News Stories

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

I thought that had more to do with his Military bassically ignoring his orders. The US certainly didn't pressure that.

the pressure was on the military.

[Ithekro]

The question is, what is the piracy for? Money? If so, the goal should be to make the idea less profitable...or make combating the piracy more profitable than the piracy itself.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

If so, the goal should be to make the idea less profitable...or make combating the piracy more profitable than the piracy itself.

Trying to convince ''pirate'' to turn ''privater'' making them hunting down their own ex ''coworkers'' ?

[Ithekro]

Depends on who they are and what they are after. I don't know much about these pirates, who they work for, or why they are resorting to piracy. What are their goals? If it is just money and they are not part of a large orginized group, then yes, turn them on each other with large bounties and offers of amnesty for those that will join the hunt for other pirates. They would have a condition though. They would have to follow the old rules of privateers. They'd likely get an observer from the nation sponsering them, and to divide the loot/bounty from their pirate prey with their sponser as well as proper divisions for the entire crew. They will be held accountable if they harm non-pirates or engage in piracy against any nation that their sponser is not hostile towards.

While many European nations signed a treaty to abandon issuing letter of marque, the United States never signed that treaty.

But, it all depends on just what and who the pirates actually are. And what they are working towards.

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

The question is, what is the piracy for? Money? If so, the goal should be to make the idea less profitable...or make combating the piracy more profitable than the piracy itself.

The problem is that is they're from Somolia. The most profitable alternative is probably nothing compared to piracy, and probably almost as dangerious. Under those circumstances, you WILL get piracy no matter what.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Bonus exercise: imagine all the fun to be had when an American privateer attacks a Chinese one, or vice versa, due to some kind of miscommunication...

I bet the Americans would be Zerg rushed. China has more soldiers, therefore more defectors by proportion, as compared to the Americans.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

The problem is that is they're from Somolia. The most profitable alternative is probably nothing compared to piracy, and probably almost as dangerious. Under those circumstances, you WILL get piracy no matter what.

then the answer is simple.
make Piracy so dangerious thats its viewed as suicidel.
considering modern drone tech (both flying, and sailing), creating an effective counter piracy force shouldn't require all that many men.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

then the answer is simple.
make Piracy so dangerious thats its viewed as suicidel.
considering modern drone tech (both flying, and sailing), creating an effective counter piracy force shouldn't require all that many men.

I laugh when people say that. Here is what you should do :

1. Buy a RC helicopter
2. Attach and uplink 4 cameras to it.
3. Fly it around and try to see everything.

Otherwise, find a post in your local military that trains you to operate such equipment. From my experience, it is twice as difficult to operate one than it seems.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

then the answer is simple.
make Piracy so dangerious thats its viewed as suicidel.
considering modern drone tech (both flying, and sailing), creating an effective counter piracy force shouldn't require all that many men.

I could see this happening, once the western military engagement in Afghanistan is over.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Jinto

I could see this happening, once the western military engagement in Afghanistan is over.

Not so fast. The Russians couldn't wax the mujahideen in 10 years, and now the US has to clean the place up squeaky clean or the terror networks will manifest again.

The Afghans don't have a central government capable enough to hold against the terrorists on their own. The ISAF would probably stay there as long as they did in Vietnam.

EDIT :

Obama faces pressure to intervene in Libya

(Reuters) - Pressure mounted on the White House on Tuesday to intervene to stop Muammar Gaddafi's bloody crackdown on democracy protests as a lawmaker close to President Barack Obama urged oil firms to halt work in Libya.

The United States faced calls to impose sanctions but also to take direct action such as bombing Libyan airfields and imposing no-fly zones -- military steps that most analysts consider unlikely. Some critics questioned Obama's silence on the violence in which hundreds of Libyans have died.

U.S. officials called for an end to the violence but seemed to rule out any unilateral action, stressing the United States was working with other countries on a way forward.

Senator John Kerry, the influential chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, urged the White House to consider reimposing tough sanctions on Libya.

"World leaders must together put Colonel Gaddafi on notice that his cowardly actions will have consequences," Kerry said.

The White House said it was studying Kerry's proposal to reimpose sanctions that were lifted by the Bush administration but, for now, was focused on ending the bloodshed, which sent U.S. oil prices to near 2-1/2-year highs.

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Kerry's Republican counterpart in the House of Representatives, said the United States and others "should impose economic sanctions, including freezing assets of the regime and imposing a ban on travel."

