• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should US Merchant Ships Be Armed?

Should Commericial Shipping Be Allowed to Self-Arm?

  • No, escort ships through hazardous areas in convoys.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    27

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
EDITORIAL: An anti-pirate policy that worksMerchant ships need guns to fight pirates. Seven months ago, Somali pirates attacked the Maersk Alabama and held its captain hostage. Pirates attacked the Maersk Alabama again this week but were repulsed because the Maersk Shipping Line put armed guards on its ships.

Pirates successfully attacked another unarmed ship on Monday, leaving 28 members of its crew dead. On Tuesday, 36 crew members of a Spanish ship were released only after pirates were paid a $3.3 million ransom. But when the pirates got within 300 yards of the Maersk Alabama, the ship tried evasive maneuvers and its security team successfully engaged in small-arms fire. Vice Admiral Bill Gortney of the U.S. Naval Forces Central Command said the actions of the Maersk Alabama were following the maritime industry's "best practices."

....

It is not practical to depend on the Navy to protect merchant shipping. Aside from the enormous cost, Navy ships cannot be everywhere all the time, and they generally arrive on the scene after an initial action has taken place. It is far better for merchant ships to defend themselves, but a major obstacle exists. Many foreign ports do not allow armed vessels to dock. The U.S. government can help by using diplomatic channels to convince other nations to allow entry to lightly armed ships.

Gun-control proponents keep claiming that banning guns will make people safer, but we suspect that as more ships are armed, fewer will be attacked. What gun controllers refuse to admit is that gun-free zones are a magnet for criminals, terrorists and even pirates.

Well, should international law allow merchant ships to carry small arms, up to and including RPG's or similar weapons sufficient to repel pirates attacking from small craft?
 
I would tend to favor the idea of Q ships over arming merchant ships. Most merchant ships are not manned by people trained to be effective with the armament, and I don't think they have the crew size needed to be effective at repelling pirates. I am not against the idea in theory, I just think practically it would not work well.
 
Does the law currently ban such protections? Was the Alabama violating the law?

Regardless I think the Alabama handled the situation well. Nonlethal armaments and trained guards with conventional arms to back that seems reasonable to me
 
Does the law currently ban such protections? Was the Alabama violating the law?

The editorial says that some ports won't allow "armed" vessels entry.

Regardless I think the Alabama handled the situation well. Nonlethal armaments and trained guards with conventional arms to back that seems reasonable to me

What's wrong with shooting a man threatening you with a machine gun, and killing him?

I see no moral dilemma there.
 
I would tend to favor the idea of Q ships over arming merchant ships. Most merchant ships are not manned by people trained to be effective with the armament, and I don't think they have the crew size needed to be effective at repelling pirates. I am not against the idea in theory, I just think practically it would not work well.

How much training does it take to be "effective" with an assualt rifle or shoulder fired missiles?

We're not talking abou the average American high school illiterate graduate, we're talking about crew trained and experienced in the operation of complex shipboard machinery who would have a strong interest in learning the proper operation of those weapons because it's their own lives that depend on their doing it right.

And you seem to be forgetting the deterrent effect. The pirates would not know the readiness of the crew of any particular ship and be more hesitant to attack in the face of the unknown after a few of them are blown out of the water by determined crews.

It's certainly a lot more cost effective to let the shipping lines arm their vessels if they wish than to try any other military alternative.
 
I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to. It's their decision whether it's more important to be armed to deal with pirates or to be able to enter ports that don't allow armed ships.
 
I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to. It's their decision whether it's more important to be armed to deal with pirates or to be able to enter ports that don't allow armed ships.

You making a career out of deliberately missing the point of any discussion you join?
 
How much training does it take to be "effective" with an assualt rifle or shoulder fired missiles?

We're not talking abou the average American high school illiterate graduate, we're talking about crew trained and experienced in the operation of complex shipboard machinery who would have a strong interest in learning the proper operation of those weapons because it's their own lives that depend on their doing it right.

And you seem to be forgetting the deterrent effect. The pirates would not know the readiness of the crew of any particular ship and be more hesitant to attack in the face of the unknown after a few of them are blown out of the water by determined crews.

It's certainly a lot more cost effective to let the shipping lines arm their vessels if they wish than to try any other military alternative.

The deterrent factor is why I favor Q ships. If pirates do not know if they are approaching a merchant, or an armed warship that looks like a merchant, I would think it would act as a deterrent.
 
The main problem is that it opens to door for abuse. I wouldn't mind if ships traveling near Somali wanted to arm themselves. The problem is when Iranian "merchantmen" armed to the teeth start circling around the Hormuz straight, or play cat and mouse with U.S. warships. I'd rather use soldiers and Q-ships rather than open that can of worms.
 
The deterrent factor is why I favor Q ships. If pirates do not know if they are approaching a merchant, or an armed warship that looks like a merchant, I would think it would act as a deterrent.

Or, if they were approaching a merchant that's armed but they don't know it, that would be a deterrent.

And the minimal cost of arming freighters can be borne by the shipping companies and thus sparing the expense to the taxpayers of maintaining a massive fleet in one of the smellier armpits of the world.
 
The main problem is that it opens to door for abuse. I wouldn't mind if ships traveling near Somali wanted to arm themselves. The problem is when Iranian "merchantmen" armed to the teeth start circling around the Hormuz straight, or play cat and mouse with U.S. warships. I'd rather use soldiers and Q-ships rather than open that can of worms.

What abuse?

You think merchant ships are going to play games with US destroyers, when those destroyers have orders to defend themselves? How much damage do you think some terrorists are going to do to a destroyer using machine guns and grenades, compared to the devastating response of naval gunnery and cruise missiles?

You people are aware that the problem is that the navies of the world aren't big enough to scrub the sea free of these cockroaches, right? And that the essential element of self-defense is being prepared and able to shoot back when attacked, right?

Scenario:

A thirty foot boat with a speed of 60 knots is detected approaching a container ship with a max speed of 15 knots. Time of closest approach is 15 minutes, time of rendezvous with any naval vessel is estimated to be no less than six hours.

Women should be allowed to carry guns to prevent rape.
Men should be allowed to carry guns to prevent mugging.
Ships should be allowed to carry guns to prevent piracy.

That's what's historically proven to work, and there's no moral burden on allowing a man to carry the tools to defending himself, since they do him no good if they're on another ship that isn't there.

As a general rule, the people who get shot at by the defending ship are pirates intent on killing the crew or kidnapping them.

So the crew shoots and kills the pirates.

What's the big deal, besides the fact that the ship saved some taxpayers the cost of a trial?

Why are you people interested in protecting pirates?
 
Last edited:
Well, should international law allow merchant ships to carry small arms, up to and including RPG's or similar weapons sufficient to repel pirates attacking from small craft?

If there is a law banning merchant ships from being armed then it should be repealed. I seriously doubt that merchant ships are just going to hand someone who never used a weapon a RPG or heavy machine gun. More than likely they will either pay for someone to be trained or they will hire trained guards.
 
Last edited:
For the most part, it isn't the law that keeps merchants from going armed-- it's the insurance companies.

You want to pass a law that forces them to allow it?
 
If there is a law banning merchant ships from being armed then it should be repealed. I seriously doubt that merchant ships are just going to hand someone who never used a weapon a RPG or heavy machine gun. More than likely they will either pay for someone to be trained or they will hire trained guards.

Well, yeah, I kinda figured that. Otherwise the weapons are a hazard to the ship and crew, not the pirates.
 
For the most part, it isn't the law that keeps merchants from going armed-- it's the insurance companies.

You want to pass a law that forces them to allow it?

That may be an issue.

If shippers were legally allowed to either arm their crews or hire professional security staff, I'm pretty sure they'd be able to find an insurer willing to cover them.

Insurers, after all, do have an interest in the safe arrival of the ship and cargo.

Perhaps the laws need to be written to limit the ability of the injured crew (pirates should have no access to civil courts) with either signed waivers by the crew or some other mechanism that limits the exposure of the insurers and insured to lawsuits related to the presence of arms on board.

The ship I was on had some of the most fearsome weapons aboard, and no one was ever hurt by any of them.

But there are ways to accomodate the needs of the insurers and the insured and still permit weapons of self-defense aboard the ships.
 
