Freakin' awesome. I've been waiting for this to happen. I'm finally going to take the plunge into eBooks now that I can get them on my Droid.
Excellent news. Thanks for the update!
I agree with PSCYoungquist - convoys, while perhaps not the most popular option, are the best immediate solution until longer term removal of the pirates takes hold. There's currently no active deterrent for the pirates to stop hijacking. However, if when you move toward a cluster of ships you see a bunch of heavily armed warships surrounding them, ready and able to kill you if you come too close to the convoy, you're not likely to get near that group of ships. That would be a much more effective use of the existing military assets already in those waters.
This is true, though it's mostly MSC. However, putting firearms on board merchant ships creates an entirely new set of nightmares. First, do all merchant ships get armed, or only U.S. flagged ships? Who is the regulating body? What are the ROE? Who pays for the training, and how extensive does it have to be? Consider that military personnel who handle maritime security threats, particularly hijackings, receive months, often years, of intensive training. The expense in time, money, and manpower to implement this would be immense.
Additionally, many countries do not allow firearms to be brought into their nation on board ships, and will either disallow a ship from entering a port, or confiscate all weapons on board upon arrival in the port.
I am glad that nobody here has suggested arming the mariners themselves on board merchant vessels. Mass Maritime seems to think that this is the answer, when in fact this would create countless more problems than solutions. Luckily, nobody in any position of authority seems to be biting at that idea.
There are two issues with that logic. First off, about 25,000 vessels transit these waters every year, and the vast majority of them get by without incident. When a ship does get hijacked that falls into the category of "private company that can afford security" it ends up being cheaper for the company to pay the ransom and continue on, rather than paying for a full-time armed security force on board. It's not economically intelligent for these private corporations to fund private security on their ships.
Second, one of the major reasons that we maintain a Navy, especially in peace time, is for the protection of the merchant fleet. In fact, this was the only reason we kept an active Navy in the early years of this country's existence following the Revolution. Certainly the economic downturn affects the available budget for these sorts of operations, but I'm inclined to think that this would be a well-justified use of Defense dollars.
I got my information from CNN, taken from the TV broadcast during initial reports. I had heard the revised information late last night, so I'll be updating/revising this post this morning.
The size and space (or lack there of) inside these boats is not readily apparent from photographs. If the lifeboat from the Maersk Alabama is the same size as the ones on the T.S. Kennedy then they have capacity for 76 people on board, meaning rations, seating, etc. Therefore, while it is in no way comfortable, the captain and pirates are well-provisioned inside that boat for now.
Valid point, I hadn't considered that. Hopefully Capt. Murphy & Maersk are in agreement on disclosure, though as you said, the information that has been shared definitely creates a security hazard.
Very unfortunate situation. Capt. Murphy was very busy today, fielding questions from the media. His office is within feet of many of my classes, so there was a lot of commotion during class today. Hopefully everyhing ends well for the crew, and for the Murphy family.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Company