Design brief for anti-whaling vessel?

People disabling a ship at sea should be shot,That crap falls into ream of pirates, you damage ships or endanger lives at sea,then bear the consequences.

 

I dislike whaling and think it is an unneeded waste, but if someone tried to do that to a ship I captained, would it be illegal for me to disable or shot them? They are endangering my ship and crew are they not. I would like a lawyer/barrister (for those on other side of pond) to answer that???

 

This has turned political with these nutcases nothing more, I would not be on the radio if being attacked by a bunch of leftists while at sea, a .50 round would be my answer.

 

"I would not be on the radio if being attacked by a bunch of leftists while at sea, a .50 round would be my answer."

Not very effective, an RPG launcher is cheap to purchase and service.

The rounds are good for poking holes in up to 13 inch mild steel.

Quite efficient at tank killing ,

3 or 4 rounds in most boats would put them under before a life boat could be launched , or an SOS sent.

Sob Sob for the TV crew,

FF

 

Darn Fred got some of those RPG for sale... They sound like just the ticket to go Lobstering.

 

Fred you are right that shaped charge is the best bang for the buck when dealing with these Criminals.

 

You asked for a lawyers opinion, so here goes...

The controlling law is found in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Which outlaws piracy for member nation flagged vessels. However it is a little murkey since part of the definition of piracy is the commision of violence for PRIVATE advantage (or gain). The key word here is Private, since the anti-whaling activites are an attempt to advance a political agenda. It is a little technical but basically so long as the actions of a suspected pirate are done with the intent of changing or influencing a governments political stance on an issue, NOT for the economic benefit of the person committing the act it MAY not be considered piracy. See United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea - Part VII, C.A. Robinson Gold Mining Co v. Alliance Marine Co Assurance Co.

The interesting thing to note here is that while these acts may not fall within the legal definition of Piracy they may rise to the international definition of Terrorism which is a different research project.



However the reality is that Piracy is a very very murkey area of international law that has never been really fleshed out by treaty or convention. Right now for instance Denmark is using a 300 year old law based on stealing someone elses fishing boat as its basis for arresting Somali pirates, and the US claims that any person who commits an act of violence on a boat falls within the universal jurisdiction of the USA for crimes committed on the high seas.

The problem however is that once these people are arrested they must be transported back to the home country, translators and defense attorneys privided for, witnesses brought to testify as well as all the records of the vessels in question, ect... And since the laws are so flimsy in many places the best you can hope for is a relatively minor charge sticking. Not to mention all of the post-conviction procedural safeguards required by the UN (which almost no country has in place). In short it is a very expensive proposition if it can be done at all, with minor consequences to the pirates even if they are convicted.





On the other hand, there are even fewer laws limiting the actions that a vessel may take in defense of itself, cargo, and crew if there is a threat of pirates... So it may be best to shoot first and clean up the mess later.

 

An attorney told me something when someone stole something from me. He said, There are courtroom law and street law. Go grab your stuff... I guess this falls into same category.

 

What about Ice Class?
whalers regularly hunt in icy conditions so some sort of strengthening will be required but how much would be acceptable till it compromises other aspects. How much strethening would be required to make the hull harpoon proof?

 

The Al. vessel I have shown could easily being build with a sufficient ice class. Not much is needed anyway.

Whaling does not happen in severe ice conditions. Whales do not go under closed ice surface, they need to breathe! My personal guess (I am not a whaler) would be, that about 60% ice cover is the the absolute maximum these whaling boats operate in. Hence a ice strengthened vessel is more than enough.

A 20% covering looks already like a nearly closed surface from half a mile distance, to give a example!

Regards
Richard

 

Can't board a ship, can't disable a ship. Only thing then an anti-whaling vessel can do is making it impossible for the factory ship to receive whales. First off then, a ship needs to be able to keep up with this ship (gotta love SSCS's Bob Barker - specially purchased to give the whalers what-for, but can't even keep up!). All they have to do then is to stay right on the factory ship's stern 'till they head back home.

 

Save some sea otters. Harvest an orca.

http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2010/10/15/1211191/report-killer-whales-preying-on.html

 

what would the range of such a vessel be? i am think about 5000 miles.

 

Insufficient.

7000 if one wants to have some "leeway" during a campaign.

 

Humm, guess there's some slightly used (but still ok) torpedoboats for sale here in Norway, nowadays.. Guess they'll do the desired job.


Heyh, wait... IM from Norway!....:idea:

(btw, don't buy the "grey" whale meat, it's supposed to be pretty close to dark red... Potatoes, onions...butter...aaaand just one tiny whale....).