Oil tanker hijacked off Yemen, steers toward Somalia

5/2/2026 at 4:22:08 PM

Considering Saudi Arabia was bypassing the blockade of the Hormuz Strait by piping as much oil as they could to the Red Sea, this is going to cut that off (or significantly increase the insurance costs). Things just keep getting worse in the oil supply chain. It's a shame we didn't focus more on increasing the supply from renewable alternatives.

by bmitch3020

5/3/2026 at 1:04:54 AM

> It's a shame we didn't focus more on increasing the supply from renewable alternatives.

I don’t that was going to happen without a supply crisis. It turns out cost is more motivating than the planet cooking.

by lostlogin

5/3/2026 at 11:11:23 AM

My hot take: if there's one thing one could wish US would use their military for, is fixing the piracy in this region once and forever, mostly by forcing Somali to do so.

by cromka

5/3/2026 at 11:30:35 AM

If that was a military problem, they’d have done it. Unfortunately, it’s a societal problem and you can’t bomb governments into functioning or people out of poverty.

by acdha

5/3/2026 at 9:05:16 PM

Terrorism is also a societal problem, not a military one. This was never a problem for them.

by cromka

5/4/2026 at 1:39:31 AM

Terrorism comes in two flavors: you have small groups where a pure assassination strikes can work (e.g. Bin Laden) and larger groups backed by an actual social faction (e.g. the Taliban, Hamas, ISIS), where they don’t.

The Somali pirates fall into the latter territory: desperately poor people with a dysfunctional national government see money floating by daily. You can’t bomb that dynamic out of existence unless you’re willing to commit mass murder or occupy the territory and make a Marshall Plan-level investment in the local society.

by acdha

5/3/2026 at 5:06:12 PM

Why should this be a US responsibility? Very little of our trade runs past Somalia and Yemen. The ship in this incident is Togolese and they're not even a treaty ally. Our previous attempt at intervention didn't work. Let someone else fix the problem.

by nradov

5/3/2026 at 9:03:37 PM

It shouldn't be your responsibility, just like several dozens of other interventions shouldn't. Yet here we are. Also, why are you talking about this particular ship when I'm clearly talking about piracy at large in this region?

by cromka

5/3/2026 at 10:51:11 PM

Ok so then we agree that it's not a US responsibility unless a US flagged ship is involved. Togo can fend for itself.

by nradov

5/2/2026 at 2:41:58 PM

I still don't get how this works. My world image must be pretty off at this point if this kind of thing is possible. A tanker is big, expensive, and not exactly easy to misplace. And for a nation to be able to send this kind of expeditions it must be both dysfunctional enough to allow this, but competent enough to be able to mount it. And other countries allow it? Why? Again with the "expensive and hard to misplace".

by radu_floricica

5/2/2026 at 4:33:30 PM

Coalition navy ships (US, England, France, Germany, etc.) are supposed to protect commercial vessels transiting through the International Recommended Transit Corridor (IRTC). Either this ship left the IRTC or the IRTC isn't being protected.

Ships coming through the Gulf of Aden to reach African ports south of it are advised to head east until they were south of India (past the Maldives) before heading south, and then head due west to reach their destination. It's really expensive advice though, and not everyone follows it.

I was on the USS Momsen's VBSS team in the Gulf of Aden back in 2010-2012. We showed up with overwhelming force and they knew they'd survive if they didn't fight back. It was relatively safe and boring. We had protection from our reputation.

I think the US Navy's reputation has been squandered in the last year and I've worried it would make VBSS a lot more dangerous.

Edit: we also didn't hear much from the Houthis while I was there. Things got worse in Yemen after my time.

https://www.maritime.dot.gov/msci/2025-012-red-sea-bab-el-ma...

by MithrilTuxedo

5/2/2026 at 7:43:32 PM

> Navy's reputation has been squandered in the last year

I don't understand how anything that has occurred in the last year would make a Somali pirate think it's less likely they would be killed if they chose to resist an American boarding party. If anything, they would think it's more likely they'd be killed and that there might be unpredictably severe reprisals against their clan, supporters, etc.

