7 more captured by pirates..
 

In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...
Reply:
Solution to the piracy. Limit the fishing to within 100 miles of the
shore. If a Somali boat is outside the 100 miles, they sink and die.
When the Somali's decide that piracy is not worth the problems, then
they can fish further out. If the pirates capture a boat inside the 100
miles, is the boats problem. They kill hostages while in Somalia, then
figure how who had gotten rich in the last 5 years and kill them.



Under International Law, I doubt you can do that. How are you going to
legally restrict access to the high seas?

Reply:
Under the rule of the others got bigger guns and boats.



Those are the rules of the stupid.

We're not at war with Somalia, and we have no legal standing in
international law to interdict all Somali boats outside of a 100-mile
imaginary boundary.


A man-of-war can stop, board and inspect the cargo of each and every
non-military ship on the high seas.

7 more captured by pirates..
 

In article ,
says...
Now you're claiming that all the navies in the area are incompetent?
Wow, you're some kind of expert!!

Who said anyone was incompetent. I said we should engage the pirates
at sea,, not invading Somalia.

BUT
The other navies (with the possible exception of the Russians) are
nothing compared to us. They don't have theater surveillance
capability, their air support is limited to land bases for the most
part and they are usually using weapons we gave them because they were
obsolete.
You can hate Reagan but he built us a heluva navy.

All of the NATO navies are integrated into the US's theater surveillance
systems.

The real problem with these surface assets is they are slow to respond
if there is a lot of distance involved. That is why you need to find
the pirates, track them and be there when their course and a likely
target ship course meets.

30 knts over water is fast when you are moving an 500 foot destroyer but
it doesn't do anything to get the assets, 5 inch 50's and RIBS with USCG
officers and PO's and navy sailors putting M16's on the pirates.

Predator drones and a Global Hawk are probably the right tools. We are
the only ones who have them.

The problem is the cost and time on station. We need a base within
operating range of the area. A predator costs about $4.5 million and has
a 24 hour fuel load before it becomes an anchor. They have a 2000 mile
radius but that means you have to get it there, do you operating and
then get back to land. And, with a 135 MPH you would need to have
several aloft at a time.

7 more captured by pirates..
 

On 2/28/2011 9:59 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 21:29:06 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:12:44 -0800, wrote:

I thought that precedent had been established by Tom Jefferson some
years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Wars

He said nothing of the sort. Try again Mr. Wayne of OT posts.

Why is that when I disagree with Harry, I get a response from you, and
when I disagree with you, I get a response from Harry. Are you two
sleeping with each other? Is this an example of collusion?

PS, nothing about piracy is off topic. Piracy, by definition, is all
about boats.


That is particularly true with blue water sailors like you. There are
really Caribbean pirates too, just not as many.
How much thought do you give that when you are plotting courses?


That begs a question from me.
A friend several years ago asked to borrow a capable firearm because
they were going cruising in the Caribbean. I had never though about
piracy there. How is that situation with Piracy and being armed to ward
them off?

7 more captured by pirates..
 

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...
Now you're claiming that all the navies in the area are incompetent?
Wow, you're some kind of expert!!

Who said anyone was incompetent. I said we should engage the pirates
at sea,, not invading Somalia.

BUT
The other navies (with the possible exception of the Russians) are
nothing compared to us. They don't have theater surveillance
capability, their air support is limited to land bases for the most
part and they are usually using weapons we gave them because they were
obsolete.
You can hate Reagan but he built us a heluva navy.

All of the NATO navies are integrated into the US's theater surveillance
systems.

The real problem with these surface assets is they are slow to respond
if there is a lot of distance involved. That is why you need to find
the pirates, track them and be there when their course and a likely
target ship course meets.

30 knts over water is fast when you are moving an 500 foot destroyer but
it doesn't do anything to get the assets, 5 inch 50's and RIBS with USCG
officers and PO's and navy sailors putting M16's on the pirates.

Predator drones and a Global Hawk are probably the right tools. We are
the only ones who have them.

The problem is the cost and time on station. We need a base within
operating range of the area. A predator costs about $4.5 million and has
a 24 hour fuel load before it becomes an anchor. They have a 2000 mile
radius but that means you have to get it there, do you operating and
then get back to land. And, with a 135 MPH you would need to have
several aloft at a time.

I still say profiling is the answer. You have profilers that know the
fishing grounds and patterns. We can watch a lot of vessels in theater.
When you see "fishing boats" that are not following the profile, or are
suspect based on that profile, you put a couple extra sets of eyes on
them. If they launch out small skiffs or show themselves moving away
from a fishing area toward a ship, or shipping area, you start to move
an asset like predator drone closer and watch them more. If you see that
skiff moving toward another vessel, and then get a SOS from that vessel,
you can pretty much just let that predator vaporize the skiffs before
they get off that first RPG, and then go address the mother ship, and
address I mean vaporize them too...

7 more captured by pirates..
 

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 21:53:49 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:11:24 -0800, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:29:44 -0500, wrote:


By June 1993, only 1200 U.S. troops remained in Somalia,

Not enough to take on any real operation in Mogadishu if they sent
them all.

I guess you didn't even bother to read the article.

"President Clinton supported the U.N. mandate and ordered the number
of U.S. troops in Somalia reduced, to be replaced by U.N. troops."

It sure is convenient when you don't actually include the quote.

No I saw it but as a general rule UN troops are a joke. US and UK
troops do most of the fighting.

So, then what was Clinton supposed to do. Yet again, it was a Bush
conflict that a Democrat inherited.


If we did anything on the ground in Somalia we should send 100,000 at
least and we are not going to do that, hence my idea of just going
after the pirates by profiling every boat in that area, identifying
the likely pirates and engaging them at sea where we can win.
Let a few hundred profilers do their job in the US instead of being
IED targets in Somalia.

Really? This from a non-interventionalist like you? I thought you
didn't want to send troops into another senseless war.

What does a naval action have to do with "troops". I have been talking
about largely unmanned aircraft.

So, you want to bomb them? I thought you were against that sort of
thing.


This is a seaborne problem and it should be handled at sea where it is
easier to sort out the good guys and bad guys.

Now you're claiming that all the navies in the area are incompetent?
Wow, you're some kind of expert!!

Who said anyone was incompetent. I said we should engage the pirates
at sea,, not invading Somalia.

And, we're not doing that? I believe we are. What exactly are you
proposing that's different? How many resources should we throw at it
until you're satisfied?

BUT
The other navies (with the possible exception of the Russians) are
nothing compared to us. They don't have theater surveillance
capability, their air support is limited to land bases for the most
part and they are usually using weapons we gave them because they were
obsolete.

And, certainly we shouldn't coordinate with them! ??

You can hate Reagan but he built us a heluva navy.

Reagan was not a hateful person, and I don't hate him. He made some
major mistakes and isn't the god some people think he was.

Which we mostly no longer need much of it.

The real problem with these surface assets is they are slow to respond
if there is a lot of distance involved. That is why you need to find
the pirates, track them and be there when their course and a likely
target ship course meets.

So, they're slow to respond, but we need them.

Predator drones and a Global Hawk are probably the right tools. We are
the only ones who have them.

Sure.. and we're supposed to just attack fishing boats we THINK are
involved. No surface id required.

7 more captured by pirates..
 

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 22:31:01 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...
Now you're claiming that all the navies in the area are incompetent?
Wow, you're some kind of expert!!

Who said anyone was incompetent. I said we should engage the pirates
at sea,, not invading Somalia.

BUT
The other navies (with the possible exception of the Russians) are
nothing compared to us. They don't have theater surveillance
capability, their air support is limited to land bases for the most
part and they are usually using weapons we gave them because they were
obsolete.
You can hate Reagan but he built us a heluva navy.

All of the NATO navies are integrated into the US's theater surveillance
systems.

The real problem with these surface assets is they are slow to respond
if there is a lot of distance involved. That is why you need to find
the pirates, track them and be there when their course and a likely
target ship course meets.

