Modern Pirates

Not sure where to post this.
Just read Richard Woods article on pirates. I have seen the Movie Captain Philips. One of my friends said that oil tankers and the like have since recruited dedicated professional anti-pirate crew members, which seems sensible. That doesn't help the majority of sailors. In fact it makes them given the choice an easier target. When I watched the movie my wife thought it a great shame when one youngster got shot, her reasoning was he had little alternative option to make a living. My view is there are too many do-gooders in this world.
I am for the old fashioned Q-ship approach.
1 Buy an Iron Kyle its 45 chined design good for 9kts. It is passagemaker based on a Tug AND THATS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. Fit twin 350hp engines and a 50 cal machine gun, strip what you don,t need and you get about 26kts.
2 Crew the boat with policemen Cruise around till pirates decide to come after you. When they do make off at 9kts. When you are sure they are up to no good break out the 50cal and give them some of their own medicine. Mik

 

I only know one mult-millionair, he has no interest in boats and I don't think he could afford one of the submarine designs described on this forum. I don't think they should be made available to rich boaters because they are a weapon of war, capable of serious drug/people smuggling and other bad stuff. But they sure would put the wind up some pirates. MAKE IT HARD FOR THEM AND THEY WILL GO AWAY. mik

 

I disagree and history would too. If you arm up, they'll just change tactics and likely preempt your efforts with a strategy change. It's also quite inappropriate for you to make yourself judge, jury and executioner. Everyone is entitled to due process, even the worst among us (the ones that need it the most). Your proposal suggests you've given up on a social level, which is self defeating.

You always have to "offer your hand", especially to the worst of the worst. It's the enlightened thing to do. They may not (usually don't) take your offer of help, but if you don't, you're not much better than they. Simply put, the one thing on earth we can never give up on, is people, no matter who and what they might currently be. People can and do change and it's the role of an enlightened society to make the offer, knowing darn right well, that some will still spend the remainder of their lives spitting at it anyway.

 

I disagree. There are some who live by the sword and the only way to modify their hostile behavior is to show the ability and the willingness to use greater force. We must keep the tactical and strategic advantage over thugs and brigands. Extend the velvet glove but keep the gauntlet handy.

 

If someone attacks you and threatens your life, I find it reasonable to exercise the right to defend yourself. The criminal made himself judge, jury and executioner. Victims should not be criticized for using any means available to stay alive.

 

In Melbourne aus the government use your approach with refugees and teen offenders. It has resulted in a crime wave at the moment . We have sudanese gangs breaking into homes beating people and taking their cars because they need the keys to steal late models. They are also car jacking as well. When they get caught the judges let them walk. I was against guns before but now i don't see what else can be done.

 

No one is suggesting you don't defend yourself, nor take precautions in potentially hostile areas, but preemptive behavior is illegal and inappropriate in most countries around the world.

Just because the bad guy made himself judge, jury and executioner, doesn't mean this gives the vitium the same rights. Defense is one thing, but acting like a pirate, to protect yourself from them esentally makes you a pirate too.

This is the difference between a society of law and the various versions of the wild, wild west seen throughout time. Charles Manson is still in prison and each day has an offer of help (of some sort) from those that house him. They know darn right well he's not going to take it, but the offer still stands as an open invitation. The other side of this coin is as he did, kill those that didn't buy into his social approuch to HIS little society. Plenty of examples of this mentality in history both previously and currently around the world and in the current presidential race too.

Simply put, charity and understanding is what defines humans and the moment we stray from these ideals, the society is greatly diminished in capacity and literally the freedoms it can provide are severely curtailed. After a conflict, you have two basic choices, force the submissives into line, which just fosters dissension or rebuild what they had, possibly with a more righteous twist. After WWII Europe and Japan were rebuilt, rehoused, fed, healed in new hospitals, driven to new schools, on new roads to be educated, hopefully with a more balanced social approach. The is the hard path, the longest method and certainly the most costly (in every regard), but it is the only successful method, unless a non-secular society is desired. FWIW, there has never been a successful non-secular society in the history of the world. Of course this depends on the definition of successful.

If you go by the statistics only, then the Nazi society in the 30's and early 40's was the most successful, going literally from 3 world to leading the first world status is a decade, in most every way a society is measured. Of course, this ignores the realities of the lose of every single personal freedom they previously enjoyed, genocide, barbarism and the other atrocities, this particular attempt at a non-secular society tried. In this approuch as a whole, the society failed miserably and quite quickly.

Again, a successful society requires charity and understanding as its basic root function, to continue without malcontents (seemingly) rising up and tossing out the present governing body. It's really easy to just get pissed and adopt inappropriate behaviour. It's much harder to forgive and help find a way to heal the wounds and look for solutions. So it's up to you. The lazy approuch or the one that's long and hard, but has the ultimate reward.

 

Long ago, when the world was still flat, I was a soldier in the 7th Cavalry. The Army taught me that a weapon makes most men equal. Now that I am old, arthritis has me believing that if I get in a fight I'm probably going to lose. My Concealed Hand Gun permit allows me to make the fight closer to even.

 

The Army or any army,has absolutely no reason to act in a civilized manner. In fact, left to it's own devices they wouldn't (proven repeatedly in history), which is why most are civilian controlled, because we know what happens when a militaristic social approuch is permitted to foster.

 

Great stuff from PAR, who is probably being cursed as a "liberal" by a few here. It is funny how that term is almost a perjorative in the USA, but virtually a compliment elsewhere.

 

I have both liberal and conservative values on a personal level, though being a history buff, I'd like to ask any conservative which amendments to the US constitution, are a result of conservative values, a conservative congress or conservative administration's desires? I'll give you the 18th, but in light of the 21st, maybe it's best if you didn't bother. Simply put, societies don't evolve with primarily conservative views and this is borne out in history.

In the current political make of the USA, liberals outnumber conservatives by a significant margin. Typically, these folks don't vote at the same percentage, per unit of populace as the conservatives, which is the only reason the conservatives seem to be hanging on, in spite of their recent trends toward nationalism, isolationism, exclusionism and blatant idiocy among the leaders. Simply put, the modern conservative movement in the US is running out of demographics to sustain itself. These were recognized after the last presidential cycle, but they've not addressed any of the concerns they noted as problems and are bleeding through several major arteries, as they hide their heads in the sand hoping for the best, from the worst possible candidate they could present.

These cycles occur regularly on both sides of the coin. The liberal side has found out what happens when they put someone up, that isn't close enough to the center to be viable, but have seemingly addressed this with wins in the last 5 of 6 popular votes for president. The simple fact is, in spite of the noise from the left and right, the extreme majority of the country are centrists and this is the way they vote. So, those overseas with some concerns just remember, the ranting is just posturing from the edges (where the voices are loudest), the country votes down the centerline and there's a lot more democrat leaning independents and democrats, than republicans and those leaning republican, particularly in light of the demographics, that have been intentionally kiss off by the conservative side.

 

Mmmm so Tom Payne or Hockey Moms?.....

Still, have to admire the 'Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' line in your Constitution.

 

That is in the Declaration of Independence, not in the Constitution. It was the justification to rebel against the British crown.

 

'Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' 0-1 Pirates.

The scoreline is forever thus when the ref is a pinko.