RedScare Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Is it possible for 3 snipers to simultaneously take out 3 pirates in a lifeboat bobbing in the ocean 30 meters away? Apparently, resoundingly, YES.What an impressive feat, from the negotiations to the rescue. As more information comes out about the Navy's efforts, it becomes more unbelievable. By killing the pirates, violence off the Somali coast may increase, but today, all is right with the world.Welcome home, Captain Phillips, and job well done, US Navy!http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30178013/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolBuddy06 Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 I wonder how it is possible for those malnourished-looking, resource-lacking pirates to take over a vessel; and what will happen if they take a US owned ship.I doubt it that violence will increase. Pirates know that they hardly match any nation when it comes to force. Moreso every nation, except perhaps Somali government, is against piracy in that region. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highway6 Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 One of my college buddies is a active SEAL. I had the good fortune to get to see some of their training grounds and methods... They are quite the impressive breed of human.Congrats to them on a job well done... and congrats to this captain for his heroics in saving the rest of his crew.As for Coolbuddy's remark.. this was an American ship.. the first to be hijacked. But you do have a point.. these big freighters are being overran by small groups in relatively small boats. How difficult would it be for the freighters to defend themselves. Have a few weapons on boards.. Hell, hire blackwater.. have 2-3 'security consultants' tag along on all freight trips in the region. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted April 13, 2009 Author Share Posted April 13, 2009 There is a lot of debate in the shipping industry about what to do. They have vast amounts of research on piracy, as it has been around for centuries. One of the main fears in arming the ships is it may promote an escalation in arms and violence. A secondary fear is the safety of the crew if another crew member gets hold of a weapon. It is a very complex issue. Even escorting the ships is a problem as there are thousands of them sailing through the Red Sea to the Suez Canal. There are too many to economically escort them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SecondTour Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Hats off to how the US handled the Somali pirates. Unlike Korea, Germany, Denmark, or Spain - no lengthy negations & no ransom payments - we'll kill the pirates and take our people & ship back. In spite of the Somalis taking tough in the aftermath, they will think twice before attacking a US ship again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted April 13, 2009 Author Share Posted April 13, 2009 Hats off to how the US handled the Somali pirates. Unlike Korea, Germany, Denmark, or Spain - no lengthy negations & no ransom payments - we'll kill the pirates and take our people & ship back. In spite of the Somalis taking tough in the aftermath, they will think twice before attacking a US ship again.Actually, there were negotiations that were critical to the success of the rescue that were ongoing up until just before the snipers shot the pirates. They convinced one of the pirates to come aboard the naval ship to negotiate, so only three pirates were on the lifeboat. Additionally, amazingly, they convinced the pirates to allow the naval ship to tie up to the lifeboat and tow it. This put the lifeboat 25-30 meters behind the ship, allowing the snipers to take position at the rear of the ship, but hidden from the pirates' view. This allowed the snipers to keep the pirates within range. When the negotiations broke down and the pirates appeared to be about to shoot the captain, the US Navy commander, who had been authorized by the president to act if the captain was in imminent peril, gave the order to shoot. Three snipers shot simultaneously, taking out the three pirates. The 4th pirate, already on board, was taken into custody.The pirates are already vowing revenge for the American rescue, as well as a French rescue last week that freed four hostages, but lost one.http://www.reuters.com/article/africaCrisis/idUSLC343356 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 One thing I don't really understand, is why don't they simply do an old fashioned convoy of a dozen ships or so?I know it will play havoc with everyone's shipping schedule, but at least the threat would be minimized.The thing that got me when I found out about the snipers is that I thought it was almost impossible to do after a certain distance because of the rolling wave action of two separate ships. Being that the targets were relatively close, I guess it was more doable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 I wonder how it is possible for those malnourished-looking, resource-lacking pirates to take over a vessel; and what will happen if they take a US owned ship.I doubt it that violence will increase. Pirates know that they hardly match any nation when it comes to force. Moreso every nation, except perhaps Somali government, is against piracy in that region.Ummm, Somali pirates have already racked up a few million dollars this year from taking over ships, so of course they will keep trying until they get killed on EVERY attempt. Somalia does not have a Govt. they have warlords, and we just found out yesterday what happens when Somali pirates try to take over a U.S. owned ship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cottonmather0 Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 They agreed to the tow because they were told they were being towed to shore when they were really being towed further out. The tow line was also being gradually shortened without the knowledge of the pirates, too, precisely to get them close