Plague of Somali pirates continues. 5 ships taken over the weekend.

[DinoDoc]

No one has answered either of those questions, Sloww.

[BlackCat]

DD, not a clear answer but there are some interesting points :

http://www.businessinsurance.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?articleId=26828

Tom Brown, managing director of Seacurus Ltd., a Gateshead, England-based insurance intermediary, estimated that hiring armed security costs about $100,000 per transit.

[SlowwHand]

THe pirates were closer, and the navy wasn't sitting there with snipers trained on the pirates.

[SlowwHand]

The pirates were closer, and the navy wasn't sitting there with snipers trained on the pirates.

[DinoDoc]

That seems like perverse logic. One would have thought that taking measures to protect the crew and cargo from being stolen would be looked at favorably by insurance agents.

[DinoDoc]

The pirates were closer, and the navy wasn't sitting there with snipers trained on the pirates.

I was hoping for a valid reason why not. Because so far there seems like no valid reason for them to even be in the area if all they intend on doing is just sitting there on thier collective asses doing nothing.

[Patroklos]

1) Is there any plausible reason why they Navy did nothing during the escape attempt by the hostage? That would have seemed like a perfect opening.

Sure. The most likely reason, as already stated, is that he simply didn't get that far from the pirates and they just scooped him back up.

Now, I would imagine that they DDG has at least one of its RHIBs in the water shadowing the lifeboat for responding to whatever situation arrises, but depending on the sea state keeping a small boat out constantly might not be possible. Even if they did, a DDG only has two and they would have to bring it in periodically to change out crews/refuel and switch boats.

Also imagine reaction time. We are all used to movies where the hyper compentent military knows exactly what to do all the time and always have exactly the right tools availabe on hand. In reality reaction times aren't like that. Whats going on isn't always readily apparent and it is not as easy as just qaltzing in at a moments notice. Someone would have to see the captain jump in (and recognize it as the captain), notify the small boats, launch or direct the small boats in, etc. etc.

As an example, when we have our own small the goal is to pick up the person within 10 minutes, whether it is a shipboard or small boat recover. That doesn't have to factor in guys with AKs.

2) I heard on the news last night that shipping insurance goes up if the crew is armed in order to protect themselves. Also there are certain ports that won't let them in if armed. Is any of that true?

True. Mechant sailors or not certified professionals for the most part. Captains and chief engineers for most nations merchant vessels are graduates of some sort of maritime academy for the most part, but the majority of their crews are just random hires from around the world. They may not even speak the language of their officers. For this reason arms are not usually carried becasue you really don't know anything about who your crew is. This is not just for the protection of the officers, but the crews by and large want it this way too.

And as far as snipers, there was a big push to get some trained to provide cover from the home warship during boarding ops. After we thought about though, it became apparent that compensating for at sea windage, the target bobing in the ocean, and the firing platform in the ocean would be near impossible for career Army/Marine snipers, let alone fresh trained sailors who were only going to be snipers on the side. As it is the only time we have snipers onboard is in the Suez canal, where the waters are calm and the targets are not bobing.

[DinoDoc]

Re your answer to question 1): What is the Navy actually doing there? Surely they could find somewhere else to be if all they are going to do is engage in a staring contest with the pirates.

[Asher]

Disband the Navy.

They finally have a chance to be useful and do something for it's citizens but they're too busy having sex to notice.

[The Mad Monk]

PIRATES: “So far President Barack Obama's role in the U.S. response to an American sea captain's kidnapping by Somali pirates has been careful — and quiet,” writes the Associated Press’ Liz Sidoti. “The new commander in chief has been kept abreast of negotiations over the captain's release, but advisers say Obama has delegated the heavy lifting to high-level administration officials and his military commanders. The president himself has yet to speak publicly about the incident near the Horn of Africa. He brushed off a reporter's question Thursday. Instead he has let his top surrogates do the talking, although their comments have been brief, perhaps mindful that their words could influence the sensitive negotiations with the hostage-taking pirates.”

“Vice President Biden and Attorney General Holder have both weighed in on the seizing of the US Maersk Alabama by pirates off the Somali coast,” reports CBS News’ Michelle Levi. "’The FBI is assisting the Navy with a crisis team. The FBI is in touch with the people in the Navy to try and assist in that situation,’ Holder told reporters. In reference to whether the pirates may face criminal charges in the United States, the attorney general said, ‘it is a little early tell, at this point. There has not been an act of piracy I think against a United States vessel in hundreds of years. So ah...I'm not sure exactly what would happen.’ ‘What we'd have to do is make sure the maritime life of this nation is is protected. Is what we have to do,’ he elaborated. Biden was also asked about the pirate situation during an event to promote stimulus spending. ‘We’re not going to settle that here. I think what you should do is contact Jim Jones and the White House,’ he said referring journalists to the national security advisor.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/10/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4934274.shtml

Carter. We have President Carter back.

[DinoDoc]

[KrazyHorse]

the navy wasn't sitting there with snipers trained on the pirates.

Why not?

[KrazyHorse]

That seems like perverse logic. One would have thought that taking measures to protect the crew and cargo from being stolen would be looked at favorably by insurance agents.

If the cost to pay armed guards is greater than the expected loss from piracy then hiring armed guards does not make economic sense from a micro view.

In fact, it might make economic sense from a macro view because there are positive externalities from engaging the pirates militarily rather than just paying them off. In other words, fighting piracy is partially a public good.

[Kidlicious]

In reference to whether the pirates may face criminal charges in the United States, the attorney general said, ‘it is a little early tell, at this point. There has not been an act of piracy I think against a United States vessel in hundreds of years. So ah...I'm not sure exactly what would happen.’

I thought that the reason for the Navy was to protect the sea lanes. And they don't even know what to do?

[DinoDoc]

I thought that the reason for the Navy was to protect the sea lanes. And they don't even know what to do?

That's our uber qualified AG, Kid. Not the Navy.