Piracy (Extortion is what this actually is)

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,017
62
91
Originally posted by: Amused

Oh I know. I was just weighjing the outcomes and didn't see much of a chance of it being very different between the two options. Ya know?

But I do understand that trying a rescue will make people feel better about it. I tend to not think about feelings and just weigh odds.

Meh, saving the hostages is secondary. In the long run, more lives are saved if you ensure that the hostage takers die or are captured in repeated pirate attempts. Their buddies will be far less inclined to followed in footsteps of failure.
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,112
930
126
Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
Sinking a tanker filled with 2 billion barrels of oil doesn't sound like a good idea...

Simply pull up beside it with an empty tanker and drill a hole in it, pump the oil out, then sink it.

 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,355
19,535
146
Originally posted by: SirStev0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
Sinking a tanker filled with 2 billion barrels of oil doesn't sound like a good idea...

Paying them sounds like a worse idea.

Contrary to the environuts, the earth can easily handle a spill like that with only short term effects. Believe it or not, oil is actually a natural substance.

And to be honest, I could give a rat's ass if Somolia's fishing industry is hurt at this point in time.

You are really saying that an Oil Spill that would shadow the Exxon Valdez is worth it.

Killing of thousands of organisms, destroying countless environments, basically starving thousands of people while wiping out local economy, wasting billions of barrels of fossil fuels, all just to prove you have the biggest penis.

You have some serious problems.

Sigh. The tanker has less oil than the Valdez. It's not full. And no tanker holds anything close to "billions" of barrels.

It's not a penis thing. Far from it. It's simply a way to stop all future attempts at kid/shipnapping. Paying them and negotiating has only made them commit far more crimes.

And yes, a few million barrels of oil would be only a temporary problem. The earth is remarkably resilient. A hell of a lot more than the environuts lead people to believe.
 

Loreena

Senior member
Oct 30, 2008
297
0
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Farang
I don't have a plan. Anti-piracy is not my field, neither is it yours, so it is probably best we stay out of it. Or else we end up blowing up supertankers for no reason.

Your tenacity makes me think you're just fucking with everyone.. if so, well played

Now now now, I did capitulate and change my plan to a SEAL team attack rather than just sinking the ship. Though I am not convinced that both options will not end much the same.

Anti-kidnapping/extortion is very easy. Never pay and never negotiate. It really is that simple.

Seals aren't mythbusters! :p

What's amazing is it's illegal for anyone on these ships to carry a weapon (firearm) of any kind! I can understand the hazard with arms and a tanker full of oil even though you probably could start a bonfire the size of Rosie O'Donnell on the deck and it would not burn! :p

There has to be a better way than using noise, and greasing up the railings. Leave it to the nerds to come up with an electronic solution. Heck even if it uses megawatts of power just drop another bunker diesel generator in there. Those things can burn anything! Cost of safety and doing business. Now let's get to work on those force fields and microwave cannons.

Imagine those dummies driving into a microwave field. First they'd feel heat like someone pouring coffee over their heads. Then sparks would shoot from their RPG's and AK47's. All the loose bullets would start going off. To get an idea put a CD (AOL CD's work the best) in your microwave for a few seconds! :p

They could probably use a net system that would sit packed below the water line. When activated it would catch the pirates and pull them high in the air where angry crew members could poke at them with sharp objects. Of course the human rights folks would be unhappy with that. Put them with their PETA friends on the next boat up the Suez and when it gets jacked say SEE YA!
 

cliftonite

Diamond Member
Jul 15, 2001
6,900
63
91
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: SirStev0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
Sinking a tanker filled with 2 billion barrels of oil doesn't sound like a good idea...

Paying them sounds like a worse idea.

Contrary to the environuts, the earth can easily handle a spill like that with only short term effects. Believe it or not, oil is actually a natural substance.

And to be honest, I could give a rat's ass if Somolia's fishing industry is hurt at this point in time.

You are really saying that an Oil Spill that would shadow the Exxon Valdez is worth it.

Killing of thousands of organisms, destroying countless environments, basically starving thousands of people while wiping out local economy, wasting billions of barrels of fossil fuels, all just to prove you have the biggest penis.

You have some serious problems.

Sigh. The tanker has less oil than the Valdez. It's not full. And no tanker holds anything close to "billions" of barrels.

It's not a penis thing. Far from it. It's simply a way to stop all future attempts at kid/shipnapping. Paying them and negotiating has only made them commit far more crimes.

And yes, a few million barrels of oil would be only a temporary problem. The earth is remarkably resilient. A hell of a lot more than the environuts lead people to believe.

And the people that rely upon the sea for their living? Who would support them while the "temporary" problem subsides?
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,355
19,535
146
Originally posted by: cliftonite
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: SirStev0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
Sinking a tanker filled with 2 billion barrels of oil doesn't sound like a good idea...

Paying them sounds like a worse idea.

Contrary to the environuts, the earth can easily handle a spill like that with only short term effects. Believe it or not, oil is actually a natural substance.

And to be honest, I could give a rat's ass if Somolia's fishing industry is hurt at this point in time.

You are really saying that an Oil Spill that would shadow the Exxon Valdez is worth it.

Killing of thousands of organisms, destroying countless environments, basically starving thousands of people while wiping out local economy, wasting billions of barrels of fossil fuels, all just to prove you have the biggest penis.

You have some serious problems.

Sigh. The tanker has less oil than the Valdez. It's not full. And no tanker holds anything close to "billions" of barrels.

It's not a penis thing. Far from it. It's simply a way to stop all future attempts at kid/shipnapping. Paying them and negotiating has only made them commit far more crimes.

And yes, a few million barrels of oil would be only a temporary problem. The earth is remarkably resilient. A hell of a lot more than the environuts lead people to believe.

And the people that rely upon the sea for their living? Who would support them while the "temporary" problem subsides?

Not much of a fishing industry in Somalia.

http://www.nationsencyclopedia...a/Somalia-FISHING.html

At any rate, let the damn warlords who are behind the extortion support them.
 

Loreena

Senior member
Oct 30, 2008
297
0
0
BTW if every drop of oil from that tanker were spilled it would be over 350 times what was spilled in the Valdez accident. Some people may consider that significant. ;)
 

BigJ

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
21,330
1
81
Originally posted by: Loreena
BTW if every drop of oil from that tanker were spilled it would be over 350 times what was spilled in the Valdez accident. Some people may consider that significant. ;)

No, it wouldn't be. The number is ~2 million barrels on the supertanker.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,355
19,535
146
Originally posted by: Loreena
BTW if every drop of oil from that tanker were spilled it would be over 350 times what was spilled in the Valdez accident. Some people may consider that significant. ;)

Um, no. After checking facts, if it were full, the seized tanker would carry roughly 4 times as much oil as the Valdez spilled.

About 11 million gallons were spilled by the Valdez. The tanker in question has a capacity of 2 million barrels, but is according to news reports is possibly not completely full. The Valdez had a capacity of 1.5 million barrels

A barrel is 42 gallons.
 

cliftonite

Diamond Member
Jul 15, 2001
6,900
63
91
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: cliftonite
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: SirStev0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
Sinking a tanker filled with 2 billion barrels of oil doesn't sound like a good idea...

Paying them sounds like a worse idea.

Contrary to the environuts, the earth can easily handle a spill like that with only short term effects. Believe it or not, oil is actually a natural substance.

And to be honest, I could give a rat's ass if Somolia's fishing industry is hurt at this point in time.

You are really saying that an Oil Spill that would shadow the Exxon Valdez is worth it.

Killing of thousands of organisms, destroying countless environments, basically starving thousands of people while wiping out local economy, wasting billions of barrels of fossil fuels, all just to prove you have the biggest penis.

You have some serious problems.

Sigh. The tanker has less oil than the Valdez. It's not full. And no tanker holds anything close to "billions" of barrels.

It's not a penis thing. Far from it. It's simply a way to stop all future attempts at kid/shipnapping. Paying them and negotiating has only made them commit far more crimes.

And yes, a few million barrels of oil would be only a temporary problem. The earth is remarkably resilient. A hell of a lot more than the environuts lead people to believe.

And the people that rely upon the sea for their living? Who would support them while the "temporary" problem subsides?

Not much of a fishing industry in Somalia.

http://www.nationsencyclopedia...a/Somalia-FISHING.html

At any rate, let the damn warlords who are behind the extortion support them.

Riiiiiiiight warlords are known to be so caring. I suppose they would pay for the cleanup as well?
 

Crono

Lifer
Aug 8, 2001
23,720
1,502
136
Bombing or attacking the tanker itself should be a last option consideration. Like others said, a special forces unit, in concert with a small fleet and gunships establishing a perimeter, should be the first things considered. This is assuming that the U.S. would want to get involved in this manner, or any other country capable of such an operation (India?). The real problem is that there is not enough effort in fighting and preventing piracy, and giving in to demands makes piracy a relatively low risk-high gain proposition for these thugs. India stepping up in fighting piracy helped their international image, and hopefully they, and those countries in the area around the Somali coast, allocate more resources to stop piracy before it continues to grow into a scourge of the seas like it was in various times in history.

Amused, I agree with you that force is needed, but taking out a tanker would cause a cascade of problems. The specific tactics required would have to be weighed by the country and force carrying out a strike against the pirates.
 

Loreena

Senior member
Oct 30, 2008
297
0
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Loreena
BTW if every drop of oil from that tanker were spilled it would be over 350 times what was spilled in the Valdez accident. Some people may consider that significant. ;)

Um, no. After checking facts, if it were full, the seized tanker would carry roughly 4 times as much oil as the Valdez spilled.

About 11 million gallons were spilled by the Valdez. The tanker in question has a capacity of 2 million barrels, but is according to news reports is possibly not completely full. The Valdez had a capacity of 1.5 million barrels

A barrel is 42 gallons.

Good catch, bad on my part! Should be 3.5 times not 350x! :eek:

Either way, they could NEVER blow it up, not gonna happen.

Call the Iron Man, he could deal with this fast! :p
 

Crono

Lifer
Aug 8, 2001
23,720
1,502
136
Originally posted by: Loreena
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Loreena
BTW if every drop of oil from that tanker were spilled it would be over 350 times what was spilled in the Valdez accident. Some people may consider that significant. ;)

Um, no. After checking facts, if it were full, the seized tanker would carry roughly 4 times as much oil as the Valdez spilled.

About 11 million gallons were spilled by the Valdez. The tanker in question has a capacity of 2 million barrels, but is according to news reports is possibly not completely full. The Valdez had a capacity of 1.5 million barrels

A barrel is 42 gallons.

Good catch, bad on my part! Should be 3.5 times not 350x! :eek:

Either way, they could NEVER blow it up, not gonna happen.

Call the Iron Man, he could deal with this fast! :p

Or venkman - I hear he's working on acquiring super powers :D
 

imported_apocalypse

Senior member
Aug 27, 2008
449
0
0
Destroying the ship is a ridiculous option. Certainly the companies that use the routes would object. Its still cheaper for them to pay the ransom, than to lose their ship and crew. If being hijacked automatically resulted in the death of everyone on the ship, many sailors would refuse to work such routes. And pirates would respond by demanding the company to keep the hijacking a secret and they would be more willing to kill the hostages and ditch the ship on any sign that governments had been notified.

Sending in a special forces military team to retake the ship is better option, and IS used for high value targets. However, there are too many pirate incidents to use this option on all of them, as well as the lag in response time. Countries would also be reluctant to risk their elite troops to protect the ships of other countries.

To combat this piracy problem, it needs to be dealt with at the source. That is, the ports supporting piracy in Somalia have to be dealt with. Perhaps the companies that use shipping routes in the area should pay a fee into a international fund for stabilize the area and restore a national Somalian government. That would solve the problem in the long term. And in the short term, increased naval patrols and selected use of special forces to make piracy a less attractive option.

 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,359
4,640
136
Originally posted by: Farang
I don't have a plan. Anti-piracy is not my field, neither is it yours, so it is probably best we stay out of it. Or else we end up blowing up supertankers for no reason.

Your tenacity makes me think you're just fucking with everyone.. if so, well played

Good God man! Think what you are saying! We are on an internet forum, that makes us experts in EVERYTHING!
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,359
4,640
136
Originally posted by: apocalypse
Destroying the ship is a ridiculous option. Certainly the companies that use the routes would object. Its still cheaper for them to pay the ransom, than to lose their ship and crew. If being hijacked automatically resulted in the death of everyone on the ship, many sailors would refuse to work such routes. And pirates would respond by demanding the company to keep the hijacking a secret and they would be more willing to kill the hostages and ditch the ship on any sign that governments had been notified.

Sending in a special forces military team to retake the ship is better option, and IS used for high value targets. However, there are too many pirate incidents to use this option on all of them, as well as the lag in response time. Countries would also be reluctant to risk their elite troops to protect the ships of other countries.

To combat this piracy problem, it needs to be dealt with at the source. That is, the ports supporting piracy in Somalia have to be dealt with. Perhaps the companies that use shipping routes in the area should pay a fee into a international fund for stabilize the area and restore a national Somalian government. That would solve the problem in the long term. And in the short term, increased naval patrols and selected use of special forces to make piracy a less attractive option.

So we are all agreed then, the answer is nuke Somalia. :)
 
Oct 27, 2007
17,009
5
0
Hypothetical question Amused - if soem Somalian fucks had taken a bunch of hostages in the top floor the the World Trade Center buildings on the morning of September 11, 2001 presumably you would be fine with the buildings being destroyed. Am I right?
 

DayLaPaul

Platinum Member
Apr 6, 2001
2,072
0
76
The reason why we don't nuke these pirates from orbit is because, for the most part, we don't care about them. Notice how the only time the US Navy got involved was when the pirates hijacked those tanks? We don't care about yachts or merchants vessels or even the oik tanker getting hijacked because they aren't US vessels.
 

Deadtrees

Platinum Member
Dec 31, 2002
2,351
0
0
Remember when North Koreans were attacked? They overpowered pirates and decided to drown pirates in the ocean. When U.S asked(negotiated by giving them 15 days worth of food and suppy) North Koreans to not do so, they decided to demand $10,000 per each pirates (to either Kenya or Somalian govt.)

Just put North Koreans on board. Not only you won't worry about the ship being attacked, you will also make some money.

 

DangerAardvark

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2004
7,559
0
0
Originally posted by: dguy6789
I agree with Amused. The very fact that piracy still exists proves that how we deal with it isn't working right. People have a chance to live, but piracy continues. It is pretty simple really. If pirates knew they would die if they attempted to hijack a ship, they wouldn't hijack a ship. If piracy ceased, people wouldn't be victims of it anymore.

Yep, and you're volunteering the lives of that crew to be the first to sacrifice for the cause. How noble of you.