enough to get a good shot. It was a very well conceived plan, imho. The only problem I have now is that they have a ratty malnourished pirate "in custody" when he should have been summarily shot and dumped off the side of the ship as soon as we knew the captain was secure. Keeping him alive and in prison somewhere gives him much more standing than he deserves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jax Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 I don't have a problem keeping him alive and giving him a trial. That shows that we're more "civilized" than pirates, and that's a good thing. I do expect that he will be prosecuted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 I'm less concerned about an escalation of force by the pirates than I am that all the tips and tricks just got revealed to the world via the news services. Pirates will be much less willing to freely negotiate next time, will be more cautious about maintaining distance between themselves and other ships, and will avoid being on deck if they can help it. They're able to learn how to be better pirates from others' mistakes without having to escalate force. And at that point, they force the US military to escalate force for lack of other options.My point being, this should've been a clandestine operation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Native Son Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 I'm less concerned about an escalation of force by the pirates than I am that all the tips and tricks just got revealed to the world via the news services. Pirates will be much less willing to freely negotiate next time, will be more cautious about maintaining distance between themselves and other ships, and will avoid being on deck if they can help it. They're able to learn how to be better pirates from others' mistakes without having to escalate force. And at that point, they force the US military to escalate force for lack of other options.My point being, this should've been a clandestine operation.I agree, and was frankly surprised by the level of detail released concerning a tactical operation....these pirates are pretty damn desperate guys... no food, no government and nothing to loose..they will not be scared away from a multimillion dollar payday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marmer Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 A great big HOO-YAH to those SEALS! Way to go guys!But, yes, I agree with TheNiche about tactics and methods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highway6 Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 The Navy isn't exactly being quiet about it... the CNN article says they released a photo, thought they didn't have it posted.Also, now released details of the SEALS parachuting onto the scene, and shimmying the tow rope to the raft after the shooting.. these details could only be released by the Navy, since there wasn't exactly media out on the high seas.The Navy Commander - Vice Admiral is giving interviews... obviously a decision has been made somewhere high up to not keep details quiet... perhaps as a show of force / deterrent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fringe Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 I didn't realize until today that there are 228 foreign nationals aboard 13 ships still held by pirates and there is fear the pirates may extract their revenge on them. I would be worried also if I was in their place but what do you do? Perhaps it's time a global task force is created to end the threat from these pirates once and for all. As they say, "dead men tell no tales". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dub Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 WELL DONE NAVY!!!!!! 'nuff said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Obama made the right call on this one. I wonder if he'll give George W. credit for those Navy Seals he "inherited" from his administration ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fringe Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Next time we may get to watch it on TV. Spike TV to chase pirates with US Navy"Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do, what you gonna do when they come for you? ................................" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted April 13, 2009 Author Share Posted April 13, 2009 Next time we may get to watch it on TV. Spike TV to chase pirates with US Navy"Bad boys, bad boys, what you gonna do, what you gonna do when they come for you? ................................"My initial feeling of encouragement at the decidedly lowkey approach taken by the White House is a little diminished with this news. For years, I have pointed out the counter-productive nature of politicians giving publicity to terrorists, given the fact that publicity is what the terrorists need to survive and thrive. Obama made little of the rescue, save for a well deserved congratulations to the Navy for their professionalism and execution of the rescue. Making TV shows out of future efforts to combat pirates does not bode well. Admittedly, Somali pirates are not terrorists. They are more akin to bank robbers, and have no political agenda. But, given the American tendency to overdo everything, and the nature of political operatives in general, I worry that this type of overhype may bleed over into the fight against political terrorists, exactly the way Bush allowed Karl Rove to exploit the hunt for al Qaeda, allowing that group to become far more relevant than they deserved.Hopefully, this remains a two-bit show about two-bit pirates on a two-bit cable channel, and does not infiltrate the geographically much larger terrorist operations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N Judah Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 I'm guessing it's cheaper to insure than to escort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Native Son Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Obama made the right call on this one. I