3 ms·

Seriously, just have the US/UK/French navies make a joint agreement to immediately destroy any hijacked ship and the problem will solve itself immediately.

electromagnetic 18y ago
Unfortunately, I rarely agree with harsh military action, but when it comes to matters like this the non-military action is largely too complex to consider. We cannot guarantee any money paid to a country like Somalia in aid or whatever would prevent piracy. The best solution would be to launch attacks on the pirates supply ships. Sadly the cost of keeping a naval ship in the region is likely too high, especially with aircraft carriers being ridiculously large and little to no capability on the small scale. A craft capable of carrying 2-3 aircraft would be capable of hitting these pirates where it hurts, but a ship carrying 24 aircraft and 5,000 people isn't cost effective to have sit in an ocean for a handful of attacks. This problem is likely only to get worse, the next carrier in the US fleet will have ~75 aircraft, which if following current metrics will mean a crew of ~15,000. Honestly, if this situation continues, I wouldn't doubt if companies started spending the money to defend themselves. ~$16 billion is lost in piracy a year, which is enough to buy 3 Nimitz class aircraft carriers and their full compliment.
- Xichekolas 18y ago
  Current Nimitz class carriers normally carry 48 combat aircraft and 16 support aircraft, and have a crew of 5k-6k (2480 in the air wing, the rest as ship's compliment). The upcoming Gerald R. Ford class will carry more aircraft, but only require about 4600 crew, and be roughly the same size. But quibbling aside, there is no reason you need to send a carrier group to deal with this situation. The (already dispatched) USS Boxer is an amphibious assault ship that supports helicopters and VTOL aircraft (including Harrier II, SuperCobra, and Sea Knights), which will be more suited for dealing with pirate mother ships and coastal bases. It has a crew of roughly 1000.
whughes 18y ago
Paying the ransom is cheaper for these companies than buying a new ship to replace a destroyed one: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97170630 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9717063... "The ship owners and insurers have found that it's more cost-effective to pay ransoms. They are currently averaging slightly over $1 million per vessel, and that's cheaper than buying a new ship," Pham says. "The Saudi tanker that was seized [Monday] was just launched six months ago and cost $150 million to build and the cargo on board is worth $100 million, so I suspect the ship owners will be willing to pay some fraction of that to get it back." Continuing to pay the ransoms is much better for everyone involved than destroying the ships, except for the governments who want to enforce rule of law.
- Xichekolas 18y ago
  True, paying ransoms is a better deal for the individual owners of the ships, but at some point you have to optimize for the long-term cost of the entire naval world. Scorching a few ships with no hesitation would put an end to this line of income, saving everyone money down the line. If the pirates are getting $1 million a week in ransoms, and this trend continues for a long time, that adds up. Of course I don't expect anyone to sacrifice for the good of the group. It'll probably take government stepping in to make that happen.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]

electromagnetic 18y ago

Unfortunately, I rarely agree with harsh military action, but when it comes to matters like this the non-military action is largely too complex to consider. We cannot guarantee any money paid to a country like Somalia in aid or whatever would prevent piracy. The best solution would be to launch attacks on the pirates supply ships. Sadly the cost of keeping a naval ship in the region is likely too high, especially with aircraft carriers being ridiculously large and little to no capability on the small scale. A craft capable of carrying 2-3 aircraft would be capable of hitting these pirates where it hurts, but a ship carrying 24 aircraft and 5,000 people isn't cost effective to have sit in an ocean for a handful of attacks. This problem is likely only to get worse, the next carrier in the US fleet will have ~75 aircraft, which if following current metrics will mean a crew of ~15,000. Honestly, if this situation continues, I wouldn't doubt if companies started spending the money to defend themselves. ~$16 billion is lost in piracy a year, which is enough to buy 3 Nimitz class aircraft carriers and their full compliment.

Xichekolas 18y ago
Current Nimitz class carriers normally carry 48 combat aircraft and 16 support aircraft, and have a crew of 5k-6k (2480 in the air wing, the rest as ship's compliment). The upcoming Gerald R. Ford class will carry more aircraft, but only require about 4600 crew, and be roughly the same size. But quibbling aside, there is no reason you need to send a carrier group to deal with this situation. The (already dispatched) USS Boxer is an amphibious assault ship that supports helicopters and VTOL aircraft (including Harrier II, SuperCobra, and Sea Knights), which will be more suited for dealing with pirate mother ships and coastal bases. It has a crew of roughly 1000.

whughes 18y ago

Paying the ransom is cheaper for these companies than buying a new ship to replace a destroyed one: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97170630 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9717063... "The ship owners and insurers have found that it's more cost-effective to pay ransoms. They are currently averaging slightly over $1 million per vessel, and that's cheaper than buying a new ship," Pham says. "The Saudi tanker that was seized [Monday] was just launched six months ago and cost $150 million to build and the cargo on board is worth $100 million, so I suspect the ship owners will be willing to pay some fraction of that to get it back." Continuing to pay the ransoms is much better for everyone involved than destroying the ships, except for the governments who want to enforce rule of law.

Xichekolas 18y ago
True, paying ransoms is a better deal for the individual owners of the ships, but at some point you have to optimize for the long-term cost of the entire naval world. Scorching a few ships with no hesitation would put an end to this line of income, saving everyone money down the line. If the pirates are getting $1 million a week in ransoms, and this trend continues for a long time, that adds up. Of course I don't expect anyone to sacrifice for the good of the group. It'll probably take government stepping in to make that happen.

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]