This kind of deframes the reality of international over-fishing and dumping of toxic waste in Somalia:

According to Nick Nuttall of the United Nations Environmental Programme, "Somalia has been used as a dumping ground for hazardous waste starting in the early 1990s, and continuing through the civil war there," and "European companies found it to be very cheap to get rid of the waste, costing as little as $2.50 a tonne, where waste disposal costs in Europe are something like $1000 a tonne."

If my family started getting radiation sickness, that would add quite a bit of emotional justification for piracy...

Src: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy_in_Somalia#Sovereignty_a...

Both issues are symptoms of a country without effective governance.

Both issues are symptoms of an inadequate international system of governance. If the United Nations had any power it would have stepped in diplomatically to prevent the dumping and stepped in militarily to prevent the piracy.

It's interesting that even pirates need outside investment, rather than simply being able to bootstrap. This need is significant, given the 50% cut going to financiers.

It's also interesting that piracy is still low enough of a cost that it doesn't justify rerouting ships, landing marines, or any of the other traditional responses to piracy.

Isn't the traditional response to post a few blokes with guns, big guns, and attempt to blow any pirates out of the water? Aren't ship's crew using guns for protection?

You'd think so. There must be legal issues with this approach, since you'd have to have deck-mounted machine guns to have much chance. Or maybe, as with everything else described in this article, deck-mounted machine guns wouldn't have enough cost-benefit.

Also, weapons on merchant ships can be taken by the pirates and used in future attacks. So unless the weapons allow the crew to consistently prevent hijackings, they're just increasing the pirates' revenue.

A substantial part of why foreign flagged merchant vessels get easy access to ports is that they are "known" to not be armed.

We wouldn't let a <pick a foreign country not too friendly with us> warship steam into Boston Harbor. Same country's oil tanker or cargo ship? Come on in.

A couple of shoulder-fire rocket launchers and some kalashnikovs wouldn't be hard to stash though, would they?

Presumably US flagged vessels are armed?

As a general rule, merchant marine vessels sailing under any flag are not armed. The US isn't "special" here.

Naturally, US military vessels, including the Coast Guard, are armed.

What of the right to bear arms then?

This is not a governmental restriction, but rather a commercial one.

Nothing prevents a shipping company from saying "In order to take a job on my private ship, you are barred from bringing weapons on-board."

Nothing prevents a country from saying "If your merchant vessel desires access to our ports, it shall not be armed."

The combination of those two (effects, not necessarily codified policies or laws) means that merchant vessels aren't armed.

Anyone else get "video unavailable" on the video?