards the business.

Providing every crew member of a vessel going through the area with access to a rifle would probably go a long way to combat the problem.

As I understand it, aren't many of the crews already armed? Maybe not every single crew member has access to a rifle, but there are armed people on board (in particular, don't the $millions oil tankers usually have a few ex-forces mercs types on board?) But life is cheap in Somalia, and the potential profits are huge, so the prospect of encountering armed defence isn't such a great deterrent as it would be elsewhere in the world.

Re:The problem is Somalia

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can find it, check out NHNZ's Pirate Patrols. I air it at work, from time to time, and it's really quite interesting.

Re:The problem is Somalia

[MarkvW]

Maybe the attitude has changed. We've just invaded Pakistan (not a failed state). We've just attacked Libya (without a declaration of war or Congressional authorization). Maybe now we can raid Somalia and steal their attack boats.

Re:The problem is Somalia

[Anonymous Coward]

But that's just the thing -- Somalia is emphatically not a failed state. It is a highly successful kitarchy that has driven off foreign invasions (including one led by the U.S.) again and again since 1991. (It's for this reason that Mogadishu is essentially an armed camp in the middle of a warzone. The regions that have not been invaded a dozen times in a decade are still quite nice.) They do not want a Western-style government, as they rightly see it is as a scam; a vehicle for robbery and oppression. They have moved to a traditional system of governance by tribal elders, and the young men are encouraged to turn to piracy to make the foreign devils pay for the economic destruction of Somalia.
  Somalis are prepared to make foreign aggressors suffer for every Somali they kill, and have shown themselves highly skilled at doing so. Ceasing to fuck with them would probably be safest and cheapest.

Re:The problem is you!!!!

[metacell]

Um, do you mean the pirates are ordinary people like you and me?

Or did you confuse "Somalian pirates" with "Afghans"?

Oblig Southpark.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cartman: The fuck?

Giving thieves money stops them stealing...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can always stop thieves stealing by giving them what they would otherwise steal. It's not a solution to the problem though.

On the spot fines

[Anonymous Coward]

I think these piracy cases are clogging up the legal system. What we need to do is issue on the spot fines for the more serious cases and community service for the more considerate pirates.

You're controlling unmanned drones...

[aapold]

you think its only a game but you're really piloting their unmanned drones for them....

Re:You're controlling unmanned drones...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just call me Ender Wiggin.

Re:You're controlling unmanned drones...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ender Wiggin is not exactly the role model the military is interested in following.

Re:You're controlling unmanned drones...

[sabt-pestnu]

So someone else is a beginner, and I am an Ender?

Re:You're controlling unmanned drones...

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Detect pirate ship
2) Deploy smoke signal: "Hey pirates, want to buy a fully-operational US military drone? Send $1m to the following Swiss account..."

Re:You're controlling unmanned drones...

[Anonymous Coward]

If the pirate had $1mil they wouldn't need to turn to piracy to make money.

Fixed that for you.

[heptapod]

I don't believe pirates are soluable. Instead "all the pirates in the depths of the sea is the suspension".

Industry and Jobs will solve this problem

[Anonymous Coward]

This is completely backward and only cures the symptom, not the disease. How about some industry and jobs for these folks - maybe then they could feed their families and build their community without having to go sailing.

easybutton

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would the US Navy have any problem fighting off the pirates on the Horn of Africa?

Track them. Kill them. Resell ships to legitimate companies or, if they are only fit for piracy, sink them. Problem solved.
Cheap way: Kill a lot more pirates, make a lot of examples. Piracy rates drop significantly when pirates are killed on sight.

They can invest as much as they want in a new MMO. This particular issue has already been played out millions of times.

Not That Difficult

[dammy]

Ever other ship that passes through that area gets a free squad (or larger depending on the size of the vessel) of US Marines. Give it about six months and the pirates will be out of business when half the pirates fail to return from each trip. If you really want to put a crimp in future piracy, block the harbors with large rocks so no major vessel can enter. Then the pirates have to remain at sea and face the SEALs. The few commercial ports left open would be easily secured against pirates using it as a base.

