| Submit your comments on this article | |
| -Lurid Crime Tales- | |
| Blackwater gunboats will protect ships--Brits EOS & APMSS are pacifist | |
| 2008-11-29 | |
| I've been criticized for stating that the guards 'ran away'...I'd love some commentary from other RB-ers on the topic, since the original thread switched over. I don't appreciate being called names for my opinion. By the way, Anti Piracy Maritime Security Solutions is 'non-lethal' & unarmed. The American security company Blackwater is planning to cash in on the rising threat of piracy on the high seas by launching a flotilla of gunboats for hire by the shipping companies. The firm, which gained international notoriety when its staff killed civilians in Iraq, has already equipped one vessel, called The McArthur, which will carry up to 40 armed guards and have a landing pad for an attack helicopter. The McArthur, a former survey ship, arrives in the Gulf of Aden, the scene of the recent high-profile hijackings and shootouts with Somali pirates, at the end of the year. It is to be joined by three or four similar vessels over next year to form the company's private navy. Several security companies are rushing to the region despite the presence of British, American, Russian and Indian naval warships, among others, sent to protect ships. For fees ranging from £8,000 to £12,000 for transits of three and five days, companies are offering teams of unarmed guards, "non-lethal deck security personnel". With more than 60 ships attacked in the Gulf and ship-owners paying an estimated £75m in ransom for the return of crew and cargo, the security companies foresee a lucrative business. One US company, Hollowpoint Protective Services, says it is offering a comprehensive service of hostage negotiations backed by armed rescue operations if the talks fail. Eos, a British concern, says it favours a "non-lethal" approach with the use of sophisticated laser, microwave and acoustical devices. But Blackwater plans to have the largest and most heavily armed presence among the security contractors. The company believes that the presence of escorting gunboats will have a deterrent effect, with criminal gangs being forced to switch to more vulnerable targets. A Blackwater spokeswoman, Anne Tyrrell, said there have already been about 15 inquiries about its anti-piracy service. The company refused to reveal how much it will charge. Its executive vice-president, Bill Matthews, said the US Navy and the Royal Navy do not have the resources in the region to provide total security, opening up a role for companies such as his. He added: "While there are temporary needs that perhaps outpace the limited resources of the Department of Defence [Washington] and the Ministry of Defence [London], the private sector is available to fill those gaps. "We have been contacted by ship-owners who say they need our help in making sure goods get to their destination. The McArthur can help us accomplish that. We have not sought to enter the space until recently. It was not part of our business plan. But as the world changes, so does our business plan." Nick Davis, a former British Army pilot who runs a company in Poole called Anti-Piracy Maritime Security Solutions, said: "It frightens me that Blackwater is going down there. Their background is not in deterrence. Their background is in weapons. To me, the best people to be armed are the military. Pirates might approach McArthur without knowing it's a Blackwater boat and try to hijack it." Awww...wouldn't that just be the pits
| |
| Posted by:logi_cal |
| #19 Huh? Aiming a speaker at pirates doesn't stop them? It depends on if Rosie O'Donnell has a talk show. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2008-11-29 23:35 |
| #18 Non-lethal force tends to work on ignorance and disorientation / confusion of the target. If the target is aware of what is going on, non-lethal means can often be "worked through". |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2008-11-29 23:01 |
| #17 POTUS, Jefferson, sent the Dept of the Navy to quell America's initial brush with these islamofascist jihadis. The extortion was breaking the bank. Amway/Quixtar North America know how to run a navy. heh |
| Posted by: Last Breath Farm Resident 2008-11-29 23:00 |
| #16 NS, one of the differences between government and private business is governments tend to deal in absolutes regardless of costs, while business's deal in rewards versus costs and risks. In this case, governments say we can't do this because it will/may contravene international law. Whereas a business like Blackwater will look at the profits and then say how likely is a Somali pirate to take us to the International Court in the Hague and what will it costs us if they do? |
| Posted by: phil_b 2008-11-29 22:04 |
| #15 BD, you're the one that took to name-calling reacting to my assertion that they 'ran away'. My 'title' in the last thread would have been the same if it were Blackwater. You may have your opinion, but the tone of this thread vindicates my sarcasm. The fact is these outfits are pacifist, and the ROE is to 'run away' if boarded (I doubt their phone is ringing much this week or next). Also, the overwhelming constraints put on British troops has done nothing to resolve the hugely embarrassing Iran episode (USN is guilty, too, as in the Gulf incidents with Iran). With the recent British commando success (which I somehow missed in the news), they're on track to regain face, and good for them. It was not my intent to slam them for being British, but my response fit the personal attack on me. Your defense of your attack is lacking and, as such, a tacit acknowledgement of a knee-jerk response. I presume you are British and I hit a nerve (primarily due to the original article title using 'British'). If so, more power to you being from a country farther down the self-destructive path than the US. But I think we all pretty much agree that the Blackwater Navy will probably accomplish a helluva lot more than frustrated warship captains operating with maddeningly restrictive ROE. I think we're all on the same side here, so have a tall one & a stogie and, cheers! |
| Posted by: logi_cal 2008-11-29 21:25 |
| #14 "There are some flags that prohibit the carriage of arms or the use of violence. There are some insurers that will not accept it, and your insurance will be void."  Only if the armed guards are aboard. There's very little they can do if there's an armed escort. That was proven in the Straits of Mallacca. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2008-11-29 20:26 |
