Ain’t that the traditional summary anti-pirate medicine?

Your clear explanation helps me understand the situation much better.

Best regards, PeterWwarner.

As for doubt if it’s our (USN) job to fight pirates and protect civilian ships, read this:
“The mission of the U.S. Navy is set forth in Title 10 of the U.S. Code. It states that the U.S. Navy must be prepared to conduct prompt and sustained combat operations in support of the national interest. This means the Navy must assure continued maritime superiority for the United States. The U.S. Navy must be able to totally defeat any threats to the continued free use of the high seas by the United States. The Navy assures continued maritime superiority through the destruction of hostile aircraft, surface ships, and submarines that threaten seaborne forces of the United States and our allies. ”

It’s a long winded way of saying the Navy is there to project power and keep the sea lanes open. That’s what they taught us in boot camp several decades ago…

Couple that with the fact that any action against a threat but a civilian mariner would subject them to prosecution either in the country where the action occurred or some government agreement between the vessels flag state and the country of whom the threat was a citizen.

But take heart, the Indian Navy seems to have been willing to resolve part of the problem today when they attempted to stop and board a suspected mother ship. So while western navies might be ham-strung by whiners at home, those port states with economic interests in the area seem to be willing to apply some resolution to the problem.

Such a regulation makes no sense to me, but it would explain why their only defense seems to be ‘evasive maneuvers’ and occasionally trying to use the fire hoses to repel unwanted boarding parties.
One article I read said the oil tanker was ‘three times as big as an aircraft carrier’. Is that correct, or even possible? I thought the aircraft carriers were the biggest ships on water.

Best regards, Peter Warner.