I think the weapons lockers would be just fine. Restrict access to the captain and one or two of the other senior crew. We trust these guys to pilot tens of thousands of tons of steel without killing anyone. We can trust them with a few small arms.
No, actually, they aren't. I can say anything I want about you in America. You might be able to sue me for it but I've broken no laws.
From your entry, I understand that if they're civil actions, then that's okay, not worth caring? Hmm... interesting point of view.
No, I was responding to your remark that it's a "felony" to lie about someone. The fact of the matter is that in America it's no such thing. That may not be in the case in other countries, although I'm personally not aware of any country that makes it a felony to lie about someone.
I would be interested in seeing a response to my other comment, because I really don't think you've thought your positions through clearly. I think you are operating with good intentions but it's extremely naive and a little bit dangerous to think that you will ever be able to control what is said on the internet.
Protecting your citizens from kidnapping thugs is 'short-sighted military policy'? What's the point of having a military if it can't protect your people from violence?
Random? What nations have we "randomly" attacked? You are entitled to take issue with our foreign policy but you aren't entitled to make shit up.
Afghanistan: Attacked because their Government harbored a terrorist organization that murdered 3,000 innocent people
Iraq: Attacked because they spent a decade flaunting international law.
You may disagree with one or both of those actions but it's painfully obvious that neither was "random". I find it interesting and a tad bit hypocritical that you condemn the United States but ignore the other countries that fought alongside us.
In any event, the topic at hand is piracy. The point that I was making was that the United States is not the only nation that's willing to use deadly force to protect it's citizens. The French have actually taken bolder action and killed more pirates than we have. Why don't you direct some of your bile at them?
I mean, you're already posting under several different account names
That's the second time somebody has accused me of that. I'd like to see you come up with a shred of even circumstantial evidence to support the allegation you've just made.
I'll confess that I post AC from time to time (FYI: the post you are replying to is not one of mine), usually when I want to say something that's politically unpopular or just feel like trolling. I have never posted under a different account though. I doubt I can convince you of that fact but it's a fact nonetheless.
It doesn't matter that they "rarely" use their guns. They are kidnapping people. Kidnapping is an extreme violation of the individual, second only to rape and murder. Under the laws of most nations a kidnap victim is entitled to respond with whatever force is required to preserve his or her freedom. In no nation that I know of are you expected to lie down and surrender when faced with such an extreme violation of your person and rights.
At what point do you think it's ok to start fighting back? Why should innocent people be left completely defenseless in the face of such horrible crimes? Even if the concept of self-defense bothers you, can't you see the futility of paying ransoms? All we are accomplishing is to encourage them to violate more innocent people. When does it end?
Yes, more guns is exactly the right answer. More guns will always be the answer when the bad guys are the only ones that possess them.
If merchant vessels start shooting up any fishing vessel that comes near them
That's a strawman. Nobody has advocated shooting at any vessel that comes near a merchant ship. This post of mine describes the standard operating procedure before deadly force can be employed.
They sneak up, climb on to the target ship, and take hostages.
That's why the crew should have pistols and shotguns to go with the rifles. Personally, I'd rather fight it out than willingly become a hostage. Why is that concept so bothersome to so many people?
I don't understand why everybody is hung up on this fear of 'making mistakes'. Why is it every time that somebody suggests arming potential victims somebody else comes along and starts worrying about friendly fire? It rarely works out that way in the real world. It's even less likely in a maritime setting.
Just stop and think about it for a moment. Small craft do not follow merchant ships around for no reason. They have a pretty good incentive to steer clear of them. When approached, the merchant ship will respond with a hailing device. If it's some innocent situation then this fact will be discovered fairly quickly. If the small craft is filled with guys armed with AK-47s whom match every change in course then it's a fairly safe assumption that they have nefarious intent.
Putting arms in the hands of the good guys does not turn them into trigger happy nutjobs that kill random innocent people at the slightest provocation. The three concepts that I outlined above are standard operating procedure for police departments and armed civilians around the world. This isn't rocket science.
Yes, it would. A semi-automatic rifle is exactly what you want for this. You've got guys in an open boat within a few hundred yards of you. Nice clear line of sight. A fully automatic weapon is just going to waste ammo. The only real use for full auto is suppression -- and that really isn't in the cards on the open ocean.
Shotguns would also be useful. Sometimes the pirates like to sneak aboard ship in the dark or during bad weather. The shotgun is the perfect weapon for that type of fighting.
Do you think any American port is going to welcome a fleet of armed foreign merchantmen?
Why not? American cities are already filled with small arms, legal and otherwise. What's the big deal with a few more contained within a weapons locker board a docked merchant ship?
and the hassle this plan would create is probably worth more than the occasional ransom.
So we just leave innocent people vulnerable to violent assaults with no effective means of defending themselves other than pleading for help on the radio. Yeah, that makes sense.
Nimey is not flame bait. He is agreeing with a number of people here who say "Don't be nice to pirates. Blow them out of the water."
It seems that people who can't stand opposing points of view have the mod points tonight. This isn't the most egregious example of mod abuse that I've seen though. That honor goes to the jackasses who modded down all of the people (including myself) that had the audacity to suggest that a rape victim was entitled to defend herself with deadly force against her attacker(s).
So what? Being kidnapped and held for ransom is not an experience that most people would care to go through. The laws of most civilized nations regard kidnapping as a crime that you can resist with deadly force. It's a serious violation of the person. The only worse crimes are rape and murder.
Before you attempt to kill them, you have to be certain that they are a pirate. Legally certain, not just Slashdot certain.
As a general rule of thumb, there are three things that need to happen before deadly force is justified:
Ability: The aggressor has the ability and means to do you serious bodily harm. This can be anything from an AK-47, to a knife, to the fists of a trained martial artist.
Opportunity: The aggressor has the opportunity to use the aforementioned ability. The martial artist isn't a threat if he's 100 yards away. The AK-47 isn't a threat if it's 10,000 yards away.
Jeopardy: The aggressor has demonstrated the intent to use the previous two items to do you harm. Your hunting buddy with the slung rifle has ability and opportunity, but obviously lacks intent.
Pirates approaching a boat armed with AK-47s have met all three of those variables. They have the ability and opportunity to do the crew harm and have demonstrated an intent to do so. Under the laws of most nations you are entitled to respond with deadly force in such a scenario.
Fouling their prop doesn't require quite such a high standard of proof, and gets the job done
Yes it does. You can't just disable boats on the open ocean and leave their crews at the mercy of the sea and elements.
No, but most countries aren't going to let your ship in their waters let alone to dock in their ports if it is loaded out with machine guns and torpedoes.
Who said anything about machine guns and torpedoes? Any semi-automatic rifle with a reasonable magazine capacity would suffice to defend against these types of pirate attacks.
And shooting fisherman whom you mistake for pirates in generally frowned upon.
Fishermen don't usually approach container ships with AK-47s and RPGs.
Well, the problem with real guns is that you have to wait until they are shooting at you first
Yeah, so?
With the air cannon, that won't kill them, you can't shoot without being sure.
No you can't. Leaving someone stranded miles off shore with no propulsion places them in harms way. You still can't shoot unless you are sure that they intend to do you harm. If that's the case, why not shoot back with rifles instead?
Foreign governments have no jurisdiction in international waters, which is where these attacks are taking place.
Other governments may see an armed foreign ship in their waters as a threat
If a government feels threatened by small arms contained within a ship that wants to dock then that government is a lost cause. Please explain to me how a weapons locker aboard ship containing rifles, pistols and shotguns represents a threat. Nobody is suggesting arming merchant ships with 16" battleship guns. These pirates can be deterred (and if that fails, defeated) with small arms.
While at the same time ensuring that all on board the pirate ships are in fact pirates (no hostages, etc). Bad things happen when people become judge and jury themselves.
So your solution is to not fight back and provide them with more hostages because of the chance that they might already have some?
The other reply has it right too, self defense != judge and jury. Shooting someone who is in the process of shooting you is self defense. Shooting them 12 hours after the fact when you aren't in any danger is assuming the role of judge and jury. There is a difference you know.....
Slashdot Mirror
I think the weapons lockers would be just fine. Restrict access to the captain and one or two of the other senior crew. We trust these guys to pilot tens of thousands of tons of steel without killing anyone. We can trust them with a few small arms.
Fact remains: according to law, they're unlawful
No, actually, they aren't. I can say anything I want about you in America. You might be able to sue me for it but I've broken no laws.
From your entry, I understand that if they're civil actions, then that's okay, not worth caring? Hmm... interesting point of view.
No, I was responding to your remark that it's a "felony" to lie about someone. The fact of the matter is that in America it's no such thing. That may not be in the case in other countries, although I'm personally not aware of any country that makes it a felony to lie about someone.
I would be interested in seeing a response to my other comment, because I really don't think you've thought your positions through clearly. I think you are operating with good intentions but it's extremely naive and a little bit dangerous to think that you will ever be able to control what is said on the internet.
Protecting your citizens from kidnapping thugs is 'short-sighted military policy'? What's the point of having a military if it can't protect your people from violence?
Got a citation for that or are you just ascribing your own ideals to tens of thousands of people that you've never met?
Random? What nations have we "randomly" attacked? You are entitled to take issue with our foreign policy but you aren't entitled to make shit up.
Afghanistan: Attacked because their Government harbored a terrorist organization that murdered 3,000 innocent people
Iraq: Attacked because they spent a decade flaunting international law.
You may disagree with one or both of those actions but it's painfully obvious that neither was "random". I find it interesting and a tad bit hypocritical that you condemn the United States but ignore the other countries that fought alongside us.
In any event, the topic at hand is piracy. The point that I was making was that the United States is not the only nation that's willing to use deadly force to protect it's citizens. The French have actually taken bolder action and killed more pirates than we have. Why don't you direct some of your bile at them?
I mean, you're already posting under several different account names
That's the second time somebody has accused me of that. I'd like to see you come up with a shred of even circumstantial evidence to support the allegation you've just made.
I'll confess that I post AC from time to time (FYI: the post you are replying to is not one of mine), usually when I want to say something that's politically unpopular or just feel like trolling. I have never posted under a different account though. I doubt I can convince you of that fact but it's a fact nonetheless.
Unfortunately, you'd probably have to measure that metric in Libraries of Congress.
I hope that's an SI unit, else you run the risk of offending the metric nazi's ;)
It doesn't matter that they "rarely" use their guns. They are kidnapping people. Kidnapping is an extreme violation of the individual, second only to rape and murder. Under the laws of most nations a kidnap victim is entitled to respond with whatever force is required to preserve his or her freedom. In no nation that I know of are you expected to lie down and surrender when faced with such an extreme violation of your person and rights.
At what point do you think it's ok to start fighting back? Why should innocent people be left completely defenseless in the face of such horrible crimes? Even if the concept of self-defense bothers you, can't you see the futility of paying ransoms? All we are accomplishing is to encourage them to violate more innocent people. When does it end?
Yes, more guns is exactly the right answer. More guns will always be the answer when the bad guys are the only ones that possess them.
If merchant vessels start shooting up any fishing vessel that comes near them
That's a strawman. Nobody has advocated shooting at any vessel that comes near a merchant ship. This post of mine describes the standard operating procedure before deadly force can be employed.
They sneak up, climb on to the target ship, and take hostages.
That's why the crew should have pistols and shotguns to go with the rifles. Personally, I'd rather fight it out than willingly become a hostage. Why is that concept so bothersome to so many people?
Some sailors looking for extra cash selling off their weapons to dockers
What makes you think that every sailor aboard the ship would have access to the weapons at all times?
I don't understand why everybody is hung up on this fear of 'making mistakes'. Why is it every time that somebody suggests arming potential victims somebody else comes along and starts worrying about friendly fire? It rarely works out that way in the real world. It's even less likely in a maritime setting.
Just stop and think about it for a moment. Small craft do not follow merchant ships around for no reason. They have a pretty good incentive to steer clear of them. When approached, the merchant ship will respond with a hailing device. If it's some innocent situation then this fact will be discovered fairly quickly. If the small craft is filled with guys armed with AK-47s whom match every change in course then it's a fairly safe assumption that they have nefarious intent.
Putting arms in the hands of the good guys does not turn them into trigger happy nutjobs that kill random innocent people at the slightest provocation. The three concepts that I outlined above are standard operating procedure for police departments and armed civilians around the world. This isn't rocket science.
RPG-7 beats Rifle?
That's debatable in a maritime setting.
If they're in range of your small arms fire, your in range of theirs.
