WHY DON'T THEY JUST HEAVLY ARM THESE SHIPS WITH MILITARY HELP? SEEMS like the thing to do when you can't patro?

Huh?

Arming merchant vessels using military would mean they couldn't legally enter most ports around the globe and since their purpose is to trade in those ports it would be counter productive.

There are steps the ship owners could take to make things better, like adding private security and making the ships harder to board, one way is to wrap the ship in barbed wire, something an Israeli ship did.

NoObama

Because the US military was not established to protect financial interests of ships who willingly enter into international waters for their trade. The US military is for National Security, not security of privately owned corporations. They willing transport and travel, then they can willingly pay for their own protection/security. The Navy/Marines will never supply sailors/marines for protection of private owned ocean vessels.

Edit: My bad sailor, part of my answer is wrong.

zaorox99

technically, our military can't, but it's just about the only thing Blackwater and Haliburton should be allowed to do. That's where I see them going after the war in Iraq is over. It's a win win. the "defense firms" otherwise known as war criminals get their scummy asses out of iraq and afghanistan, and then protect our seamen and our trade.

panurge2

Yeah, that's any country wants, heavily armed ships in their harbors. What if two ships begin shooting at each other over political differences, and start a war?

CG-23 Sailor

International law prohibits the arming of civilian vessels.

UPDATE:
Sorry Nobama but you are wrong.
Part of the US Navy's commitments are to protect the SLOC (Sea Lanes of Communications)
AKA Trade Routes.

We protect our own, not the worlds ships though, Even so we are able to go to the aid if requested to other ships as well.

You also forget that during WW2 and at other times as well We had the "Armed Guard" abourd Civilian vessels. The Armed Guard were Naval and Coast Guard Personnel who were there for the purpose of manning the guns placed aboard during the war.

It is more a matter of feasasbility and practicality that we do not escort all ships. not that we wont.

BIG ocean. Lots of ships. very few Naval ships.

We cant be everywhere at once.

MVR

There are hundreds of ships that pass through the Gulf of Aden every day, and even more that move through the Indian Ocean (where Maersk Alabama was). We don't have the military numbers (even with coalition forces) to support ship escorts (not to mention actually placing military members on each ship). Good idea, but we can't feasibly support it.

mel n

From a military individuals perspective we have enough things on our plate. Let alone protecting all the ships traveling in the Horn of Africa area. Do you understand how much manpower that would take? Besides countries like France haven't even rescued their crew that has been held for ransom for quite some time.

Ray

Cause it's expensive to arm, train, pay, and insure a couter boarding party squad on each of many many many many civilian ships out there.

Just speculating.

mdifferent

Oh no you cant arm the ships!!!!! That would be politically incorrect. lol

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: