On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 05:58:42 -0600, wrote:

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:12:36 -0500, Eisboch wrote:

Good in theory, but just not realistically enforceable in a dependable
way. The area would still be immense and very difficult to monitor, even
with aircraft.
These clowns are using very small boats in a very large ocean.

The problem isn't really military capabilities. The problem is the
navies are hamstrung by international law.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7735144.stm

This part is total bull****.

"I have also heard from someone who used to advise British forces in
the region and he says you cannot under international law convert a
commercial ship into a kind of warship."

While true that you can't turn a, say, tanker into a battleship, you
certainly have the right by international law to protect yourself, the
cargo and the vessel.

If that means carying anti-tank weapons, automatic rifles or hiring
mercenaries to protect you, your cargo and your ship, that's perfectly
legal.

Shakespeare was right - kill all the lawyers.

On Nov 20, 6:59*am, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 05:58:42 -0600, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:12:36 -0500, Eisboch wrote:

Good in theory, but just not realistically enforceable in a dependable
way. The area would still be immense and very difficult to monitor, even
with aircraft.
These clowns are using very small boats in a very large ocean.

The problem isn't really military capabilities. *The problem is the
navies are hamstrung by international law.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7735144.stm

This part is total bull****.

"I have also heard from someone who used to advise British forces in
the region and he says you cannot under international law convert a
commercial ship into a kind of warship."

While true that you can't turn a, say, tanker into a battleship, you
certainly have the right by international law to protect yourself, the
cargo and the vessel.

If that means carying anti-tank weapons, automatic rifles or hiring
mercenaries to protect you, your cargo and your ship, that's perfectly
legal.

Shakespeare was right - kill all the lawyers.

i agre! That fore- deck on a carrier is huge enough to hold a couple
choppers.

something light for observance, then something like a huey (double
mini-guns!) or a Blackhawk (Mu-ha-a-a-a-a-H!) for clean up. And let
it be known that nothing (unless previously authorized) is allowed
within two miles of the tanker.

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:59:53 +0000, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7735144.stm


While true that you can't turn a, say, tanker into a battleship, you
certainly have the right by international law to protect yourself, the
cargo and the vessel.

If that means carying anti-tank weapons, automatic rifles or hiring
mercenaries to protect you, your cargo and your ship, that's perfectly
legal.

Absolutely, but protecting yourself is only a band-aid. If you want to
drastically reduce piracy, you have to take it to them, keep them locked
up in port. A few ships blockading their home ports, is worth many ships
on the high seas. However, under international law, a blockade is
illegal, and whether we like it or not, we do have an obligation to
follow international law.

wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:59:53 +0000, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7735144.stm


While true that you can't turn a, say, tanker into a battleship, you
certainly have the right by international law to protect yourself, the
cargo and the vessel.

If that means carying anti-tank weapons, automatic rifles or hiring
mercenaries to protect you, your cargo and your ship, that's perfectly
legal.

Absolutely, but protecting yourself is only a band-aid. If you want to
drastically reduce piracy, you have to take it to them, keep them locked
up in port. A few ships blockading their home ports, is worth many ships
on the high seas. However, under international law, a blockade is
illegal, and whether we like it or not, we do have an obligation to
follow international law.


It's not illegal for a nation to defend its merchant ships by patrolling
the seas from the and by having gunships accompany the merchants.

wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:59:53 +0000, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7735144.stm


While true that you can't turn a, say, tanker into a battleship, you
certainly have the right by international law to protect yourself, the
cargo and the vessel.

If that means carying anti-tank weapons, automatic rifles or hiring
mercenaries to protect you, your cargo and your ship, that's perfectly
legal.

Absolutely, but protecting yourself is only a band-aid. If you want to
drastically reduce piracy, you have to take it to them, keep them locked
up in port. A few ships blockading their home ports, is worth many ships
on the high seas. However, under international law, a blockade is
illegal, and whether we like it or not, we do have an obligation to
follow international law.

Pirate ships don't come from "home" ports. A mother ship can stay off
shore for years being replenished by smaller boats from villages and
beaches.

My gosh!

That tanker looks like it holds more under the water than above!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph...r_1115972c.jpg

i wonder what the balast is like when it's empty?

Tim wrote:
My gosh!

That tanker looks like it holds more under the water than above!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph...r_1115972c.jpg

i wonder what the balast is like when it's empty?

The question is how much sea water do they have to take on to make the
vessel sea worthy on its voyage back to the gulf to get refilled with oil?