Comment by Captain Kell Walker - Thursday 14 May 2009
As the Master of a ship I choose to be armed and defend my ship and crew with whatever means possible. My deck officers are required to undertake advanced training in firearms. Fifteen years ago my ship was attacked by pirates in the Malacca Straits; we defended ourselves without being boarded, no injuries sustained or the ship damaged. It was not long after that an unarmed ship was attacked and the Master thrown over the side to drown and 3 of his crew killed. Maybe I was fortunate enough to commence my training in the Navy and believe that defense is the best option. Would you let a burglar come into your house and take your television, abuse your wife or your children? I think not (emphasis added). My ship is my home, my crew are my family. Those who sit back in the comfort of their homes or offices and make speeches from their armchair about speculative outcomes from arming ships or crew against the threat of pirate attacks would be the first to call for tougher action if their home was invaded and their family injured. One would hope that the pirates had enough sense to retreat if they came under heavy fire from any ship. Without doubt this is not the answer for all ships or their companies, it remains at the discretion of the Master and their respective companies. The US Coast Guard runs a 2 week course a few times every year for specialized firearms training. This could be enlarged, and cater for non US citizens. Other countries could follow the Coast Guard lead in this area.

Comment by Mr. Mike Forest - Thursday 7 May 2009
I do not support putting military personnel on merchant ships nor do I support having military ships escort merchant ships to deter pirates. Taxpayers should not bear the burden of protecting merchant vessels or their cargo. The Captain and the Company are responsible for the safety of the ship, personnel, and cargo. If the Captain is incapable or simply doesn’t want the responsibility of performing that function, then they should not be a Captain. The crew depends upon them for their safety. Either train some of the crew to fill the armed sailor role, or hire someone to do it. Don't cry about how dangerous or expensive it is, or how it may escalate the potential level for violence. That is cowardice. Fulfill the responsibility as a Captain or get out, or at the very least, take a different route. And when the military comes upon pirates, let them shoot them with no complaints. If as a Captain you are responsible for killing pirates to repel their boarding, don't have a guilty conscience. They volunteered to be pirates, as a Captain works to attain the responsibility to be a Captain, with all the benefits, risks and liabilities. My only support for military intervention is to kill pirates whenever they are.

Comment by M. Brinkmann - Wednesday 6 May 2009
From my experience on working on ships I am aware that some shipowners request from their ship’s crew that they defend the vessel with water cannons that are designed for extinguishing fire. However, no one in the world would be so foolish to shoot with water cannons at rocket launchers. Shooting with machine guns at rocket launchers doesn't make much sense either and will only provoke more unrest and blood lust. The only way to control this situation would be to ensure pirate bases are closed down/destroyed and the people of Somalia put under control by a stronger Somalian government.

Comment by Anonymous - Monday 27 April 2009
Gentlemen, There are among us always people that would seek to do us harm. The more valuable the prize, the more attempts to take your valuables will show up. Now, spend your time and money and build a ship full of cargo and personnel. The value is immense!Stand your ground and defend what is yours! A basic rule since neanderthal days! If you do not arm your ship, have a gunship follow behind. Do not be cheap. Secure the best weapons to quell the threat! You may quail at taking human life. Be assured, they do not feel the same way! To them, it is an easy path to riches. Shame on you if you do not take a stand when evil arises!

Comment by Anonymous - Monday 27 April 2009
If the ones that already have armed guards on board decided on the kind that jumped overboard not long ago, the owners better think not twice, but four times before employing someone just for the sake of having weapons on board. Good professionals are not cheap and aiming a weapon from a rolling (even slightly) ship to another moving target is not the same as aiming from a roof top. It is therefore a good chance to get better results if spending the money in a different way than arming the ships.

Comment by mr peter verwaerde - Monday 27 April 2009
Having been a Merchant Navy deck officer for some years, I'm against any military presence aboard a merchant vessel. Although the status of the vessel doesn't change into a 'warship' (art. 29 – Law of the Sea 1982) it has some major consequences: 1. who is the ultimate boss?, 2. soldiers like to 'play' with guns and who will stop them doing this?, 3. merchant navy & army never have been good shipmates, 4. it opens the way for a spiral of more violence (what will one do when the pirates start attacking with e.g. heli's? put anti-aircraft canons o/b?). Some solutions to be thought about: Why not try to make vessels sail in convoys (of fast and/or slow vessels), guided/protected by navy ships? Why not scramble the GPS-differential coding, the AIS/LRIT-signal?