PLAN Anti-Piracy Deployments

Re: Somali pirates and Chinese navy

hyalitemarine said:

"Good Faith Negotiations" is predicated upon lawful behavior. Since the Somali pirates hijacked a US Ship with Americans on it, thus initiating hostilities, all "good faith" was thrown out the window the moment those pirates violently boarded the ship. If the Somali pirates believed US forces were going to aid and abed pirates, they were dead wrong.

Somali pirates are employing evil tactics, and the point can be argued that one does not negotiate with evil, you defeat it. If the Somali pirates feel the need to continue using threats of deadly force, no one should cry for them when deadly force is visited upon them.

American policy was effective in freeing the American ship and saving all the American crew. Sounds clever to me.

Click to expand...

My understanding is that the negotiation happened after the hostage incident. Surely, the US navy made it look like they truly wanted to help the pirates, thus the "good faith negotiation". If all the "good faith is out of the window", why the meeting? AND the pirates did believe it albeit how wrong they were.

And I don't see a need to justify what the US navy did. It was a tactic and in combat, anything goes. You don't have to justify how righteous it was.

Re: Somali pirates and Chinese navy

vesicles said:

My understanding is that the negotiation happened after the hostage incident. Surely, the US navy made it look like they truly wanted to help the pirates, thus the "good faith negotiation". If all the "good faith is out of the window", why the meeting? AND the pirates did believe it albeit how wrong they were.

And I don't see a need to justify what the US navy did. It was a tactic and in combat, anything goes. You don't have to justify how righteous it was.

Click to expand...

I did have to justify it because I was asked to by another member. Apparently, some people brought up the idea that it was somehow wrong to fool the pirates. I agree with the statement, "It was a tactic and in combat, anything goes.", as long as it does not violate the rules of engagement.

Re: Somali pirates and Chinese navy

hyalitemarine said:

The escorting of convoys is a multinational one, that means there are SEVERAL multi-national ships in the area that can easily plug the gap. The reason all those warships are there is to protect shipping from pirates. Their mission does not say, "Oh, if a pirate is on the other side of this line then ignore it.".

What is not professional is not adapting to unforeseen circumstances. So if a Chinese ship was ordered to guard a harbor on point A, while an enemy attack at point B only a few miles away, by your logic, it would "abandoning your post" if that ship went to aid in the "B" battle. Therein lies the difference between US policy and Chinese policy. Americans would most likely adapt to the situation and take initiative and not wait for orders and join the B battle. The Chinese, it seems, would sit still, since that was their orders.

If you think robotic control is a good thing in a tactical environment, you are entitled to that belief.

Click to expand...

You are talking about the difference between a tactic maneuver and a strategic one. Moving your team 700-1000 nm is NOT a tactical decision a ship captain can make, no matter what nation it is. If you think that a USN CVN captain can move his battle group 1000 nm off course without permission , you need to look up some facts.

AND yes, they usually have multiple ships on a mission, but these assignments are NOT redundant. If anything, they still don't have enough ships to completely cover one mission. Every ship has its own duty that is crucial to the mission. You CANNOT leave the mission and expose your colleagues. Imagine a fighter formation of two planes, one main and one wingman. Yes, they fly together, but that does not mean one can simply fly away and leave his/her wingman exposed.

Re: Somali pirates and Chinese navy

hyalitemarine said:

I did have to justify it because I was asked to by another member. Apparently, some people brought up the idea that it was somehow wrong to fool the pirates. I agree with the statement, "It was a tactic and in combat, anything goes.", as long as it does not violate the rules of engagement.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's what that poster meant. What he meant was that because of that particular tactic, pirates no longer trust "negotiations". He was simply pointing out a "tactical" difficulty that was not there in the USN mission, but clear present in the Chinese case.

Re: Somali pirates and Chinese navy

vesicles said:

You are talking about the difference between a tactic maneuver and a strategic one. Moving your team 700-1000 nm is NOT a tactical decision a ship captain can make, no matter what nation it is. If you think that a USN CVN captain can move his battle group 1000 nm without permission off course, you need to look up some facts.

AND yes, they usually have multiple ships on a mission, but these assignments are NOT redundant. If anything, they still don't have enough ships to completely cover one mission. Every ship has its own duty that is crucial to the mission. You CANNOT leave the mission and expose your colleagues. Imagine a fighter formation of two planes, one main and one wingman. Yes, they fly together, but that does not mean one can simply fly away and leave his/her wingman exposed.

Click to expand...

As I have stated earlier, this is a point where we agree to disagree. I stated my belief that the commander on site is the individual best suited to make decisions on the spot, be it 1 foot away or 26,000 miles away. I know US commanders can make those decisions on the spot because I was there when they did, and yes, deviations of thousands of miles. Of course the commander can inform his command, and the command can likewise tell him to abort and head back, but it is the commander that decides what is best at that moment. If he makes the wrong choice, he can be punished for it.

