Cruise liner outruns armed pirate boats

[Jem'hadar]

Cruise liner outruns armed pirate boats
(CNN) -- A luxury cruise line will re-evaluate whether to offer future cruises off the coast of Somalia after pirates attempted to attack one of its ships early Saturday.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa...tes/index.html

So perhaps all cruise line passengers should receive a course on how to repel boarders?

[REG]

So perhaps all cruise line passengers should receive a course on how to repel boarders?

I dunno. My idea of a cruise vacation would include not having a MAC-10 displayed behind an emergency glass cage inside my cabin.

[Phoenix]

I dunno. My idea of a cruise vacation would include not having a MAC-10 displayed behind an emergency glass cage inside my cabin.

Mine ether, now a six inch smooth bore - a few cutlasses - oh um...wrong century deck mounted .50 cal, that's more up to speed.
I heard a rumor (MSNBC) that there was a group Gurkers on the "Spirit" as part of a security or just acted as security?

[REG]

Well, we were supposed to be infiltrating Air Marshals on most airline flights. Why not have Sea Marshals on sealine cruises?

[spshu]

The London Times reported:

The liner used a sonic blaster to foil the pirates. Developed by American forces to deter small boats from attacking warships, the non-lethal weapon sends out high-powered air vibrations that blow assailants off their feet. The equipment, about the size of a satellite dish, is rigged to the side of the ship.

[Pericles]

I'm all for high tech, but I'd MUCH rather place my faith in the good ole tried and true M2HB Caliber .50 Machine Gun. A couple of those babies would have greased those chumps AND their "pirate" boats before they could even think about getting into RPG and AK-47 range. Peace through superior firepower rules the waves.

[JALU3]

Outside of our territorial waters, and those which we have specific treaties with, the rules of the high seas are what are in action here. Each vessel is under that of which flag she flies, and that nation's navy has the responsibility to look after the well being of those ships flying her colors.

I was watching MSNBC the other day and the anchor was asking what the US Navy could do to prevent continuing trends of regional piracy. Odd? I thought there were those out there who wish that we never engaged in combat.
Maybe we should use the arguement, if we aren't there, they wont attack us. So if that's the case, lets stop sailing near those dangerous areas of the high seas. Lets sail elsewhere, it doesn't matter if we have to go around the Cape of Good Hope to avoid the Horn of Afria; it doesn't matter if we have to sail in the waters north of Australia to avoid the pirates in the Strait of Malacca, they wont follow us in these places.

Sorry, ranted. I am finished now.

[Pericles]

Given most ships have registry in a country other than that of the flag they fly, maybe it's time to find a country that doesn't mind arming their ships for protection against pirates as a place to line up for registry. Not even the US Navy has enough ships to provide escort or protection to even the tiniest fraction of the ships flying their flag.
If the officials can't do it, then the merchant ships should start looking into self protection. The idea of going around pirate infested areas isn't practical. A few pirates getting greased will at least make them think twice about attacking merchant shipping at will. The extra 6,000 miles to go around the Cape of Good Hope isn't even a topic for discussion. It would cost too much, especially compared to how inexpensive a few deck guns would cost. The Strait of Malacca has too long a history of picracy that arming the merchants will stop piracy as there are far too many countries in the area that the pirates can take haven from. Somalia doesn't have that many boats, so if you sink a dozen, you will break the back of piracy in the area. Even if it doesn't stop the piracy you've rid the world of a dozen jackals, win-win either way.

[Ergi]

The problem with that would be that as soon as any of those armed ships would enter territorial waters, they would most likely violate local arms laws. Of course, local laws could be changed to allow heavy armament, but where would you draw the line? Why should only cruise ships be allowed to have weapons installed, why not tankers and cargo ships, which are much more likely to become a victims of piracy. And soon you will have pirate ships with 12 mm cannons.

But maybe you could use this situation for a new type of action holidays. Weekend shooting courses seem to be relatively popular in the US, so there certainly are a lot of Texans fed up with their stupid laws, allowing them to own almost any gun they can afford, but not to use them for what they were made for. As on whale-watching trips you would get part of your money back, if you didn't see at least one pirate ship.

[Evan van Eyk]

If I am not wrong than there are already UN troops at the Somalian coast, even two of the most modern German frigates...

[Ergi]

That's right, and their mission has just been extended by the German Bundestag, which got me thinking: "What a coincidence!"

Order a few recruits to drive by a cruise ship from one of the G7 countries, firing a few shots in the air, and your military budget for the next year is safe.

[Pericles]

Why should only cruise ships be allowed to have weapons installed, why not tankers and cargo ships, which are much more likely to become a victims of piracy

I did say merchant ships, I'm all for both merchant and cruise ships being able to defend themselves. I know arming ships is a simplestic anwer that would require some serious law making to make happen, but there has got to be a better answer than allowing piracy to run rampant.

[Grimace]

Here's another simple answer: Q ships.

Make fat, juicy, can't resist targets for the pirates and have those ships be gunboats in disguise. You wouldn't need a lot of them, as one or two in an area will eventually lure the pirates out and result in a bunch of dead pirates. Hey, it worked to some extent in WW2 against the Germans, so why wouldn't it work against "estupido" pirates? (sorry, just finished watching Zorro...)

[Squick]

I don't know, maybe it's just my "African" point of view, but Somalians earning less than $600 a year might see a luxury liner filled with people who can blow $10k+ on a holiday as an irresistible target. Despite the dubious relationship with the West and colonialism issues, the poor people of Africa are very often desperate.

Yeah, obviously no one wants to face an RPG attack during their holiday, but obviously the impoverished don't want to have to starve and live an altogether shitty life.

[JALU3]

On arming vessels, from what I have learned from family who are merchent marines, small arms are normally carried, and basic small-unit tactic courses are now required curriculum. However, nothing that would provide significant range to deter a boarding attempt.

Regarding changes in laws. That is not necessary to do it on an individual state level. An international treaty could be written up, or a change in current international merchant marine protocals could be made. Yet, as far as I know, there is nothing prohibiting vessels on the high seas to carry armaments.

However, please understand my previous rant, the last part, was sarcastic.