Comparison to Apache is foolish, insulting

[Anonymous Coward]

You MIGHT compare them with the America's Apache. If you even know anything about the Apache. The thing they have in common is, they are superb fighters, and have been for a long time, for basically the same reasons.

No. The Apache were superb, truly skilled in tactics and in individual effectiveness. The Somalis are not. Individually they are ineffective and have little tactical skills. They are more the spray and pray types. What they have going for themselves is merely an enthusiasm for fighting and that is in part drug induced. Your comparison is foolish and quite insulting to the Apache.

Re:Comparison to Apache is foolish, insulting

[Runaway1956]

"The Apache were superb, truly skilled in tactics and in individual effectiveness."

Basically what I said. Superb fighters. Not great strategists, but superb fighters.

And, obviously, you are unaware of Somalian HISTORY. I DID NOT compare today's pirates to yesterday's Apache - I compared their HISTORY to the Apache. Did the Somali, or did the Somali not, beat the living shit out of the Brits, who had better technology, better logistics, and much more money to throw at the problem? Do you think that today's sorry excuses for pirates could have done that? I certainly don't think so.

Look past current events, and look at the race, culture, or ethnic group. Somalis have as good a history as FIGHTERS as the Apache, your personal pride and prejudices notwithstanding.

That said, I'll point to the fact that the Somali are basically a nomadic people, while the Apache are more agrarian, and far more civilized.

Re:Comparison to Apache is foolish, insulting

[GooberToo]

Superb fighters.

Not in the least. They are incompetent fighters who become empowered by the consumption of drugs. They notoriously poor fighters, strategists, and tacticians. They are in no way comparable to the Apache. To do so it to gravely insult the Apache people. The comparison is disgusting.

Frequently, the only thing which makes Somolies noteworthy is they are typically fearless (from drug consumption) and completely ruthless and immoral. Which means the best solution for dealing with Somolian pirates is to brutally kill any and all, on sight.

Re:Comparison to Apache is foolish, insulting

[Runaway1956]

Well, I won't convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced - but you really should look into Somali history. You will note, I hope, that I have distinguished between the cultural levels of the two peoples. The Apache had a culture that was very much superior to that of the Somali. While the Apache seemed to be less "civilized" than some of the other American tribes - they undeniably had civilization. Nomads, on the other hand, lack almost everything that contributes to anything we might term "civilization". And, there you find the real differences between Somali warriors and Apache. One on one, or in small unit tactics, the great-great grandfathers of today's Somalis would very likely have held their own against the Apache.

Re:Comparison to Apache is foolish, insulting

[Anonymous Coward]

... obviously, you are unaware of Somalian HISTORY ...

These great Somali warriors are a historical artifact, they are not what you see today. Today you have poorly trained and minimally effective people hopped up on drugs (kat) to make them combative for a few hours.

The Romans once conquered much of europe, the middle east and north africa. Using your logic today's Italian army must truly be fearsome.

Re:Comparison to Apache is foolish, insulting

[overlordofmu]

You didn't need to correct the AC. His arguments were Strawman and no one paid the AC any attention. ACs are just barely ranked above trolls and you shouldn't feed the ACs either. Nice post though. Both of them.

Stop protecting ships flying other flags.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

All these shipping companies register their vessels where the taxes are low, and enforcement of regulations are weak and shipworthiness standards are abysmal to save costs. Then they want the whole world to pitch in and help them solve the problem? Gimme a break. Just announce that no ship registered outside will be protected by US Navy. And use the convoy system developed in WW-II and provide destroyer escort to convoys. The ship owners will save substantially in insurance premia and we can tax a portion of the savings to fund this service.

Solution to piracy is on land, not on the sea

[Anonymous Coward]

This game is too complex. To stop piracy: just sink these damned pirates. When they will all be in the depths of the sea the problem will be solved.

No. History shows that you target the warlords who send out the pirates and who get most of the profits, and you target the support infrastructure. Basically you remove the profit incentive. The solution to piracy is on land, not on the sea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates

Invade Iceland

[sourcerror]

Invade Iceland for operating pirate training camps (and for crimes against good taste)!