I understand where you are coming from, but this is a difference between US command and Chinese command.

Re: Somali pirates and Chinese navy

hyalitemarine said:

As I have stated earlier, this is a point where we agree to disagree. I stated my belief that the commander on site is the individual best suited to make decisions on the spot, be it 1 foot away or 26,000 miles away. I know US commanders can make those decisions on the spot because I was there when they did, and yes, deviations of thousands of miles. Of course the commander can inform his command, and the command can likewise tell him to abort and head back, but it is the commander that decides what is best at that moment. If he makes the wrong choice, he can be punished for it.

I understand where you are coming from, but this is a difference between US command and Chinese command.

Click to expand...

If you are 26,000 nm away, you are NOT there on the spot. For crying out loud, the Pentagon building might be closer to the SPOT than you if you are 26,000 nm away.

You said it yourself, if they made the move and it was a wrong choice, they would be punished. Typically, commanders are NOT punished for simply making a wrong decision within their own responsibility. People are allowed to make mistakes, especially on the battlefield. One WILL be punished if he/she breaks rank and did something they are not authorized to do. This is not something we can agree to disagree. This IS rule of engagement.

These rules were put in place for a reason. The supreme commander usually have a grand plan for the whole battle. If you, as a commander, are allowed to do whatever you feel fit, the whole thing would become a huge mess. What if two army commander independently decide to go to the same location and leaving a big gap in the line? Enemy can break through and mess up the whole thing. These rules are followed by not only Chinese, but ALL militaries in the history of mankind.

Re: Somali pirates and Chinese navy

vesicles said:

I don't think that's what that poster meant. What he meant was that because of that particular tactic, pirates no longer trust "negotiations". He was simply pointing out a "tactical" difficulty that was not there in the USN mission, but clear present in the Chinese case.

Click to expand...

I still disagree with your premise which to me seems to say that since the USN situation was not EXACTLY like the situation that PLAN found itself in, the PLAN is faultless for what transpired.

From what I understand from the situation with the USN was that all the pirates were in the hijacked ship holding the Americans hostage. The American hostages took the initiative, when the ship was being taken over, of disabling the ships drive. The USN was presented with a ship with pirates holding Americans on board. The commander of the USN opened up a dialogue which led to three of the four pirates taking one American in a small boat to the USN ship. We know what transpired.

The point I am making is that there was no way the USN can know what the pirates will do next. So, to change that situation you take control of it and chirograph what your opponent does.

Re: Somali pirates and Chinese navy

vesicles said:

If you are 26,000 nm away, you are NOT there on the spot. For crying out loud, the Pentagon building might be closer to the SPOT than you if you are 26,000 nm away.

You said it yourself, if they made the move and it was a wrong choice, they would be punished. Typically, commanders are NOT punished for simply making a wrong decision within their own responsibility. People are allowed to make mistakes, especially on the battlefield. One WILL be punished if he/she breaks rank and did something they are not authorized to do. This is not something we can agree to disagree. This IS rule of engagement.

Click to expand...

How would you know what the rules of engagement are? I do not see how you are personally qualified to make that assertion. Please tell what qualifies you to make the assertion that you know what the rules of engagement are.

As far as on the spot decisions involving great distances, a ballistic missile is your answer.

Re: Somali pirates and Chinese navy

hyalitemarine said:

I still disagree with your premise which to me seems to say that since the USN situation was not EXACTLY like the situation that PLAN found itself in, the PLAN is faultless for what transpired.

From what I understand from the situation with the USN was that all the pirates were in the hijacked ship holding the Americans hostage. The American hostages took the initiative, when the ship was being taken over, of disabling the ships drive. The USN was presented with a ship with pirates holding Americans on board. The commander of the USN opened up a dialogue which led to three of the four pirates taking one American in a small boat to the USN ship. We know what transpired.

The point I am making is that there was no way the USN can know what the pirates will do next. So, to change that situation you take control of it and chirograph what your opponent does.

Click to expand...

Since when did I say PLAN was completely faultless. You seem to have a tendency to put words in people's mouths. All I'm saying is it's too early to make any judgment. I'm simply arguing with you on the logic of your statements.

Re: Somali pirates and Chinese navy

hyalitemarine said:

How would you know what the rules of engagement are? I do not see how you are personally qualified to make that assertion. Please tell what qualifies you to make the assertion that you know what the rules of engagement are.

As far as on the spot decisions involving great distances, a ballistic missile is your answer.

Click to expand...

You made it sound like the rules of engagement is something top secret. Unless I'm a 4-star general, I would not have any means to know it. These things are mostly common sense things that one should be able to figure out.

About the ballistic missiles, I mean, what did that come from? the last time I checked, iraq is a great distance away from the US and ballistic missile was NOT involved.