“Merchant vessels may have weapons on board; you OFTEN find fishing vessels armed as well.
It's not a huge deal.”
If the captain wants to keep a 9mm in his safe for "law enforcement" purposes or if a fisherman wants to carry a gun and play Ernest Hemingway if a shark gets in his nets is entirely different than a merchant ship armed specifically to deal with pirates.
First off, why carry weapons? If it is to repel boarders, fire hoses are probably more effective. To add firearms to the situation would only escalate it unnecessarily. Ships also have lighting, radar, speed, and maneuverability in their favor. I am almost positive that when all is said and done, the Mersck-Alabama had let her guard down because she was outside the area normally frequented by pirates.
Secondly, if the purpose of weapons is to overpower the pirates, a whole new set of issues arise. In the past, when we have involved the military in hostage operations, we sent in highly trained special forces. Ethically and morally, can we ask the same of a merchant seaman without comparable training? Would it be criminal to ask an untrained seaman to defend his ship against seasoned pirates? How much initial training? Since merchant crews are not permanent, how much ongoing training to ensure the teamwork so critical in this type of evolution? What would be the salary requirements of a SWAT merchant seaman? What would be the insurance premiums for a ship load of SWAT seaman? What would the unions say to a requirement that their members play John Wayne?
It probably boils down, unions possibly aside, to an economic decision between the shipping companies and their insurers. The premiums are probably lower, and rightfully so, to pay a possible pirate ransom in lieu of payment to the bereaved family of a deceased seaman who, improperly trained (at least in the eyes of an "inpartial" jury), gave his life for a boat load of contaminated Chinese dog food. This has, I am sure, been discussed extensively between the insurers and the shipping companies. And a part of this discussion, again, I am almost positive, would be that the shipping company can, in no way, shape, or form, encourage, or even acknowledge, assault-type firearms aboard their ships.
I think economic reality has made it what it is. The fact that it is the first US flagged vessel in over 200 years to be pirated is the real situation. How do we save face?
