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

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:08:54 -0800, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:40:25 -0500, Harryk
wrote:

On 2/28/11 1:37 PM, Califbill wrote:
"Lil Abner" wrote in message ...

On 2/28/2011 11:02 AM, I_am_Tosk wrote:


And this boat has three children. It's time for this to stop. The Navy
needs to storm this boat. If the innocents are killed they need to
identify the pirates, which town they are from in Somali, and eliminate
it. I guarantee you do this a couple of times, and the Somalis
themselves will put a stop to it...
Somehow it is more civilized to let the drama continue. That there is a
Global government etc that should deal with piracy as a crime with due
process and Pirates rights.
We have the resources to locate these people on the oceans.
Sink them without asking them, about their troubled childhoods, poor
villages back home, and their hopes and aspirations.
Somalia is a trouble region and really is no civilized government in
control of anything their gnp is probably all from piracy.
Let the military deal with them as they deem wise and necessary, on the
spot and no recriminations from Washington etc.
No trials. Once the victims are free, put the pirates back on the mother
or pirate ship and sink it.
Close their ports and destroy them. they might get upset...well the
victims are upset and the rest of the world is tired of it.


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?


He's talking about a blockade I would guess. That's pretty difficult
given the length of the coast line... very expensive to maintain.

Of course, everyone seems to be forgetting our little adventure in
1993, wherein Clinton tried to do something and got blasted by the
right-wing.

He got blasted because it was a half assed, poorly planned effort that
got a lot of GIs killed, similar to the cluster **** in the Iranian
desert in 1980.


No. He got blasted because he was a hated Democrat. Did Reagan get
blasted by the Republicans for screwing up in Lebanon? By the
Democrats? Nope. Didn't happen. How many died there? And, Reagan
turned tail and ran.

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.

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.

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!!

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.

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...

In article ,
says...
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...

Any skiff or open boat more than 100 miles from shore will be summarily
sunk.

On 3/1/11 7:39 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...
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...

Any skiff or open boat more than 100 miles from shore will be summarily
sunk.




That's just stupid.

In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

On 3/1/11 7:39 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...
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...

Any skiff or open boat more than 100 miles from shore will be summarily
sunk.




That's just stupid.

What is your proposal?

On 3/1/11 7:54 AM, BAR wrote:
In articlepc2dnY5yOPDxdPHQnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

On 3/1/11 7:39 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...
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...

Any skiff or open boat more than 100 miles from shore will be summarily
sunk.




That's just stupid.

What is your proposal?



I've told you; *I* don't pretend to have a solution for the Somali
piracy problem. My suggestion was that we need to get more nations
involved in patrols so that there are more "assets" keeping watch.
Whatever we do, though, has to fall within the limitations of
international law. We are not a rogue state.

I am sure our state department and military discuss the piracy issue
regularly with their colleagues in other nations. I doubt the ideas of a
former marine reservist who never attended college or even got an
overseas posting are of much interest.

On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 07:54:35 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article , payer3389
says...

On 3/1/11 7:39 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...
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...

Any skiff or open boat more than 100 miles from shore will be summarily
sunk.




That's just stupid.

What is your proposal?


I'd make it 102 miles, just in case their gps's broke. That's a much more humane
way to approach the problem.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 07:39:28 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...
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...

Any skiff or open boat more than 100 miles from shore will be summarily
sunk.



You could even refine that and say "in the shipping lanes". Let
fishermen have 99.% of the ocean and block off the lanes where the
ships go. That would also make your surveillance requirements less.

We don't seem to have problems declaring "no fly zones" in sovereign
countries, why not declare "merchant ship only" zones. If Wayne wants
to sail there, he files a float plan and he can go. In fact there
would be people watching out for him.

I bet the owner of that super tanker would be very happy to spend the
extra few minutes filing a float plan in exchange for being in
protected waters

And it would be even easier if they profiled too. For instance if you
know where the usual productive fishing areas are, you can assume boats
there are fishing... Don't run the shipping lanes there. Have the ships
moving check in and out as BAR suggested. If you all of a sudden have a
fishing boat, in an area not known for any decent fishing at all, or
moving toward the shipping lanes, check them out a bit.. Maybe keep an
eye on them or let them know you are curious about their activity. This
could be done in several unobtrusive ways I would imagine, in the even
they are serious fishermen looking for new grounds...

On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 15:45:56 -0500, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 07:39:28 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...
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...

Any skiff or open boat more than 100 miles from shore will be summarily
sunk.



You could even refine that and say "in the shipping lanes". Let
fishermen have 99.% of the ocean and block off the lanes where the
ships go. That would also make your surveillance requirements less.

We don't seem to have problems declaring "no fly zones" in sovereign
countries, why not declare "merchant ship only" zones. If Wayne wants
to sail there, he files a float plan and he can go. In fact there
would be people watching out for him.

I bet the owner of that super tanker would be very happy to spend the
extra few minutes filing a float plan in exchange for being in
protected waters

And it would be even easier if they profiled too. For instance if you
know where the usual productive fishing areas are, you can assume boats
there are fishing... Don't run the shipping lanes there. Have the ships
moving check in and out as BAR suggested. If you all of a sudden have a
fishing boat, in an area not known for any decent fishing at all, or
moving toward the shipping lanes, check them out a bit.. Maybe keep an
eye on them or let them know you are curious about their activity. This
could be done in several unobtrusive ways I would imagine, in the even
they are serious fishermen looking for new grounds...

Shoot, I think a few .50 cal tracers over their bow would be plenty unobtrusive.