| #13 "There are some insurers that will not accept it, and your insurance will be void." When enough insurance payouts have been made, the insurers will be charging lower rates for ships that are armed. |
| Posted by: Elmavilet Trotsky6966 2008-11-29 19:24 |
| #12 It's fascinating watching time after time humans erecting another Ptolemaic design of the universe to satisfy their inner needs rather than address the issue. We have thousands of years of history in how to deal with pirates, but we ignore the record and data because of the fundamental failure of human will. To paraphrase Napoleon, it is better to have a lion leading an army of deer than have a deer leading an army of lions. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-11-29 17:49 |
| #11 Huh? Aiming a speaker at pirates doesn't stop them? |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2008-11-29 17:24 |
| #10 That tells you how screwed up Intl Law is that a private concern is less constrained than a state. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-11-29 17:06 |
| #9 Pirates respect the strong use of force. They don't respect feelings. Therefore, the appropriate response to the pirate's attacks is the concentrated use of force, for example, India's recent response to being fired upon by a pirate mothership. The frustrating thing is that this whole thing can be over with in a week with the appropriate response. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2008-11-29 16:59 |
| #8 My 2c worth; Non-lethal anti-piracy measures have got an entirely undeserved reputation for being effective (Piracy declined in Asia for entirely unrelated reasons). We are now seeing they are useless, at least against determined pirates. Nick Davies should be a very worried man. He is seeing his business (model) going down the gurgler, because it doesn't work. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2008-11-29 16:58 |
| #7 I think Blackwater are on to something - private convoy protection. The current naval forces are symbolic and largely impotent in preventing piracy, in part because international law is a serious impediment to real action. I'm sure Blackwater will feel less constrained. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2008-11-29 16:51 |
| #6 In response to your query yesterday, logi_cal: Hey, Bulldog, you POS, name me one scenario in the past 10 years were the British demonstrated something other than: Getting caught with their pants down & captured by Iran. Getting their asses kicked in Basra and turning tail & pulling out. Having no balls to give their troops decent ROE in Afghanistan. One instance? Try this. That's score 3 Somali pirates to the Royal Navy. I haven't seen any kills to the USN yet, although the Faina has been shadowed by US ships for weeks now. So clearly the UK military aren't the only ones to be found embarrassingly without 'decent ROE'. I could list a few of the British kills in Afghanistan but why should I? I suggest you educate yourself. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2008-11-29 15:17 |
| #5 This is folly! So the nice, non-lethal approach failed, then what? Abandon ship - speaks a lot for "you're a peon" defense mindset. You need the carrot and the stick - if you must, non-lethal to try and prevent a boarding (I think warning shots are non-lethal enough), but once aboard, or following the first shots, then it should be back to old school. Had they killed or wounded a few of these pirates, they could still have jumped overboard, and the pirates would still have shot at them and tried to run them down, so the non-lethal track had no effect whatsoever on the outcome - delayed their swim maybe - I'll bet the zig-zagging alone could have done that. |
| Posted by: Rob06 2008-11-29 15:12 |
| #4 I have a feeling that a lot of the navies present are going to see the Blackwater men in operation, and turn several shades of green with envy. Nobody appreciates being ordered to hold their fire when they see villains at work. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-11-29 14:59 |
| #3 "Eos, a British concern, says it favours a "non-lethal" approach with the use of sophisticated laser, microwave and acoustical devices." Now that that's been proven not to work these guys should certainly be provided with lethal weapons where it's safe to employ them. Vessels carrying explosive cargoes should be escorted, no question. You can't say the British guards on the vessel hijacked the other day didn't give it their best try if this is accurate: "Mr Davis defended the actions of his team. He said they had been attacked by six pirates in a high-speed skiff armed with AK47s and rocket-propelled grenades. He said the two former marines and a former paratroop held them off for about 40 minutes – long enough for the crew to send out a distress call and seek safety below deck. They fired water cannon at the pirates and zigzagged the vessel. They also used a long-range accoustic device that fires laser-like beams of excruciatingly painful sound at attackers. They beat off three or four attacks but the pirates then began firing RPGs at the laser operator. Mr Davis said the pirates continued to shoot at the security guards after boarding the ship and that the three had no choice but to abandon the vessel. The pirates then fired on them while they were in the water, and tried to run them down in the hijacked vessel. “They did what they felt they had to do to save their lives and the lives of the crew,” said Mr Davis, 37." After coming under RPG attack, shortly to be followed by small arms, do you think the wise option would have been to stay on board, unarmed? Most ships give up without a fight and it wouldn't be heroic to stand around waiting to see what sort of mood the pirates were in once on board. It would be plain stupid. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2008-11-29 14:56 |
| #2 So the primary purpose of the non-Blackwater security personnel is to collect urine samples for random drug tests to satisfy some insurance bureaucrat? |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2008-11-29 14:55 |
| #1 Such a rich article, yet to pick out a single phrase - let's try this Orwellian specimen: "non-lethal deck security personnel" That would fit neatly into the essay on Politics and the English Language. |
| Posted by: Jeremiah Thaise1218 2008-11-29 14:43 |