I believe the United States should definitely increase efforts to combat piracy. The ships should not be in danger by Somali pirates. The ships and companies lose millions if not billions of dollars from hijackings. This is hurting the economy all around the world. So much money and goods could be saved. Arming ships and being prepared is much easier and simpler than to risk getting hijacked and held ransom. I think that once the pirates realize more and more ships and being guarded and armed, they will back off, hopefully decreasing the number of attacks. Therefore, perhaps the U.S. and other countries only need to scare the Somali pirates off to teach them a lesson. I would feel much safer too if I was on a ship and it was armed. Isn't it better to be ready for an attack, then to not be ready and just risk being hijacked? I understand that the Somali pirates are hijacking ships as a way for them to survive, but it is hurting everyone else and instilling fear as well. Should it be required for all ships to have a better defensive system? I'm sure this would cost a lot more money though...your thoughts?
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
US ship repels pirates with guns and sound blasts
Today was the second pirate attack in seven months on a U.S. vessel. This problem has been going on for years and ships are increasingly hiring armed security teams to thwart hijackings. Impoverished Somalis are increasing their attacks hoping for money multimillion-dollar paydays from successful hijackings. The pirates usually board ships from lifeboats or motorboats, just force to take over the large vessels. They often have rifles and guns, but that is enough to overpower the crew, until more recently. Many ships now have new defenses and hopefully this will help to decrease the number of hijackings. The last time the US ship was hijacked, the Somali pirates took the captain hostage and held him at gunpoint in a lifeboat for five days. The U.S. Navy SEAL sharpshooters have to go rescue the captain, killing three pirates in the process. Apparently, it is not uncommon for ships to be attacked more than once, especially when traveling through trouble spots. So far his year, there have been 206 attacks, surpassing the 293 incidents from 2008. As of right now, the Somali pirates hold 11 ships and 254 crew. Theses attacks are driven by the large number of Somali people who are suffering from poverty and hunger. The U.S. is calling for intensified efforts to combat piracy and warning against paying ransom. More ships traveling near Somalia are using armed guards but still make up only about 20 percent of the total, and most of these are American ships.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I respectfully disagree with Talia. These pirates are desperate people, as you have mentioned before, and there is nothing left for them to do to survive. It's a sad situation, really; poverty has the power to drive even the most altruistic of men and women to steal to survive (exaggeration maybe). With families to feed (probably) and lack of general economic opportunities, these people are driven by survival to steal.
By the way, maybe taking no chances and giving these pirate-infested waters a wide berth would prevent most of these pirate attacks?
The problem with guns is that it is dangerous to use them on oil tankers because of the sensitivity of the cargo. I like the sonic non-lethal deterrent better.
"sonic non-lethal deterrent"
I should have said sonic blaster because it's easier to remember. :P
Talia, I agree with you. I think it should be required that all ships have a better defense system, regardless of the fact that it would be more expensive. Ships without adequate defense systems are putting themselves at risk to lose even more money than they would have if they had upgraded their weaponry.
Talia, I agree that arming the ships would be a proactive way to hopefully prevent future hijackings. However, there is definitely a risk that that would just result in more violence. I think that there should be greater efforts to solve the problems that are resorting in the hijackings. This article (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/10/solutions-howard-dealing-with-somali-pirates/?page=2) suggests "increase[ing] humanitarian assistance to Somalia and under the auspices of the United Nations; do some nation-building in Somalia to eliminate the reasons why Somalis become pirates." That will obviously be a long process, but we need to find a long term solution for the hijacking problem. In the meantime, I think we should take measures like arming the ships, using international convoys to protect ships passing through, or maybe even avoiding the area altogether.
It is amazing that pirates (albeit non-Jack-Sparrow types) are still around even in our modern day and age. What is ridiculous is that they actually succeed to a certain extent. I agree; there is no reason why such archaic forms of criminal activity cannot be curbed, either by taking advantage of modern technologies or by changing the economic conditions in countries such as Somalia that make piracy a plausible option.
Actually, after thinking about it for a while. I think that non-lethal weapons may be the best way to go in the case of a pirate attack.
Consider this, many of these pirates have families to support, and their countries don't offer any opportunity to allow them to survive.
By killing the pirate, you also risk killing their children because the children could be dependent on them to bring home food or money. Sure, maybe there is one more parent, but supporting a family by oneself is next to impossible in a third world country. If the pirate dies and the other parent dies, then there is no one to support the children, unless there is a sibling old enough to somehow scrape by. There is likely no welfare for the children because third world governments are usually in shambles.
If these orphans survive, can you imagine what they'll think when they learn what happened to their parents? "Why did you kill my father/mother? He/she was only trying to get me food. You guys have so much, and we are barely surviving."
I don't think anyone here will pull the trigger on the pirate with a good conscience if only he/she thought about this.
I'm surprised at myself. (:
Talia, I agree that all ships should have a better defense system in order to prevent future pirate attacks. Even though it may have a high cost, it is better to be protected since the ships and companies lose millions because of the attacks.
To be honest, I find myself thinking along the lines of Kevin's thoughts. I think that arming ships as a temporary solution would be effective. However, we cannot do just that. As multiple people have mentioned, they are in economic turmoil, they are barely surviving and seeing virtually no legitimate way to get resources, they resort to illegitimate methods. If we truly want to stop the piracy and save thousands of lives, I think we must enter Somalia (not like how we entered Iraq), we must intervene economically. We can probably subsidize McDonald's everywhere and give people jobs and a way to feed themselves. (slightly sarcastic in the example, for those of you picky with words). We know they're in turmoil, we want them to stop pirating. Why not solve the problem of the source and not just the part affecting the rest of the world? Wouldn't that be extremely selfish of us, as an international community?
And Kevin, I now remember why your comment left a somewhat deja vu moment for me... A couple articles you all might be interested in, especially Kevin.. They're not to techy/geeky, so it should be understandable to the non-engineer
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/sectors/military-and-defence/tying-pirates-in-knots/1000091.article
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103209615
http://gcaptain.com/maritime/blog/anti-pirate-weapons-piracy-somalia/
And here's your sonic weapon, Kevin..
http://www.atcsd.com/site/content/view/37/47/
Post a Comment