h a l f b a k e r y"It would work, if you can find alternatives to each of the steps involved in this process."
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Make an old fashioned pirate ship, with a minimal crew and some high spirited guests. Arrange to fake attack normal cruise ships, with blank-firing cannonry, board them, have a fake tussle with the crew, make some people walk the plank, then leave with a safe of booty.
Pirates
Pirates
Could be incorporated. [8th of 7, Jan 03 2012]
[link]
|
| |
Cruise passengers could take turns to be the pirates. |
|
| |
Doing this near the coast of Somalia would run the risk of having your actions misinterpreted. |
|
| |
How do you forcibly board a vessel with maybe a
hundred
feet more freeboard than your own? Do the
Somali pirates have a way, or do they stand off
and threaten the vessel with distance-weapons? |
|
| |
If the latter, then cannon'll be ineffective against
a steel hull, and the cruise ship passengers can
probably repel boarders by dropping beer cans
onto them as they try to swarm up the sides with
... magnets? suction cups? Congreve-rocket-
propelled grappling irons? |
|
| |
But the wily pirates will respond with Montgolfier
baloons and trebuchet-launched parachutists. |
|
| |
They make these things called ladders and knotted rope. Remarkable inventions. |
|
| |
A fair point. My only information on the subject
comes from McPhee who gave the impression that
the technique works because modern freighters
have such extremely small crews, for their size,
that boarding via rope ladder, from a small boat,
could take place largely unmolested. On a
passenger ship, with the decks lined with
defenders, (and the pirates limited to 18th
century weapons) it would be more difficult. |
|
| |
But _Looking for a Ship_ was published in 1990,
when piracy was taken less seriously than now.
Shipping companies probably have a more
aggressive
policy, these days. |
|
| |
Still, a rough, tough pirate, climbing a rope ladder
with a knife in his teeth, facing a 63 year old
overweight tourist, with both hands free, 20 feet
directly above him and armed with a shuffleboard
stick -- is going to encounter some difficulty even
one-on-one. And the overweight tourists
outnumber the pirates. |
|
| |
So much more fun for the tourists, then. |
|
| |
Insurance companies will not honor policies on pirated
ships (and cargo) if the crew resists. That's why nobody has
done the obvious and mounted a couple of 20mm
autocannons on either side of the bridge. This is
unfortunate, because it wouldn't take too long for word to
get around the Somali pirate community that trying to
hijack ships will only result in having your boat blasted into
toothpicks. |
|
| |
[21] has it almost right; the majority of Somali pirates *are*
displaced and out-of-work fisherman etc. (which does not
in any way excuse their actions), but they are organized
and led by the mercenaries and and ex-soldiers. It's just a
really bad scene no matter how you look at it. |
|
| |
The answer is so obvious. Q-ships, funded by interested governments, crewed by trained military personnel. |
|
| |
Pirates attack Q-ship. Q-ship crew open fire, making sure there are NO survivors. Pirates therefore never know about Q-ship(s). Over time, number of pirates diminishes to zero. Problem solved. |
|
| |
Wonderful idea, I'm all for it, but even this landlubber
knows that it violates more maritime laws than are even
worth counting. On the other hand, if we were to stop all
shipping traffic while international authorities bickered
over the changes needed to make this possible, most of the
pirates would starve to death. |
|
| |
International Maritime Law, aka Admiralty Law, aka The
Law of The Sea, that's what maritime law. Most commonly
falling under the jurisdiction of the IMO, the CMI, or both,
although there are almost as many organizations
overseeing the
application and
enforcement of said law as there are ocean-adjacent
countries. It all boils down to everyone agreeing to behave
themselves so nobody gets hurt, including sailors,
passengers, and all the little fishes. |
|
| |
Furthermore, many countries view disguising a warship as
otherwise to be an overt act of war*, and no ship can stay
in international waters indefinitely. |
|
| |
Basically, having Q-ships roaming the seas in the modern
world would make everybody nervous, and some of those
nervous people have their fingers on or near the triggers of
very, very big guns. |
|
| |
*IMO Annual Accords and Conventions of Admiralty Law,
1993 UK Edition, Section 4, etc. I have no idea how this
book ended up on my shelf. Beyond citing it for this
discussion, the only other thing I use it for is bludgeoning
the occasional lost tourist that wanders into my yard. |
|
| |
According to the book, the IMO is not concerned with
anything smaller than a .50-cal. Insurance companies,
however, are. Since I don't happen to have the Lloyd's of
London Maritime Policy Handbook right here, I am unable
to elaborate further, but the question of why cargo ships
don't carry small arms has been so over-discussed in the
media that I, for one, consider it common knowledge.
Merchant Marines and other commercial crews are not
allowed to fight back, nor are they allowed to hire
contractors or mercenaries. I think it's stupid, but that's
the way it is. No assault rifles, no cutlasses, no M60s. |
|
| |
Anyway, an M134 would be a much better tool for the job. |
|
| |
//Over time, number of pirates diminishes to
zero.// C'mon [8], you know better than that. It's
a reaction kinetics problem: model it with
differential equations. What is the rate of
production of new pirates? How many Q ships are
there? What's the mean time until a pirate
encounters a Q ship (assuming Poisson statistics)? |
|
| |
The number of pirates might go to zero, as you
said, or increase without limit, or reach an
equilibrium. Could even oscillate or exhibit
chaotic behavior, with the right assumptions. |
|
| |
Right, now that I've got that off my chest, y'all can
ignore it & resume discussing guns & knives. |
|
| |
I know it's gauche to quote myself, but: |
|
| |
// many countries view disguising a warship as otherwise
to be an overt act of war // |
|
| |
There are three perfectly normal-looking cars parked on
the street outside your house. You know all of the owners
of the cars and are on speaking terms with them. One of
the cars, however, has enough dynamite in its trunk to
level the entire block. You know which car it is, and you
have the owner's word that they have no intention of
detonating the explosives whilst the car is parked outside
your house, and everything is okay. |
|
| |
But every morning when you look out the window, there's
that innocent-looking car, with all that dynamite in the
trunk... |
|
| |
That's why nobody likes Q-ships, 'kay? |
|
| |
No, it wouldn't, because a gun rack is in the open where
everyone can see it... get it? |
|
| |
Anyway, you're not a maritime nation, you're a closet
redneck. |
|
| |
OK ... how about a completely unarmed merchant ship - but one equipped with sophisticated radar, night vision etc. - which is "tailed" closely by a nuclear hunter-killer sub ? |
|
| |
Bad guys show up. Ship's crew drop sonobuoy, or send sonar ping code ... sub breaks cover, Marines dash up ladders onto casing, brief but intense discharge from a couple of M134's belted with 1/5 T/B. |
|
| |
Then let the sharks do the rest. |
|
| |
I like it. It's tightly planned, outrageously violent, and
totally deniable. Maybe we can even turn it into a joint
operation/competition: RMC vs. USMC, SBS vs. SEALs, etc.
Points will be awarded by highest average linear footage of
boats destroyed per second on the surface. |
|
| |
Well ships just need their own unmanned aquatic vehicles armed to the teeth tailing them closely then.
The ship itself has no weapons and no warship has been disguised. |
|
| |
Everybody is happy but the bad guys. |
|
| |
// Oh yeah, because a nuclear hunter-killer sub won't raise *any* tempers at all, // |
|
| |
That's right. These things trundle the oceans of the world unmolested. In international waters they can go anywhere they like. |
|
| |
And outside international waters, they can still go anywhere they like ... |
|
| |
// but a lightly-armed merchant ship might set off a war. That makes sense. // |
|
| |
That seems to be the consensus, yes. |
|
| |
// You *do* realize that most pirate attacks occur in the Gulf of Aden, which has an average depth of only 500 meters? I'm reasonably certain a sub would be quickly detected there. // |
|
| |
It only needs to submerge to 20 metres or so to be pretty much undetectable to a surface vessel lacking sophisticated sonar until they're nearly on top of it. They're designed to be quiet, and difficult to spot. Plodding along in the wake of a noisy merchant ship, they're not going to be very obvious. |
|
| |
Ironically, legitimate warships, even the ones designed to
operate totally undetected, are perfectly acceptable to all
maritime nations, as established by a byzantine set of
treaties and handshake details that are nearly impossible
to understand. Essentially, it works like this: if you make
no bones about the nature of a combat-ready vessel, it's
okay, but if you try to disguise it, everyone gets all pissy
about it. Even if you can't see or hear the attack sub, it's
perfectly acceptable because it's an attack sub and
everyone knows it's an attack sub. If you try to make a
guided-missile cruiser look like a freighter, that's an
unprovoked act of aggression. |
|
| |
Argue all you want, but them's the rules. I don't make 'em,
I just read about 'em. |
|
| |
How hard would it be on a large ship to make the control room impervious to small arms? Or make all ships submergable in an emergency. |
|
| |
Anyway, isn't there a more relevant idea that be hijacked for this discussion? |
|
| |
// How hard would it be on a large ship to make the
control room impervious to small arms? // |
|
| |
It isn't; they're already doing it, or building 'safe rooms'
with full comm suites, from which the ship can be conned
in open water while the crew chats with the nearest
lurking warship, leaving the pirates futily (sp?) banging on
the door. There has been at least one instance in the last
few months where the use of such a room led to the
capture of all pirates present, crew, ship, and cargo
emerging unscathed. |
|
| |
// The Hague Convention apparently says a militarized
merchant vessel must be visibly marked as such, but the
U.S. is not a signatory to that portion of it from what I can
tell. // |
|
| |
I realize that the anonimity of the internet may cause
some to distrust my word when I claim to be citing a hard
copy, but if you'll care to notice, the book I referenced
(which must have belonged to my grandfather, who had a
use for such things) was a UK Edition, concerned primarily
with UK laws. You may also have noted, in your perusal,
that the CMI, predecessor to the OMI, was represented at
the Hague Convention (in fact, they even sat at the Big
Table, where all the powdered-wigged decision-makers
sit.). The USA may not have been a signatory, but it is
(semi-voluntarily) subject to all OMI A&Cs. |
|
| |
// Anyway, isn't there a more relevant idea that be
hijacked for this discussion? // |
|
| |
Yes. It's gone too far, and I apologize for my role in it.
Sometimes I can't stop myself from taunting people. |
|
| |
Another victim of poor impulse control. So sad. |
|
| |
I love this idea. It has nothing to do with real
piracy.. Harr! |
|
| |
As for your discussion about Somali pirates -
these are miserable but daring poor slobs in a
place where all fish has all but gone who eke
out a living at the expense of shipping
companies that are too cheap to pay for an
escort to provide security, which should be
quite easy. If this piracy thing ever become a
serious monetary loss, they will start to either
carry weapons (which may pose problems at the
ports) or just contract an escort boat. |
|
| |
And it makes total sense to me that the pirates
would get in this business - protection. |
|
| |
//It is entirely their own fault that they are so poor. They keep themselves in poverty with their misguided interpretation of 'freedom'.// |
|
| |
grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
I really shouldn't but...
fuck that and every horse it rode in on. |
|
| |
Try on another pair of shoes once in a while. See how you'd fit in them. Be born somewhere, other than where you were, and play it through in your head...
Then make that same statement. |
|
| |
There are gutter-rat kids raised in shitholes whose intelligence would kick the snot out of yours or mine and they don't get to make it to the age you now expound from. |
|
| |
I also wish everyone was happy, but as 2 fries said - 'shoes'. |
|
| |