A ship the size of the Alabama has a crew of around twenty. To cover 24 hours. All of them already have a job to do, there are no passengers. Who is going to play with the guns?
 
A ship the size of the Alabama has a crew of around twenty. To cover 24 hours. All of them already have a job to do, there are no passengers. Who is going to play with the guns?

Either train and multitask the crew or hire those who are proficient with certain weapons and multitask them or just hire guards proficiently trained with certain weapons.
 
A ship the size of the Alabama has a crew of around twenty. To cover 24 hours. All of them already have a job to do, there are no passengers. Who is going to play with the guns?

Funny, when I was on a ship, we didn't have one single specialized designated fireman to put out the fires. Instead all crew members were trained in aspects of damage control, including fire prevention and control, and were expected in the event of an emergency to get our lazy asses out of our bunks and take care of the problem.

Not one person has suggested anything resembling a 24 hour permanent pirate lookout.

But when potential pirates are identified, it's the responsibility of the crew to man assigned defensive stations and prepare for the worst, just like they have to be ready to do in the event of a fire or flood or collision or other casualty.

Some of us that post here have naval experience.
 
Modern day merchant ships are geared up for maximum profit at minimum cost. That includes crew number, course, and speed. If the crew had wanted to sign on for a fight, they would have joined a navy.
 
Absolutely. These are dangerous times for shipping and I see no problem with it being armed.
 
Modern day merchant ships are geared up for maximum profit at minimum cost. That includes crew number, course, and speed. If the crew had wanted to sign on for a fight, they would have joined a navy.

Irrelevant.

If the ship needs defending, it needs defending.

I guess everyone wants to be a victim? :roll:
 
We always seem to run into this strange notion that is takes Navy-Seal-level training to use weapons and fight in defense of one's self or one's ship.

It doesn't.

I train people to use weapons as a side biz. Give me the crew for three days and they will be able to repel 90% of pirate attacks with proper arms.

Yeah, it is a skill, but on a basic level it isn't rocket science folks.

I say arm our merchants.

G.
 
Modern day merchant ships are geared up for maximum profit at minimum cost. That includes crew number, course, and speed. If the crew had wanted to sign on for a fight, they would have joined a navy.

Heh. Not everyone who likes to get a little blood in their teeth wants, or is allowed, to join their nation's military.
 
What abuse?

You think merchant ships are going to play games with US destroyers, when those destroyers have orders to defend themselves? How much damage do you think some terrorists are going to do to a destroyer using machine guns and grenades, compared to the devastating response of naval gunnery and cruise missiles?

You people are aware that the problem is that the navies of the world aren't big enough to scrub the sea free of these cockroaches, right? And that the essential element of self-defense is being prepared and able to shoot back when attacked, right?

Scenario:

A thirty foot boat with a speed of 60 knots is detected approaching a container ship with a max speed of 15 knots. Time of closest approach is 15 minutes, time of rendezvous with any naval vessel is estimated to be no less than six hours.

Women should be allowed to carry guns to prevent rape.
Men should be allowed to carry guns to prevent mugging.
Ships should be allowed to carry guns to prevent piracy.

That's what's historically proven to work, and there's no moral burden on allowing a man to carry the tools to defending himself, since they do him no good if they're on another ship that isn't there.

As a general rule, the people who get shot at by the defending ship are pirates intent on killing the crew or kidnapping them.

So the crew shoots and kills the pirates.

What's the big deal, besides the fact that the ship saved some taxpayers the cost of a trial?

Why are you people interested in protecting pirates?
Here, I agree with the Scarecrow 100%.
Here in America we have hundreds of combat trained men who will not make the military their career, but do need the work.
 
We always seem to run into this strange notion that is takes Navy-Seal-level training to use weapons and fight in defense of one's self or one's ship.

It doesn't.

I train people to use weapons as a side biz. Give me the crew for three days and they will be able to repel 90% of pirate attacks with proper arms.

Yeah, it is a skill, but on a basic level it isn't rocket science folks.

I say arm our merchants.

G.

When the Zombie apocalypse happens, I want Goshin on my team. :cool:

OK back to the topic at hand.

Agree 100%.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom