supplies are struggleing !

indeed, and a term we dont hear cast about is supply distruction. istm that supply distruction has been ongoing for about 25 yrs. oil is burned(destroyed) but not fully replaced. supply destruction, that may get the economists' underwear in a twist.

neuroil -

It very likely has something to do with marine insurance and liability issues, but I find it more than just a bit silly that a 200,000-ton super tanker can be successfully attacked by a 24-foot speedboat driven by a rag-tag bunch of coked-up thugs armed with nothing more than some automatic rifles and a few RPGs.

You hardly need to keep a billion-dollar missile frigate on station to prevent this sort of free-lance piracy. Something as simple as a few pedestal-mounted 20 mm machine guns placed on each side of the tanker's bridge would make short work of any attacking small craft.

But the owners probably would rather not go that route, as it would require the addition to the crew of a small group of security professionals to man the guns. And I'm sure their lawyers, accountants, and insurers would conjure up all sorts of problems with operating an 'armed merchant ship'.

Any people knowledgable on maritime law out there?

I told you so... (yeah, people hate that phrase...)

Some time ago I posted here about piracy, and was belittled by a few. That was in a discussion on the importance of Naval forces, and why even after P.O. and declining budgets governments would need to support having Naval forces.

Piracy has never gone away, and working against piracy is a long standing mission of a nation's Navy.

As stated today by the top Admiral:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081117210253.5ytwrjh7&show_artic...

The top US military officer said Monday he was "stunned" by the reach of the Somali pirates who seized a Saudi supertanker off the east coast of Africa, calling piracy a growing problem that needs to be addressed.

But Admiral Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said there were limits to what the world's navies could do once a ship has been captured because national governments often preferred to pay pirates ransom.

And as someone else has mentioned, private shippers are reluctant to highly arm their ships, nor do they employ private marines. There are some problems with doing so anyway - think about it - these ships are suppose to be non-combatants and sail into pretty much any port (that is physically able to receive them.) If you are a buyer-nation, do you want a ship full of armed men from a foreign country pulling into your ports, not knowing of whom that navy/army is composed?

Combating piracy takes resources away from other missions, thus the rise of piracy and combating it will impact other missions.

Given the increase is Islamic terrorist infiltration in that part of Africa, one also has to be concerned about the use of piracy for terrorist activities.