30 knts over water is fast when you are moving an 500 foot destroyer but
it doesn't do anything to get the assets, 5 inch 50's and RIBS with USCG
officers and PO's and navy sailors putting M16's on the pirates.

Predator drones and a Global Hawk are probably the right tools. We are
the only ones who have them.

The problem is the cost and time on station. We need a base within
operating range of the area. A predator costs about $4.5 million and has
a 24 hour fuel load before it becomes an anchor. They have a 2000 mile
radius but that means you have to get it there, do you operating and
then get back to land. And, with a 135 MPH you would need to have
several aloft at a time.


Sounds fine to me. I just don't think it's priority one.

7 more captured by pirates..
 

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 21:29:06 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:12:44 -0800, wrote:

I thought that precedent had been established by Tom Jefferson some
years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Wars

He said nothing of the sort. Try again Mr. Wayne of OT posts.

Why is that when I disagree with Harry, I get a response from you, and
when I disagree with you, I get a response from Harry. Are you two
sleeping with each other? Is this an example of collusion?

No. It's an example of you being a pig. :)

PS, nothing about piracy is off topic. Piracy, by definition, is all
about boats.



You're right. In any case, you're still Mr. Wayne of OT post
complaints.

7 more captured by pirates..
 

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 21:59:58 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 21:29:06 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:12:44 -0800, wrote:

I thought that precedent had been established by Tom Jefferson some
years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Wars

He said nothing of the sort. Try again Mr. Wayne of OT posts.

Why is that when I disagree with Harry, I get a response from you, and
when I disagree with you, I get a response from Harry. Are you two
sleeping with each other? Is this an example of collusion?

PS, nothing about piracy is off topic. Piracy, by definition, is all
about boats.


That is particularly true with blue water sailors like you. There are
really Caribbean pirates too, just not as many.
How much thought do you give that when you are plotting courses?


Pirates of the Caribbean! I went on that ride once.

7 more captured by pirates..
 

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 22:32:00 -0500, Lil Abner wrote:

On 2/28/2011 9:59 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 21:29:06 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:12:44 -0800, wrote:

I thought that precedent had been established by Tom Jefferson some
years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Wars

He said nothing of the sort. Try again Mr. Wayne of OT posts.

Why is that when I disagree with Harry, I get a response from you, and
when I disagree with you, I get a response from Harry. Are you two
sleeping with each other? Is this an example of collusion?

PS, nothing about piracy is off topic. Piracy, by definition, is all
about boats.


That is particularly true with blue water sailors like you. There are
really Caribbean pirates too, just not as many.
How much thought do you give that when you are plotting courses?


That begs a question from me.
A friend several years ago asked to borrow a capable firearm because
they were going cruising in the Caribbean. I had never though about
piracy there. How is that situation with Piracy and being armed to ward
them off?

It's terrible... don't go. Please!

7 more captured by pirates..
 

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 21:24:26 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 19:20:23 -0500, Harryk
wrote:

It is called a blockade, unless you are JFK, then it is an embargo.

I guarantee you, as soon as they get a terror connection, this will
escalate and I think that in imminent. Unfortunately for us, the rule
is "first punch is free" so we won't do anything until we have a
serious attack traced back to this money.

That blockade was imposed against ships sent out by a nation. I believe
any such blockade as described here will violate international law.

It is still the president deciding this piracy constitutes a clear and
present danger to the US. If we can justify the war in Afghanistan and
Pakistan, a naval embargo of Somalia is trivial but that is was not my
suggestion.
I really believe with our surveillance and computer technology, we
could profile the boats and identify the likely pirates, then just
watch them from 50,000 feet to see if they approach a target ship.
When they do, sink them in the act. It would not take many stories
from ship captains about a pirate attack that was destroyed by some
invisible protector to make the other pirates rethink their line of
work.

You could also board and search suspect boats. If you find weapons,
arrest the crew and sink the boat.
If they fire on a US ship, the end would come in a few seconds.

It isn't and it doesn't except on a very minor level.