your tax dollars at work.

That’s some grade A marksmanship:

Three simultaneous headshots, from seventy-five feet away, in the dark, from the stern of a ship rolling in rough seas, while the targets are moving up and down several feet in a small boat.

Go Navy. 

Now let’s bring the USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin out of mothballs, and park them off the coast within gunnery range of Eyl and Haradhere, with ten-foot white letters on the hulls saying HIJACK THIS.

About these ads

13 thoughts on “your tax dollars at work.

  1. theflatwhite says:

    Note to pirates:

    While taking hostages in the presence of Navy SEALs, don’t expose any body parts you can’t afford to have summarily blown off – like your head. Mkay?

  2. Jay G. says:

    Actually, please do…
    ;)

  3. MarkHB says:

    Righteous. Just plain righteous. Having a good year for inspiring, virtuoso performances.

  4. “your tax dollars at work.”

    awesome to see that blurb outside the snarky context in which it’s most often used…go Navy, indeed! and i’ll join you in respecting obama’s hands-off handling of the whole affair.

    “Now let’s bring the USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin out of mothballs, and park them off the coast within gunnery range of Eyl and Haradhere, with ten-foot white letters on the hulls saying HIJACK THIS.”

    i’m tempted to give that one a big “hell, yeah”, but unless they can go in and properly identify and eliminate the lot of ‘em in one fell swoop, i’m not crazy about footing the bill to ride shotgun for private shipping interests who refuse to protect themselves…our airports are testament to how .gov handles transportation security on an ongoing basis. next thing you know we’ll have tsa guys looting the holds.

    jtc

  5. Steve says:

    A few days ago I told some friends that the only way to stop the pirates was to send SEALS, and kill every one of them. Three out of four aint bad. When it is no longer safe, and financially rewarding, they will stop. Go Navy!

  6. emdfl says:

    Actually, putting the lifeboat in tow behind the Bainbridge would insure that it was moving at an even speed through fairly smooth water. Smart move by the Navy.

  7. perlhaqr says:

    Pawnbroker: I’m not sure “private shipping interests who refuse to protect themselves” is accurate. I’m under the impression that most ports of call will refuse to let merchantmen with weaponry dock.

  8. blocksworld says:

    I believe perlhaqr is right – countries do regulate that kind of thing, and they can search the entire ship when you dock.

    Back when my ship was attacked by Somali pirates in ’01 we had nary a shotgun – maybe some flares. Fire hoses, big lights, uh… um….. automated RPG defensive pods (nope, not those either). We DID have 2000psi air all over the decks, which I would have built into all kinds of cannons, but our command was a bunch of pansies.

    Some ships in the research fleet, while operated by outfits like Woods Hole etc., are actually *owned* by the Navy. It’s my understanding that those vessels do carry a small arms locker. However, for those merchant/research ships NOT owned by the Navy, arming them is a logistical nightmare. Which sucks, ’cause I woulda ventilated me some pirate a*****es and helped the captain paint a badge on the wheelhouse.

    I sincerely hope that this episode changes the attitude of carriers and crews about this sort of thing.

    -E

  9. perlhaqr said: “I’m not sure “private shipping interests who refuse to protect themselves” is accurate. I’m under the impression that most ports of call will refuse to let merchantmen with weaponry dock.”

    well, that policy will need to change to reflect the new reality -really the old reality- in the world. if that means heavily armed escorts on separate vessels then that might spell “opportunity” for blackwater…the redwater edition?

    several days ago in comments at tam’s i said:

    “…if these vessels want to ply those waters and do not want to take responsibility for their own protection, i’d be reluctant to foot the bill and risk American military casualties for them…unless it was a proper assault to wipe them out in one fell swoop in the name of maintaining maritime passage…”

    i’ll stand by that. to the pirates that port policy is the equivalent of a giant “gun-free zone” sign on the hull with the same effect on the high seas as at our schools and libraries…like a big “welcome to plunder our defenseless asses” banner…and it ain’t our military’s job to cover ‘em.

    jtc

  10. blocksworld says:

    It’s our military’s job to cover ‘em in our waters.
    Not out there.

    That being said, when military’s nearby, they should help. I don’t know about legally, but morally and logically.

    We radioed the Foreign Legion in Djibouti while under evasive maneuvers and they said “we’ll send out a helicopter to pick up your wounded”.
    Useless people. In funny uniforms, I might add. And quite short.

    Luckily no helicopter was necessary.

    -E

  11. perlhaqr says:

    I wonder if, as the USA, we could get away with telling every other country in the world: “Your stupid firearms laws do not apply aboard US flagged vessels, even in your ports. You may do as you wish if the sailors aboard those vessels take said firearms into town. The end.”

  12. E says:

    the ports can let the cargo off the ship, but not the sailors.

    veeeerrrry angry sailors.
    veeeerrrry horny sailors.
    did I mention angry?
    bad combination.

    commercial carriers will cave when licensed seamen demand exhorbitant rates to work their lines.

    that’s my “market” analysis. :-)

    -E

  13. perlhaqr says:

    E: Well, something’s going to have to give somewhere. If I were a sailor, I’d be more likely to demand an exorbitant rate to sail through pirate infested waters unarmed than I would to be unable to leave ship in port.

Comments are closed.