Instant registration wtf?

[Anonymous Coward]

So apparently just visiting the site registers you for the program?? WTF!?

All violent crime is terrorism

[tepples]

By the definition that you quote, all violent crime is terrorism. Let's take robbery as an example, as piracy means "robbery on the high seas" when it doesn't mean "infringement of imaginary property rights". All robberies are "intended [...] to intimidate or coerce" members of "a civilian population" into giving up things of value to the criminal.

Re:All violent crime is terrorism

[mr100percent]

Not quite, unless you're intending robbery on a scale that affects most of the public. You'd need to be looting the Federal Reserve for that kind of scale.

Americans

[sourcerror]

" undisciplined, ungovernable people on their hands, who they are attempting to govern"

"didn't understand government, and wanted nothing to do with it"

" The Brits left in disgust, and things are basically unchanged since then."

Sounds like Americans.

Re:Americans

[lwsimon]

Thanks :)

Re:Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure your post was just trying to be funny, but..

" undisciplined, ungovernable people on their hands, who they are attempting to govern"

America was governed by foreigners for hundreds of years, continues to involve foreigners in the government, and was/is quite prosperous and civilized.

"didn't understand government, and wanted nothing to do with it"

Americans didn't want anarchy, they wanted to be more involved in government. "No taxation without representation."

" The Brits left in disgust, and things are basically unchanged since then."

America is now wealthier and more powerful than Britain. Somalia not so much.

I know this comes as a shock but some cultures really are superior to others.

Re:Americans

[Psmylie]

You shouldn't make a big deal of the US being wealthier and more powerful than Britain. Britain was a major power in the world in its day. It's declined since then, sure, but who's to say that the US won't do the same? Our debt keeps rising, our standards of education keep falling, jobs keep moving overseas... this is not a sustainable structure we have here, and the more we borrow the faster and sooner our collapse will be.

So, I'm not as sure as you are when you say that our current wealth and success is due to a superior culture. Would you say the same if the US economy collapsed and drove the majority of it's citizens into poverty?

Re:Americans

[cavreader]

If the US falls it will take the rest of the world with it. Britain was powerful in it's day and is still a respectable country today however the world is still trying to recover from their actions all across the planet. After all it was their inspiring and enlightened rulers who divided up the middle east territories.

Re:Americans

[Dishevel]

What has Somalia ever given to the world?
I know this is going to get smashed by down mods but sometimes the truth must be spoken.

There are many cultures in the world that add to the knowledge and wealth of the world.
There are many that do not.
Those are failures. Only kept alive by the goodwill of those around them.

Not all cultures are equal. Some are better than others. Not all viewpoints are "valid". Some are just plain stupid.

If you can not or will not come to terms with this truth then there is no reason to discuss this with you.

Even if the US does at some point fall. To not give credit to the US for all they have created in the world is just pathetic.
To compare the US or Britain or France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Russia, Persia, India, China with a backwards failures like Somalia, Syria, Afaganistan, or any other backwards give nothing cultures shows that you have no real understanding of ... really ... anything.

Merchant Raiders

[jzarling]

Take a page from history. Merchant Raiders on anti piracy patrol - let them sink the pirates.

Can't we just let the free market deal with it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on, libertarians, what's your solution to this one?

Re:Can't we just let the free market deal with it?

[berashith]

are you kidding ? the free market has already solved this one. It is just unfortunate that the solution involves kidnapping and ransoms. The market has set a price and balance between insurance premiums, the amount of ransom to be paid, and the costs imposed on the goods being transported. The invisible hand has even assisted the Somali fishermen in their wish to feed their families.

The free market has no morals or emotional ties, so it doesnt see the inconveniences. If you really want to stop piracy, put the owners of the shipping companies and the insurance agencies on the boats that are getting taken. When they have a different view of the situation than just the dollars involved then they will begin to alter their markets in ways that dont allow the current situation to remain.

Re:Can't we just let the free market deal with it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course I was kidding, it's just unsurprising that the libertarians go all silent when there's an issue like this to be dealt with. Dealing with piracy requires cooperation, law-enforcement and obviously quite the navy - all big government things that are supposedly evil.

