Pirate Attack off Yemen
Jim Dunnigan had this link in the April 26 StrategyPage email newsletter (a subscription service). Yes, pirates still prowl, and the story details a pirate attack on two yachts off Yemen.
In Late 2002 I was in Singapore and received a short briefing in on counter-piracy operations. (That trip led to a Weekly Standard article entitled “Dire Straits.”) The Singaporean police officer who briefed us stressed the need for international cooperation by police and naval forces– not too earth-shaking a statement, but then he started discussing some of his concerns with port security. In southeast Asia the interests of pirates and political terrorists can and do intersect. It’s another example of organized crime and political terror “intersecting” in what an earlier post on this page called the Venn Diagram of Violence (insurgencies and gang war).
US and US-ally naval officers have told me the big fear in southeast Asia is terrorists hijacking an oil tanker. The terrorists blow up the tanker and create an ecological disaster. Of course this attack could be executed anywhere. Straits (choke points) channel sea traffic. Pirates in small, fast boats can launch a quick attack from the coast. A terror attack will always generate huge headlines, but the headlines will be bigger if international shipping is stalled because a key strait is closed. ( Recall that a French tanker was attacked in a channel off Yemen’s coast, though I think it had already cleared the strait leading to the Red Sea.) The other fear police, coast guardsmen, and security planners share: a nuclear or chemical bomb hidden in a shipping container. I’ve a quote below from a website discussing pirate attacks. It mentions the Sulu Sea in the Philippines as a pirate “hot spot.” The Sulu Sea cropped up in a discussion I had with a US Navy officer in 2001– along with “eastern Borneo” and the Thai coast. Abu Sayyaf (the “Filipino” Islamist terror organization) operates in the southern Phillippines and scoots from island to island in small power boats– operating like local pirates.
Rodney J. Nowlin, USN Retired, penned the story. It’s dated March 11, 2005. The attack took place March 8, 2005. The yachts were southwest of the port of Yemen (30 miles off the coast of Yemen at 13?28′ North 48?07′ East on 8 March 5pm local).
Here’s a sample:
At about 0900 two outboard powered boats, about 25 feet long with 3 men in each one, passed off our stern moving south at about 25 knots. An hour or two later they returned, one coming quite close and looking us over carefully. The second boat passed our bows but quite a ways away. These boats were obviously not engaged in a normal activity such as fishing, etc. At that time we were south of Al Mukalla, Yemen. The area around Al Mukalla is well documented as being a piracy problem area and we started watching carefully for anything out of the ordinary. At about 1600 we observed two different boats approaching us head on from the SW. These boats were 25-30 feet long, had higher freeboard and diesel powered. They were coming very fast directly at us. There were 4 men in each boat. The boats separated at about 200 yards, one boat ahead of the other, coming down Mahdi?s port side and firing into the cockpit. The other boat was firing an automatic weapon at both Gandalf and Mahdi from ahead, more at Gandalf. These guys were shooting directly at the cockpits, and obviously intended to kill us. The first boat swung around behind Mahdi?s stern to come up and board us. At that point I, Rod Nowlin aboard Mahdi and armed with a 12 gage shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot, started shooting into their boat. I forced them to keep their heads down so that they could not shoot at us. I am not sure I hit anyone at that point although I could see the driver of the boat crouched down behind a steering console. After firing 3 shots at them their engine started to smoke and I swung around to shoot at the boat ahead. At that point, I saw Jay Barry on Gandalf ram that boat amidships almost cutting it in two and turning it almost completely over. I turned back around to shoot again at the boat behind Mahdi and that is when they turned away from Mahdi and were heading toward the stern of Gandalf. Gandalf was beside us, about 100 feet away. The bow of the pirate?s boat came right up against Gandalf?s stern and two men stood up on the bow to board Gandalf. That was a serious and probably fateful error on their part. I shot both of them. That boat then veered away and I shot the driver, although I am not sure of the outcome because they were farther away and I did not knock him down like the other two.
Mahdi and Gandalf kept going at full speed to put as much distance between the pirates and us as possible. As soon as we were out of rifle range we looked back and both boats were drifting and appeared to be disabled.
