Anti-piracy technology?

April 16, 2009

You’re probably as thrilled as I am by the U.S. Navy’s dramatic rescue of an American ship captain, Richard Phillips, who was being held captive by pirates off the coast of Somalia. (That is, unless you’re a Somali pirate, in which case you’re probably vowing revenge.)

Wait! There's more! Could science and technology be used to prevent these attacks from happening in the first place? Keep reading...

But the incident also reminds us that piracy, a crime with a history that goes back to the ancient Greeks, remains a serious problem all over the world today. The International Maritime Bureau’s Piracy Reporting Centre publishes a list of piracy prone areas that includes the coastlines of nations ranging from the Philippines to Brazil.

A recently-released Rand Corporation report says there were 1,845 reported pirate attacks on ships from 2003 through 2008, and that 889 crew members were abducted in 2008 alone. Rand estimates that piracy is costing the shipping industry somewhere between $1 billion and $16 billion in losses annually.

And pirates aren’t merely brandishing cutlasses anymore. Increasingly, they’re armed with automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and even anti-ship mines. And as impressed as I am with the Navy SEALs’ guile, ingenuity and fearsome marksmanship skills, it doesn’t seem as if there’s an easy military solution to the large piracy problem. With pirates ranging over vast areas, the world’s navies simply can’t protect every merchant ship on a 24-7 basis. What about providing guns to merchant crews for their defense? And here’s a New York Times article that explains why that might actually endanger ships and sailors even more.

But maybe scientists and engineers are the ones who really can defeat pirates. What if the nations of the world require all merchant ships to be equipped with an array of sophisticated nonlethal technology to thwart potential hijackers?

This approach might have some obvious pluses. If we can stop pirates without having to kill them, maybe we can keep the level of violence on the high seas from escalating still higher. And if we make it difficult enough for them, the whole piracy thing may start seeming like too much work, and its practitioners may be encouraged to give up and switch to some more lucrative and hopefully less menacing pursuit.

The downsides: Anti-piracy technology is going to cost money, though probably nowhere near as much as it cost the U.S. Navy to deploy a destroyer, an amphibious assault ship and a team of SEALs to rescue Captain Phillips. There’s also the question of whether or not it will actually work. And presuming that it gets the job done, there’s always the possibility that pirates will develop more technologically sophisticated—or even more violent—new methods to overcome such defenses.

Ingenious ship crews already have come up with a few low-tech measures for frustrating would-be hijackers. For example, when a gang of armed pirates stormed the Zhenhua 4, a Chinese merchant ship, in the Gulf of Aden last December, sailors fought them to a standoff by dousing the attackers with water hoses, setting off improvised incendiary bombs and even pelting them with beer bottles. 

Once the pirates get on board, though, it’s usually too late to prevent them from taking over. That’s why most anti-piracy inventions aim at keeping them in the water. One such device is the Secure-Ship, a system of electrified wires along the edges of ship decks that can deliver a non-lethal eight-joule shock to an intruder.

Another approach is American Technology Systems’ Long Range Acoustic Device, which projects an ear-splitting noise over a distance to drive away pirates.

GCaptain.com, a website for maritime professionals, has compiled a handy list of other nonlethal devices, some of them originally invented for military use, that might be utilized as well to protect ships.

One is Southwest Research Institute’s Mobility Denial System, which could spray a viscous gel on ship decks, causing pirates to lose their footing and land on their scurvy posteriors while the crew takes refuge behind locked hatches. Raytheon’s Silent Guardian device, could force pirates back by subjecting them to focused beam of millimeter wave energy. As Raytheon’s product brochure explains:

The beam travels at the speed of light and penetrates the skin to a depth of 1/64 of an inch, producing an intolerable heating sensation that causes targeted individuals to instinctively flee or take cover. This sensation ceases immediately when an individual moves out of the beam or the operator steers the beam away. Silent Guardian does not cause injury because of the shallow penetration depth of the millimeter wave and safety features designed within the system.

Yet another intriguing nonlethal device with potential anti-pirate applications is the U.S. Air Force’s Personnel Halting and Stimulation Response weapon. The PHaSR could project nonlethal laser beams that would “dazzle” pirates, preventing them from seeing in the direction of the device.

So what do you think? Does it make sense to equip merchant ships with such technology? Or should sailors stick to using fire hoses and throwing beer bottles? Express your opinion below.

Comments

[Astroboy]

JUST SHOOT THE PIRATES AND GET IT OVER WITH!!!!!!!!!!

[Barry Schier]

I think non-lethal technologies such as these are really the way to go. It just looks bad to the world for first-world navies to be killing third-world people, even if they are criminals. The only way we are really going to extinguish piracy is if we can get the Somalis to turn against it, rather than supporting it.

