Canadian Navy Practices Catch and Release With Pirates

[lone wolf]

Well lone wolf, the Dutch are wrong too.

For playing by the applicable rules? Now there is a court. A month ago there wasn't.

 

[Colpy]

I'm from the school of "walk softly but carry a big stick" and "it's
better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it."
Oh well....just a different way of looking at things I guess. 8O:lol:
_____________________________________

BINGO!!!!!

Simple fact is, pirates have to board........give the crew shotguns, (I'll train them ) put on a two man watch............and watch piracy fade.

The idea that defending yourself escalates the sutuation is idiotic.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Shipping Companies sloughing their responsibility off onto National Navies
is what we're currently seeing, and that just isn't working due to the large
geographic area that stretch of water represents, and due to the fact that
all the Navy boats in the water are just a drop in the bucket in relation to
the volume of shipping (and thus available targets for the Pirates).

Security teams would just be a cost of doing business for a responsible
and self reliant company. Why should National Navies bear the cost of
defending Shipping companies profits when they will not accept any
responsibility for their own defense...as we all do everyday.

If it's 2am and really need a Jug of milk (or a pack of smokes, or whatever),
and the closest easiest place to get it is a 7-11 in a rough neighbourhood,
you have some choices to make with respect to your own safety and
security. Go elsewhere, or go in the morning, or go with a buddy or two....
We all make these decisions for ourselves every day. If the shipping
companies wish to continue using that route through those dangerous
waters (as opposed to a longer and more expensive route, lets say) then
they should also accept (some of?) the responsibility for their own defense.

I guess I was joking a bit saying I support security teams on ships for the jobs, but it will increase the price of goods overall as it is a new cost to bear. In addition to extra insurance costs and possibly extra danger pay for crews.

Many of these ships carry oil, there is little choice here where they can travel, especially if they are going to Europe.

 

[Ron in Regina]

I guess I was joking a bit saying I support security teams on ships for the jobs, but it will increase the price of goods overall as it is a new cost to bear. In addition to extra insurance costs and possibly extra danger pay for crews.

Many of these ships carry oil, there is little choice here where they can travel, especially if they are going to Europe.

I think we're both (more or less) on the same page here. If National
Navies have to take the responsibility for defending shipping, when
the shipping companies refuse to accept that responsibility to
defend themselves physically to defend their profitability....well....

It's a cost of doing business in those waters that would be paid
directly if the shipping companies accepted responsibility for
themselves, instead of hiding that cost in the taxes needed for
National navies to accept the shipping companies responsibility
of self-defense.


The Navies don't operate for free. They're paid for with tax dollars.
Increasing the price of goods, or increasing tax revenue to pay for
a Naval presence to protect a shipping companies profits to keep
the cost of goods from increasing.....it sounds like a wash financially.
The difference being that one would be effective.

A Navy boat can easily be in the wrong place. An armed cargo ship
will be armed and able to defend (and take responsibility for) itself
no matter where a Navy boat floats.
__________________________

 

[EagleSmack]

I would say that you don't have to hire security teams but train the crews themselves to...

"PREPARE TO REPEL BOARDERS!!!!!"

Any person can learn to fire a 50 cal and I would imagine that it costs a heck of a lot more to get a ship back than to pay for a few 50 cal machine guns and the training to use one.

 

[L Gilbert]

Security teams cost money and shipping companies don't want to spend money on the problem and bring more attention to it. However, this would create more jobs, so I would support it.

I have a building from which I sell goods to people. Someone breaks in and steals stuff. I buy security measures. Shipping concerns aren't poor.

 

[L Gilbert]

I would say that you don't have to hire security teams but train the crews themselves to...

"PREPARE TO REPEL BOARDERS!!!!!"

Any person can learn to fire a 50 cal and I would imagine that it costs a heck of a lot more to get a ship back than to pay for a few 50 cal machine guns and the training to use one.

That, too. The solution is simple.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

BINGO!!!!!

Simple fact is, pirates have to board........give the crew shotguns, (I'll train them ) put on a two man watch............and watch piracy fade.

The idea that defending yourself escalates the sutuation is idiotic.

You have to stop them before they board. A shotgun is a good defense tool but by the time the pirates are within range it may already be too late. A .50 cal volley across the bow as a warning, if they still wish to engage I say launch a couple of five inchers into the skiffs and let the sharks take care of the evidence.:violent3:

 

[lone wolf]

Once it gets to within twelve miles of shore, a merchant ship is no longer in international waters. In territorial waters, local laws of the land come into effect. Civilian ships have no practical right to be armed in the vast number of countries they visit.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Once it gets to within twelve miles of shore, a merchant ship is no longer in international waters. In territorial waters, local laws of the land come into effect. Civilian ships have no practical right to be armed in the vast number of countries they visit.

Merchant ships may not have either a practical or legal right to be armed while within territorial waters of the countries they visit, but they certainly have the right, even the duty, to be armed while on the high seas where they spend most of their time. Many countries allow visiting dignitaries to be accompanied by their own armed secret services, (Canada and the US do it), so allowing an armed merchant vessel into port shouldn't be a big deal. There is a difference between arms for defense and arms for offense; like a pistol is a defense weapon for a person, so would be a .50 cal chain gun, or even guns up to 5 inches for a ship, they might cause havoc but won't start even a small war with any country that has a navy, (and in any country that doesn't have one the merchant ships should definately be armed anyway). A ship armed with Harpoon, Exocet, or Heaven forbid, Trident missiles is a different matter altogether.8O

 

[Colpy]

You have to stop them before they board. A shotgun is a good defense tool but by the time the pirates are within range it may already be too late. A .50 cal volley across the bow as a warning, if they still wish to engage I say launch a couple of five inchers into the skiffs and let the sharks take care of the evidence.:violent3:

I just finished a course in Marine Security given by a pro....let me tell you, British Special Forces, Military Intelligence, sniper qualified, seven tours in Northern Ireland....then a stint as a mercenary doing personal protection, then formed his own company designing security plans for marine facilities.....we had quite the conversation about pirates.....being a Brit, he thinks no one should be armed except the SAS......but he did say the "Skinnies" board these ships by throwing on grappling hooks and skampering up the hull!!!!!!

try that in the face of a few loads of buckshot.

BTW, the cruise ship that last week successfully repeled pirate borders did so with an Israeli security team......armed only with pistols.

yes I have a new job in Security........