We need to start shooting these pieces of human garbage. The costs to tolerate their behavior is too great to ***** foot around with them. Shippers have a right to protect themselves. If the criminals get killed in the process all the better.
And why can’t they view any small boat/raft or whatever that has no business being that far out to sea as a threat & blow them out of the water before they get close enough to board a ship?
Unfortunately, most insurance carriers will not allow the Ship Owners to arm the crew or hire protection as it can a) damage the ship, b) damage the cargo, c) lead to injury to the crew which would increase costs further.
I believe that it was in the late l700s when American statesmen Charles Cotesworth Pinckney was negotiating with France and made the statement “Millions for Defense but not one cent for Tribute.” Let’s allow the government decide whether the ships need to be armed not the insurance companies. It’s a matter of National Defense. And while they are at it add barbed wire and other non boarding precautions and also enforce by weaponry a “no enter” zone around our ships. At the moment, it almost sounds like we are afraid to make the pirates angry. That never was the American way.
It’s not a matter of national defense, it’s a matter of commerce, hijacking a ship does not have any impact on the security of our nation. As for putting a no enter zone, that is fine; but I suggest that you look at how many ships go through the Gulf of Arden and off the East Coast of Somalia on a daily basis, it would damn near take half of the naval fleet to provide protection for each of our ships.
The government at this point in time has no control over whether or not ships can arm themselves. If a ship owner choose to, they can a) pay the higher cost of insurance or b) go uninsured. The reason most choose not to do it, and elect the preventive boarding measures (i.e. barb wire) is because the ship owners are worried about damage to their ships, damage to the customers good, and most important harming their crew.
Trust me, I am all for arming the ships with mercs and hired security forces, the fact of the matter is that the risk of harming the crew or the ship is much higher when you have a gunfight between security and pirates rather than when it is just pirates.
I think if the ship owners start to fight back a little more now, it will reduce future cost increases by cutting down on the piracy in thr future. Just like insurance..spend a little now so it doesn’t cost you much more later.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
We need to start shooting these pieces of human garbage. The costs to tolerate their behavior is too great to ***** foot around with them. Shippers have a right to protect themselves. If the criminals get killed in the process all the better.
And why can’t they view any small boat/raft or whatever that has no business being that far out to sea as a threat & blow them out of the water before they get close enough to board a ship?
Unfortunately, most insurance carriers will not allow the Ship Owners to arm the crew or hire protection as it can a) damage the ship, b) damage the cargo, c) lead to injury to the crew which would increase costs further.
I believe that it was in the late l700s when American statesmen Charles Cotesworth Pinckney was negotiating with France and made the statement “Millions for Defense but not one cent for Tribute.” Let’s allow the government decide whether the ships need to be armed not the insurance companies. It’s a matter of National Defense. And while they are at it add barbed wire and other non boarding precautions and also enforce by weaponry a “no enter” zone around our ships. At the moment, it almost sounds like we are afraid to make the pirates angry. That never was the American way.
It’s not a matter of national defense, it’s a matter of commerce, hijacking a ship does not have any impact on the security of our nation. As for putting a no enter zone, that is fine; but I suggest that you look at how many ships go through the Gulf of Arden and off the East Coast of Somalia on a daily basis, it would damn near take half of the naval fleet to provide protection for each of our ships.
The government at this point in time has no control over whether or not ships can arm themselves. If a ship owner choose to, they can a) pay the higher cost of insurance or b) go uninsured. The reason most choose not to do it, and elect the preventive boarding measures (i.e. barb wire) is because the ship owners are worried about damage to their ships, damage to the customers good, and most important harming their crew.
Trust me, I am all for arming the ships with mercs and hired security forces, the fact of the matter is that the risk of harming the crew or the ship is much higher when you have a gunfight between security and pirates rather than when it is just pirates.
I think if the ship owners start to fight back a little more now, it will reduce future cost increases by cutting down on the piracy in thr future. Just like insurance..spend a little now so it doesn’t cost you much more later.