An open letter to Daniel Jones, of GDS Publishing Ltd.
“The definitive resource for the global oil and gas energy industries online…”
Hello Mr. Jones,
I just read your well done article on ways to prevent a pirate attack. I liked the infographic, and the descriptions that accompanied it.
While all seem to be interesting ideas, consider this:
Given that a M2 .50 caliber machine gun and spotlight mounted on the bow and stern would provide a physical, actual, capable, and pointed defense against any small to medium pirate attack…
Given that these ships travel in international water, where it is not reasonable to expect any police protection…
Given that the security issues of maintaining such weapons are important, but any organized army will entrust this and more powerful weapons to a trained 18 year old solider…
Given that the captain of the ship already has the responsiblity for life and wellbeing of his crew, not causing tremendous environmental disasters, and not crashing his ship…
Given that the pirates intend to use real military weapons to cause death and mayhem…
Why is it that such a reasonable (even if politically unlikely) method of defense was not even mentioned in your article — as if it didn’t exist?
As if it didn’t exist, when in reality, it is perhaps the most secure and reasonable approach to deterring armed pirates. The same reason that army soldiers carry weapons. The same reason that police carry weapons. The same reason that security guards carry weapons. The same reason that many civilians carry weapons.
May I suggest, that if most rational people who would be asked why police carry weapons, were re-asked why oil tankers should carry weapons, the answer would be the same.
These are the same vessels that transport huge quantities of all kinds of goods, chemicals, military hardware, and other toxic, dangerous, or harmful substances. It would be pathetic to think of transporting large quantities of cash from bank to bank without armed guards. How much more so the cargo of merchant ships in the middle of the ocean?
In summary, why did you not mention this as a possibility in your otherwise excellent article?
Citizen, Father, Business Owner
Update: as soon as I posted this, these were the possibly related links that appeared. Interesting…
Because international treaties prohibit OR make it very difficult to carry military style weapons across international borders, dickhead.
@Wack… the international community seems very concerned about the issue of piracy (rightfully so). They happen to be the same ones in charge of whatever treaties or laws are in place.
Why aren’t the mainstream political bodies (with a vested interest in this issue) considering a realistic solution (with appropriate safeguards), and planning or proposing whatever changes are needed to make it possible?
Or aren’t they looking for real solutions?