wonder if he'll give George W. credit for those Navy Seals he "inherited" from his administration ?the SEAL go back to the Kennedy administration..credit where credit is due further, the predecessor to the SEALS, UDT, goes back to WWII, again, credit where credit is due Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crunchtastic Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 I'm guessing it's cheaper to insure than to escort.Yes. Is this the appropriate time to mention all the types of commerical insurance issued by AIG (and others) that were covered by swap agreements? Doh! Many, if not most, of these commerical trade swap/reinsurance deals were inherited and then hedged by Goldman Sachs (the latest bundle is courtesy of the TARP). You guys saw the earnings report today, right? I predict a bull market for pirates. Not kidding, BTW. Even before the bailouts, this is just one way the international trade sausage is made. For every failed state in a shipping lane, someone's got a line on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 the SEAL go back to the Kennedy administration..credit where credit is due further, the predecessor to the SEALS, UDT, goes back to WWII, again, credit where credit is due oy vey !Don't think any of the snipers in the Somali action were trained during WW2, credit where credit is due. Nor, were any of those Seals likely to have been trained during the Kennedy administration, credit where credit is due.Obama "inherited" the current Navy Seals from W's administration, much like Obama has "inherited" our economic crisis from W., at least to hear Dems. tell it. So, if Obama has "inherited" one, he obviously has inherited BOTH, has he not ? Try not to take a joke so literal next time NS. Think about the context before you post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 Yes. Is this the appropriate time to mention all the types of commerical insurance issued by AIG (and others) that were covered by swap agreements? Doh! Many, if not most, of these commerical trade swap/reinsurance deals were inherited and then hedged by Goldman Sachs (the latest bundle is courtesy of the TARP). You guys saw the earnings report today, right?LOL! Somali pirates will be the SAVIOR of AIG !!! Talk about a win / win for the U.S. Govt. I can hear Crunch now. " So, how long will you be cruising off the coast of Somalia, Mr. Lorentz ?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 As for Coolbuddy's remark.. this was an American ship.. the first to be hijacked. But you do have a point.. these big freighters are being overran by small groups in relatively small boats. How difficult would it be for the freighters to defend themselves. Have a few weapons on boards.. Hell, hire blackwater.. have 2-3 'security consultants' tag along on all freight trips in the region.ABC News had a piece explaining this a couple of days ago. Cargo vessels are almost always unarmed. If the crew has guns on board, then every time the vessel enters or leaves port or crosses a territorial boundary it has to stop and be searched by the local authorities. It's not worth the hassle since even a simple cargo run could have days added to the delivery time and hundreds of thousands of dollars to the cost.In anticipation of those who think the crew should just have guns anyway and hide them -- remember that cargo vessels are regularly randomly searched. If a search turned up an undeclared gun, the LEAST that would happen is that the shipping company would be fined and the crew member imprisoned. The cargo company could lose its ship and its cargo. Losing an entire load of cargo to non-natural causes (the contract language is usually along the lines of "Forces of God") is usually a pretty good way of not getting any future contracts and putting your company out of business immediately.Large private yachts often have non-lethal methods of fighting back -- usually sonic weapons. But they're not always effective, require extensive training, and are useless once the pirates are on board.My father was somewhat involved in the shipping industry back in the 70's and 80's. He lost more than a few loads of cargo to pirates in the South China Sea, and sometimes told me stories about what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highway6 Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 Concerning the CNN interview with the Vice Admiral.He suggested a) the possibility of security details being added or b ) other deterrent methods, one which has already worked numerous times in thwarting attacks is barbed wire.. I guess if you have enough of it circling halfway up the hull.Either way, he mentioned it's going to take more pro-active measures from the shipping companies to secure their ships from being pirated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 The Somali pirates have hijacked 4 more ships since the incident, but I don't think it is entirely our problem. Let the Egyptian Govt. handle their boats. The Filipino boats we might need to do something about though. I will agree with what was said yesterday about the Big Mouth Media going off half-cocked explaining ALL the details, should not have happened. You have to chalk that up to bad management though, as word of a hush hush approach, be taken as to what actually befell the would-be pirates, which should have come from the same man that actually ordered that they be fired upon. From now on there will be no chance of a Seal operation like that happening again. Shame shame on them, right course of action, wrong course on the spilling of the beans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fringe Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 Some interesting info on the pirates and rescue here:blackfive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archie_tech Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 I seen on Daily Planet; they are using nets on each side and off the rear of the ship to dissuade pirates from climbing up the ship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.