How do you defend yourself against pirates and terrorists?

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JohnH1963

Moderator
The best way I can think of is to utilize the training that I received in the military. When you are faced with an overwhelming force, the best way is to literally run, hide, bunker yourself in, buy time and keep on the move. Thats how I was trained in the military to deal with an overwhelming force.

The worst thing you can do is surrender as that will only encourage more of these encounters. While your safety might be bought by some larger corporation and you will be eventually released, the point is that you are simply endangering others by encouraging the pirates or terrorists.

My best advice is to not allow yourself to be captured. If you are about to be captured, then go on the offensive even if it means that you will die. You have to think about others in your defensive actions. If you simply surrender and give in to the demands of the pirates/terrorists then you will live to see another incident on CNN with other people getting captured and killed.

I certainly wish that the government would come to their senses and allow these sailors on the seas to carry weapons. Resistance is the only way to stop these encounters from happening even if it does mean a certain disaster.

I have written a lot about how Bernard Goetz was one of the best crime fighters in NYC who had prevented attacks on innocent civilians and made the job of the police much easier. After the Goetz incident, muggings and other such thievery seemed to decline. Although Goetz had spent a year in jail for the incident, he saved lives and prevented crime on a scale that the police could not do.

My advice is if you are in a situation involving terrorists or pirates to evade capture at all costs. If you are presented with a situation of imminent capture, then to fight your way out of it even if it proves to be fatal. Most of all, do not give up the ship or aircraft even if weapons are pointed at you.

To surrender and become a POW only further assures lawlessness and disorder.

I applaud the actions of the crew of the Maersk Alabama for not simply giving up the ship to pirates and terrorists who want to make our world less free. Do not give up your ship, your aircraft or your car. Evade, resist and fight.
 
In private maritime vacationing, a pump shotgun, mini-14 and a .45 cal pistol along with the required flare gun is going to hold off all but the most hardened determined pirates. I have personally seen one sportfish boat that was brought in by a pair of guys who docked it and bugged out. Boat was never reported stolen as the owner was never heard from. His family did know he had headed for the bahamas but never made the requisite check in call...
I ain't voluntarily getting victimized by anyone... And on the high seas "I AM THE LAW"...
Brent
 
I agree, although I would prefer USN personel on US vessels. Vessels flagged from other nations could use private security. Not every ship needs to have security either so long as the pirates don't know which one. Pirate mother ships, as they are called, or even those skiffs they use, would make good practice drones for 5 inch deck guns or rapidfire cannons. Pirates deserve nothing more than atomization by gunfire. Selecive atomization at their lair seems just fine to me also, with concurrent hostage rescue.
 
Survive, Evade, Resist, Escape

I totally agree with the OP about encouraging terrorism by playing along. When people around the world live in fear of terrorists and decide not to take part in activities they otherwise would, terrorists win. I believe the appropriate reaction of both governments and citizens is to retaliate, not negotiate. Personally, I am deeply offended that the skipper of Maersk Alabama is still in enemy hands and no overt moves have been made to secure his freedom. I am very proud however of the sailors who used ingenuity and cunning to secure their vessel from the pirates without weapons and protect not only their lives but their employers property and the aid shipment they were carrying.
I would like to second the OPs military training (which correlates with mine) to run when you have to, stay alive as long as possible, utilize any tactical advantage, and when you can't run fight 'til the bitter end. You guys didn't plan on living forever did you?
 
The shipping companies should take a lesson from the WWII German Navy and create a couple of surface raiders. Two or three old freighters loaded with shipping containers that the sides flip down exposing deck guns or mini guns or what ever. Kind of like a giant concealed carry weapon:) They will never know who is armed or not. If they start to recognize the armed ships, send them to a port and repaint them and send them out again...:D
 
hogdogs said:
In private maritime vacationing, a pump shotgun, mini-14 and a .45 cal pistol along with the required flare gun is going to hold off all but the most hardened determined pirates.
Click to expand...

It makes total sense to me to be prepared to defend yourself, whether from so-called pirates, or drug runners looking for nice, speedy and/or innocent looking craft.. whatever the threat.

But just for the record, it's not accurate to label these pirates as "terrorists," if you define terrorism as politically motivated violence. Some of them are gangsters looking to make a quick buck. The kind of ransom they're getting is a great return on investment: if you figure, as this source from Reuters does, that buying new AK's, an RPG or two, and a speedboat sets you back around $25,000, and a potential ransom may run well into the millions:as this article notes, piracy can be an excellent business model.

But according to this piece in the Independent, the current outbreak of piracy off the Somali coast actually began as a homegrown, "coast guard" type response to two things: dumping of nuclear waste off the coast, and illegal fishing -- both by European-registered vessels -- following the collapse of the Somali government in 1991. So it's possible to argue that the people we're calling "pirates" started out as, umm, patriotic defenders of their homeland...

And according to the Reuters piece, Xe/Blackwater is working with maritime insurance companies to make it cheaper for shippers to hire them to protect their vessels; the main reasons shippers don't currently carry security forces come down, oddly enough, to cost/benefit ratios and concerns about liability. So it's just another business opportunity...

So, all this chest-thumping about dying rather than submitting to terrorists is a bit naive, and arguing that workers should be willing to die in order to protect the profits of their employers just seems -- sort of creepy, in my opinion.
 
Pirates/terrorists ? Don't matter what you call them, they all be murderous,
scurvy ridden scum. Kill them wherever you find them, including their home
bases. The countries that are victimized already have the ability to do this,
if only they had the will. :D
 
Like I said in a similar post the other day

The satelites that cruise around in our atmosphere can get live real time imagery in darknes and thru clouds and on a clear day can track a mouse in a rainforest, or see if the captain of a ships girlfriend is sunbaking on the deck of the ship.

You cant tell me someone in a little room somewhere cant watch pirate boats and see where they come from, who they are stalking and who they attack. Having to build (or tie up existing) vessles to escort fleets or whatever isnt neccessary. They can monitor the shipping lanes from the atmosphere, now?

If they want to get rid of the pirates, and put off the newbie pirates from wanting to become pirates, and they want to get rid of nuclear waste, they could spread a rumour that a certain ship is carrying billions of dollars of gold or something, get one of the ships out of the ghost dock, load it up with the nuclear waste, remote control it to somalian waters, wait til the pirates are attacking it and blow it (& the pirates) up :eek::D

Simple.... :cool:

Just this BS diplomacy getting in the way I guess?

Am I right? or shall I go back to sleep? :D
 
If you are about to be captured, then go on the offensive even if it means that you will die.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but my main responsibility is to get home to family alive, not worry about what mighthypothetically happen in the future.
I certainly wish that the government would come to their senses and allow these sailors on the seas to carry weapons. Resistance is the only way to stop these encounters from happening even if it does mean a certain disaster.
Click to expand...
So your view is that it is better that thousands of tons of food be destroyed, or that millions of barrels of oil pollute the water and air, untold dozens or hundrfeds of good, hard-working people die, etc. rather than some insurance company make a payment? Wow.

So, all this chest-thumping about dying rather than submitting to terrorists is a bit naive, and arguing that workers should be willing to die in order to protect the profits of their employers just seems -- sort of creepy, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
+1, Vanya.
 
David, No one is suggesting these crew members blow up their own boats... And an RPG is going to be grossly inaccurate if fired from a 20 something foot open craft that is trying to get on plane to escape the barrage of defensive gunfire from an armed crew.

What I cannot fathom is any one who reads the tactics and training section of a fine forum such as TFL expecting high seas sailors in known dangerous waters being unarmed and defenseless against armed assault and risk of violent death at the hands of pirates...

Maybe guns should be banned from US citizens as we are in a much safer place and don't need the right to defend our selves!:mad:
Have a wonderful day though!
Brent
 
Spoke to a friend of mine who trains Merchant Marine Officers, he said they can carry weapons (M14s for one) Rifle and ammo government supplied, whilst in that sea corridor, two watch keepers with rifles, harden parts of the superstructure, issue night vision devices.

Direct communication to US Warships, attack helicopters are on those vessels. Missiles for mother ships, .308s for motor boats.

Self defense is a good thing, this is for the sailors protection.
 
I certainly wish that the government would come to their senses and allow these sailors on the seas to carry weapons
Click to expand...

They are allowed. The company chooses not to have them aboard for various reasons.
 
And on the high seas "I AM THE LAW"...
Click to expand...
- Hogdogs

Actually I am the law on the high seas...

Spoke to a friend of mine who trains Merchant Marine Officers, he said they can carry weapons (M14s for one) Rifle and ammo government supplied, whilst in that sea corridor, two watch keepers with rifles, harden parts of the superstructure, issue night vision devices.
Click to expand...

The only problem with that is the outrageous insurance rates that companies would have to fork over to allow their crews to be armed...


I have an idea... Send a couple of 270' WMEC's, and a handful of 110'WPB's over there... We are more flexible in our law enforcement regulations than the Navy is... This is one of our many specialties... And we've been doing the job longer than they have... Not sure why the CG hasn't been called into the mix yet... Darn squids...
 
JG, The USCG may be the ultimate law in federal waters and holds a bunch of power in international waters... I think the fact that a captain can still marry aboard his vessel and hold on board gambling and prostitution as well as defend with any required force against mutiny and piracy, my statement wasn't far off base:D

I haven't heard any word of these capacities being removed from the captain of a vessel.

I also know the range of the average VHF radio is extremely limited and the time for response to a call at the distance from shore to international waters and the speed of the responding vessel requires the captain to handle the situation on their own...
Brent
 
As far as the USCG being called to duty over there... I am not entirely happy that the Coast Guard ever got the power to do more than GUARD THE COAST OF THE USofA... Heck they are not even DoD... The job of anti Piracy in the hay day of sailing ships was that of the NAVY and the duty to defend the coast and handle law enforcement of federal waters was that of the USCG... I also don't feel that our government might should be used over there to escort COMMERCE vessels unless they are being billed fully for the "SERVICE". At which point it would be much more affordable for these shipping firms to hire security firms to be aboard the ship.
Brent
 
hogdogs said:
I also don't feel that our government might should be used over there to escort COMMERCE vessels unless they are being billed fully for the "SERVICE". At which point it would be much more affordable for these shipping firms to hire security firms to be aboard the ship.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with this.

But at the moment, given that the main threat is economically motivated piracy, in which the goal is to take the ship and crew and hold both for a ransom which the shippers' insurers will ultimately pay, it's still not clear that it's in the shippers' interest to arm their vessels, either by making the crews responsible for defending them or by paying for private security contractors to be aboard. There are hundreds of ships passing through those waters every day, and the risk that any one will be targeted is infinitesimal: according to the Reuters article I cited above, in the first 9 months of last year the International Maritime Bureau reported 36 hijackings of ships, against a number of vessels totaling 50,525, so, worldwide, the probability of a given ship being hijacked is around one tenth of one percent.

So it's much more cost-effective to carry insurance and pay a ransom than it is to put ships and crews at risk by trying to defend them. It's no different from a bank's telling its employees to hand over the money in the event of a robbery: it is just not worth it to put lives at risk by resisting, given the odds that the robbers, or pirates, are just after the money.

And the idea that a naval presence will either deter this type of piracy or be effective in dealing with these incidents is also problematic. From the same Reuters piece:

To make pirates think twice about the risk-reward ratio, nothing is likely to be as effective as brute force. But those who warn that 18th century methods can be problematic in the 21st can now point to the example set by the Indian frigate Tabar on November 18.

According to the Indian navy, the Tabar had come under fire from a suspected pirate mother ship that had failed to obey a command to stop. The Indian frigate returned fire, “in self defense.” The ship blew up in a ball of fire and sank.

A week later, it turned out that the suspected mothership was a Thai freighter that was being taken over by pirates when the frigate approached.​

Not a great outcome, to say the least.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top