What events were you thinking of?

by browsingonly

5/2/2026 at 8:23:08 PM

It’s generally a evaluation of risk and reward. Guess they are counting on US being busy elsewhere. What I hear, the chain of command is in disarray.

by he0001

5/3/2026 at 12:48:11 AM

On the other hand, Somali pirates have attacked fully loaded warships dozens of times, apparently not realizing that small arms and a dinghy can't take down a goddamn battleship

by estimator7292

5/2/2026 at 4:08:43 PM

As other people have noted, Somali piracy is not "new". It's been happening since the 90s (Somali Civil war and failed international interventions). There were, and still are multinational (basically chartered by the UN) naval task forces operating in the area, to deter and interdict pirates. See CTF-151 (https://combinedmaritimeforces.com/ctf-151-counter-piracy/)

These types of actions are not perfect, they cannot stop everything, so you still see successful attacks happen.

And no one wants to try to intervene in Somalia itself. The world tried that in the 90s and got completely burned.

So the answer is that "other countries are not allowing it" in the same way that no country allows murder, and yet it still happens.

by icegreentea2

5/2/2026 at 2:59:31 PM

For the « how », you can watch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Phillips_(film) to get an idea of the pirate logistics

by dgellow

5/2/2026 at 3:38:34 PM

Much of the current state of the world is coasting on things done in prior eras, and this is always the case. A country needn’t be able to build a large boat now to have built one in the past. They can send that boat around the world until someone realizes that the US guarantee of safe water ways too is something it can no longer enforce. The world behaves as if the USA were its older self, but it isn’t. Also, a large navy isn’t very useful when ships that cost more than a billion USD can be disabled by drones that cost less than ten thousand USD. As such, US ship movement in the area is limited by both Yemen and Iran.

by BirAdam

5/2/2026 at 3:42:58 PM

The world before WWII was chaos. It has never been peaceful to be a human for much of our species' existence.

America was the global hegemon. Under the "rules based order", where America safeguarded international trade in exchange for having the US Dollar at the center, we had the largest period of stability the world has seen.

Now that everyone wants to displace America, we're pluging back into chaos. America is abdicating its role and turning into an isolationist power.

There's going to be an increase in war as countries try to claim territory and resources.

Piracy and blockades will come back. Trading alliances and trading blocs will form.

The world will turn into a powder keg. This time with nukes.

The vacuum left behind as America shuts itself off will create lots of power struggles. There will be a lot of trade disruption to energy, goods, and food inputs. It's also going to be incredibly violent.

by echelon

5/2/2026 at 4:30:02 PM

I don’t know that people have the apetite they did even 3 generations ago to rock the boat. Hearing stories from people who grew up in europe at the time is crazy. People fully prepared to die for their village engaging in guerilla war. I just don’t see the same enthusiasm in modern western generations. Completely passified into consumerism and some semblance of stability that everyone is incentivized to maintain. Completely different than the cultural upbringing of 1940s partisans. Maybe those sorts of people live today in small parts of africa where there are still warlords and a certain base level of violence. But in much of the world I don’t think so.

by kjkjadksj

5/2/2026 at 5:53:06 PM

Yeah that sort of thing can change very quickly, especially with propaganda and strict laws. Do you think all the Russians and Ukrainians who are fighting now were somehow immune to consumerism and aversion to conflict? Of course not.

by IshKebab

5/2/2026 at 4:51:11 PM

Sound like you've never met a western gang member. I've met plenty of people willing, even charged up to die for much more petty things.

by _DeadFred_

5/3/2026 at 2:55:14 AM

A few people will always be mentally ill enough to resort to gang violence. But I mean even by Vietnam patriotism among the american youth was basically 180 from wwii peak. And it hasn’t really gotten better since. Everyone I know who enlisted did it for a free college degree and usually hated the military actually.

by kjkjadksj

5/2/2026 at 3:55:26 PM

> America was the global hegemon. Under the "rules based order", where America safeguarded international trade in exchange for having the US Dollar at the center, we had the largest period of stability the world has seen.

> ...America is abdicating its role and turning into an isolationist power.

Good thing America is one singular entity with everyone living in it both equally benefiting from it and also responsible for it's current state.

What we are seeing is neoliberalism gone rancid and the predictable fallout.

by Avicebron

5/2/2026 at 4:15:50 PM

The response will need to come from the country where the tanker is registered/flagged. Liberia and Panama aren't exactly known for their Navy fleets. Without that, it's up to the ship's commercial owner to resolve, or more likely, their insurance company.

