The article calls it "pirate catcher". But I doubt the US gov would use serious money mainly to handle the pirate problem. But I admit it's a stimulating thought. I dislike problem handling with force, but I have have an even worse dislike for pirates. A friend of mine, a young Chinese woman, came to Denmark as a child. At one point, she and her mother was a long time on a refugee boat. They were hit by pirates. After they had stolen all they could, they - get this - the pirates poured gasoline on all the food. Man, that's nice people.
4 comments:
Well, they pirates, not boy scouts, and these days you're more likely to be killed because they can't risk being identified. So, they were lucky.
Oh, and yeah, they would spend good money for that because it's a real problem. It's not like it would cost any more than a fighter jet or a few missiles. I don't know if the U.S. uses the, but the Brits use Tomahawk missiles that are L500,000 each.
Well, if "engaging in surface combat against boats" can be considered pirate catching, then the littoral combat ship USS Independence (LCS-2) is indeed a "pirate catcher."
Well, I guess it depends on whether the boats belong to enemy nations, or to pirates.
If they're part of a navy or endorsed by a government (see Privateer) they're not technically pirates.
Post a Comment