If Jay on Gandalf had not had the presence of mind to veer over into one boat and ram it, the outcome of this attack would have been totally different. All they needed to do was stand off a ways and shoot us to pieces with automatic weapons. We were extremely lucky…
This link leads to other reports on pirate attacks.
Here’s one of the warnings:
Hot spots for reported piracy attacks on any kind of shipping are well known, and undoubtedly the main reason why there have been so few victims amongst cruising sailors is that they have heeded the warnings and avoided such areas as the Sulu Sea and other troubled areas in both the Philippines and Indonesia, the coast of Somalia or the vicinity of Socotra Island.
UPDATE: I first heard the “tanker hijack” concern mentioned in the late 1980s. In October 2001 a Navy officer serving at CENTCOM (I was on a reserve tour there) specifically mentioned USN concerns about a terrorist attack launched against US warships in the Strait of Malacca (Malaysia-Singapore-Indonesia), and concern that a hijacked/attacked oil tanker in that area could produce an ecological disaster. One of the commenters describes in detail the tactical challenge of boarding a VLCC. The “inside job” is a logical way to hijack a tanker. Another commenter mentions a suicide attack of some sort. It strikes me that arming a VLCC with a fifty caliber machine gun and a couple of light machine guns makes a great deal of sense. Arming US-flagged freighters (what few remain) also makes sense –at least it does to this American. As one commenter suggests it might even lower maritime insurance rates for US-flagged vessels.
Does Maritime Law require that merchant ships not carry weapons? Because it seems like a few .50 caliber machine guns or other medium-size weapons would go a long way to preventing the kind of piracy we’re talking about. (Referring to Oil Tankers, not the kind of private yacht described in the story.)
Comment by Eric J — 4/26/2005 @ 9:56 am
Eric, I don’t think Maritime Law requires no weapons, but national and local laws (at the ports) can be quite restrictive. I’m pretty sure an oil tanker could not bring a few .50 caliber machine guns into American waters, for example. I’m also pretty sure these sorts of choke points are all governed by national laws rather than Maritime law. Perhaps the equivalent of a security guard escort would be useful in these cases, although it would add cost. Yours, Wince
Comment by Wince and Nod — 4/26/2005 @ 2:14 pm
The piracy problem is really just a variant of the “failed state” problem. Countries like Indonesia in principle control vast important sea lanes that nominally lay within their territorial waters but in actuality they cannot police them. The waters are neither under the practical control of a nation-state nor do they fall under legal protections of international waters. This leaves them to the outlaws. The only practical solution is to require nation-states to either effectively police their own territorial waters or to grant outside entities the right to do so. If history is any guide, it will take a major incident to get any practical movement on the issue.
Comment by Shannon Love — 4/26/2005 @ 2:37 pm
You can find a good overview of the difficulties inherent in fighting piracy at sea, and the regulatory loopholes that exist around flagging vessels and tracking private freighters etc. in the post-9-11 world in William Langewiesche recent book The Outlaw Sea : A World of Freedom, Chaos, and Crime. You can (as always) find it at Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0865475814/qid=1114543509/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-6633139-4248740 Thanks, Dean http://www.booklinker.blogspot.com
Comment by Dean — 4/26/2005 @ 2:38 pm
Actually if they had their required federal firearms license and tax stamp there is no reason they could not have a .50 cal machine gun, I know people who have owned them. The problem isnt having the weapons in American waters but other countries with far more restrictve gun laws. On the other hand, the big oil tankers are owned by companies like Exxon and they can probably get exceptions from whatever countries want their buisness.
Comment by JNorthrup — 4/26/2005 @ 2:42 pm
Some form of armed merchantman certificate should be do-able for suitably flagged vessels. Being US flagged with a crew trained and equipped for self-defense might be attractive to maritime insurers. Heck, why not USCG gun crews on suitably valuable vessels? It’s not like it’s never been done before.
Comment by JSAllison — 4/26/2005 @ 2:45 pm
My brother was a sailor on an oiltanker and a couple of other merchies and some of them did have small arms lockers, the M-14 seemed to be the prefered weapon and they even sank an abandoned yacht with about 50 rnds from several guns after searching it at the request of the DEA. Now these were american flagged vessels and the sailors were all union, and had a weapons qual on their licenses.
Comment by Puff — 4/26/2005 @ 2:46 pm
I suspect this is part of the Law of the Sea treaty that everybody is up in arms about. The sea lanes need policing, and this is one way to do it, although yes it presents the danger of a New World Order, and Big Brother on the high seas, but pick your poison I guess.
Comment by whack — 4/26/2005 @ 2:56 pm
Arrrrrrrr. Ye won’t be stopping us, mateys!
Comment by Pirate Bob — 4/26/2005 @ 3:44 pm
Speaking for the Fujitsu Ninja Clan, we would be happy to eliminate your pirate problem for a most agreeable fee. It is well known that no pirate can stand before our Real Ultimate Power (TM).
Comment by Ninja Master X — 4/26/2005 @ 3:46 pm
The premise of terrorists taking over a tanker is central to the great Donald Hamilton’s novel, the Mona Intercept. In that case they use a fifth column. Hamilton knew his business long before most of us knew there was such a thing as business.
Comment by Simon Kenton — 4/26/2005 @ 4:01 pm
When I was involved in my MA program, there were a few naval officers who had served in the First Gulf War, this was back in 1993-1994. And they would tell stories about a group they called the “Nescafe Pirates” that operated in the Persian Gulf shaking down oil tankers. I don’t know how true these stories are, and I am sure some long serving Naval vets could either discredit or confirm, but these officers seemed to have devised several methods of keeping the small boat operating Nescafe Pirates away from oil tankers.
Comment by James T. — 4/26/2005 @ 4:07 pm
One of the problems with piracy at sea of say.. an oil tanker, is it’s size. It would be possible to blow it up a la USS Cole perhaps, but boarding it is going to be virtually impossible. The hull on them is around 60 feet high, and solid steel with no suitable grips. How are you going to board something like that, from a small ship, in pitching and crashing weather, while going 20 knots? It is virtually impossible. A suicide attack like the USS Cole is much more forseeable on a major LCC or VLCC type ship. Smaller ships will have problems because they can be boarded, but then again, this makes the seizure of one a smaller problem. As far as I know as well, arming ships, particularily with something like a M2 .50 Cal, is illegal in almost every nation, although obviously the pirates don’t care. Another case of gun control gone awry.
Comment by TZ — 4/26/2005 @ 4:23 pm
“One of the problems with piracy at sea of say.. an oil tanker, is it’s size. It would be possible to blow it up a la USS Cole perhaps, but boarding it is going to be virtually impossible.” My comment is subject to correction by someone with actual personal knowledge, but I’ve read that with VLCC’s/ULCC’s, when they’re fully loaded, they supposedly sit so low in the water that boarding becomes possible. In the book “Dangerous Waters” by John Burnett (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0452284139/qid=1114553203/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-9635977-9949602?v=glance&s=books) a VLCC/ULCC gets so low in when loaded up that a person can just use a plain old stepladder to climb up to the poop deck, although the pirates he’s written about tend to use either rope or rope-ladders. Again, that’s subject to correction by someone who knows more than I do, but that’s what I’ve read. If that’s true, it’s sorta scary to think that boarding a ship like that is that easy. Regarding the .50cal comments above: In that same book, the author noted that many ships took the preventive measure of running their fire hoses at full blast down the sides of the ship. That sounds like a possible alternate solution, if carrying firearms is not possible or allowed. I don’t know how effective that would be, but I imagine it can be pretty darn effective. You’d guess that a full blast from a firehose would wash someone off his boat before he boards the VL/ULCC. And it’s not like they could run out of water, you know.
Comment by AJ — 4/26/2005 @ 5:21 pm
Where is your imagination? Heck, before 911 who among us thought twice about flying Microsoft Flight Simulator into a Chicago tower? Big tanker? Capture a few small ships loaded with AN, and sail to intercept. It is not out of the question for bad guys to use helicopters either.
Comment by ChrisPer — 4/26/2005 @ 7:58 pm
Problem with the .50 cal is this. How do you keep someone from infiltrating the crew, taking over the tanker ship then using the .50 cal & captured weaponry (possibly supplemented by other captured weaponry, stockpiled over time) from providing covering fire sufficient to to deter local police/coast guard while they drive the tanker into a major port and detonate. No need to go all Rambo.
Comment by McAristotle — 4/26/2005 @ 9:21 pm
Given that most of the wrold’s tankers are not often crewed by Annapolis graduates, the easiest and simpliest methodology would be to either infiltrate the crew by getting hired or bribe crew members to cut engines and drop ropes. The biggest single thing keeping tanker relatively safe is that the vast majority of sea-bourne piracy (as I understand it) is generally opportunistic, localized, and hit and run - board the ship, steal the cash and valuables and depart. It is not aimed at hijacking the vessel although that has been known to happen with smaller freighters that can be easily reflagged with false registrations. It is harder to disguise a massive oil tanker…and harder still to dispose of its cargo at an opportune port. If your objective is terrorism, then that’s a different kettle of fish… My understanding is that the natrual gas carriers are a major concern, rather then the oil tankers, due to their explosive potential.
Comment by Dean — 4/26/2005 @ 10:19 pm
Where is your imagination? Heck, before 911 who among us thought twice about flying Microsoft Flight Simulator into a Chicago tower? Yup. Back when I was a kid, I used to buzz a learjet between the WTC towers, only occasionally having an ‘oops’. The other fun place to ‘thread the needle’ was downtown SF… Hm. How flat is the top deck of a VLCC? It might be big enough for a cessna if you were kinda nuts and didn’t care if you took off again. Helos would work better, tho.
Comment by rosignol — 4/26/2005 @ 10:48 pm
The sides of any steel-hulled ship present roughly the same challenge to boarders. VLCC’s and ULCC’s are nothing special in this respect. Given that the crew complement on these large vessels is usually only 25 or so, however, it might actually be easier to board with grappling hooks, etc, owing to the much lower likelihood of being heard by any of the crew while doing so.
Comment by Dick Eagleson — 4/27/2005 @ 10:51 am
Foreign Affairs: Terrorism Goes to Sea Summary: The number of pirate attacks worldwide has tripled in the past decade, and new evidence suggests that piracy is becoming a key tactic of terrorist groups. In light of al Qaeda’s professed aim of targeting weak links in the global economy, this new nexus is a serious threat: most of the world’s oil and gas is shipped through pirate-infested waters.
Comment by Benjamin — 4/27/2005 @ 11:29 am
Another good one: Maritime terrorism: a new challenge for NATO
Comment by Benjamin — 4/27/2005 @ 11:32 am
While conceding that armed deterrence may be somewhat ineffectual against armed terrorists pursuing martyrdom through suicide attacks on VLCC or the like, it strikes me that in a post 9/11 world, it might be possible to secure the relaxation of U. S. maritime labor laws that have, without terrorism, almost completely decimated the US maritime fleet. Given that a relaxation might actually encourage US citizens to serve on US owned ships, there could be a ready supply of personnel retiring from the US Navy each year. Here’s the math: 5,000 sailors (or more) on each carrier, with 2% retiring a year, gives 100 retirees. If each tanker needs 25 men, you have four crew. If it takes 40, and there is time off for vacations, that’s 2.5 crews, or enough for two tankers. If such US registered ships were allowed to carry suitable weapons, such as .50 calobre machine guns and sniper rifles, or even its own helicopter, pirate and terrorist deterrence might be effective. It should be possible to negotiate by treaties with friendly countries the right to sail our ships in international waters if the waepons, when fired in a sea lane or channel, could not hit either the shore or a more narrow line three miles from shore. The number of sailors isn’t a problem, nor would there weapons training (thanks to the Navy), nor would there loyalty (security checks could be required). If there were many 20 years retirees starting there maritime service on tankers at 40 years of age, they could still be serving 20 years later. Just some thoughts.
Comment by Jim — 4/27/2005 @ 5:17 pm
What is the likelihood of the tanker catching fire with say medium or high calibre guns of the pirates (75mm to 100mmguns).
Comment by gunner — 8/16/2008 @ 7:25 pm