You're kidding me?
-
davidmt62 — 11 years ago(September 30, 2014 11:46 AM)
Some Merchant Ships do carry firearms, and some do employ armed guards (february 2014 the guards on the Maersk Alabama died from heroin use) but at the time of the highjacking the Alabama did not have guards.
The crew size of the Alabama was and is the same as any other box boat, around 21-25 people. -
scarlettbees-892-755764 — 11 years ago(October 01, 2014 06:41 AM)
I'm with the OP, as well. I hated this movie just on general principle. A cargo ship of that magnitude treading through dangerous waters SHOULD have well-trained, armed individuals on board ready to pick off any approaching threats. Yeah, I really think it's that simple. And the fact that it IS a true story makes me hate it even more, that we allowed these savage ass clowns to climb aboard our ship and spend several days and nights and millions and millions of tax dollars for a rescue mission that could have been resolved with 4 bullets to the head in five minutes.
THEY ONLY GOT ON BOARD BECAUSE THEY HAD GUNS AND WE DIDN'T! What does that tell you??? What stops a bad guy with a gun? A good guy with a gun! Sorry to burst your peace bubble!
It made me cringe that these scrawny-ass terrorists were able to get as far as they did. And the more the movie progressed, I just kept thinking, what a waste of money, men and resources over a situation that could have been solved so easily and quickly.
This movie is not inspiring. It's a sad commentary on a country that's gone soft. -
mwmtampa — 12 years ago(March 19, 2014 07:04 PM)
Totally agree with the OP.
Absolutely absurd that these 4 feeble pirates standing in the skiff like sitting ducks couldnt be picked off easily with guns and rifles. Did the ship not have any weapons??? How lame is that?
Utterly preposterous premise. -
streetlight2 — 11 years ago(May 18, 2014 08:19 PM)
Apparently it is illegal by international law for commercial shipping vessels to have guns on board. Indeed, guns might be more dangerous should one or more of the crew be a pirate(s) and take advantage of the guns while the ship is being boarded or used for some other nefarious purpose.
-
bubblenator — 11 years ago(May 19, 2014 07:54 PM)
Apparently it is illegal by international law for commercial shipping vessels to have guns on board.
No it's NOT illegal to carry firearms on container ships however some countries and their ports will not allow them entry. For example:
Ships sailing under a British flag will be able to carry armed guards to protect them from pirates, the prime minister has announced.
David Cameron says he wants to combat the risks to shipping off the coast of Somalia, where 49 of the world's 53 hijackings last year took place. Under the plans, the home secretary would be given the power to license armed guards for ships. No ship carrying armed security has yet been hijacked, the government claims.
Up to 200 vessels flying the red ensign - the British merchant navy flag - regularly sail close to Somalia. Officials estimate that about 100 of those would immediately apply for permission to have armed guards. Under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea every ship is subject to the jurisdiction of the country whose flag it carries.
It is thought many British-registered ships already carry armed guards because they feel they have no alternative. However, licensing ships to carry armed guards could still fall foul of laws in other countries.
Egypt recently announced that armed guards would not be permitted on ships sailing through the Suez canal
.
BELOW IS A LIST OF REASONS WHY HAVING ARMED SECURITY ABOARD YOUR SHIP ISN'T ALWAYS A FOOLPROOF AND SAFE WAY OF TRAVEL
Yes a few Privately Contracted Armed Security Personnel on board these large vessels can ward off potential pirates however like the points below it is not a complete solution to the problem and you started off this thread asking why the
crew members
didn't arm themselves. However the points below again point out why it's not a good idea- Now lets look at different weapons systems we might arm the PCASPs with on board your ship? Do you know how hard it is to hit a pirate in a skiff bouncing up in the surf going traveling a high speeds? You've basically got to lay down suppressive fire at them rather than taking controlled single shots with sniper rifles. See quotes and article at the end
- NOW more importantly what are the Rules of Engagement, are you allowed to just start spraying lead at ANY Somali skiff that comes within 300 metres or can you only engage after taking fire? I've got to brush up on my Maritime Law however
Military teams can per-emptively strike pirates on skiffs
and target mother ships that carry teams of pirates! - The IMO warns companies not to allow crews to bring firearms aboard or hire armed security, cautioning that doing so
could escalate the situation by encouraging pirates to use more dangerous weapons and become more aggressive
. Especially when most of the time they are f.cked up on the plant drug Khat. - Contacts (shots fired) most likely occurs in International Waters thus:
Shooting approaching pirates could land crew members in trouble with foreign governments and lead to liabilities for their employers
. What legal consequences would have arming the cargo ships in torpedoes and machine guns and sinking approaching pirate boats?
Specific consequences depend on specifics, such as:
Where the incident occurred.
Whether it occurred wholly or in part in international or national waters; or multiple potentially overlapping national waters.
The flag-state of ship.
The nationality of the company owning the ship.
The nationality of each crew member, especially the captain.
The port that the ship is currently docked at during trial.
The country the trial actually occurs in.
The state of belligerency between any of the nations or nationalities listed above.
The nature of business that the merchant ship was undertaking. Whether the merchant ship itself was hostis humani generis.
http://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/2291/what-actions-are-lega l-against-pirates-for-private-ships - I gave you one example of a country's rules when it comes to Privately Contracted Armed Security Personnel (PCASP) on board ships. What do you do if your tanker vessel is going to numerous ports with each country having different laws on having mercenaries and weapons on board and one says they are Persona non grata, what do you do then? See quotes and article at the end
- If you were a crew member on a oil or natural gas tanker ship would you really like your PCASPs firing on pirates who are firing back with AK-47s and Rocket Propelled Grenades? BOOM!
