496
Views

MarEx Mailbag:

Published Jan 20, 2011 3:11 PM by The Maritime Executive

This week’s Mailbag is full after being conspicuously absent last week and all letters reference our May 7th on line editorial.

This week’s Mailbag contains about two week’s worth of mail, all referencing our May 7th lead piece, entitled, “Piracy Debate changes course in Washington.” The article describes the 5 May Senate subcommittee hearing on piracy, which provided a very public forum that served to ramp up the debate on how best to protect U.S. merchant ships. Shipowners and crewmembers alike pleaded with Congress to allow for armed protection on board U.S. flagged assets operating in the pirate infested waters off the coast of Somalia. When the hearing ended, however, the question of who would provide that security, how it would be deployed and who would pay for it remained unanswered.

You can read the May 7th editorial by clicking HERE. Or, you can see what our readers had to say about the matter below:

* * *

Joe

Amidst all the hand wringing about the sea being so large and our navy so small, it remains a great mystery to me why merchant ships can’t be alerted to approaching small craft early enough to take evasive action, or, if they have hired guns aboard as you now seem to suggest, get the hoses and guns manned.

What happened to surface search radars? Yes, older shipboard radars are not good at finding small plastic boats close aboard, but surely there are relatively inexpensive modern radars that could detect small craft moving sufficiently fast to threaten shipping – and do so at operationally useful distances from the ship.

Even better, and perhaps even cheaper than back fitting ships with better surface search radars, would be a centrally managed airborne surveillance and warning regime that could detect small craft moving at high speed and alert both nearby merchant shipping and patrol vessels. One response I hear is that there are too many fishing boats at sea to make such a concept practical, but concentrating on boats moving faster than most serious fishermen would seem to have a high payoff.

Why don’t we hear any discussion of the benefits of such surveillance instead of the constant image of military ships scanning the horizon for pirates with binoculars – just as was done 200 years ago off the Barbary coast?

Gene Porter

MarEx Editor’s Remarks: Mr. Porter brings up some interesting points. Here is another point of view:

* * *

Mr. Keefe –

I am a retired Marine officer who has been exhibiting for a number of years at maritime security conferences, but am writing this e-mail "on my own."

As I’m sure you know, the USCG has the “Sea Marshals” program ( http://usmilitary.about.com/od/coastguard/a/seamarshals.htm ); would there be a way to increase their numbers in the short term, possibly in concert with their TACLETs and the MSRT?

Also, going back to WWII, we had the US Navy Armed Guard ( http://www.armed-guard.com/about-ag.html ), so the precedent HAS been set, no matter what DOD wants to say today. (Possibly a mission for the USNR?)

I enjoy reading the weekly eNewsletter; best wishes for continued success.

Sincerely,

Tim Moriarty

MarEx Editor’s Remarks: Thanks for writing and for reading. Rumor has it that the Coast Guard is ready and willing to step in, if called upon. So far, that hasn’t happened. Here is another letter on the same subject:
 

* * *


Liked your latest article on pirates. How about having the insurance companies pay for the armed guards? Haven't they been raking in the big bucks from ships transiting in the area of Somalia?

Or another solution, that I really like is to just put ATM machines on the hulls of ships and let the pirates come and get the money with much less hassle.

Regards

Tony Mociun

MarEx Editor’s Remarks: This one is written with a touch of humor, but also strikes at the heart of the matter. Here’s one more:

* * *

Re: Somalia Ship Protection

Mr. Keefe:

Looks like we are going right where I stated we need to go a few weeks ago.

The main point now is that the ship owners need to pay for this protection, not US taxpayers. I still maintain the insurance rates will drop, and if ships have to go in that direction, the US taxpayers should not bear the burden of commercial vessels floating into Harm's Way.

What is a simple solution now involving the politicians on Capitol Hill is typical. The DOD is always behind the times on these situations. These pirates need to be shot on the spot in their boats. Eventually, about 4-6 weeks, they will begin to notice that boats are not returning to the lair and they will know a major game change has been executed.

Once these boats go past the 12 mile limit, they are roaming for targets. Time to take them down and the sooner the better.

R. Frank Meyer

MarEx Editor’s Remarks: Thanks for reading and for writing. Mr. Meyer has written in to MarEx more than once in the past. His pointed, but apparently well thought out solutions to piracy would likely meet with some disagreement, as well as attracting plenty of people who would endorse exactly the same course of action.