The could do that...

[vague disclaimer]

...or they could just implement a proper convoy system

What are you talking about?

[rsilvergun]

it worked great for Haliburton's stock.

Re:What are you talking about?

[overlordofmu]

Not as well as it has for Haliburton's share holders.

A two-pronged approach is needed

[Quila]

First, kill all pirates on sight, period. No worrying about Somali territorial waters at all. They're pirates, they die. History shows this is how you successfully deal with pirates in the beginning. Make it an unattractive career choice even with their limited options, bankrupt those who are building and buying them boats by destroying the boats as fast as they can be put in the water.

Second, encourage a unified Somali national government by political means or by force. Once they can police their own waters, take care of their own pirates with their own legal system, then they have a territorial waters boundary that is worth respecting.

Historically, only the threat of force, and going to war to show it's serious, has stopped piracy for good.

Re:A two-pronged approach is needed

[Unkyjar]

Kill all pirates on sight, period? Halloween will be a complete bloodbath with many pirates killed over here in the states. However I'm not so sure that the Somali pirates will be so obliging as to fly the jolly roger and walk around with parrots and eye patches.

Who is the real Military strategist here?

[geekmux]

"...a new video game project (that's Massive Multiplayer Online WarGame Leveraging the Internet, by the way) that is being used to crowdsource ideas on how to fight off maritime terrorists and hopefully secure the Horn of Africa."

While I can respect the fact that the United States Military is humble enough to reach out to others to get ideas on how to fight terrorism, I find it rather scary that a roomful of four-star Generals with 25+ years of Military experience seemingly cannot formulate a better defensive game plan than a roomful of 15-year old kids playing a game on spring break, which is basically what this boils down to.

Re:Who is the real Military strategist here?

[Anonymous Coward]

a roomful of four-star Generals with 25+ years of Military experience seemingly cannot formulate a better defensive game plan than a roomful of 15-year old kids

That's really unjust. Over here I need to wait till I'm 67 to get retired

Re:Who is the real Military strategist here?

[Anonymous Coward]

The room full of Admirals probably said "sink the pirate ships on sight and shell their ports". Which has been the only historically effective way of dealing with pirates.

However, the US military doesn't rule the US. The military is controlled by the civilian government, which said "no".

Option 2: Does Somalia have Oil?

[DarthVain]

Pirates, Terrorists, whatever...

Well if they are making a game of it

[Anonymous Coward]

Offer a holiday cruise through the area, with public access to the deck guns. Charge cost +5% for ammunition, and then let "interested" members of the public have a holiday of playing shoot at the pirate, all in self defense of course.

I would think you would find many interested paying customers for an experience like that.

Predator drones with Hellfire missiles

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep drones with weapons flying in the area.

When boats which appear to be pirates ( no fishing nets, lots of people in
a smaller boat which is further offshore than makes sense ) shoot the
missiles at the boats and sink the boats, hopefully killing all the pirates
on board.

When would-be pirates begin to realize that 9.9 out of 10 boats sent out never return,
it will be harder to recruit new pirates

There is not an unlimited supply of pirates. Listen, there pirates are simply human waste which
has figured out a way to make easy money. You people who feel sorry for them are naive idiots.
These pieces of shit KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE. They deserve no more mercy than a cockroach.

obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

bucsden.mid

MMOWGLI

[HTH NE1]

So how do Disney and the Kipling estate feel about the Mowgli character name being used for war purposes?

Erm...

[ForgedArtificer]

So once again, the United States military is creating a game to interest teenagers in enlisting?

This is starting to become a disturbing trend... first America's Army, now.... err, MMOWGLI: The Jungle Book...

Redundant name

[drb226]

Is there any exiting MMO that isn't "leveraging the internet"?

Local terrorism

[tepples]

Not quite, unless you're intending robbery on a scale that affects most of the public.

Then I guess you're right: terrorists would have to threaten coercion on a scale commonly associated with the Mafia or the MAFIAA.

