Maersk Alabama-----not twice!

[machine shop tom]

Pirates again attacked the U.S.-flagged Maersk Alabama again, but this time the results were different:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... wD9C1VR800

“Four suspected pirates in a skiff attacked the ship again on Tuesday 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.”

Of course, some retard thinks otherwise:

“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."”

BS! When seconds count, the "states and navies" only hours or days away.

Seems liked the Americans are the only ones who understand that.

tom

[enigma57]

Just goes to show the difference in mindset between appeasers and those who have the backbone and good sense to stand up for themselves and others in the face of thuggery, piracy and terrorism on the high seas, Tom. Good on 'em!

Were it up to me, all our commercial vessels operating in such waters would be armed with weaponry capable of repelling any attack from these people, to include having armed US naval gun crews aboard in addition to naval escorts on war footing as in WWII. Full-on Q-ships would be a plus as well. And no constraining PC 'rules of engagement'. If evasive action is not a viable option, use all means necessary to protect the ship and those aboard. That would put an end to this BS in short order.

Best regards,

Harry

[BirdMan]

One of the crew I used to work with. I would use a bazooka or modern equivelant rocket and blast any friggen boat or ship that wanted to hassle me. Loved it!

[crazyman]

I'm glad we had some balls.

[dan miller]

Quad 50's in each quadrant should do the trick.

Heck, a Barrett 99 single shot '50 in capable hands would ruin the day of a pirate or two. During the first few seconds of the engagement. It would be tough being a pirate sans head. lol

The European mindset is, for lack of a better word, pathetic.

This piracy thing pisses me off the second most of anything. My status as a Republican probably offers a clue as to the thing that pisses me off more than anything has in my entire life.

Danny

[SWR]

The European mindset is, for lack of a better word, pathetic.

Danny

Danny, don't count us all in on the "european way"... I'm all for bolting a couple Phalanx systems to merchant vessels and have a few guys on board to maintain and arm them... and use them on any ship or boat that comes closer than 200 yards and / or displays weapons against said merchant. If they want to play, they'll have to pay.

[dan miller]

Hello Bjorn

That was misspoke and insensitive. Please forgive.

I should have said, at least in this instance, the "English mentality". And, maybe the "French mentality". And, maybe the "Spanish mentality". etc.

Danny

[SWR]

Hello Bjorn

That was misspoke and insensitive. Please forgive.

I should have said, at least in this instance, the "English mentality". And, maybe the "French mentality". And, maybe the "Spanish mentality". etc.

Danny

No worry Danny, you were right, it IS the overall European mentality. I just wanted to let you know that not all over here think that letting them have their way is the way to go.

[1989TransAm]

Interesting in that it appears to be the French who are now getting a backbone.

[Keith Morganstein]

It should not be hard to overpower the pirates and it should be done before they get a chance to improve their weapons and tactics. (which will happen if they are allowed to continue) The pirates need to be put out of business now.

I think the first step is more passive defensive tactics to make it difficult to board ships. Then protect the pilot house so small arms cannot disable control of the vessel. Then there should be water cannon and other simple active defenses.

Finally, for those willing to use deadly force, superior and effective weapons to sink and/or kill the attackers.

I disagree that security teams need to be highly experienced in maritime life. If I'm wrong about that, surely there are ex-navy personnel for the job.

[DCK]

I like the quad 50 idea...lol, hell yeah. A one second burst should be enough for them to soil their pants.

[Keith Morganstein]

I doubt they need much more than the typical .50 Cal or FN240B coast guard gun to sink the small craft pirates use.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea ... d=26864178

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea ... d=21697643

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea ... D=35622186

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqqjCNKiMQQ

[David Redszus]

Weaponizing the maritime industry may sound good but may be counter-productive in the long run. It may well result in an escalation of weaponry and tactics. At some point, a number of lives will be lost and not all will be pirates. We are still playing defense and waiting for pirates to make the first move.

The other issue is that there are thousand of ships and thousands of square miles of ocean to patrol. Response time is therefore extended under the best of circumstances. Most ship captains and their owners would rather let the insurance company pay the ransom and not risk the possible loss of the ship and its multi-million barrel cargo. Think major oil spill.

Pirates must have a home base somewhere. They must congregate on land at some point to collect and spend the ransom money. It would seem wiser to find and destroy the pirates while on land. It is the type of operation for which Special Forces units are trained and equipped. Our spy satelites should be able to track these snakes back to their nests. Which is where they will realize their just deserts.

[enigma57]

In order to accomplish any truly meaningful results...... A comprehensive approach encompassing armed naval escort, convoys, air support and arming our merchant vessels that must travel those waters is required, along with relaxed 'rules of engagement' to include standing orders to 'shoot to kill' and 'sink on sight' all pirates operating in international waters.

Sending spec ops forces into Somalia can be done, yes...... But along with that, a commitment would need to be made that includes putting boots on the ground as well. These Somali war lords, 'pirates' and corrupt government officials do not operate in a vacuum strictly out of greed and self-interest.

To a greater or lesser degree, all are involved with al Qaeda operatives there. They must do so in order to maintain their power and position, for al Qaeda maintains a very strong presence in Somalia. And I do not believe that the present administration has the stones to commit to invading that craphole and opening a 3rd front in a war on terror they desperately want to pretend doesn't exist.

Just my take on it,

Harry