Piracy fears over ships laden with weapons in international waters
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/10/pirate-weapons-floating-a rmouries
Private security companies guarding ships against Somali pirates are increasingly storing their weapons on so-called "floating armouries" in international waters, to avoid arms smuggling laws when they dock in ports. The legal status of these armouries is unclear, and industry experts are concerned that the absence of regulation leaves the armouries
-
Ironman54 — 9 years ago(September 23, 2016 07:12 PM)
"Apparently it is illegal by international law for commercial shipping vessels to have guns on board."
As the old sayin' goes:
Better to be judged by 12 (or, in this case, whoever handles maritime law) than buried by 6.
As a Capt., I'd be damned if if I would head out to sea, pirates or not, without some kind
of firearm and a few pair of cuffs, the law be damned. -
Princess_Ashmi — 12 years ago(March 22, 2014 12:45 PM)
Goddamn you're stupid. Did you not watch the movie?
They had no weapons on board.
They DID try to shoot the flares at the boats but were shot at so that ruined their aim.
And if you can hold up an entire bank full of people with one gun, its not hard to believe that four guns were able to momentarily take over an entire ship!
Tired of people like you thinking you could probably have done a better job when in reality we all know you'd probably crap your pants and start crying like a baby if you ever found yourself in the same situation.
Don't try to deny it.
Ashmi
any
question -
CGSailor — 12 years ago(March 27, 2014 12:28 AM)
THIS ^^^^^^^^
I am so sick and tired of armchair wannabes thinking they know better, when their whole experience comes from some Call of Duty video game.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water! -
purpleprinc3 — 12 years ago(March 27, 2014 05:18 AM)
To be fair they were firing at him with AK47's from a range of 200-400 metres which is a very good range for that weapon. The crew don't carry guns because that would require extra security and gun training for each individual crew member and I'm pretty sure commercial ship liners won't find it particularly profitable to train every member of their staff with guns.
-
untoldwind — 12 years ago(March 28, 2014 07:07 AM)
This is quite ridiculous: This movie is based on a real life event!
In 2009 the Maersk Alabama was boarded by four Somali pirates. You can read it all here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Maersk_Alabama
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maersk_Alabama_hijacking
or
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/09/world/fg-somali-pirates9
or
Don't get me wrong here. I'm not claiming that everything happened just like in the movie, most likely not.
But: Four guys with guns were obviously able to board a cargo ship. That's a fact. -
SeeEmilyPlay — 12 years ago(March 29, 2014 08:07 PM)
Sometimes the crew of cargo ships are not allowed to have guns. Some international ports won't let you in if you are an armed ship. Sometimes it's against the law. I agree, it was aggravating to watch. When you're not allowed to protect yourself, jacka**es who don't care about right from wrong can terrorize and even kill you.
-
monique79-1 — 11 years ago(April 13, 2014 05:10 PM)
Did the original poster forget the fact that no one aboard the ship was armed?! Commercial ships may not be allowed to carry any weapons, depends on international laws as well as the company that owns the ships.How could 4 scrawny Somalis take over a whole ship? BECAUSE THEY HAD WEAPONS and the ships crew didn'tObviously the poster did not watch the movie and is clueless that this actually happened.
-
Rubixcube10 — 11 years ago(April 15, 2014 07:09 AM)
I was shaking my head when they were about to board this big ship. Yes, it happened in real life. But what the heck were the people on the ship thinking. 4 people had to climb a ladder just to get onto the ship. That means, they had to use at least one hand to climb up, not to mention it was s little difficult to climb with the wind and waves. You couldn't get 4-5 people at the top of the ladder and just hit them with a board when they reach the top? Or throw heavy objects (fire extingusher) down the ladder. I'm just amazed that 4 people were able to board the ship. What about shooting the flare down the ladder onto their boat, why try taking a long shot?
I know this is based off a true story but I'm just amazed that the 100 people on the ship couldn't stop the 4 people from boarding. Yes, they all were able to escape the situation and not be harmed with they way they did it. Procedural, I guess. -
Doodlebuger — 11 years ago(May 02, 2014 02:36 AM)
The crew never had a chance to get anywhere close to the ladder, and the pirates are not all on the ladder at the same time and can always shoot. Anyway, it happened and merchant ships are not gunships.
Business tries to avoid anything military looking until they are forced (reluctantly) to use armed protection. This goes for merchant ships in dangerous waters, oil rigs in Nigeria, etc.
And btw, these SOmali pirates are fierce fighters, not technologically challenged at all ! Certainly quite proficient with their Kalachnikovs. -
mwmtampa — 11 years ago(August 30, 2014 08:10 PM)
I will repeat my comments also despite all the protests to the contrary. They mentioned at the beginning of the movie that there were acts of piracy that had taken place already. For them to head into these waters knowing that, and not being armed and prepared, is really lame, foolish, and preposterous.
I also agree with the posters who stated they could have prevented the pirates from boarding the ship by dislodging their hooks, or conking them as they tried to board. Why did the crew just accept their boarding attempt? And not repel them? Quite preposterous.