Cool. :bowler:
I wonder what the American policy on this is?
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/10/30/world/europe/AP-Piracy.html?_r=2
QuoteBritish to Allow Armed Guards to Combat Sea Piracy
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: October 30, 2011 at 3:45 PM ET
Sign In to E-Mail
Print
LONDON (AP) — Ships sailing under Britain's flag will be permitted to carry armed guards on some perilous routes to combat the threat from pirates, the prime minister said Sunday.
Metro Twitter Logo.
Connect With Us on Twitter
Follow @nytimesworld for international breaking news and headlines.
David Cameron said Britain was reversing its opposition to the use of weapons aboard ships, amid mounting concern about the risks of vessels and crew being seized by pirates — particularly off Somalia's coast.
Cameron's office said the use of weapons on British-flagged ships is banned under firearms laws, but that new rules would be in place within a month.
Britain's announcement follows the decision in February of the International Chamber of Shipping, the major trade association of ship owners, to support members hiring private security companies to provide protection.
"The evidence is that ships with armed guards don't get attacked, don't get taken for hostage or for ransom, and so we think this is a very important step forward," Cameron told BBC television during a visit to a Commonwealth summit in Australia, where he discussed the issue with leaders from the Seychelles and Mauritius.
Cameron said Britain's interior ministry would issue licenses authorizing the use of armed guards for ships operating off East Africa's coast, in other parts of the Indian Ocean and in the Arabian Sea.
He said the change is intended for commercial vessels, rather than leisure sailors — such as Paul and Rachel Chandler, the British couple held for 388 days by Somali pirates.
"The extent of the hijack and ransom of ships around the Horn of Africa I think is a complete stain on our world," Cameron told the BBC. "The fact that a bunch of pirates in Somalia are managing to hold to ransom the rest of the world and our trading system I think is a complete insult."
Many nations, including Britain and Germany, had previously been nervy over the use of armed guards — and Cameron did not elaborate on what rules would apply on the use of lethal force by private security contractors.
"Piracy is a very serious problem and it's sensible to allow ships to take the appropriate measures to protect their crew and cargo," Britain's Transport Secretary Justine Greening said in a statement. "The U.K. will allow the use of private armed security guards on our ships in exceptional circumstances and where it is lawful to do so."
In Germany, ship owners have pressured lawmakers to change the nation's weapons law to allow German ships to carry armed guards. Under current laws, the captains are required to apply individually for the right to carry arms, but would only be able to use them under certain, restrictive circumstances.
Lawmakers are debating how legislation could be changed to allow for ships to routinely carry weapons, plans which are being met with resistance from some opposition lawmakers and representatives of Germany's powerful police force, which worries such changes could lead to an overall easing of the nation's strict weapons laws.
The U.N. International Maritime Organization issued guidance in May on the use of armed guards — warning that there had been 489 acts of piracy or armed robbery against ships in 2010, an increase on the previous year.
Some maritime groups and insurers have opposed arming ships because of liability issues, and over fears that to do so could provoke an arms race with pirates. Other skeptics have worried that if ships from wealthy companies hire expensive security crews, hostage-takers will simply switch focus to softer targets.
Earlier this month, the International Chamber of Shipping urged nations to also take additional military action to combat piracy.
"Private armed guards do not represent a long-term solution," the organization's chairman Spyros Polemis said. "Rather, their use actually signifies a failure on the part of the international community — and those governments with significant military forces — to ensure the security of maritime trade.
"Governments don't like it when we say this, but the reality is that they have ceded control of the Indian Ocean to the pirates," he said.
Figures released earlier this month by the EU Naval Force show that pirates hold nine ships and an estimated 246 hostages. In February, pirates killed a Filipino crewman aboard the German-owned MV Beluga Nomination.
___
Melissa Eddy in Berlin contributed to this report.
What good are armed guards against pirates with RPGs? No, the answer is this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fd%2Fdc%2FGrand_Fleet_Assembly_%2528front%2529.jpg&hash=a151379daf1cb070b38299df96f08f3b4ee8e19d)
Woah, that photo's fantastic! :jaw on the floor:
Despite Timmay's fanboisplooge, that actually is a rather impressive photo.
