Is Private Security the Solution to Modern Piracy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter drankin
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the recent thwarting of a pirate attack on a ship by armed private security, with mixed opinions on the use of private guards for maritime protection. Some participants express strong support for private security, arguing that shipping companies are largely opposed to armed guards due to concerns about the qualifications of personnel and the belief that security should be the responsibility of state navies. Critics of privatizing maritime security emphasize that it undermines the primary function of the Navy, which is to protect shipping routes. They argue that the failure of navies to adequately address piracy forces private companies to take on roles traditionally held by military forces. Historical context is provided, noting that during conflicts, piracy often increases due to reduced military presence, and past practices included the use of privateers sanctioned by governments. The conversation highlights the complexities of maritime security in the face of modern piracy challenges.
drankin
Pirates tried to attack the ship again but were thwarted by armed private security. GOOD FOR THEM! Some seem to have a problem with it. Why??

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,575529,00.html"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I have no clue why people would be against private guards. Perhaps its because the ships from their own country have not been attacked?
 
Basically:
"Shipping companies are still pretty much overwhelmingly opposed to the idea of armed guards," Middleton said. "Lots of private security companies employee people who don't have maritime experience." Also, there's the idea that it's the responsibility of states and navies to provide security. I would think it's a step backward if we start privatizing security of the shipping trade.
 
hypatia said:
I have no clue why people would be against private guards.

""Shipping companies are still pretty much overwhelmingly opposed to the idea of armed guards," Middleton said. "Lots of private security companies employee people who don't have maritime ""

Depends where the guards are from and who hired them:
ex-marines employed by Haliburton probably OK
ex-Congo mercenaries armed with AK-47s, ermm
ex-Serbian irregulars with rocket launchers, next to your Greek tanker - getting nervous
100 armed libyan/North korean/etc 'security avisors' on a boat docking in New York - worried yet
 
Also, there's the idea that it's the responsibility of states and navies to provide security. I would think it's a step backward if we start privatizing security of the shipping trade.
That's my take on the situation as well. Note, that's nothing against the crew or owners of the Alabama, but that's me as a former Navy sailor feeling disgusted by the prospect of the Navy not doing its primary function. Protecting shipping is the reason the Navy exists and right now, it isn't doing that. Whatever disease modern society has (probably simply a bad case of PC) that has softened it to the point of impotence, there is a reality here that won't go away by trying to treat it differently: *someone* has to shoot pirates and sink pirate ships. Since the Navy isn't doing it, private shipping companies are now doing it. In other words, by shirking their responsibility to be navies, the navies of the world are forcing private shipping companies to become navies.

Even the handful of times pirates have accidentally attacked Navy (not just US Navy - they seem to have a thing for the French), they've been warned off or arrested. That's just not the proper way to handle the situation.

See the currently active thread in the politics forum on the prospects of arresting Bin Laden for a similar complaint from me about using the Army as police instead of as an army.

[edit] The article says the Alabama is being "monitored" by a P-3 Orion. The Orion is capable of carrying torpedoes, long range air to surface missiles and short range Zuni rockets. I see a straightforward problem and several potential solutions...

And as a more complete solution, the coastline including the gulf of Aden runs about 1500 miles. You could cover the entire area with 3 patrol planes, requiring no more than an hour to intercept a ship under attack off Somalia.
 
Last edited:
A vital (historical) function of the Navy and Marines was to protect civilian shipping from piracy ("...to the Shores of Tripoli..."). Armed ships of the Spanish, Portuguese, and English were also tasked with protecting their nation's shipping, especially since royalty was heavily involved in commerce.

During times of conflict, piracy often rears its head, often to take advantage of the lack of military coverage, and for personal gain. The English didn't have enough warships to harass American shipping, so they issued letters of marque to privateers, essentially creating a "legal" pirate navy.
 
Back
Top