Obama did not mention Libya when he spoke about small business at a university in Ohio -- in contrast to his German counterpart Angela Merkel, who said she would back sanctions if Gaddafi did not halt the violence.

Obama's administration has been struggling to keep up with the wave of popular uprisings unfolding across the Middle East and North Africa. Each country has presented its own challenges for Washington, which has seen its decades-old Middle East policy upended in a matter of weeks.

Obama spoke out about violence against protesters in Tunisia, Egypt and Bahrain but some analysts saw his silence on Libya as a deliberate tactic.

"Getting into a spitting match with Gaddafi would not be such a smart idea," said Daniel Serwer of Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies. "This guy obviously enjoys the attention so ignoring him may have some virtue."

LIMITED OPTIONS

U.S. options to influence events in Libya are limited, unlike in Egypt and Bahrain where Washington was able to bring pressure to bear as a long-time ally and benefactor. U.S. foreign aid to Libya was less than $1 million in 2010.

Military action does not appear to be on the table, although the United States has not shied from the use of force against Gaddafi in the past. It bombed Tripoli and Libya's second city, Benghazi, in 1986 in retaliation for an attack on a West Berlin disco used by U.S. military personnel.

"There is absolutely no talk of military intervention," said Daniel Byman of the Brookings Institution in Washington. "We don't know the opposition and it is not clear that they would be on our side."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeated her call to stop the bloodshed. Asked whether Washington was prepared to go beyond condemnation, Clinton said officials were working with the international community to decide on "appropriate" action.

Clinton hinted that the cautious response so far might be linked to concerns about the safety of U.S. citizens in Libya.

The State Department said it had chartered a ferry that would depart central Tripoli on Wednesday. It said U.S. citizens would be processed on a first-come, first-served basis with priority given to people with medical emergencies.

Earlier on Tuesday the department said it had been unable to move any of its diplomats and embassy family members out of Libya. The ferry plan appeared to be an acceleration of U.S. efforts to evacuate as plans had originally been to put Americans on scheduled flights.

Anti-Gaddafi protesters gathered outside the White House chanting "White House where are you? Libya now needs you."

Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman backed the idea of a no-fly zone as one of the measures that could be taken by the United States, the European Union and the African Union.

U.S. COMPANIES IN LIBYA

Kerry said, beyond possible U.S. sanctions, that energy companies should take action as well.

"All American and international oil companies should immediately cease operations in Libya until violence against civilians ceases," he said in a statement.

Italy's Eni said it halted output in Libya, which is Italy's biggest oil supplier. A number of companies including BP, Royal Dutch Shell and Suncor Energy Inc said they were pulling out staff but had not confirmed any impact on production.

Among U.S. companies, Marathon Oil and Occidental Petroleum said production in Libya continued.

After an estrangement of decades, largely because of Libya's support for militants, the United States gradually began to improve ties following Gaddafi's decision in late 2003 to give up Libya's weapons of mass destruction programs.

U.S. economic sanctions were progressively removed after Libya agreed to accept civil responsibility for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland in 1988.

The political analyst just won the internets with that jarring no-holds barred statement.

Actually there might be a solution. Send in a NATO formation of firefighters and medics as "disaster relief" : it may not solve the political issue at hand, but it will definitely work in the favour of everyone because it is a neutral aid party under the UN convention. Provided the Libyan Mirage F1s don't drop iron bombs on them.

And fuck John Kerry. This is a good time to make friends and he wants to impose sanctions? Where does this nut get his analyst team from?

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Not so fast. The Russians couldn't wax the mujahideen in 10 years, and now the US has to clean the place up squeaky clean or the terror networks will manifest again.

The Afghans don't have a central government capable enough to hold against the terrorists on their own. The ISAF would probably stay there as long as they did in Vietnam.