As for the pirates, well...this is a no-brainer decision. I can certainly understand and empathize with the idea that ships shouldn't be carting around weaponry at all times, but when the reality is that the waters are occasionally unsafe? Lock and load.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 01, 2011, 10:28:54 PM
Woah, that photo's fantastic! :jaw on the floor:
I have my doubts that is a photo and not an illustration.
During wartime, WW1 and WW2, some ships were armed against attack on the open sea. Should be a similar situation now, with pirates being the attackers.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 02, 2011, 01:28:07 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 01, 2011, 10:28:54 PM
Woah, that photo's fantastic! :jaw on the floor:
I have my doubts that is a photo and not an illustration.
It is not a photo, I am pretty sure. It has a signature at the bottom right, and only original artwork has that, as far as I know.
It is from a 1914 postcard:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.the-weatherings.co.uk%2Fimages%2Fgf1.jpg&hash=5fd35054439fe3e0b0739f8776870cb09a97e4e3)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.the-weatherings.co.uk%2Fimages%2Fgf2.jpg&hash=326659669ce212ff8ca4c4c256645cf777b91659)
Quote from: Neil on November 01, 2011, 10:27:30 PM
What good are armed guards against pirates with RPGs? No, the answer is this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fd%2Fdc%2FGrand_Fleet_Assembly_%2528front%2529.jpg&hash=a151379daf1cb070b38299df96f08f3b4ee8e19d)
They might have RPGs but they don't have sturdy boats. One good shot & BAM, they sink to the bottom of the sea.
Quote from: KRonn on November 02, 2011, 07:17:56 AM
During wartime, WW1 and WW2, some ships were armed against attack on the open sea. Should be a similar situation now, with pirates being the attackers.
Yeah. I can understand caution on the basis of safety, but surely that is a balance best evaluated by the owners, not the government.
No, it's definitely an illustration. The angles are just a bit too perfect to be believed, the lines a bit too clear, and I've seen the colour version before. If you take out the sepia, it's really obvious.
What I find amazing about this story is that apparently the Brits did NOT allow armed guards prior to this, on otherwise private vessels.
It only took a decade of piracy to get that rule changed?
Don't most merchant vessels fly under a flag of convenience?
Yeah, I was going to say that this doesn't really make much difference, does it? I mean, if the Bahamas or Panama were to do this, that might be newsworthy.
Quote from: Neil on November 02, 2011, 08:01:31 AM
Yeah, I was going to say that this doesn't really make much difference, does it? I mean, if the Bahamas or Panama were to do this, that might be newsworthy.
Even if they did, the individual companies would likely be the ones making the decision. Since they use flag of conveniences is partly to avoid safety regulations, I doubt they really care that much about their crews. I imagine they'll have someone like Dguller work out it the numbers to see if putting guards on the ships is less expensive then paying an occasional ransom. If not, then there won't likely be guards.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2011, 08:10:59 AM
Even if they did, the individual companies would likely be the ones making the decision. Since they use flag of conveniences is partly to avoid safety regulations, I doubt they really care that much about their crews. I imagine they'll have someone like Dguller work out it the numbers to see if putting guards on the ships is less expensive then paying an occasional ransom. If not, then there won't likely be guards.
If the companies that own the vessels won't provide armed guards, then I bet that the crewmembers will arm themselves. If fact, I suspect that they already do in many cases.
Quote from: dps on November 02, 2011, 04:22:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2011, 08:10:59 AM
Even if they did, the individual companies would likely be the ones making the decision. Since they use flag of conveniences is partly to avoid safety regulations, I doubt they really care that much about their crews. I imagine they'll have someone like Dguller work out it the numbers to see if putting guards on the ships is less expensive then paying an occasional ransom. If not, then there won't likely be guards.
If the companies that own the vessels won't provide armed guards, then I bet that the crewmembers will arm themselves. If fact, I suspect that they already do in many cases.
Maybe. Maybe the companies prohibit it. Carrying a pistol is unlikely to do much good and assault rifles are difficult to hide (and may be of limited use). You really need a Heavy Machine Gun. The shipping company certainly doesn't want to risk the ship sinking in a gun fight (or cargo being damaged), something that could happen if pirates shoot a bunch of RPGs at a ship.
It is not difficult to hide an assault rifle on a cargo ship, Raz. Nor a machine gun, for that matter.
