What about Navy's Stealth Destroyer - the Zumwalt

No matter what you did to mitigate and protect, I wouldn't want to be on a tanker targeted by Exocets. If all it took to stop them was water-filled compartments and fire suppression, that's what warships would be using for armor.... some navies did use water-filled torpedo belts of compartments below the water line before WWII, but eventually gave up on them as impractical.

 

The flushing of tanks by oil tankers before transiting the suez canal is what originally enraged the Somali fisherman.

 

Interesting...

 

Yes indeed......


“What is most alarming here is that nuclear waste is being dumped. Radioactive uranium waste that is potentially killing Somalis and completely destroying the ocean,” he said.
Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, the UN envoy for Somalia, says the practice helps fuel the eighteen-year-old civil war in Somalia, as companies pay Somali government ministers and/or militia leaders to dump their waste.
“There is no government control... and there are few people with high moral ground... yes, people in high positions are being paid off, but because of the fragility of the Transitional Federal Government, some of these companies now no longer ask the authorities - they simply dump their waste and leave.”
In 1992 the countries of the European Union and 168 other countries signed the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal.

The convention prohibits waste trade between countries that have signed, as well as countries that have not signed the accord, unless a bilateral agreement had been negotiated. It also prohibits the shipping of hazardous waste to a war zone.

Surprisingly, the United Nations has disregarded its own findings, and has ignored Somali and international appeals to act on the continued ravaging of the Somali marine resources and dumping of toxic wastes. Violations have also been largely ignored by the region’s maritime authorities.

This is the context from which the men we are calling “pirates” have emerged.

Everyone agrees they were ordinary Somali fishermen who, at first, took speedboats to try to dissuade the dumpers and trawlers, or at least wage a “tax” on them. They call themselves the Volunteer Coast Guard of Somalia.

One of the pirate leaders, Sugule Ali, explains that their motive is,
“to stop illegal fishing and dumping in our waters... We don’t consider ourselves sea bandits. We consider sea bandits [to be] those who illegally fish, and dump waste, and carry weapons in our seas.”
Author Johann Hari notes that, while none of this makes hostage-taking justifiable, the “pirates” have the overwhelming support of the local population for a reason.

The independent Somalia news site WardherNews conducted the best research we have on what ordinary Somalis are thinking.

It found that 70 percent,
“strongly support the piracy as a form of national defense of the country’s territorial waters.”
Instead of taking action to protect the people and waters of Somalia from international transgressions, the UN has responded to the situation by passing aggressive resolutions that entitle and encourage transgressors to wage war on the Somali pirates.

A chorus of calls for tougher international action has resulted in multi-national and unilateral Naval stampede to invade and take control of the Somali waters.


Somalia has no representation at the United Nations strong enough to demand amendments to protect its sovereignty, and Somali civil society objections to the Draft Resolutions - which makes no mention of illegal fishing or hazard waste dumping - were ignored.?

Hari asks,
“Do we expect starving Somalians to stand passively on their beaches, paddling in our nuclear waste, and watch us snatch their fish to eat in restaurants in London and Paris and Rome?

We didn’t act on those crimes - but when some of the fishermen responded by disrupting the transit-corridor for 20 percent of the world’s oil supply, we begin to shriek about 'evil.'

If we really want to deal with piracy, we need to stop its root cause - our crimes - before we send in the gun-boats to root out Somalia’s criminals.”

 

>If we really want to deal with piracy, we need to stop its root cause - our crimes .<

I guess our crimes were responsible for T Jefferson forming the US Navy and Marine Corps to stop piracy.

At that time over 20% of the Unions budget went to pay tribute and rescue folks.

 

how about the government sold the fishing rights to some and then others realised just take them as they dont have a navy to protect them...that would be a good way to start piracy actually aimed at those stealing from you...but once you have the infrastructure well..we know what happened next

PS Americans behaving badly, last time I checked the operator of the oil field in Thailand still use petroleum based mud for drilling, guess where that washes up but the gov is making money only the voters are complaining so whats the problem

 

I rather be one of about 100 crew scattered about and mostly behind 3 or 4 hull bulkheads and about 40ft of water (IIRC modern tankers with 5ft double hulls can also flood/pump the 5ft gap), than one of 300 crew on a 'tin can' where any missile hit is bound to 'draw blood'.

