Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (108536)	4/13/2009 9:47:14 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 541604

The mission of the Navy is to maintain, train and equip combat-ready Naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression and maintaining freedom of the seas. —Mission statement of the United States Navy[6] From the New Recruits Handbook: The mission of the United States Navy is to protect and defend the right of the United States and our allies to move freely on the oceans and to protect our country against her enemies. The United States Navy serves as a seaborne branch of the Military of the United States. 10 U.S.C. § 5062 prescribes the navy's three primary areas of responsibility: "The preparation of naval forces necessary for the effective prosecution of war" "The maintenance of naval aviation, including land-based naval aviation, air transport essential for naval operations and all air weapons and air techniques involved in the operations and activities of the Navy" "The development aircraft, weapons, tactics, technique, organization, and equipment of naval combat and service elements". U.S. Navy training manuals state the mission of the U.S armed forces is "to prepare and conduct prompt and sustained combat operations in support of the national interest". As part of that establishment, the U.S. Navy's functions comprise sea control, power projection and nuclear deterrence, in addition to "sealift" duties.[7] en.wikipedia.org

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (108536)	4/13/2009 11:04:08 AM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541604

>>we have no choice but to respond<< The Barbary Pirates were not highwayman or petty sea pirate but the servants of a king who was holding Americans and their goods hostage as a matter of practice. Not to put too fine a point on it but that is not even close to the situation we have here. American sailing vessels have long been warned to avoid certain international waters and for YEARS it has been known that the person who sails in certain waters of the Caribbean or southeast Asia was likely to end up dead with their boat gone. We didn't mount a naval response to this situation... or lead convoys because it was "only" Bob and his wife, and not a company. This is almost exclusively financial at this point - Ships in today's world aren't even making a good first effort to repel attacks for insurance reasons. The insurance companies have said "just pay 'em" - in effect setting the bar for ransom. If there ever was a role for international cooperation, it is securing the sea lanes. This is not one of the go it alone cases. The first and second Barbary Wars were a result of a power vacuum in the Mediterranean and when that problem was fixed so was the piracy. These are not well-armed and well-equipped pirates operating at the behest of a government - the merchant vessels are eschewing armed defense for insurance reasons. You'd be hard pressed to find a commercial ship in the 19th century that wasn't taking arms against petty pirates. Most had a small 3" deck gun so that any band of cutthroats who had a boat would be faced with a pretty good sized gun on a swivel and riflemen on the the deck as well. That was why every ship has a Master at Arms. OBTW, the US and many governments of Europe used Privateers which were little more than state-sponsored pirates, though technically not because of the Letters of Marque. If and when that is the situation, then the military is the appropriate response.