You'd have problems using them without the captain knowing about it, of course, but if the crew and captain were in agreement I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be a problem to have and use such weapons against pirates without the owners knowing unless it somehow because a big media deal.
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2011, 07:38:23 AM
What I find amazing about this story is that apparently the Brits did NOT allow armed guards prior to this, on otherwise private vessels.
It only took a decade of piracy to get that rule changed?
International waters--what's to have stopped them? I bet they've been armed the whole time.
Quote from: Jacob on November 02, 2011, 05:58:02 PM
It is not difficult to hide an assault rifle on a cargo ship, Raz. Nor a machine gun, for that matter.
You'd have problems using them without the captain knowing about it, of course, but if the crew and captain were in agreement I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be a problem to have and use such weapons against pirates without the owners knowing unless it somehow because a big media deal.
If the captain thinks he'll get fired or fined if he lets guns on the boat, he won't let them on. If they ever use the weapons the owners are going to find out, eventually and then the captain will lose his job. But to stop a small speed boat or something similar you'd really need a HMG. Something that has good range, hitting power, and automatic fire. A Browning M2 would work well.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2011, 06:38:38 PMIf the captain thinks he'll get fired or fined if he lets guns on the boat, he won't let them on. If they ever use the weapons the owners are going to find out, eventually and then the captain will lose his job. But to stop a small speed boat or something similar you'd really need a HMG. Something that has good range, hitting power, and automatic fire. A Browning M2 would work well.
Heh. I don't think the captain has much say in what the crew brings on or not, if they want to bring it on.
But yeah, like I said, using it is another issue if the captain doesn't know.
I imagine the ships captain would frown on sailors bringing contraband on the ship. Say, a Kilo of heroin... They probably dock your pay or something. Hell if the ship is registered in Liberia or something who knows what the captain can do. He might be able to throw you into the sea for all I know.
The captain is the most likely to want the crew to be armed, because he's the most likely to be taken hostage by pirates. He'd probably rather get fired for allowing the crew to fight back than to get taken off the ship by pirates and maybe shot later.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2011, 06:57:40 PM
I imagine the ships captain would frown on sailors bringing contraband on the ship. Say, a Kilo of heroin... They probably dock your pay or something. Hell if the ship is registered in Liberia or something who knows what the captain can do. He might be able to throw you into the sea for all I know.
:lol:
The captain may very well frown on the sailors bringing a kilo of heroin on board the ship if he found out, but those ships are huge. It's not difficult at all to hide contraband on a ship.
Quote from: dps on November 02, 2011, 07:17:41 PM
The captain is the most likely to want the crew to be armed, because he's the most likely to be taken hostage by pirates. He'd probably rather get fired for allowing the crew to fight back than to get taken off the ship by pirates and maybe shot later.
It's not just the matter of the captain choosing between getting fired or getting taken hostage. If the captain allows crewmembers to bring weapons aboard, and they then use those weapons to hose down some "fishing vessal" because it gets close enough to make them fear it is full of pirates (who are identical in appearance to fishermen, by and large) then he gets fired and goes to prison for murder.
Pirates don't fly the jolly roger any more. Defending against them while also not assaulting or murdering innocents takes more than a Hollywood script. It takes training.
Once they are aboard, of course, telling pirates from fishermen is pretty easy, but then you have untrained guys with guns going up against trained guys with guns, and Siege can tell you how that scenario plays out.
grumbler, check your pm.
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2011, 08:25:56 PM
grumbler, check your pm.
Done. Sure wish we had those popup boxes like we had on the good forum software.
Quote from: grumbler on November 02, 2011, 07:55:21 PM
Quote from: dps on November 02, 2011, 07:17:41 PM
The captain is the most likely to want the crew to be armed, because he's the most likely to be taken hostage by pirates. He'd probably rather get fired for allowing the crew to fight back than to get taken off the ship by pirates and maybe shot later.
It's not just the matter of the captain choosing between getting fired or getting taken hostage. If the captain allows crewmembers to bring weapons aboard, and they then use those weapons to hose down some "fishing vessal" because it gets close enough to make them fear it is full of pirates (who are identical in appearance to fishermen, by and large) then he gets fired and goes to prison for murder.
Pirates don't fly the jolly roger any more. Defending against them while also not assaulting or murdering innocents takes more than a Hollywood script. It takes training.
