For the second time, a security team has repelled a pirate attack on the Maersk Alabama, which marks the third time this particular ship has been approached or attacked by Somali pirates. Well done!
That said, ahem; this is the THIRD time this ship has been attacked, which suggests (as do the over 1000 people kidnapped last year by Somali pirates) that someone in the District of Columbia ought to read up on the career of Stephen Decatur.
Podcast #1047: The Roman Caesars’ Guide to Ruling
-
The Roman caesars were the rulers of the Roman Empire, beginning in 27 BC
with Julius Caesar’s heir Augustus, from whom subsequent caesars took their
nam...
12 hours ago
3 comments:
that ship must be a prize for them now.
either that, they cant read the name, and dont understand karma.
I've always wondered why it is that more ships don't arm themselves in this way, or better. Are profit margins in shipping just too thin to hire mercenaries? Are shipping companies still relying on safety in numbers in one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world? I also wonder why convoying hasn't gotten off the ground. It doesn't seem to me that any of these pirates have the capability to stand up to any professional navy. Are there no navies in the world that would find this to be a worthwhile or even profitable venture? I'm stumped.
Profit margins are tight, but what I've seen is the same argument people give against carrying here in the USA; that it can just aggravate an already bad situation.
Obviously I don't agree, but that is the main argument. The snarkist in me would say "don't get that man who's firing his AK at you mad!"
A secondary argument; that all too often, crews are lonely young men who grow to hate each other's guts, and things could get really ugly with firearms involved.
(Neil Odgers' experience on an ore boat would seem to back this one up, for reference)
Of course, if you choose and treat your crew well, that's not as much of an issue, either.
Post a Comment