The Cellar - Maersk Alabama... Again

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - Maersk Alabama... Again (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=21434)

Maersk Alabama... Again

Quote:

Somali pirates attacked the Maersk Alabama on Wednesday for the second time in seven months and were thwarted by private guards on board the U.S.-flagged ship who fired off guns and a high-decibel noise device.
~snip~
Four suspected pirates in a skiff attacked the ship again on Wednesday around 6:30 a.m. local time, firing on the ship with automatic weapons from about 300 yards (meters) away, a statement from the U.S. Fifth Fleet in Bahrain said.

An on-board security team repelled the attack by using evasive maneuvers, small-arms fire and a Long Range Acoustic Device, which can beam earsplitting alarm tones, the fleet said.

Vice Adm. Bill Gortney of the U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, said the Maersk Alabama had followed the maritime industry's "best practices" in having a security team on board.

"This is a great example of how merchant mariners can take proactive action to prevent being attacked and why we recommend that ships follow industry best practices if they're in high-risk areas," Gortney said in a statement.

I'm glad they're taking steps to stop these bastards. The only measures that are effective with thugs, is fighting back.
But not everyone agrees.

Quote:

However, Roger Middleton, a piracy expert at the London-based think tank Chatham House, said the international maritime community was still "solidly against" armed guards aboard vessels at sea, but that American ships have taken a different line than the rest of the international community.

"Shipping companies are still pretty much overwhelmingly opposed to the idea of armed guards," Middleton said. "Lots of private security companies employee people who don't have maritime experience. Also, there's the idea that it's the responsibility of states and navies to provide security. I would think it's a step backward if we start privatizing security of the shipping trade."

Well Roger, sitting safely in your London office...

Quote:

Underscoring the danger, a self-proclaimed pirate said Wednesday that the captain of a ship hijacked Monday had died of wounds suffered during the ship's hijacking.

On Tuesday, a self-proclaimed pirate said that Somali hijackers had been paid $3.3 million for the release of 36 crew members from a Spanish vessel held for more than six weeks.

how's that working out?:eyebrow:

link

They need to start to put deck guns on those ships and this stuff would come to a screeching halt.

And do you want foreign flagged armed ships tying up in NYC and LA?

I am not really sure it is that big of a deal. We tie up our Navy ships in lots of ports of call. A few simple deck guns is nothing like a war ship. But from the video and pics that we have seen of the pirate vessels to date seem like nothing more than barely seaworthy fishing boats. a couple of mobile 4 inch guns would stop them cold.

I, personally, am looking more at a company that will rent a team of ex-SEALs or Deltas to ride along through the danger area, providing radar coverage from a tender, and the team would be armed with weapons sufficient to repel pirates operating in the area...from heavy machine guns to Stinger missiles. After the ship exits the danger area, they collect a check and step off to go escort the next ship. Much like the US Navy did escorting oil tankers through the Straits of Hormuz during Desert Shield/Storm.

No danger to nations, trained specialists with well-maintained weapons, both lethal and non-lethal, and a reasonable fee for service. I find no fault with this approach.

Quote:

Originally Posted by glatt (Post 609788)

And do you want foreign flagged armed ships tying up in NYC and LA?

Glatt, did you really want us to think this was some kind of problem? If so, you need to write some more.

Personally, I have no interest in armed ships flagged from other countries docking in our country.

Classic, I'll steer the same question to you while waiting for Glatt to say something.

It does not seem materially different from having a port call by a foreign naval ship.

UG - I believe I have stated quite clearly my views on the subject. I have no interest in letting armed ships from other nations dock in our ports.

I don't believe that's clear enough. Did you mean "disinterested in" or "hostile to?" If either, anything on exactly why? Is there a point in forbidding portcalls in US ports by foreign naval units, these being about as armed as a ship is ever likely to get?

As a onetime Navy man who saw a few foreign ports in his time, and the spouse of a Navy woman who also did, I'm having trouble following your thinking. My experience in these things suggests oppositely from what you may be suggesting.

I'd be more concerned about the idea of contracting your port security services out to a company from Abu Dhabi. Did they actually do that, or was it just mooted?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenGum (Post 613368)

I'd be more concerned about the idea of contracting your port security services out to a company from Abu Dhabi. Did they actually do that, or was it just mooted?

I believe the move was blocked. It would have been owned by a company from Abu Dhabi, not manned by people from there.