The crew are rarely trained and equip to respond to an armed attack. If they have anyone to defend the ship, at most it's a handful of mercenaries hired for the high risk part of the trip.

by bmitch3020

5/2/2026 at 7:03:35 PM

The response can, and historically has, come from any nation, not just the one the ship is registered in.

For instance in the last (Somali) attack before this, a Maltese flagged tanker was boarded, and a Spanish warship arrived the next day and retook the ship.

by gpm

5/2/2026 at 4:22:40 PM

I have friends who have been those mercenaries, and I think your comment underplays it a bit… they are all ex-SBS and not somebody I’d want to fuck with!

by wrboyce

5/2/2026 at 4:32:29 PM

In direct combat, you're absolutely right. Most of my point is that they aren't hired to defend most ships if companies do the math and assume the risk isn't worth the cost. The crew that's left are trained to fix the engine, cook some food, and control the auto pilot, not to fire guns.

That said, when mercenaries are defending a ship, it's often trying to stop a small runaway boat loaded with explosives. It's a very small moving target they have to hit with little time. Meanwhile the small boat just needs to be pointed somewhere in the direction of the oil tanker.

by bmitch3020

5/2/2026 at 4:24:53 PM

So you can just steal any ship registered to some nation with little naval presence and no one knows how to handle it? It just becomes the spiderman meme of insurance and corporate and nations pointing at each other and meanwhile you’ve successfully stolen a ship in 2026? Crazy world we live in. The modern age is strange.

by kjkjadksj

5/2/2026 at 4:40:19 PM

They know exactly how to handle it, which is why it's such an effective business model. The crew do what they can to avoid being boarded, then get to the safest location possible.

Once the ship is captured, it's held for ransom, the insurance company gets their negotiators to minimize the price, they eventually pay the negotiated ransom, and insurance rates go up.

If you're expecting someone to prevent piracy, you need to first run the financial cost/benefit analysis. How much would need to be spent on a military operation, and what's the return that would be seen from the country sending their military to rescue a private ship registered to a foreign country, staffed by foreign crew, with cargo destined for a foreign country?

by bmitch3020

5/2/2026 at 4:45:35 PM

There is a generalized military response in place (CTF-151 via UN). The insurance based scheme tends to work because it's basically dealing with "leakers".

UNCLOS permits any country to intervene in case of piracy. Because piracy attacks the public good of assured, consistent, low cost maritime transit and commerce (which the entire developed world is addicted to), and successful piracy begets piracy, there are a lot of countries with a lot of resources deeply interested with intervening.

by icegreentea2

5/2/2026 at 7:05:33 PM

> CTF-151 via UN

And Operation Atalanta by the EU.

by gpm

5/2/2026 at 3:03:07 PM

Oil tankers only have like 20-30 crew on board, you’re not going to need that many men with AK47s to take over. Navies do patrol piracy hotspots like Somalia, freedom of navigation is kinda important to world trade, but they can’t exactly be everywhere at once.

by fredoralive

5/2/2026 at 7:49:34 PM

Which navies though? The reality is that very few countries still have the expeditionary navies capable of doing that. The US Navy (plus Coast Guard) can do it. A few others like China, Japan, India, and France can do it on a limited basis. The remaining countries can maybe send a token frigate on a temporary basis. That's about it. Even the UK, Russia, and Germany no longer have functioning expeditionary navies.

by nradov

5/2/2026 at 2:56:02 PM

All you need is a dude with a small boat, an rpg and some kind of short range radio really.

by toasty228

5/2/2026 at 4:17:06 PM

Is an RPG enough? I feel like the crew of the oil tanker would want to defend themselves from armed pirates even if it might damage the ship some. And modern ships can be quite sturdy.

In 2020 a Venezuelan patrol boat (1500 tons) tried to stop an Arctic cruise ship (6000 tons). The patrol boat rammed the bow of the cruise ship and sank. The cruise ship received superficial damage to the bow.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-52151951

by Aerroon

5/2/2026 at 5:09:46 PM

> Is an RPG enough?