Once they are aboard, of course, telling pirates from fishermen is pretty easy, but then you have untrained guys with guns going up against trained guys with guns, and Siege can tell you how that scenario plays out.
I think you can tell pirates from fishermen well before they actually get aboard your ship--if nothing else, the point at which they point weapons at you vessel and demand that you allow them to board should be a clue that they aren't just fishermen.
And are the pirates really well trained? Experienced, maybe, but being experienced at intimidating and shooting unarmed people doesn't exactly equate to well-trained.
Quote from: dps on November 03, 2011, 10:49:52 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 02, 2011, 07:55:21 PM
Quote from: dps on November 02, 2011, 07:17:41 PM
The captain is the most likely to want the crew to be armed, because he's the most likely to be taken hostage by pirates. He'd probably rather get fired for allowing the crew to fight back than to get taken off the ship by pirates and maybe shot later.
It's not just the matter of the captain choosing between getting fired or getting taken hostage. If the captain allows crewmembers to bring weapons aboard, and they then use those weapons to hose down some "fishing vessal" because it gets close enough to make them fear it is full of pirates (who are identical in appearance to fishermen, by and large) then he gets fired and goes to prison for murder.
Pirates don't fly the jolly roger any more. Defending against them while also not assaulting or murdering innocents takes more than a Hollywood script. It takes training.
Once they are aboard, of course, telling pirates from fishermen is pretty easy, but then you have untrained guys with guns going up against trained guys with guns, and Siege can tell you how that scenario plays out.
I think you can tell pirates from fishermen well before they actually get aboard your ship--if nothing else, the point at which they point weapons at you vessel and demand that you allow them to board should be a clue that they aren't just fishermen.
And are the pirates really well trained? Experienced, maybe, but being experienced at intimidating and shooting unarmed people doesn't exactly equate to well-trained.
I think very few fisherman have much reason to approach your ship at all. The fact that the ship in question is trying to close with you is a pretty good indicator that you should be worried.
Dang I thought this meant the British were sending the Grenadier Guards to combat sea piracy.
Quote from: grumbler on November 02, 2011, 07:55:21 PM
Once they are aboard, of course, telling pirates from fishermen is pretty easy, but then you have untrained guys with guns going up against trained guys with guns, and Siege can tell you how that scenario plays out.
I don't think the typical sailor has combat training.
I don't advocate just letting the crews carry weapons to provide ship security, and certainly not without any training. I'm assuming that trained armed guards will be the security, and not the crews. They'll have rules of engagement, and operate within those rules just like a military/police force. In fact, maybe some actual military, marines/sailors, could be aboard some ships, at least in some cases. Convoy ships during wartime used military personnel to man weapons, I believe.
They have buggery training.
Quote from: Neil on November 01, 2011, 10:27:30 PM
What good are armed guards against pirates with RPGs?
Depends how much you get on the initiative roll. :nerd:
Ships firing on each other was usually a good pretext for a war. :P
Quote from: dps on November 03, 2011, 10:49:52 AM
I think you can tell pirates from fishermen well before they actually get aboard your ship--if nothing else, the point at which they point weapons at you vessel and demand that you allow them to board should be a clue that they aren't just fishermen.
Good luck trusting your life to that being the scenario. I don't think you will be able to tell the pirates until they are coming over your rail.
QuoteAnd are the pirates really well trained? Experienced, maybe, but being experienced at intimidating and shooting unarmed people doesn't exactly equate to well-trained.
Dunno. Ask the person who said they were well-trained if that is what he/she actually meant.
I said 'trained," and the person who has shot someone (even if that person was not armed) is a lot better-trained to shoot another person than someone with identical experience
short of actually shooting someone.
Quote from: KRonn on November 03, 2011, 11:32:05 AM
I don't advocate just letting the crews carry weapons to provide ship security, and certainly not without any training. I'm assuming that trained armed guards will be the security, and not the crews. They'll have rules of engagement, and operate within those rules just like a military/police force. In fact, maybe some actual military, marines/sailors, could be aboard some ships, at least in some cases. Convoy ships during wartime used military personnel to man weapons, I believe.
Exactly the point I was making. Crews could be armed, and the shipowners could take responsibility for that (or not, leaving the captains on the hook), but ad hoc methods are not going to work all that well.
I would think you would want trained guards, but hopefully with some skills that are useful otherwise. Kind of a lot of standing around doing nothing otherwise.
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2011, 01:41:30 PM
I would think you would want trained guards, but hopefully with some skills that are useful otherwise. Kind of a lot of standing around doing nothing otherwise.
But you only need them when transiting a small area. You don't need them for the whole voyage, so they could be dropped off on, and picked up from, ships entering and leaving the danger zone. Better to have the pros at violence specialize in the violence, rather than the part-time deck ape or snipe.
Quote from: grumbler on November 02, 2011, 07:55:21 PM
It's not just the matter of the captain choosing between getting fired or getting taken hostage. If the captain allows crewmembers to bring weapons aboard, and they then use those weapons to hose down some "fishing vessal" because it gets close enough to make them fear it is full of pirates (who are identical in appearance to fishermen, by and large) then he gets fired and goes to prison for murder.
Pirates don't fly the jolly roger any more. Defending against them while also not assaulting or murdering innocents takes more than a Hollywood script. It takes training.
Once they are aboard, of course, telling pirates from fishermen is pretty easy, but then you have untrained guys with guns going up against trained guys with guns, and Siege can tell you how that scenario plays out.
Are you assuming the Captain ordered his men to open fire in the first scenario, or would he be responsible if they opened fire on their own?
I was under the impression that Somalia militiamen and pirates weren't actually trained. Am I incorrect?
I dunno about murder. He'd probably get fired, but fear of piracy may constitute a pretty reasonable apprehension.
Quote from: grumbler on November 03, 2011, 01:27:26 PM
Quote from: dps on November 03, 2011, 10:49:52 AM
I think you can tell pirates from fishermen well before they actually get aboard your ship--if nothing else, the point at which they point weapons at you vessel and demand that you allow them to board should be a clue that they aren't just fishermen.
Good luck trusting your life to that being the scenario. I don't think you will be able to tell the pirates until they are coming over your rail.
QuoteAnd are the pirates really well trained? Experienced, maybe, but being experienced at intimidating and shooting unarmed people doesn't exactly equate to well-trained.
Dunno. Ask the person who said they were well-trained if that is what he/she actually meant.
I said 'trained," and the person who has shot someone (even if that person was not armed) is a lot better-trained to shoot another person than someone with identical experience short of actually shooting someone.
Regarding the training of pirates and being able to tell from a distance, this incident comes to mind
http://www.eunavfor.eu/2010/04/pirates-attack-french-military-replenishment-ship-somme-–-6-pirates-captured/ (http://www.eunavfor.eu/2010/04/pirates-attack-french-military-replenishment-ship-somme-%E2%80%93-6-pirates-captured/)
QuoteDuring the night of 19th April 2010, 400 nautical miles from the coast of Somalia, French replenishment ship SOMME came under attack from two skiffs with six pirates on board.
FS SOMME had been engaged in a support mission for the EU NAVFOR anti piracy operation Atalanta, replenishing her supplies, when she was attacked during the night of 19th April 2010. The pirates, mistaking the SOMME's silhouette for that of a merchant vessel, opened fire on the French ship. FS SOMME responded with warning shots, causing the two pirate skiffs to flee. During their flight the two pirate skiffs were separated.
Whilst chasing one of the skiffs, FS SOMME detected another boat which turned out to be the pirate mother ship, the vessel which controls and resupplies the pirate skiffs. The mother ship was captured less than half an hour later with two pirates on board, and her fuel and pirate paraphanalia (weapons and grappling lines) were seized. The mother ship was destroyed and sank.
FS SOMME then gave chase to the skiff which was apprehended with a further 4 pirates on board. The skiff and the six pirates to now being held on board FS SOMME.
Note: FS SOMME was also attacked by pirates on 7 October 2009. The ship's company then intercepted 5 pirates and their skiff.
EU NAVFOR Somalia – Operation ATALANTA's main tasks are to escort merchant vessels carrying humanitarian aid of the 'World Food Program' (WFP) and vessels of 'African Union Mission for Somalia' AMISOM, and to protect vulnerable ships in the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean and to deter and disrupt piracy. EUNAVFOR also monitors fishing activity off the coast of Somalia.
To see a video on the attack of FS Somme, click on the link http://www.corlobe.tk/article19242.html
http://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2010/04/21/des-pirates-somaliens-attaquent-par-erreur-un-navire-de-guerre-francais_1340874_3212.html (http://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2010/04/21/des-pirates-somaliens-attaquent-par-erreur-un-navire-de-guerre-francais_1340874_3212.html)
http://www.rfi.fr/actuen/articles/118/article_5411.asp (http://www.rfi.fr/actuen/articles/118/article_5411.asp)
Quick sum-up :
A French warship (support) got attacked TWICE in 2009 and 20010 by pirates who fled when they realized the opposition they were facing. Some were caught, be it on the spot or by following them to the mother ship.
The French ship looks like a civilian ship though.
Of course, Somali pirates might have learned since that 2010 incident.
Bonus : "Have your say"-like comments from the bobo suscribers of Lemonde.fr
As you can see, mistakes are possible, from both sides.
Good going FS Somme. Maybe the navies patrolling that area should disguise a few ships as merchantmen, lure in some pirates. ;) I say it partly in jest but I wonder if some ships are being set up that way, or merchant ships being used by a navy with armed crews and some heavy weapons and helos aboard hidden.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 03, 2011, 03:43:44 PM
I dunno about murder. He'd probably get fired, but fear of piracy may constitute a pretty reasonable apprehension.
I don't think people understand how ships work, fishing boats work, and the law of the sea works.
Fishing boats are often all around ships in transit, where the waters have fish. Fishing boats maneuver at will, fairly randomly, seldom have radars, and in fact seldom even know that merchant ships are present at night, unless close enough to see their lights. On the transiting merchant, your concern is to not actually hit any of them while also not getting off course too much. Close passages are very common. If the small vessel is pirate-controlled, it will launch a coupla small craft that will sneak alongside the merchant and send pirates over the rail.
If a crew starts to shoot up every fishing vessel that gets close enough to threaten them if the vessel were to be a pirate (and pirates use the same fishing vessels the fishermen do), the captain is going to be charged with murder if someone gets killed. The old "he was black so I was scared of him so I shot him" defense just won't fly. Pretty much the only way to know you are under attack before you get guys over the rail is to keep a watch out for the launch of the small boats. That is going to take more people than the crew normally has, which is why i think a rotating guard is better than training the crew or adding a small number of multipurpose guys for the whole voyage.
This BBC article has some additional information :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15510467
Notably :
"But armed guards would only be permitted while passing through dangerous waters, such as the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden"
and
"Mr Cook said many armed guards were former Royal Navy and Royal Marines personnel, and he added: "With the current redundancies it has provided them with an ideal place to go."
..........which would appear to agree with grumbler. Rightly or wrongly (IMO rightly) the British are not generally in favour of issuing arms to untrained people, believing it will simply increase the number of deaths and general carnage.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 04, 2011, 03:00:33 AM
This BBC article has some additional information :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15510467
Notably :
"But armed guards would only be permitted while passing through dangerous waters, such as the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden"
and
"Mr Cook said many armed guards were former Royal Navy and Royal Marines personnel, and he added: "With the current redundancies it has provided them with an ideal place to go."
..........which would appear to agree with grumbler. Rightly or wrongly (IMO rightly) the British are not generally in favour of issuing arms to untrained people, believing it will simply increase the number of deaths and general carnage.
If the BBC agrees with me, then I have to seriously reconsider my position! :P
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 04, 2011, 03:00:33 AM
This BBC article has some additional information :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15510467
Notably :
"But armed guards would only be permitted while passing through dangerous waters, such as the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden"
and
"Mr Cook said many armed guards were former Royal Navy and Royal Marines personnel, and he added: "With the current redundancies it has provided them with an ideal place to go."
..........which would appear to agree with grumbler. Rightly or wrongly (IMO rightly) the British are not generally in favour of issuing arms to untrained people, believing it will simply increase the number of deaths and general carnage.
You know, actually having a company provide guards that only serve on the short distance where the Pirates attack is not a bad idea. You could have the extra security board the ship at one edge of the pirate waters and disembark at the other end. The ships won't have to be outfitted for exta crew and security wouldn't have to sit around in peaceful waters with nothing to do. They would always stay in dangerous waters and through experience develop a good idea of Pirate tactics.
I sense a business opportunity.
Shouldn't this thread be about dreadnoughts?