I know the story on the kidnapped American captain from the Maersk Alabama has been well publicised for a while now, but what is the general consensus on RR regarding the USN decision to shoot and kill three Somali pirates in order to rescue him?
On the face of it I completely agree with taking a hard line against the pirates and showing them that holding people and ships to ransom is not always a licence to print money, but I can't help feeling that courtesy of an itchy Yank trigger finger, Somali pirates have been galvanised and given more impetus to prove their mettle, thus the RN and other navies taking part in counter-piracy operations have got a far more difficult task and face far greater risks. I know the Americans have never been accused of adopting a subtle approach and as soon as a US ship was involved in a pirate capture it was only a matter of time before shooting the baddies took preference over negotiation, but are there any realistic alternatives to risking the lives of hostages by firing on pirates? Or would the decision not to use force increase the chances that hostages would end up being killed?
On the face of it I completely agree with taking a hard line against the pirates and showing them that holding people and ships to ransom is not always a licence to print money, but I can't help feeling that courtesy of an itchy Yank trigger finger, Somali pirates have been galvanised and given more impetus to prove their mettle, thus the RN and other navies taking part in counter-piracy operations have got a far more difficult task and face far greater risks. I know the Americans have never been accused of adopting a subtle approach and as soon as a US ship was involved in a pirate capture it was only a matter of time before shooting the baddies took preference over negotiation, but are there any realistic alternatives to risking the lives of hostages by firing on pirates? Or would the decision not to use force increase the chances that hostages would end up being killed?