Call their insurer and ask, I'm not in the business but I would imagine they're very risk averse

by toasty228

5/2/2026 at 6:55:35 PM

Risk averse enough to lose the crew and possibly the ship?

by Aerroon

5/2/2026 at 6:25:05 PM

Pretty soon the RPGs will be replaced by FPV drones. Put an explosive drone into the bridge of a merchant ship and it's going to be a mess. I predict that there will be a growing market for drone defenses on merchant ships such as radio jammers and nets over vital spaces.

by nradov

5/2/2026 at 7:08:19 PM

Radio jammers only work until they figure out the fibre-controlled drones the Ukrainians and Russian's have been making.

Affordable drone defense is something of an unsolved problem right now.

by gpm

5/2/2026 at 7:59:03 PM

Fiber optic guided drones don't work reliably at sea. The wires drag and break in the water.

by nradov

5/2/2026 at 2:59:43 PM

Many but not all tankers these days do have defensive equipment, e.g. jet sprays, but these probably can't stop too many boats, or if the tanker doesn't have such protection.

by OutOfHere

5/2/2026 at 3:05:39 PM

If I have a hose and the other guy has an RPG I’m probably not starting shit.

by ceejayoz

5/2/2026 at 3:14:01 PM

If you have a hose that you can fire from a fairly protected position and the guy with the RPG is completely exposed because he's trying to climb up the side of a tanker, yeah, I might.

See, the hijackers can't actually sail the ship. So they can't kill the crew, or at least can't kill very many of them.

by AnimalMuppet

5/2/2026 at 3:58:26 PM

> See, the hijackers can't actually sail the ship. So they can't kill the crew, or at least can't kill very many of them.

Sailing the ship safely takes some skill.

Sailing the ship at all takes about 5 minutes of watching youtube worth of learning.

And they can certainly sink the ship as a warning to the next ship. Indeed attacks in the area have a history of sinking ships: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houthi_attacks_on_commercial_v...

by gpm

5/2/2026 at 3:21:45 PM

> If you have a hose that you can fire from a fairly protected position and the guy with the RPG is completely exposed because he's trying to climb up the side of a tanker, yeah, I might.

In this scenario you are standing on a ship that is full of highly flammable oil.

There are more outcomes than just the hijackers gain control of the ship or they leave you alone.

If gaining control is no longer an option they could decide "fuck it" and just fire into the side of your hull.

by bayarearefugee

5/2/2026 at 4:11:30 PM

Fire is always a risk, but crude oil is not "highly flammable". Some refined products and LNG are more problematic.

by nradov

5/2/2026 at 4:14:00 PM

That might cause the oil to leak out. It's unlikely to start a fire unless the tank is fairly empty.

by dotancohen

5/2/2026 at 4:42:19 PM

> the guy with the RPG is completely exposed

No, he isn’t. He’s sitting in the speedboat with the guys with rifles protecting the guy on the ladder.

> See, the hijackers can't actually sail the ship.

You think Somalia has zero people with experience working on a cargo ship?

by ceejayoz

5/2/2026 at 3:20:16 PM

>See, the hijackers can't actually sail the ship

Its pretty dumb to assume that.

Somali commercial sailors and merchant mariners do exist. Information and simulator software is available also in Somalia.

by tokai

5/2/2026 at 5:10:43 PM

> guy with the RPG is completely exposed because he's trying to climb up the side of a tanker

Uh? Stay 100m away and send a "park your tanker over there or we fire at you" message.

by toasty228

5/2/2026 at 3:28:34 PM

All it takes is a world which has convinced itself that it is “time to be tolerant of all and punish none — all misbehavior is not a fault of the actor but instead the world at large is responsible”

Start dealing with pirates like they did in the 18th century, and watch how fast it ends. It would only take a few dozen publicly hung pirates to make the point.

by dmitrygr

5/2/2026 at 3:35:06 PM

Did that work in the 18th century? Hanging a few pirates eliminated piracy?

It's my understanding it was more about the loss of favorable basing and the reduction in Spanish shipments of treasure that caused the decline.

We've killed plenty of would-be pirates recently. Doesn't seem to have ended the problem.

by mlyle

5/2/2026 at 3:54:20 PM

> Did that work in the 18th century?