Well, I assume we have different ideas about how this is engagement is going to end. It will end with the troops departing. You cannot have bases for drones when you do not control the region and supply lines of the bases. This engagment does not produce positive results because you cannot win an asymetric war with warfare alone. The half hearted efforts to rebuild Afgahnistan, giving its population a perspective (other than opium and tribalism) makes the whole engagement pointless. So, the question is not about the "how" but when it ends. Of course there has to be some sort of trade off between the actual costs and the western nation's pride (especially USA). Since, the propaganda machine needs a little time to gain momentum with selling this engagement as a win to western nations, the engagement will be going on for while. But I do not see it going on for very long.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Jinto

Well, I assume we have different ideas about how this is engagement is going to end. It will end with the troops departing. You cannot have bases for drones when you do not control the region and supply lines of the bases. This engagment does not produce positive results because you cannot win an asymetric war with warfare alone. The half hearted efforts to rebuild Afgahnistan, giving its population a perspective (other than opium and tribalism) makes the whole engagement pointless. So, the question is not about the "how" but when it ends. Of course there has to be some sort of trade off between the actual costs and the western nation's pride (especially USA). Since, the propaganda machine needs a little time to gain momentum with selling this engagement as a win to western nations, the engagement will be going on for while. But I do not see it going on for very long.

It will definitely end as a failure, but I do not want to lose another relative to some dumb extremist group when I turn 40. IMO, the best and most US could do is to secure Kabul and screw the rest - when China starts to invest (read : search for slave labour for their EoS and buyers for their arms) there it will be their problem.

Nonetheless, the revolution in ME is a good chance for US to make friends the diplomatic way. Give a chance for the Arabs to sort out their differences and form their own coalition government while standing at the side providing social aid (less military and police intervention) - it will be the biggest leverage US have against China economically and politically in the years to come.

And no. No sanctions pl0x.

[MeoTwister5]

I'm paying out my ass for gas. I'd rather not have to pay the equivalent of $1.30 a liter to get to the hospital.

And admittedly my above statement is the exact method of logic Washington discretely will use to justify any action.

[Ithekro]

As far as I know, there is only one country in the world that has managed to successfully stop an insurgency in the 20th century, the United Kingdom...in Malaysia, if I recall correctly. And it was long and bloody. The country still gained its independance, but not through the insurrection.

The irony of the United State's problems dealing with insurrections is that it gained its own independance via an insurrection. Looks like the Americans have yet to find a way to counter Washington's tactics (or perhaps more accurately the Minutemen and other smaller forces arrayed against the professional English Army...who could take on anyone in the world at that time in conventional warfare...much like the United States today excels at conventional warfare...but has trouble with insurgencies).

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I laugh when people say that. Here is what you should do :

1. Buy a RC helicopter
2. Attach and uplink 4 cameras to it.
3. Fly it around and try to see everything.

Otherwise, find a post in your local military that trains you to operate such equipment. From my experience, it is twice as difficult to operate one than it seems.

why laugh ?
aren't modern HALE drones like Global hawk and Heron TP capaple of covering extremely large areas at any given time ?
what more, spoting boats and ships in the ocean should be considerably easier then spoting troop movements on the ground.

throw in the the relatvely long endurence time, and covering a streach of coastline shouldn't be all that impossible' even with as little as half a dozen birds.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

why laugh ?
aren't modern HALE drones like Global hawk and Heron TP capaple of covering extremely large areas at any given time ?
what more, spoting boats and ships in the ocean should be considerably easier then spoting troop movements on the ground.

throw in the the relatvely long endurence time, and covering a streach of coastline shouldn't be all that impossible' even with as little as half a dozen birds.

Do you realise that MANNING a drone is a different issue?

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Do you realise that MANNING a drone is a different issue?

yes, but would it be that much more then operating a comparable manned aircraft fleet required for the task ?
we're talking 6 birds.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

yes, but would it be that much more then operating a comparable manned aircraft fleet required for the task ?
we're talking 6 birds.

Controlling the pitch-yaw is already bad enough because the thing is so light and can change direction even in light wind, you have to control the camera, its zoom function, and still keep watch on the radar for the position so it doesn't go off-course. And unlike games, the radar DOESN'T MARK YOUR ENEMIES or contours or obstacles. Just real-time streaming video.

A flight sim is easier to do, just requires more physical stamina. At least you are in the cockpit and you can feel where you are going.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Controlling the pitch-yaw is already bad enough because the thing is so light and can change direction even in light wind, you have to control the camera, its zoom function, and still keep watch on the radar for the position so it doesn't go off-course. And unlike games, the radar DOESN'T MARK YOUR ENEMIES or contours or obstacles. Just real-time streaming video.

A flight sim is easier to do, just requires more physical stamina. At least you are in the cockpit and you can feel where you are going.

what about Infra-red ?
it might not be an IFF, but it gives you pretty good info of ship size and locations.

[ganbaru]

Italy says 1,000 killed in Libya unrest
http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNew...71G0A620110223