Here be Pirates
In light of the reports on increased piracy in recent years off the north eastern coast of Africa (and particularly the Somali coast), I've often wondered why cargo ships don't simply arm themselves and demonstrate to the pirates (non-lethally, hopefully) that they should desist their attempts to board the ship. There are a variety of non-lethal technologies that are being developed and deployed, such as this recent article on green lasers which can be used to temporarily blind or disorient pirates in an approaching vessel so that they are unable to successfully board or attack the cargo ship. Other measures include the use of foam and water canons, electrification of areas of the ship most likely to be boarded, and the use of razor wire to form a formidable barrier that slows down the pirates or prevents them from boarding at all.
And it's not as though arming crews is unknown. In fact there is growing interest in this practice, even though it generally flies in the face of maritime traditions. There are official documents and recommendations for how to prepare for and respond to a pirate attack, but they emphasize defensive measures and attempting to avoid such a situation in the first place.
From what my extensive 15 minutes of research dug up, it would seem that the decision not to arm crew members and train them to meet violence with violence is primarily an issue of a risk-benefit equation. Arming crew or hiring armed security guards escalates the situation. Most pirates are not interested in harming the crew, but rather holding them for ransom (along with the ship and it's cargo). If not met by lethal force, the pirates attempt to take control of the ship and the crew and then issue a ransom demand. Generally, these demands are a few million dollars. Companies that insure cargo ships see this as a small cost.
You may return to your daily routine.
Compared with what? Compared with the cost of replacing an entire ship. Pirates are upping their arsenals to now include rocket propelled grenades. It's no longer just small arms fire that crews and vessels face. While these weapons are used basically to intimidate the crew into surrendering the vessel, there is the fear that, if resisted, these weapons could be used to sink the vessel, resulting in loss of crew (potentially) as well as loss of cargo and the ship itself. Much, much more expensive to insure. There's also the risk of crew members being injured or killed in a firefight with pirates. This could result in expensive law suits even if the pirates themselves are successfully repelled.
There doesn't appear to be any obvious laws against vessels arming themselves, at least at the international level. Individual nations might have restrictions about allowing armed vessels into their ports, which would no doubt contribute to the decision as well. Additionally there's the issue of what longs days and weeks at sea does to the mental stability of the crew itself, and the fear that the crew might - in the heat of a dispute - actually turn the weapons on one another.
Anyways. I thought this was interesting, and there's a ton more information out there. But mostly it's a matter of crew that are not interested in being - let alone able to be - soldiers, and the ultimate issue of what's more expensive - a possible ransom or dealing with lawsuits from injured or killed sailors or their families, as well as the potential cost of losing cargo and the ship carrying it.
Comments