It did in the early 19th century. Check out the first and second Barbary Wars. They were not permanent solutions but they had lasting effects. The real blow was the French conquest of Algeria after that.

by delichon

5/2/2026 at 7:33:40 PM

1. Doesn't seem like this quite fits under "hanging a few pirates"

2. One of the big problems here is there's no real counterparty to negotiate with/cow like the Algerian Dey.

That's not to say that I'm against increased anti-pirate action. I just don't think it's as straightforward as you all say.

by mlyle

5/2/2026 at 3:54:45 PM

Many ships carry very heavily armed private security. You're describing a world that does not exist.

by tiagod

5/2/2026 at 3:36:09 PM

I'm pretty sure that the typical HN reader doesn't understand what desperation is.

You can put a high wall at a border but desperate people will try to scale it. No matter how high you make it. People are willing to cross things like the Darien gap [0], they'll do a lot of things.

If you have nothing to lose, and I mean nothing, you might be willing to take the gamble.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dari%C3%A9n_Gap

by hvb2

5/2/2026 at 4:37:27 PM

Desperation isn't even required. There are plenty of people who would see something like this as the adventure of a lifetime and would volunteer to participate knowing that they would have a hell of a tale to tell their grandchildren. Those who engage in things that are extremely risky can find themselves and their actions glossed over and glorified as their exploits become more public knowledge so that even the criminal parts of their past do not taint their resume.

by doodlebugging

5/2/2026 at 4:26:00 PM

What gets me is that we could have a desperation-free world if we wanted to, but no, instead, we set up the world so that billionaires can buy more super-yachts.

by ryandrake

5/2/2026 at 6:40:45 PM

Who is "we" exactly? There's practically nothing that those of us in foreign countries can do to eliminate desperation in Yemen and Somalia. Previous attempts at interventions have probably made the problems there worse.

by nradov

5/2/2026 at 4:10:29 PM

And still there are drug traffickers in countries with the death penalty on drug trafficking.

Those crimes correlate with poverty.

You want less crimes? Provide social security to get rid of the criminals out of desperation

by croes

5/2/2026 at 3:34:02 PM

You know that various navies have conducted operations that have killed many more Somali pirates than that, right? No idea what you’re quoting there, but it’s a bizarre caricature of the world we live in.

by senordevnyc

5/2/2026 at 6:07:33 PM

Yes, it takes time. It took the British navy decades to rid the seas of most pirates. When a random somalian considers piracy and realizes that the RoI is very negative, hr job will have been accomplished.

by dmitrygr

5/2/2026 at 3:13:03 PM

It's very simple. "Pirates" use small arms and small boats.

The US navy uses helicopters and ship mounted canons.

Occasionally they double tap "drug smugglers" with missiles. Or sink inadequately armed "enemy" ships with a torpedo, followed by a second one after 19 minutes.

The difference is minor between piracy and war crimes: "δυνατὰ δὲ οἱ προύχοντες πράσσουσι καὶ οἱ ἀσθενεῖς ξυγχωροῦσιν"

by SanjayMehta

5/2/2026 at 4:39:50 PM

>"δυνατὰ δὲ οἱ προύχοντες πράσσουσι καὶ οἱ ἀσθενεῖς ξυγχωροῦσιν"

That's all Greek to me so I had to translate.

The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

Very appropriate. Thanks.

by doodlebugging

5/3/2026 at 3:38:36 AM

It's from the Melian Dialogue.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Thucydides-Greek-histor...

by SanjayMehta

5/2/2026 at 3:22:04 PM

Trump was quoted in the last day as saying "We’re like pirates" in reference to the US Navy.

by echelon_musk

5/2/2026 at 4:31:07 PM

It wouldn't be surprising to find that Trump or some Trump-aligned group had contracted Somali pirates to commandeer tankers, guaranteeing them riches that will never be paid. The ships would find their way to friendly refineries where the oil can be laundered into a legitimate stream. Without even including his children, there are so many individuals associating with him who would have the pieces to make something like this happen.

by doodlebugging

5/2/2026 at 2:51:55 PM

[flagged]

by OutOfHere

5/2/2026 at 3:05:14 PM

> the US will probably take action against Yemen and Somalia

So we’re losing 1 war, and your solution is to start 2 more?

