Armed vs Unarmed Merchant Vessel Protection

[jolly]

The problem as I see it is that the IMO, an arm of the evil UN, is populated by rabid anti-gun forces. The same anti-gun forces that want the US to submit to international anti-gun treaties and legislation. I am an American and a gun owner and a damned good shot. Unlike our foreigner in chief, I bow before no king or any foreign head of state. Our Congress should mandate firearms training for all American Merchant Marines and require they be carried on all American ships that trade in known pirate infested waters. Screw the UN.

US is not a problem.
The problem is:

There is not much us flagged vsls.
And, in my opinion, there is more blue whales at sea then american merchant mariners. Especilay at deep sea. The better part is in GoM.

Check how much vsls is under foc. Thats the problem.

[uberTurtle]

Hi all,
I must say that firstly I'm pretty angry with the so called task force. The catch and release policy they appear to be opperating is laughable. Until they get it into their heads that they need to start blasting a few of them out of the water then they will continue to opperate, and in turn continue to place sailors lives in danger.

1. There's a lot of ocean out there.
2. Pirates look a lot like fishermen until they get up close and start firing.
3. The guys on the water are expendable to the big bosses - and to the guys on the water, the weapons, ladders and communication gear is all expendable. Catching them with piracy gear, let alone in the act is difficult.

The fact they're using "motherships" is also ludicrous to me. You spot a "mothership" you send a warship to intercept, you tell them to get ready to be boarded. The ship is searched, if everything is in fact okay and they're fishermen you send them on their way. If they refuse to be boarded you tell them to get off then blow it up, whether they get off or stay on.If you have prisoners you set up a trial under the jurisdiction of the UN and then lock them up somewhere for a long time.

They tried to get Mauritius to take them and build a prison - oddly enough, they declined.

As to preventative measures, I believe that as others have said a good look out, and keeping a close watch when in dangerous area would be essential. It has been noted that swift action by the crew (changing course, increasing speed) deters pirates..

Bulls$%t! Their skiffs are faster and more maneuverable. The average piracy incident lasts 11-12 minutes. A good lookout gives you a little more time to react, it doesn't prevent the incident.

On the view of having "security" personnel on board I don't believe that it should really be necessary. The law on carrying guns aboard, plus where to store them, laws on entering other countries, and the dangers involved etc would probably outweigh the benefits..

Lots of Armed Security Detachments (ASD - new acronym I started seeing a couple of weeks ago) out there. No problems so far going into foreign ports - the weapons get sealed up, much like the slop chest. Push come to shove, everytime a ship shoots back at the pirates, they go away! To me, it doesn't get much simpler than that. Do I care if we actually hit any of them? No. Just go away!

Simple defenses could be implemented, barb wire around the hull. With a rubber backing between it and the hull you could also electrify it if the need aroused (with very high amperages :-).

Barbed wire washes off in heavy seas - unless you have a lot of freeboard - in which case, you probably don't need the barbed wire. Razor wire is nastier....... Electrify it? Little thing called electrolysis - and salt water which is a great conductor.

However and as I mentioned in another post, in my opinion, there is a very simple alternative to guns, its called a flamethrower, such as they used to clear bunkers in WW2. I would defy any pirate to climb over the railing or even carry on up the rope when he sees a 20ft long burst of flame fly over his head..

If they are climbing up the rail, then they are up close and personal. And armed. That's the time when the crew should be in their hidey-hole, not going hand to hand (or flame thrower to AK-47) with the pirates.

[hhmariner]

I am of mixed views - what is clear is the EU/US navies in the area have their hands tied with legalities and nicities and are scared of escalating the violence to where the pirates actually start killing hostages. On the other hand, ship's crews (MSC excepted) are not generally trained in small arms. Even on MSC ships, although the crews are trained in small arms, the "rules of engagement" are so restrictive that you can't use the weapons until it's too late (unless you have a Force Protection detachment aboard, in which case the rules are different)! I think, the bottom line is that the best solution is to untie the hands of the militaries so they can do their job, then turn them loose to root out the piracy! Sink the mother ships; sink the skiffs; some armed predator drones over the known pirate havens with "weapons free" authority. It won't be easy, it won't be pretty and people are going to die (including some innocent mariners) but I just don't see any other effective answer. Failing that, I would like to see some sort of immunity from prosecution provision recognized by the UN before I advocate arming crews! I would remind you all that there are four US SEALS under courtmartial today because they gave a known terrorist a "bloody lip" when they captured him! Those are military personnel! What do you think they'd do to a civilian mariner? Food for thought.

[Kennebec Captain]

Sink the mother ships; sink the skiffs;

The Gulf of Aden has many fishing vessels including skiffs and larger vessels. The smaller skiffs, powered by outboard motors are fishing for tuna. For every pirate there must be hundreds or thousands of fisherman. One of the principles governing the use of force in the GoA is that these fisherman have the right to fish just as they have before pirates became a problem in the area. Rules of Engagement which do not recognize that right will not be accepted by the international community and will remain only as a fantasy of armchair gunners.

