• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

LOL @Pirates

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: spacejamz
Originally posted by: ViRGE
Originally posted by: Mide
what fools. I don't see why any country just couldn't send in some commandos to kill them all and take the ship back.
It's a highly volitile oil tanker that can quite easily blow up if you shoot the wrong bit. The oil is worth nearly $100mil, the ship is worth at least that much too, and you have to figure each crew member is worth at least $1mil. So that's $250mil you lose if you send a strike force, instead of $3mil if you just pay a ransom.

Attacking the ship would be a foolish decision.

what is the cost for allowing other pirates to commit future piracy acts on this scale because they now know that ship owners are willing to pay out?
Less than $250mil, as far as the tanker's owner is concerned. I agree that ideally you want to avoid paying ransoms, but in this case it was the only real option.
 
What if we killed them, then other pirates got the hint that we were going to knock them off after the ransom and killed a bunch of people?
 
Originally posted by: ViRGE
Originally posted by: Mide
what fools. I don't see why any country just couldn't send in some commandos to kill them all and take the ship back.
It's a highly volitile oil tanker that can quite easily blow up if you shoot the wrong bit. The oil is worth nearly $100mil, the ship is worth at least that much too, and you have to figure each crew member is worth at least $1mil. So that's $250mil you lose if you send a strike force, instead of $3mil if you just pay a ransom.

Attacking the ship would be a foolish decision.

This isn't the movies. The tanker isn't going to blow up if you shoot at it. I've seen videos where people shot at gasoline and propane containers with tracers, and even then they didn't blow up.
 
Everybody go owned. The military for not being able to do anything but watch from a distance, the people who paid the $3 million cash ransom (which was lost) and the pirates who drowned. There were no winners here except the crew who were eventually release unharmed.
 
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: ViRGE
Originally posted by: Mide
what fools. I don't see why any country just couldn't send in some commandos to kill them all and take the ship back.
It's a highly volitile oil tanker that can quite easily blow up if you shoot the wrong bit. The oil is worth nearly $100mil, the ship is worth at least that much too, and you have to figure each crew member is worth at least $1mil. So that's $250mil you lose if you send a strike force, instead of $3mil if you just pay a ransom.

Attacking the ship would be a foolish decision.

This isn't the movies. The tanker isn't going to blow up if you shoot at it. I've seen videos where people shot at gasoline and propane containers with tracers, and even then they didn't blow up.

It is obviously less costly to just pay the 3m ransom regardless. The company has already moved away from shipping through the suez canal.
 
Originally posted by: ViRGE
Originally posted by: spacejamz
Originally posted by: ViRGE
Originally posted by: Mide
what fools. I don't see why any country just couldn't send in some commandos to kill them all and take the ship back.
It's a highly volitile oil tanker that can quite easily blow up if you shoot the wrong bit. The oil is worth nearly $100mil, the ship is worth at least that much too, and you have to figure each crew member is worth at least $1mil. So that's $250mil you lose if you send a strike force, instead of $3mil if you just pay a ransom.

Attacking the ship would be a foolish decision.

what is the cost for allowing other pirates to commit future piracy acts on this scale because they now know that ship owners are willing to pay out?
Less than $250mil, as far as the tanker's owner is concerned. I agree that ideally you want to avoid paying ransoms, but in this case it was the only real option.

Plus, that money is coming from their "pirate insurance," not the company.

No joke: Text
 
Originally posted by: spacejamz
Originally posted by: ViRGE
Originally posted by: Mide
what fools. I don't see why any country just couldn't send in some commandos to kill them all and take the ship back.
It's a highly volitile oil tanker that can quite easily blow up if you shoot the wrong bit. The oil is worth nearly $100mil, the ship is worth at least that much too, and you have to figure each crew member is worth at least $1mil. So that's $250mil you lose if you send a strike force, instead of $3mil if you just pay a ransom.

Attacking the ship would be a foolish decision.

what is the cost for allowing other pirates to commit future piracy acts on this scale because they now know that ship owners are willing to pay out?

i dont think you understand how game theory works. 😉
 
Originally posted by: ViRGE
Originally posted by: Mide
what fools. I don't see why any country just couldn't send in some commandos to kill them all and take the ship back.
It's a highly volitile oil tanker that can quite easily blow up if you shoot the wrong bit. The oil is worth nearly $100mil, the ship is worth at least that much too, and you have to figure each crew member is worth at least $1mil. So that's $250mil you lose if you send a strike force, instead of $3mil if you just pay a ransom.

Attacking the ship would be a foolish decision.

Uh, oil doesn't explode. And small arms fire wouldn't do a think to the steel surrounding the oil.
 
Back
Top