Mariners Develop High Tech Pirate Repellents 830
Hugh Pickens writes "NPR reports that owners of ships that ply the dangerous waters near Somalia are looking at options to repel pirates including slippery foam, lasers, electric fences, water cannons and high-intensity sound — almost anything except guns. One defense is the Force 80 squirt gun with a 3-inch nozzle that can send 1,400 gallons a minute 100 yards in any direction. 'It is a tremendous force of water that will knock over anything in its path and will also flood a pirate's ship very quickly,' says Roger Barrett James of the the Swedish company Unifire. Next is the Mobility Denial System, a slippery nontoxic foam that can be sprayed on just about any surface making it impossible to walk or climb even with the aid of a harness. The idea would be to spray the pirate's vessel as it approached, or to coat ropes, ladders, steps and the hull of the ship that's under attack. The Long Range Acoustic Device, or LRAD, a high-powered directional loudspeaker allows a ship to hail an approaching vessel more than a mile away. 'Knowing that they've lost the element of surprise is half the battle,' says Robert Putnam of American Technology Corp. The LRAD has another feature — a piercing "deterrent tone" that sounds a bit like a smoke detector alarm with enough intensity to cause extreme pain and even permanent hearing loss for anyone directly in the beam that comes from the device. But Capt. John Konrad, who blogs for the Web site Gcaptain.com, says no anti-pirate device is perfect. 'The best case scenario is that you find these vessels early enough that you can get a Navy ship detached to your location and let them handle the situation.'"
Re:Best pirate repellent of all (Score:4, Informative)
I believe you mean a magazine. A clip is a device used to hold the cartridges in place to make them easier to load into the magazine.
Re:A better plan? (Score:3, Informative)
Is it more humane to flood those little pirate boats and let the pirates drown then just shooting them in the head?
Pirates have access to the same life preserver technology the rest of us do — better than most, because they can keep the best of what they have stolen. Ditto for life rafts.
Personally, I could give one tenth of one shit what happens to any pirate, but it would probably be too much effort. If I'm on the ocean and you announce (or display) intent to board my ship by force, and I have a 20mm cannon, I'm going to fucking open up and turn your shit into sawdust.
If you can afford a boat worth taking by force, then you should be able to afford a .50 cal machine gun and find someone to source it for you.
Unfortunately there are a lot of countries which don't believe in your right to protect yourself. Mexico is among them; a lot of people have been boarded and had their boat seized by the Mexican authorities because they had a mere rifle for self-defense. So if you do carry firearms on your boat (you'd be fucking insane not to, but whatever) you're going to need some VERY good hidey-holes. I suggest actually putting them behind a panel that you can easily break through; the people who board your boat legally (which they can do on pretty much any pretext; even your car is legally better-protected and the powers-that-be can take that away from you at almost any pretext in most countries) are quite used to looking for smuggling compartments.
Re:Best pirate repellent of all (Score:2, Informative)
Except an M-16 uses a MAGAZINE, not a clip.
Why no guns (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Best Anti-Pirate device? (Score:2, Informative)
Ninjas who also come disguised as Navy SEAL's with sniper rifles.
Why disguise them as anything? Disguises only matter if you can actually see the target.
You can't see ninjas, they're invisible.
The Reason They Don't Want Guns (Score:5, Informative)
Due to activities of privateers and pirates in the past, many nations have laws against armed merchant vessels being allowed in their harbors and/or waters. This is the reason the companies want devices that won't be considered weapons by these countries, Afterall, what good does it do to arm the vessel if it can't dock anywhere.
Re:The trouble with guns (Score:3, Informative)
> few of the major cargo ports will let an armed ship dock. US ports certainly wouldn't.
That is bull.
As long as the US Coast Guard knows in advance that you have the the weapons aboard and secured and are a validly registered ship from a known shipping company you will have no problems.
Worst case, is the Coast Guard adds their own padlock to the gun locker for the duration of the visit.
Re:pirate repellents (Score:5, Informative)
Oh spare us the BS. The pirates aren't hijacking fishing vessels or garbage barges to police their waters. They're hijacking cargo ships and ransoming them. They're doing it 100% for greed, which is motivated by a lack of consequences (little rule of law there) and lack of alternatives (crap economy there).
When they stop taking tankers and start taking fishing boats and garbage barges, you can speak in their defense. Until then, STFU.
Re:pirate repellents (Score:5, Informative)
This really has to be the cheapest, most effective method - so there must be some, likely political, reason that it's not being used. Much of the issue with arming crew members seems to revolve around 1) training and 2) what to do with the weapons in whatever random port the ship ends up at where weapons aren't welcome.
International Maritime treaties forbid merchant ships from army themselves during peacetime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_passage [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea [wikipedia.org]
If ships armed themselves, then they waive the "right of innocent passage" and when they are out of international waters, then they might run into problem with the local authorities.
Re:Or more detailed reasons... (Score:5, Informative)
The passage you quoted does not prevent seaman from having weapons, merely from doing anything with them within territorial waters. So just keep them locked up when in territorial waters. Once you're outside territorial waters (or in the territorial waters of a state which doesn't respect innocent passage anyway), break 'em out.
There's probably other treaties getting in the way, but that isn't one of them.
Re:pirate repellents (Score:5, Informative)
They only waive this right if they act in ways that are "prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security" of the country in whose territorial waters they are sailing. One specific example from one of the articles you linked to is "weapons practice", but not "weapons possession". Even submarines, which are well armed, don't need to give up their weapons in territorial waters, they only need to sail on the surface under colors.
Yes, if a merchant vessel came into US waters with guns blazing, I think there would be concern. If, however, they entered with "guns stowed and locked", there is no danger to the security of the US. In Somali waters, there would be no danger to Somali 'good order', unless Somalia decided that successful piracy was part of their 'good order', and then they'd run afoul of international law. It is a reasonable expectation that merchant vessels should receive protection from piracy while they are in territorial waters from the owner of those waters.
Even so, the pirates operate in international waters, IIRC.
How many people read the headline and wondered why a Seattle baseball team was trying to create something to keep Pittsburgh players away?
Re:Q-boats (Score:1, Informative)
Maybe you should learn a bit about Somalia before speaking. The "government" in Somalia can be any one of four different types of entities depending on what you want to call government.
The first is the internationally recognized government, which has almost no control, especially of the coastal areas. It has come close to being wiped out before but the Ethiopian military stepped in and occupied large parts of Somalia for a while to keep to recognized government alive. Since the Ethiopians pulled out the recognized government has lost ground again.
The second are various warlords, who fight amongst themselves making and breaking alliances for control of areas of the country. Many (most?) of them are hand-in-hand with the pirates. There are many different warlords.
The third are tribal/clan groups, mostly in the northern part that calls itself Puntland. Other than the fact that they are family/tribe based they are basically the same as the warlords. It was with these groups that the US was negotiating with prior to the "happy" ending that ensued with the captain of the Maersk Alabama.
The final are Islamic Militants. They had been pushing out the warlords and recognized government a few years ago because the populace was sick of the lawlessness and Islamic law seemed better than nothing, until the Ethiopians stepped in and wiped the floor with them. Since the Ethiopians left they have been on the rebound and most likely have ties to pirates as well.
So basically the only group most likely not getting kickbacks is the group that "passes" for a government, the one the international community recognizes.
Re:pirate repellents (Score:3, Informative)
hey would be raising the price of aid to areas where local and regional options are insufficient.
Second that. Almost 1/3 of the Maersk Alabama's cargo was relief supplies.
repelling measures (Score:2, Informative)