On land, it is very much SOP to SPREAD OUT to the limits of easy communication on infantry patrol, so even attack with large rounds will mostly just alert the patrol to presence of enemy.

The idea would be to have something that could 'soak up' lots of missile or other strikes and put that in 'harms way' fairly close to enemy, rather than juicy top of the line actual navy ships that are almost as easy to hit for guided missiles.

Sorta like how you want to build not just a tench or bunker for the troops or tanks you got, you wanna build until the enemy has to think about all the ammo he needs to waste hitting all your empties.

Part of the reason torpedo belts don't work 100% is the rest of the warship was pretty dense and without floatation, because it needed to be fast and back in those days smaller size meant it was harder to hit with navel gun fire from 10 miles away.

A militarized supertanker would be more akin to a "Q-ship"-designed to take hits and generally drawn enemy out.

But also to cheaply generally support carrier and other operations:

Dedicated damage aircraft landing deck, forward search and rescue launch platform, etc.


Oh, and I'd 'sell' it as also being able to help with its own spill response or even 'humanitarian relief'. I'd want to be able to land a C-130, which was done once on a super carrier, but should be a lot easier without a superstructure and somewhat longer and wider deck.

 

That was an entirely different situation. The Algerian pirates at the time had been making a living out of raiding the entire Med for centuries, and deserved to get their butts kicked.

The Somalian fishermen were just being Somalian fishermen, until other countries made it almost impossible for them to make a living.

 

The issue with massive ,powerful , military toys is that when a problem arises .....you no longer think about what caused the problem, you no longer think about ways to solve the problem....you simply grab the keys to your battleship, fire her up , then steam over and blow the problem up....

 

worked on the Japs once the US got close enough
ok had to do it twice..maybe they were slow learners or the bomb wasn't big enough

 

I think we may have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't see much benefit in deliberately building sittting ducks.... it would take more screening vessels, manpower and armament to keep them afloat than they'd be worth, IMHO.

 

All this oil movement may become MOOT.

The Russians for 50+ years have believed oil comes from natural formation , not dead dinasaurs .

By drilling really deep wells , 2 -3 miles they have found loads of oil in non oil field locations. Any country can hire a drill crew.

Fracking turns loose massive amounts of oil and natural gas at very low cost.

Natural Gas was $12-$14 , is now about $3.50 , and should continue to drop as more wells come on line.

Finally there is the dream of Fusion , that has been funded for decades , and the money pits still claim , were getting closer , send more cash.

AS all of this is ongoing , eventually world wide large oil movements will be not needed.

Of course Pirates will simply switch to the new 18,000 TEU cargo ships to vent some hate if infidels ,and to get rich at other folks expense,

>The Algerian pirates at the time had been making a living out of raiding the entire Med for centuries,<

the more things change the more they stay the same.

Scientists Prove Abiotic Oil Is Real! - ViewZone
www.viewzone.com/abioticoilx.html‎
Viewzone Magazine offers a look at life and humanity from different angles. Fossils From Animals And Plants Are Not Necessary For Crude Oil And Natural Gas.
The 'Abiotic Oil' Controversy - Rense
www.rense.com/general58/biot.htm‎
Sep 21, 2004 - The debate over oil's origin has been going on since the 19th century. From the start, there were those who contended that oil is primordial ...

 

You are wrong. The price of fracking gas will skyrocket. At present all the low hanging apples are being harvested. New sources of frack gas are very expensive to harvest.

This relationship holds true for all petroleum reserves. The ultra deep wells off Brazil will produce ultra expensive oil.

If you dont believe me ask Goldman Sacks

 

Reality check: oil wells are drilled where the oil is. If all that abiotic oil really existed, the Russians would be drilling for it. They aren't; they're drilling in the Arctic oil fields.

 

It does come from natural formation. Dead dinosaurs are natural too. Making oil just requires a good source of biotic material to start with, and takes time and heat and pressure.