[Captmad]

While attending a party last night came up with the following thought.

It has got to be expensive keeping those Navy ships on station so arm the merchant seaman! Send the Navy home but give the seaman some of the money saved. I would gladly man a M-70 for some (alot) extra income.

Navy cannot do their job perhaps the seaman can. Especially after reading about a Captain killed aboard that ship recently captured.

Worry about legalities? Why do we have lawyers?

[JDay]

While attending a party last night came up with the following thought.

It has got to be expensive keeping those Navy ships on station so arm the merchant seaman! Send the Navy home but give the seaman some of the money saved. I would gladly man a M-70 for some (alot) extra income.

Navy cannot do their job perhaps the seaman can. Especially after reading about a Captain killed aboard that ship recently captured.

Worry about legalities? Why do we have lawyers?

An M-70 is a shortened down version of an AK-47. You'd be better off with an Browning M2, it is a machine gun that is attached to a mount and is manned. Fires a .50 BMG round as opposed to the 7.62x39mm that is fired out of the M-70. These rounds can easily takeout the engine on an approaching craft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zastava_M70



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Browning_machine_gun

[Ordinaryseaman]

I was wondering about the M70 reference- I'll bet he meant M60.Yep a Ma Deuce is probably your best bet for belt fed...

[trekleader]

The stories of sailors, usually engineers, being held aboard pirated cargo vessels doing service in the 'coastal trade' (for years) off of China sadden me.

Thats the next pirate story I want to hear about, how one of those guys are set free and get to go home.

[richard8000milesaway]

this is not the first time we westerners have had to face pirates. all this gun talk - if enacted - would really achieve nothing long term, besides more people (on both sides) getting killed, as would most likely happen.
to rid the seas of pirates long term just study some history: very effective measures were taken against the Barbary Pirates.

[uberTurtle]

The normal "perimeter" for a ship is the rail. Under Piracy 1.0 (i.e. Straits of Malacca), fortifying the perimeter through fire hoses, roving patrols and barbed/razor wire sufficed. Under Piracy 2.0 (Somali pirates), fortifying the perimeter hasn't been as effective due to the pirates being more heavily armed and willing to use their weapons. It has been effective under the conditions of high enough freeboard and/or speed. The use of weapons onboard the ship to push the "perimeter" out to 150-200 meters, effectively counters the pirates willingness to use force.

Non-lethal methods (such as LRADs/lasers/etc.) are useful for determining the true intent of the boat approaching you. Non-lethal methods are also useful for satisfying the legal aspects of a scaled escalation of force, before arriving at deadly force.

In my personal experience, having weapons onboard has resulted only in casualties on the other side - as far as I'm concerned, the pirates are the ones raising the bar on weaponry - we're just reacting to it.

[seamarshals]

It is obvious that the naval forces being present and on patrol in the GOA is a benefit to all, even though they can not cover the entire area and can be somewhat restricted in their actions due to various reasons. "There is no One Size Fits All" solution in the maritime industry. Vessels are different, posts of call vary from transit to transit and from company to company. The real question is "How do I get my vessel from point 'A' to point 'B' safely with the crew and cargo intact?'

The answer is to have a vessel / transit specific risk assessment conducted by a qualified risk assessment individual. Then the management can make sound decisions on the steps needed to proceed with the transit safely, instead of just rolling the dice and hoping for the best.

[seamarshals]

Escalating the Issue: Military Forces and Ship Escorts;

Risk management involves balancing the efforts associated with protecting an organization against loss with the potential for those losses to occur, if left untreated. What needs to be understood, however, is that security risk is only one kind of risk faced by a shipping company—we cannot forget operational, legal and other kinds of risks. The contracting of military forces changes this balance significantly.

When we look at the use of military forces being paid by private interests to provide these kinds of services, we are entering a minefield of issues. Before we explore some of those, it should be clear there may well be cases where the military, its government and the private sector have come to legitimate arrangements regarding cost sharing. What also needs to be clear is that, like many other risk management activities, companies should be exercising their due diligence before falling prey to the hype and pictures of flashy patrol vessels.
The first question that should be asked is whether or not this approach is actually legal. This has three parts. First, does this ship’s flag state condone this sort of arrangement? If not, then you run risks associated with being identified less favorably for targeting purposes, increased inspections and how the flag state generally views your company. The second element involves the nation involved. Does the government of the military involved have knowledge of and endorse the activity, or are you dealing with a situation where a senior official is using his or her influence to use government resources for personal gain? The third aspect is whether or not the use of an armed escort vessel is significantly different (from a legal perspective) than having the armed personnel on your ship. If your company cannot put armed personnel on board because the flag state does not agree with the concept of armed defense, will it view the hiring of a warship as an attempt to bypass its own controls and ability to administer its laws on your vessel? This will be a question for legal departments and, for the unfortunate, the courts to decide.

The second element is more pertinent to military forces on board vessels and near conflict zones. Remember, pirates are in it for the money. When you bring military forces on board, the question is not just whether or not you are a target for pirates but whether or not those forces are a target for their own various adversaries—be they terrorists or other militaries. This means that you have a new range of threats and vulnerabilities to consider, including how you treat approaching smaller vessels and so forth. For example, in the case of a potential suicide attack against a vessel, do you want your crew buried in the bowels of the ship or nearer to avenues where they can get to the deck and other areas to begin fire fighting or escape a burning vessel? This kind of scenario calls into question whether or not your security is truly risk based from an all-hazards approach or simply addressing current issues.

These kinds of questions are the kinds of questions that need to be going through the Company Security Officer’s mind when looking at these kinds of issues. It is not that it is likely, but security has to look at the broad range of possibilities and probabilities to ensure that management is well served.

Finally, you need to wonder about the priorities of the military. What happens if the military forces are recalled by their nation in order to defend it? Will the forces remain on board the vessel or will you be diverted in order to drop them off? If they are on another vessel, can they be re-tasked in order to deal with search and rescue, enforcement or other activities? These kinds of issues should also be clarified in any discussions and should be clearly documented both in terms of what assurances the company has and who is responsible for any costs associated with that action, up to an including the vessel being taken by pirates when the defenders leave.

Another issue, particularly with vessels operating outside of their territorial waters, is whether or not the vessel (and its crew) can be treated the same way as a warship or an coast guard vessel. It is, after all, now a government vessel being operated for commercial purposes—opening a whole ream of legal grey zones that the company would do well to have clarified.

All things being equal, there should be a level of effort made by the company to ensure that it is well protected legally when entering into these kinds of arrangements. While there are reputable companies providing security services (and potentially even these kinds of arrangements), there are others that will simply latch onto any opportunity to make a dollar.

This does not even begin to address the challenges associated with the issue of sovereignty or rights of innocent passage (including the restrictions). If the warship remains within its own territorial waters, we have more than enough indication to show that the pirates know how to shift locations to where the escorting vessels do not operate. At the same time, if they exit territorial waters and enter the waters of another nation, there could be issues (depending upon the international agreements with the neighbors and the levels of tensions between them) with a warship or patrol craft suddenly entering into that nation’s sovereign territory. If the forces are on board the vessel, then the matter is even worse. On one hand, the flag state may have issues with allowing foreign military personnel on board the vessel. At the other end of the spectrum, the vessel may be expelled from the waters under certain conditions for violating the conditions associated with innocent passage or may be subject to a range of enforcement activities.
None of these are conducive to conducting business when your business involves moving persons or goods from one location to another efficiently.

In short, know what you are getting into and ensure that you have verified any claims being made regarding the appropriateness of the service with the governments involved.

[fixer5326]

Here is something to consider, insurance companies have made a fortune on KR insurance ,it is a 16b industry, pirates have taken 200m+ in ransoms since 2008 , piracy has grown rapidly since 2005 and has peeked in 2010 attack numbers are on the decline. The pirates have forced higher ransoms due to diminished success and official best practice is still apposed to armed security. I believe that more is at play here .
1. insurance companies are making millions and have significant leverage and influence on maritime practices.
2. The Large argument is the potential for liability associated with armed security. So far I know of no such suites wrongful death or otherwise. Likely due to Rules of Engagement employed by security companies that mirror that of Nato forces operating in the region.
3. I believe we are seeing a paradigm shift from traditional KR insurance to proactive security with the technology , early detection, fire power and training to prevent successful pirate boarding.
There are examples every month where armed security companies have proven successful in repelling pirate attack and Im sure many more have been prevented via preventative measures long before any engagement takes place.
My opinion Armed Security is the most effective measure if properly employed!
I will recant my opinion if anyone out there can show me a single incident in which armed security failed to protect and accomplish their mission and or any incident where armed security caused liability that exceeded the cost of losses accrued during a kidnap ransom situation. I've looked and haven't found any on any public domaine.
Additionally, I also find it interesting that nato forces have been there operating in large scale for some time yet it was not until recently attack numbers have dropped. I would attribute this to armed security. Armed Security appears to be highly effective mainly because they are there from the moment a threat exist which allows them to advise and instruct during counter measures. It is pro-actionary vs reactionary and can continue to have a multi layered plan to prevent a KR situation. I.E. If a pirate is approaching a vessel that fires warning shots, he has to make the decision, is it important enough to die for or should I move on to a weaker less protected target of opportunity. If you were a car jacker you never pick cars with plates from states that issue conceal and carry permits for weapons. Once a successful attack takes place reactionary measures are significantly more costly. Ship takedowns via maritime authorities usually end up with dead pirates and damaged equipment and run serious risk to the crew. KR can take on average 45 days and loss of ransom, arrangement for delivery, loss of contracts, diminished asset maintenance and various other issues can be finically devastating.
I Say Go Armed and Protect Yourself!!!!!

[Jasonax]

So how do these armed guys (private sercurity) move from port to port on a deployment?

[uberTurtle]

So how do these armed guys (private sercurity) move from port to port on a deployment?

Just like any other crewmember. Moving weapons is another story and the details of that maneuver should not be discussed on an open forum.