PIRACY

[RF]

My comment about the IJN invading and flattening Somalia was not intended to be prescriptive.

It was made in response to a question about what presumably the 1930's IJN would do if the Emporer's merchant ships were to be seized by pirates.

The US has of course already intervened in Somalia and incurred military losses in doing so.

[RF]

I am in favor of punitive expeditions. I think it might be justified to attack places in Somalia which support piracy. We could make it unprofitable.

I think the Q-ship solution is best. Attack the pirates where they are most vulnerable to counter strike, which is in the open sea.

We have plenty of seemingly never ending punitive expeditions already - Iraq, Afghanistan for example, with possibly Iran and North Korea to add to the list.

[Bgile]

I am in favor of punitive expeditions. I think it might be justified to attack places in Somalia which support piracy. We could make it unprofitable.

I think the Q-ship solution is best. Attack the pirates where they are most vulnerable to counter strike, which is in the open sea.

We have plenty of seemingly never ending punitive expeditions already - Iraq, Afghanistan for example, with possibly Iran and North Korea to add to the list.

No, I don't think you understand what I mean by a punitive expedition. Iraq and Afghanistan are attempts to rearrange the balance of power, involving many thousands of troops.

I would simply:

1. drop leaflets informing the locals that if they continue to support pirates they will be attacked.
2. After some suitable interval, destroy all of the boats present in ports where the pirates operate. Destroy villas known to be homes to pirate leaders. Anything else we can identify.

Then wait a week or two to see if the pirates continue to operate from those places. If they do, rinse and repeat.

I think it would take literally hundreds of "Q-ships" to achieve anything like the needed effect, and the pirates would learn which ships they were and avoid them, just like they do the warships. It would cost many billions to build them. For example, how many 300,000 ton tanker Q-ships are you going to build? How many 45,000 ton container Q-ships?

[lwd]

Actually posting a squad with an M2 and and ATGM on freighters transiting the area would probably be enough. No need for a purpose built Q ship.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Hey guys,

I have not answered yet because I´m dealing with a lot of REAL day to day problems here at the job. Will do later.

lwd:

Actually posting a squad with an M2 and and ATGM on freighters transiting the area would probably be enough. No need for a purpose built Q ship.

When, in History, the US has scared or spook another country? Not even North Vietnam which was being bombed during Linebacker. As Ho Chi Ming and General Giap knew: the US is a paper tiger. Nobody compares in fire power to the US in all the world history; and no ones doubts so much in use it. That´s why Cuba has survived so long under Castro: they knew that the Us strengh will falter.

That´s why North Korea is doing all that tantrum: they know, for a fact, that the US will never nuke them, even is the rest of the work is begging to them to do it. If Caesar was in Truman´s place in 1951 North Korea, and a portion of China would have been a nuclear landscape, and what about it?

Best regards,

[lwd]

...
When, in History, the US has scared or spook another country?

Well the first instance was probably the Barbary pirates. One of the latter ones Sadam's regime.

... the US is a paper tiger. ...,

That assumption would be a mistake. While not always reacting as expected the US has on numerous occasions used its firepower although perhaps in more moderation than some other countries.

[RF]

No, I don't think you understand what I mean by a punitive expedition. Iraq and Afghanistan are attempts to rearrange the balance of power, involving many thousands of troops.

I would simply:

1. drop leaflets informing the locals that if they continue to support pirates they will be attacked.
2. After some suitable interval, destroy all of the boats present in ports where the pirates operate. Destroy villas known to be homes to pirate leaders. Anything else we can identify.

Then wait a week or two to see if the pirates continue to operate from those places. If they do, rinse and repeat.

Which is not really that different to recent approaches in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Because there are such large forces engaged these policies have had some success, but hasn't taken out all the brigands and insurgents.

The pirates will hide behind and within the local Somali population, and have power. Leaflet drops are no good, the people they are addressed to are powerless to do anything, and they merely warn the pirates to either melt away or prepare ambush. No the open sea best, where they have no cover.

[RF]

Actually posting a squad with an M2 and and ATGM on freighters transiting the area would probably be enough. No need for a purpose built Q ship.

This should indeed be sufficient.

I think that saying that hundreds of Q-ships would be required is overkill. Remember that the purpose of these vessels is to conceal the retribution force, we don't need specially constructed warships with the profile of a large container ship or tanker. The original British and German Q-ships were all originally commercial vessels - none were laid down and constructed as warships.

[ufo]

Some of the ideas in this thread about flushing out the pirates make me giggle, some make me very, very sad indeed.
Sorry guys but civilization has moved on since the day Bismarck was launched … like it or not – killing people is less acceptable nowadays.


If history teaches us anything than most probably the fact that history fails to teach anything. (Or maybe it tries but human kind fails to listen.)

But there are some simple truths one can pick from the last century:


If you want to have peace … buy peace.



After the Great War everyone joined in a nice bit of German-bashing. Well, one has to say in favour of the Americans that they opted out fairly quickly. But for Europe it took less than three decades to reap the storm sown and hey-ho there was an other World War.
After that one ended the Americans decided to simply buy peace and rewarded the Germans with everything from care-parcel to Marshall Plan. It took them less than a decade to have a stable and committed ally in Europe. It works out ever since.

Lasting peace costs investment not weapons.


What do you think you will achieve by blasting some fishing vessels on shore? Someone will build new ones. And while they are building them someone will have the bright idea of packing a child's corpse into one of the vessels you just blasted, take pictures and the Do-gooder press will nail your fleece to the doors.

You might be able to kill one peasant for every ten pirates if that. And for every innocent soul butchered you breed eleven more desperate men willing to go to sea. It will never end. It is in fact the same sad reason why we will loose the Afghan war.


Q-sips are certainly an option. They work out at sea where collateral damage is hard to do. But they only nip the tip, they do not root out the problem.

For attacking pirates at shore – let's be honest: there are parts of Houston where robberies are more common than elsewhere. No one yet suggested solving the problem by carpet bombing Houston.
No! No! Now why is that different?!

If these days you hit the innocent you campaign is doomed. Times have changed. It is not like in Victoria's days where you just had to aim and shoot and declare Pax Britannica.

Somalia needs expensive (sigh!) UN forces to back up a stable government (and something like the Afghanistan option where just the least corrupt crook was hired for the job does not work!) and it needs investment to allow people to make a living without having to go to sea and commit crimes of which they probably get few percent of the rewards the rest draining away into the pockets of organized crime.

Well, make love not war - still truth in that. Speak softly, share, buy, sell, trade … and carry an aircraft carrier with you; just in case.

Have a fine weekend!
Ufo

[lwd]

...like it or not – killing people is less acceptable nowadays....

Looking at the history of the late 20th and early 21 century I'm not sure that is supportable. While some have an aversion to it others certainly do not.

...If you want to have peace … buy peace.

Actually history teaches pretty much the opposite. If you buy peace you only buy it for a short term. Unless you can fix the underlying problems the conflict will be back in full measure.

After that one ended the Americans decided to simply buy peace and rewarded the Germans with everything from care-parcel to Marshall Plan.

That's a bit of a misstatement of both the Marshap plan and the situtation at the time.

...Lasting peace costs investment not weapons.

The European peace after WWII was at least in part due as much to nuclear weapons as economics.

What do you think you will achieve by blasting some fishing vessels on shore? Someone will build new ones..

But they will also have to finance the new weapons and find will crew. As the profits decline and the risk increase this becomes a loosing proposition

And while they are building them someone will have the bright idea of packing a child's corpse into one of the vessels you just blasted, take pictures and the Do-gooder press will nail your fleece to the doors..

That assumes they are around to do the photos. It's also pretty easy to tell a recent corpse from an old one.

... And for every innocent soul butchered you breed eleven more desperate men willing to go to sea. It will never end. It is in fact the same sad reason why we will loose the Afghan war..

Actually just the opposite. The people know who is responsible for acts like this and it isn't the west. That's why we're winning in Iraq and in the greater war on terror.

Q-sips are certainly an option. They work out at sea where collateral damage is hard to do. But they only nip the tip, they do not root out the problem...

But they can. They make it no longer cost effective.

For attacking pirates at shore – let's be honest: there are parts of Houston where robberies are more common than elsewhere. No one yet suggested solving the problem by carpet bombing Houston.
No! No! Now why is that different?!

Perhaps becuase there is a rule of law functioning there. That's a completely different situation from Somalia.

If these days you hit the innocent you campaign is doomed...

That depends on a bunch of factors.

[Karl Heidenreich]

What ufo is stating is partially correct, at least on the US level. The US is not a country that can stand for long in a bloodbath like Russia, England or the eastern peoples can. And, as ufo remarks, as time passes and the social democrats, the liberals and the news media agents strenghten their position the US would be each time a weaker superpower.

Stalin once identified this and stated that, during Korea (it´s in the book by Michael Lind about "Vietnam: the necessary war"), "US cannot wage big wars.... look at them weeping for fifty thousand casualties, what would happen if they have to stand what we stood in the last conflict?" And I agree, the fighting will of the US is like sand falling through your fingers.

When Rome was at war with Carthage and was defeated by Hanibal at Cannae sustaining 50-80 thousand casualties (in a single day) what did the "roman republic" did? Quit? Call it a burden too heavy to continue fighting? Nope! Their fighting will remained intact and they kept fighting until final victory at Samma.

We can call Douglas Haig a butcher but after the first day at Somme the british maybe lost the battle but not the war. They kept figthing.

The dam ruskies never surrendered to the Germans when, by western standards, they were defeated. And their casualties were stagering. I cannot imagine a US leaping out of a conflict with 20 million dead. Not half or a quarter of that... not a tenth.

Neither the Germans surrendered after Stalingrad. Nor the Japanese after Philipine Sea.

Even the US, in it´s early days saw glory and will: as in Antietam or Gettysburg which were the bloodiest days in US history.

But see Vietnam. The US lost there in 10 years what they lost in Antietam and Gettysburg put together (4 Civil War days overall). And the US quit. As it did before at Korea.

Gulf War 1991: they US wiped out the Republican Guard. Saddam only needs a push to fall. All the countries in the world backing up the US led coallition. Everybody (except maybe the French, as usual) expecting the final blow. And Collin Powel cames to Bush father with sissy talk about the "highway to Basra" and the need to end hostilities because were getting out of hand: in summary he lost his nerve and so the president. Result: some ten years later the US came, without international support and risking it´s geo political stance against real enemies as Iran and North Korea to fight Saddam again. And it´s going to withdraw now without even getting 5,000 casualties at all.

Stalin was right. The problem is that there are countries, like the islamic or the communist ones that will put in the balance things and will prefer to lose all their men in combat, even their civilians and stood victorious at the end, as Ho Chi Ming and Giap did.

The country that can stands death, famine and sacrificies is the one that wins, even in a technological inferior stance as the Viet Congs demostrated plainfully. They had the will.

Best regards,

[lwd]

... The US is not a country that can stand for long in a bloodbath like Russia, England or the eastern peoples can....

That is simply not true. Given the motivation such as the ACW it's been proven we can. There simply hasn't been a conflict in recent times that we have considered worth it. The US leadership has usually prefered not to if other alternatives are available. In general this is a good thing.

...Stalin once identified this and stated that, ... And I agree, the fighting will of the US is like sand falling through your fingers.

Then you were both wrong.

...The dam ruskies never surrendered to the Germans when, by western standards, they were defeated...

Early on many did. The Germans convinced them that surrender was worse than fighting on. No wonder they continued to fight.

Neither the Germans surrendered after Stalingrad. Nor the Japanese after Philipine Sea.

And what good did it do them?

...But see Vietnam...

Vietnam was a political failure. The government failed to convince the people it was worth while. Too a large extent they were right.

Gulf War 1991: they US wiped out the Republican Guard. Saddam only needs a push to fall. All the countries in the world backing up the US led coallition. Everybody (except maybe the French, as usual) expecting the final blow. ...

That's not quite right. Most of our allies in the coalition didn't want us to take him down. In particular the Saudi's and several other Mideastern countries saw Sadam as a balance to Iran. The agreement we had was specfically to eject Iraq from Kuwait.

...The country that can stands death, famine and sacrificies is the one that wins,

That's why the Soviet Union is a fading memory and the US is the world power right?

even in a technological inferior stance as the Viet Congs demostrated plainfully. ...,

The VC were destroyed. They also are a fading memory. Not that the North Vietnamese were all that upset about it.

[Karl Heidenreich]

lwd:

That is simply not true. Given the motivation such as the ACW it's been proven we can. There simply hasn't been a conflict in recent times that we have considered worth it. The US leadership has usually prefered not to if other alternatives are available. In general this is a good thing.

Not even in WWII the US had casualties a fraction of those of Russia nor fought in so terrible conditions as Great Britain. The US has not suffered from war or invasion since Civil War. How can you be so sure a country like the US could stand something it never stood before? We know about other countries and sufferings. The US regards as a crisis not being able that it´s citizens can buy new houses or a 20mpg car. The US knows nothing of suffering, which is why when it´s strikes would be lethal. And let me tell you something, by telling this makes me feel bad because the US is a country that I like and appreciatte a lot.

Then you were both wrong.

State why? Just because Stalin was who he was and said such a thing make it wrong? Have the US suffered casualties as USSR? Russians know how much they can endure. And we know how Korea ended: please pick up a newspaper and read what are the "brave" warnings Hillary is doing to a madman.

Early on many did. The Germans convinced them that surrender was worse than fighting on. No wonder they continued to fight.

Soldiers always surrender if they are defeated. There were Stalags full of GI´s.

And what good did it do them?

We know that NOW. In that moment they fought and well. In a war where the allies outnumbered them 10 or 20-1 they fought like tigers. They fell, but nobody can claim they didn´t did their best on the battlefield. And they fought for six years against the world. The US fought in Europe some 10 months against "B" and "C" Class units. The "A" ones were fighting the russians.

Vietnam was a political failure. The government failed to convince the people it was worth while. Too a large extent they were right.

The troops fought well and prevail on the battlefield. Fifty thousand casualties convinced the public the war was no worth to go on. So the US resign. It was the will of the people to stand up casualties that faltered. You, lwd, yourself is contradicting yourself here because you are saying, here and now, that STALIN WAS RIGHT when he make his quote of Korea: the one you say is wrong. The only wrong statement here is yours. And this time, pal, I got ya!

That's not quite right. Most of our allies in the coalition didn't want us to take him down. In particular the Saudi's and several other Mideastern countries saw Sadam as a balance to Iran. The agreement we had was specfically to eject Iraq from Kuwait.

You musn´t been implying that it wasn´t a better chance then than 2003? No one in his right sense can claim such stupidity.

That's why the Soviet Union is a fading memory and the US is the world power right?

Russia is far from being a fading memory. They are there, rebuilding and awaiting their moment. The communists are gone, as the zar was, which doesn´t matter. Read History (not Soldier of Fortune, please) and you will find those ups and downs in Russia history. But they have been there since the vikings founded the Russ, some 1,000 plus years. The US only has a little more than 200. A lot to learn yet.
Arrogance is not healthy for those in power. Read Machiavelli and Sun Tzu. Read Clauswitz and Mao. That why you (US) lost Vietnam and is losing Irak, because you don´t want to learn.

The VC were destroyed. They also are a fading memory. Not that the North Vietnamese were all that upset about it.

You are wrong: the VC now runs companies and sell products to the US much cheapier than what the US could posible produce. Vietnam is building itself a country out of the ashes of war. A war they won. They won it, with 2 million casualties because they stand the suffering in order to achieve victory. Is the US willing to lose 2 million in order to achieve victory? It´s hard to say: it´s never happened.

I´m not a US enemy, by the contrary. In 1982-84 I met many US soldiers, Green Berets some of them: inteligent and educated warriors by the way. Warrios under the only real President-Hero the US had since Washington: Ronald Reagan. And the lack of a Ronald Reagan to the US is a reason why it´s so weak, so uncertain on what to do and what´s necesary. The US is a great country, is just that I cannot believe it can stand a bloodbath. And the time for that bloodbath is getting closer because the US is trying not to fight that war.
But as Machiavelli said: "Don´t let disorder be born in order to avoid a war, because it´s never avoided... only delayed against you!"

[Bgile]

The VC were destroyed in the Tet Offensive. This was a plus for the North Vietnamese, because they didn't want independent thinkers in the south when they took it over.

We lost in Vietnam because it was a stupid, senseless war and most of our people gradually realized that. I didn't until it was over for 10 years, but I do now.

Karl, you seem to think that the answer to everything is killing people. Can't you see that aside from the moral view, it can be counterproductive? Do you remember the Domino Theory? And where did that end up?

The USA can be defeated in foreign wars of attrition because we value the lives of our soldiers more than some other countries do. I don't think that is a bad thing.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Bgile;

I agree a lot with your points. I regards the Domino Theory and the McNamara management not only of Vietnam but of all his defense issues as quite stupid (I do remember reading that when at the Pentagon McNamara always hide when he saw Le May coming his way on a corridor).

Maybe you are right about my intransigent position. But it seems there is a great difference between you and me: you have a great faith in strenght of the people and about the straight behaivor they can achieve. I don´t. I, simply, can´t care less in what people say or stand because they will fail, sooner or later. That´s why these "democratic" speech seems to me so senseless. You cannot go through the world preaching democracy to a bunch of ignorants that spray acid on their wives because they caught them talking to another guy at the grocery store, you cannot pretend that South Vietnam regime or Irak or Afganistan would become a "US oriented" liberal society because you cannot neglect 5,000 years of History and "culture" from these camel drivers. What about Korea? Jimmy Carter has gone there, has makes promises, has given them money in exchange of shutting down nuclear pretentions an militaristic attitudes. For what? Every five years, when the bankrupt vermin of Kim run out of money they began a tantrum that each time gets more and more dangerous. Why don´t blowing them to hell now? Maybe it´s much better today than tomorrow when the Chinese and the ruskies find out again they got balls and are willing to fight in a more favourable enviroment. And Irak? Is such a problem send those guys to explore the Moon in a radioactive rocket? They are the ones with pretentions of blowing Tel Aviv as soon as they got the bomb and the missile to deliver it. They are the ones shouting that the Holocaust never happened in a way that many "western democratic" countries have erase that particular historic item from their education systems so not to "offend" the islamics. What´s better: blow their people or let them blow yours? Ask the widows and orphans of the 9/11.
I´m a cynic or a bitter person who says things other don´t want to hear. And I DO understand lwd´s or your stance: which is creepy because things are NOT right and are not being solved the right way. Waiting, bringing democracy and using diplomacy is just a waste of time.
The Pirates: make an example of them. The world is never going to love the US, anyway. The world envies the american way of life, envies the riches of the US and the power of the US: not Venezuela, not France, not China nor the islamics love the US. If that so, let them be feared at least. As Rome did. As the Khan did. As Charlemagne did.
Remember the words of Machiavelli.

And Bgile, one more thing and I mean it: God Bless the USA. Because by blessing and protecting it then myself, my little country and my loved ones are also protected.