I look at the world through the eyes of a cab driver. Risk Address and Quantification are my areas of expertise. The pirates are the ones who should be very careful. It certainly is about time we stood firm, said enough is enough and fought back. Pirates DO go for soft targets, the undefended targets.
Attackers of cab drivers do the same. Just the possibility that the intended victim may be armed is very effective for chilling the ambitions of those who attack cab drivers. The facts are astonishing. Murders of cab drivers ENDED in the deadliest city, in the deadliest job when they were no longer media-depicted as NECESSARILY vulnerable. 13 murders in three years, changed to zero in ten - in New Orleans.
So something has to be done? But it will take some "political nerve" to decide it? Considering that the 'political nerve' to delete the second amendment for many cab drivers in many US cities has been so easy... why should it be so hard to do on the high seas, what bureaucrats so easily do in the US... allow gun rights to those with significant assets and LIVES at risk, and let the poor be fodder for criminals. Limited, like the right to vote once was...
somalia is next door to Djibouti ... djibouti is a naval base for US Navy (quite a big one) and for the French Navy (thru much smaller than the US , they know perfectly well the area , it has been "territoire de affars et des issas " for a long time ...)
so piracy .... yes , solutions ? they are already at hands ... with just a little will ...!!
I'm sure arming vessels is not the solution. I agree with Armed - we have the military structures and the hardware to tackle this or at least have a decent go at it.
Does arming the citizen, notably in the US, protect him/her from armed attack? Or does it lead to more problems than it solves? We should be very careful.
I agree with Sam in the respect that pirates go for soft targets, the undefended targets. Arm the crews or have warships in the area (more than they do now) and persecute to the utmost of the law. Don't pay ransoms either as Fred says, just bomb the hell out of the ports where they stay at. The pirates are only doing this because they can make a buck and it involves minimal risk, change the equation. Simple as that.
Arming the ships themselves by missiles etc. or arming crews through guns/revolvers etc may/may not solve the problem. The pirates are usually well armed/professional/in adequate numbers.These measures would only endanger lives and put additional mental burdens on the sailors' already fraught nerves,far away from home.
An international ANTI-PIRATE force operated AND FINANCED By UN(a LOT of question marks there??), helped by GPS/Glonass signals, with fast gun-boats may be 'good' solution!! Another could be fast Subs - a joint NATO?? / maybe SCO venture.
yes , israelis have weapons onboard . no, i don't think it solve the problem .
in this case , it is more a way for pirates to stand clear from retaliations . as israelis never make deals with pirats/terrorists/wathever .
it is probably one of the very few countries in the world which won't spend a cent on ransom , but much more to make sure the ones from who the problems came in the first place are "## removed ##"
off-course , it is not very moral , but it works .!
in Somalia , the mess is quite different , they do not have real GOVT for few years now . and all the US and French Warships based in Djibouti seems to be absolutely useless .
so something has to be done , but it take some "political nerve" to decide it .
This was done before.ships flying the Isreali and Soviet flags routinely had armed personnel on board in the 80s and 90s.Their Ships were never attacked.I think Isreal still does it and I had not heard of their ships being attacked as of yet. This however has to be government controlled or ever pirate ship would claim the weapons are for their own protection.
30 April, 2009, 14:41
I look at the world through the eyes of a cab driver. Risk Address and Quantification are my areas of expertise.
The pirates are the ones who should be very careful. It certainly is about time we stood firm, said enough is enough and fought back. Pirates DO go for soft targets, the undefended targets.
Attackers of cab drivers do the same. Just the possibility that the intended victim may be armed is very effective for chilling the ambitions of those who attack cab drivers. The facts are astonishing. Murders of cab drivers ENDED in the deadliest city, in the deadliest job when they were no longer media-depicted as NECESSARILY vulnerable. 13 murders in three years, changed to zero in ten - in New Orleans.
So something has to be done? But it will take some "political nerve" to decide it?
Considering that the 'political nerve' to delete the second amendment for many cab drivers in many US cities has been so easy... why should it be so hard to do on the high seas, what bureaucrats so easily do in the US... allow gun rights to those with significant assets and LIVES at risk, and let the poor be fodder for criminals. Limited, like the right to vote once was...
SWC
05 February, 2008, 13:09
yes , sevodnya ...
as i wrote in precedent post :
somalia is next door to Djibouti ...
djibouti is a naval base for US Navy (quite a big one) and for the French Navy (thru much smaller than the US , they know perfectly well the area , it has been "territoire de affars et des issas " for a long time ...)
so piracy .... yes , solutions ? they are already at hands ... with just a little will ...!!
05 February, 2008, 09:48
I'm sure arming vessels is not the solution. I agree with Armed - we have the military structures and the hardware to tackle this or at least have a decent go at it.
Does arming the citizen, notably in the US, protect him/her from armed attack? Or does it lead to more problems than it solves? We should be very careful.
05 February, 2008, 02:30
It is about time we stood firm, said enough is enough and fought back instead of listening to those in power with no meat on their bones.
05 February, 2008, 01:22
I agree with Sam in the respect that pirates go for soft targets, the undefended targets. Arm the crews or have warships in the area (more than they do now) and persecute to the utmost of the law. Don't pay ransoms either as Fred says, just bomb the hell out of the ports where they stay at.
The pirates are only doing this because they can make a buck and it involves minimal risk, change the equation. Simple as that.
04 February, 2008, 17:59
Arming the ships themselves by missiles etc. or arming crews through guns/revolvers etc may/may not solve the problem.
The pirates are usually well armed/professional/in adequate numbers.These measures would only endanger lives and put additional mental burdens on the sailors' already fraught nerves,far away from home.
An international ANTI-PIRATE force operated AND FINANCED By UN(a LOT of question marks there??), helped by GPS/Glonass signals, with fast gun-boats may be 'good' solution!!
Another could be fast Subs - a joint NATO?? / maybe SCO venture.
04 February, 2008, 15:14
sam .
yes and no !
yes , israelis have weapons onboard .
no, i don't think it solve the problem .
in this case , it is more a way for pirates to stand clear from retaliations . as israelis never make deals with pirats/terrorists/wathever .
it is probably one of the very few countries in the world which won't spend a cent on ransom , but much more to make sure the ones from who the problems came in the first place are "## removed ##"
off-course , it is not very moral , but it works .!
in Somalia , the mess is quite different , they do not have real GOVT for few years now . and all the US and French Warships based in Djibouti seems to be absolutely useless .
so something has to be done , but it take some "political nerve" to decide it .
04 February, 2008, 09:49
This was done before.ships flying the Isreali and Soviet flags routinely had armed personnel on board in the 80s and 90s.Their Ships were never attacked.I think Isreal still does it and I had not heard of their ships being attacked as of yet.
This however has to be government controlled or ever pirate ship would claim the weapons are for their own protection.
Post comment