That's generally how it works.
Plus those guys have some RPG-7s.
And the point is.....?
Yes, it would. A semi-automatic rifle is exactly what you want for this. You've got guys in an open boat within a few hundred yards of you. Nice clear line of sight. A fully automatic weapon is just going to waste ammo. The only real use for full auto is suppression -- and that really isn't in the cards on the open ocean.
Shotguns would also be useful. Sometimes the pirates like to sneak aboard ship in the dark or during bad weather. The shotgun is the perfect weapon for that type of fighting.
That missile is worth more than the pirates boats. This or even this would be more than enough to do the job.
Do you think any American port is going to welcome a fleet of armed foreign merchantmen?
Why not? American cities are already filled with small arms, legal and otherwise. What's the big deal with a few more contained within a weapons locker board a docked merchant ship?
and the hassle this plan would create is probably worth more than the occasional ransom.
So we just leave innocent people vulnerable to violent assaults with no effective means of defending themselves other than pleading for help on the radio. Yeah, that makes sense.
You are from USA?
He could be from China, Russia, or France. We Americans aren't the only ones that are willing to use deadly force to protect our people.
Nimey is not flame bait. He is agreeing with a number of people here who say "Don't be nice to pirates. Blow them out of the water."
It seems that people who can't stand opposing points of view have the mod points tonight. This isn't the most egregious example of mod abuse that I've seen though. That honor goes to the jackasses who modded down all of the people (including myself) that had the audacity to suggest that a rape victim was entitled to defend herself with deadly force against her attacker(s).
Typically the pirates don't kill the crew.
So what? Being kidnapped and held for ransom is not an experience that most people would care to go through. The laws of most civilized nations regard kidnapping as a crime that you can resist with deadly force. It's a serious violation of the person. The only worse crimes are rape and murder.
Before you attempt to kill them, you have to be certain that they are a pirate. Legally certain, not just Slashdot certain.
As a general rule of thumb, there are three things that need to happen before deadly force is justified:
Pirates approaching a boat armed with AK-47s have met all three of those variables. They have the ability and opportunity to do the crew harm and have demonstrated an intent to do so. Under the laws of most nations you are entitled to respond with deadly force in such a scenario.
Fouling their prop doesn't require quite such a high standard of proof, and gets the job done
Yes it does. You can't just disable boats on the open ocean and leave their crews at the mercy of the sea and elements.
No, but most countries aren't going to let your ship in their waters let alone to dock in their ports if it is loaded out with machine guns and torpedoes.
Who said anything about machine guns and torpedoes? Any semi-automatic rifle with a reasonable magazine capacity would suffice to defend against these types of pirate attacks.
And shooting fisherman whom you mistake for pirates in generally frowned upon.
Fishermen don't usually approach container ships with AK-47s and RPGs.
Well, the problem with real guns is that you have to wait until they are shooting at you first
Yeah, so?
With the air cannon, that won't kill them, you can't shoot without being sure.
No you can't. Leaving someone stranded miles off shore with no propulsion places them in harms way. You still can't shoot unless you are sure that they intend to do you harm. If that's the case, why not shoot back with rifles instead?
Foreign governments don't trust commercial ships to uses lethal weapons responsibly
Foreign governments have no jurisdiction in international waters, which is where these attacks are taking place.
Other governments may see an armed foreign ship in their waters as a threat
If a government feels threatened by small arms contained within a ship that wants to dock then that government is a lost cause. Please explain to me how a weapons locker aboard ship containing rifles, pistols and shotguns represents a threat. Nobody is suggesting arming merchant ships with 16" battleship guns. These pirates can be deterred (and if that fails, defeated) with small arms.
Bringing weapons into it would just turn a bad situation into a killing field.
Maybe you should tell that to the guys with the AK-47s. Hint: They aren't on the merchant ships.
While at the same time ensuring that all on board the pirate ships are in fact pirates (no hostages, etc). Bad things happen when people become judge and jury themselves.
So your solution is to not fight back and provide them with more hostages because of the chance that they might already have some?
The other reply has it right too, self defense != judge and jury. Shooting someone who is in the process of shooting you is self defense. Shooting them 12 hours after the fact when you aren't in any danger is assuming the role of judge and jury. There is a difference you know.....