[Pilgrim]

I have several thoughts....
1) If we are successful (by whatever means) to make piracy no longer profitable, the criminals will find other ways to "earn" their livings in other criminal venues. So in that regard I agree w/ Mr. Schier above. It will just shift the problem.

2) I believe we should indeed use everything at our disposal (both high and low tech) to devise deterrents. Even some that may cause injury or temporary incapacitation. In my opinion, a criminal waives all rights in the civilized world when he/she decides to break the laws of civilization - except for one: the right to a fair trial.

3) That said, however, deterrents can always be thwarted, so I am also in favor of using lethal force as a backup. After all, the pirates I'm sure are not concerned about such niceties as avoiding lethal force to accomplish their goals.

4) As for cost, perhaps the companies that insure the merchants would be willing to spend the money for such shielding and defensive capabilities, since I bet it would save them claim $$$ in the long run.

Maybe all we need are some "good ol' fashioned" planks.... :)

[John Wayne]

I agree with Pilgrim. The pirates threaten to use lethal force, so it's necessary to do the same to stop them.

[Trent Eady]

These nonlethal defensive capabilities sound like a lot of fun. They're probably only part of the solution to piracy, however. As I understand it, piracy is largely the product of poverty, and the West must blame largely itself for that.

[Patriot]

I think it is an oversimplification to blame Somalia's poverty on the West. Somalia has been an independent nation since 1960. It has considerable mineral wealth--iron ore, tin, gypsum, bauxite, copper--and substantial oil and natural gas reserves. These natural resources have not been utilized to help the population because Somali dictators, soldiers and warlords have been fighting among themselves for the last 40 years. Instead, the Somali economy depends largely upon agriculture, which is a losing proposition in a nation where less than 2 percent of the land is arable and only 0.4 percent is actually cultivated.

It has been widely reported that European and Asian poachers have been stealing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of seafood from Somali waters. What you don't hear is that according to Ahmedou Ould Abdallah UN envoy to Somalia, but this theft actually is being perpetrated with the help of corrupt Somali government officials who accept bribes to issue fake fishing licenses, and with the permission of Somali warlords, who are paid off to protect the poachers.

It's also been reported that Somali pirates are simply starving fishermen. This also is a distortion. It is true that some Somali fishermen help stalk merchant vessels, but they are being coerced by the pirate gangs to do so. The actual hijackings are carried out by professional criminals in expensive speedboats armed with knock-off AK-47s and RPGs. They have representatives in London to negotiate with shipping companies, and offshore bank accounts in Dubai in which the multimillion-dollar ransoms are paid.

[Edward the Bando]

I agree that whenever dealing with pirates, we should attempt to use non-lethal force to the best of our abilities before attempting lethal or very lethal force. Not only would non-lethal force help increase collateral damage in terms of getting people hurt or killed, it would also help open up new methods of dealing with problems without the use of lethal force.

Although I have to also agree that piracy is the product of poverty and if you are truly desparate, you would attempt piracy just to keep food on the table. Both sides of the story both to each others judgement kind of balance out.

[Patrick Kiger]

I agree with Edward's point about the value of using non-lethal methods when possible to deal with pirates. If you can protect yourself adequately without killing, I think you're better off that way.

However, I'm not as convinced that piracy is a function of Somali poverty, so much as a result of the lack of law and order in that failed nation. Some of the ships that have been attacked were actually on humanitarian missions, bringing food and other much needed supplies to the Somali people. I do want to see the West do more to help improve the Somali living standard, but that's never going to happen unless the country is stabilized somehow.

[Landlubber]

I don't understand all this concern about pirates' well-being. So what if they get hurt or killed? That's the risk they take.

[Astroboy]

Kill em all and let God sort em out!

[Natural Man]

What about the European pirates who steal Somalia's seafood and dump toxic waste in Somali waters? Who is going to hold them accountable?

[Todd]

What about the Filipino sailors who are being held captive by the pirates? Don't they have rights, too?

[Josh Miller]

If you have ambivalent feelings about the causes of Somali piracy, it makes all the more sense to use non-lethal technology to protect ships.

[Sasha M]

It's probably cheaper to equip ships with non-lethal defensive devices than it is to arm sailors with firearms and then have to pay bigger insurance premiums because of it.

[Mark Lowe]

This is so crazy. Just shoot them.

[Groovy Grove]

If they can't even get on the ship because of an electric fence or that slippery foam, you don't have to kill them.

[Andy Hatcher]

We have a non lethal solution which allows the user to escape but leaving the pirates stranded. For anyone interested in more information on this technology please contact us by visiting www.smdh.co.uk

[Nike Air Max 95]

Fire and Ice
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire，
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate,
To know that for destruction ice
Is also great and would suffice.