You'd need to be looting the Federal Reserve

Is a criminal act terrorism if it affects only the civilian population in one local market, or does it have to be throughout a sovereign state?

Now my tax dollars making video games?

[Anonymous Coward]

How much money did they spend on creating this?

Being peaceful wasn't Japan's idea ...

[Anonymous Coward]

My point in bringing up Japan was that people in a resource-poor country still have the option to become good and productive citizens who improve their own society without harming others.

And how was it that this new approach to their neighbors became their policy? I seem to recall a history of invading their neighbors, stealing their resource, enslaving their neighbors and even using their neighbors as subjects in medical experimentation. Only after losing a war they started and having the victor write their new constitution that outlaws war and minimize the size and role of the military did they try the peaceful friendly neighbor strategy.

Ocean Piracy is a Land Based Issue

[catchblue22]

Pirates are not new. And through the history of piracy, it has been shown time and time again that to rid the oceans of piracy, the conditions on land that led to the piracy in the first place must be changed. In the case of Somalia, we have a failed state with no real government. Poverty and lawlessness have led to the problem in the oceans off Somalia. Any ocean based solutions to this problem will be merely band-aides. As long as Somalia remains as it is, the piracy problem will continue, battleships and computer games not withstanding.

simple solution: hire pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

This is something that's fascinated me for years, I've finally come up with a solid plan for resolving the situation:

Hire some of these pirate organizations to provide security and deliver supplies, turn them into legit businesses and you will create a market for them to compete in. Pirate organizations will be incentivized to go legit and participate in the market because non-participation brings a higher risk and lower reward. Regulate the market to establish civilized norms and the culture of criminality will diminish in the region through inescapable hegemonic inducement.

Sometimes I wonder why no one from CIA has ever tried to recruit me...

The real problem is US foreign policy

[koona]

It's clear, that in this situation where the entire
indian ocean is an unsafe area to traverse
carrying valuable cargo, draconian measures are
justified. The Indian Navy, among others (i
believe the humble Dutch), have blown several
pirate crews to oblivion without serious censure
from the world body of opinion. I suspect a
resounding though covert round of applause if the
  truth be known.

Other nations are willing, when they deem it
necessary, to put their actions where their hearts
  are. eg France in Ivory coast last month. That
was clearly illegal.

The US however seems to only do these
singular, heroic, and potentialy unpopular or even
  "illegal" actions when there is long term gain in
it for them, like oil for instance.

The US response to 911 could well have been a
lightning devastation of the terrorist training
camps in Afganistan. An illegal months long
invasion and disregard of the afghans
sovereignty, Maybe a few residual camps of
marines left out in the desert for quick responses
  if required. The world would yawn once the initial
  jibber jabber was done with.

But no, they make it into a f**kng, ongoing, only
  getting worse, and ill will breeding 10 year long
event.

Only a megalomaniacal mind set could examine
the history of the Pathans and their brother tribes
  with Alexander the great, Britain, USSR, and
now USA and figure it made sense to try to
dominate and control them.

Anyway, I think it is this mind set that speaks to
  amercas failure to take effective action with the
pie rats of the Indian Ocean. There just isn't
much in it for them is there?

Guess who taught Japan?

[knorthern knight]

> And how was it that this new approach to their neighbors became their policy?
> I seem to recall a history of invading their neighbors, stealing their resource, enslaving
> their neighbors and even using their neighbors as subjects in medical experimentation

The Japanese had great teachers for that, namely the USA. Their WWII "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" was but a pale imitation of what the USA did to them in their first "trade treaty". See http://www.corvalliscommunitypages.com/asia_pacific/japan/perryinjapanall.htm and do a Google search on Admiral Perry for more info.

nonsense

[suik]

they are only defending their coasts from international exploitation. typical American disinformation.

Do they do Halloween in Somali waters?

[Quila]

I'd be very surprised to find a boat of ten year-olds wearing Wal-Mart pirate costumes.

Otherwise, a boatful of armed men should be watched, any action means sinking. If they do take over a ship, they should know there will never be a ransom payment, only death. If we let them get back to base, it should be only so we can blow the whole place up.