by mcphage

5/2/2026 at 3:14:08 PM

It's the neocon version of "you wanna supersize dat?"

by SanjayMehta

5/2/2026 at 3:12:13 PM

[flagged]

by OutOfHere

5/2/2026 at 3:17:06 PM

Naval blockades are an act of war even according to US own laws.

by afiori

5/2/2026 at 3:21:11 PM

A ceasefire dictates by definition that a war is on.

by tokai

5/2/2026 at 3:19:12 PM

> Firstly, there is no ongoing war with Iran

Talk about mischaracterization. The head of the Department of ~~Defense~~War has called it a war many times. The President has called it a war many times. Members of Congress of both parties have called it a war many times. It's a war my dude.

by vel0city

5/2/2026 at 3:17:52 PM

The US and its allies are likely the biggest sponsor of terrorism and genocide worldwide

by afiori

5/2/2026 at 4:55:40 PM

Maybe maybe not. But doesn't change what Iran does. The Iranian embassy in the UK just encouraged violence in the UK. Then next day random jews were stabbed.

by _DeadFred_

5/2/2026 at 4:16:04 PM

1. Steal oil tanker

2. ??

3. Profit

What is step 2? Normally, I would assume you try to minimize the incentives in buying stolen goods. In this market, nobody is above buying dubiously sourced oil, but what is the likely destination? Do the pirates patiently sit at the oil depot while the ship gets pumped dry, hoping the check clears and nobody shoots them on sight? Once you have an empty $100MM tanker, how do you unload that vessel?

Is it possible the Indian/Japanese/other-petroleum desperate government strike a deal with the pirates?

by 3eb7988a1663

5/2/2026 at 4:23:17 PM

Step 2. is (or has usually been) hold ship and crew hostage for ransom payment from the ships owner.

by gpm

5/2/2026 at 4:19:23 PM

Typically insurance companies pay ransoms for crew and cargo .

The economics of Somalian piracy is well documented. How the money is distributed, how they finance the operations and the hostage costs etc

by manquer

5/2/2026 at 4:20:57 PM

Either used internally or sold off on the black market at a huge discount maybe?

by onemoresoop

5/3/2026 at 8:31:04 AM

The The M/T EUREKA is designed to carry petroleum products rather than crude oil. Products like Gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, Light Distillates, Fuel Oils.

I would guess if it were crude oil, then that would have a limited market of buyers.

by robocat

5/2/2026 at 4:21:42 PM

2. Ransom

by explorigin

5/2/2026 at 3:03:54 PM

The whole global just-in-time supply chain depended on at least the illusion of the freedom of the seas guaranteed by the United States, which the US unambiguously spoiled this year. Piracy never went away altogether but a multi-polar world where regional powers sanction piracy and provide the pirates with sophisticated weapons isn't going to underpin the same kind of global economy.

by jeffbee

5/2/2026 at 4:01:17 PM

> which the US unambiguously spoiled this year.

Didn't the Evergiven do this years ago showing that blocking one highly trafficked route would cause chaos?

by dylan604

5/2/2026 at 4:35:03 PM

Nah, it was already destroyed at the 80s during the Iran war.

The GP's comment is a well repeated piece of propaganda, but it was never true.

We have freedom of navigation because every country everywhere wants it. Change that situation and the freedom goes away, the US's position is irrelevant.

by marcosdumay

5/2/2026 at 4:33:26 PM

If it wasn’t for the news coverage I’m not sure I would have noticed that happening in my day to day life.

by kjkjadksj

5/2/2026 at 3:44:50 PM

US navy doing piracy does not help either

by slim

5/2/2026 at 11:41:53 PM

Sooner or later, it'll have to become the new standard to put a couple of CIWS on every large tanker or container ship. Something like a remote-controlled and/or automatic 20mm auto cannon with an attached FLIR and radar.

The era of blithely sailing around with $200M in oil or $1B of manufactured goods on a slow, totally defenseless cargo vessel out in the middle of nowhere and crewed by poorly compensated crews with nothing to gain for being heroic was a short-lived fantasy.

Imagine leaving a billion dollars in cash (or whatever) undefended in the middle of a desert, already conveniently placed in a mobile vehicle ready for you to drive off with. Maybe overseen by a couple of unarmed people you hired for minimum wage that aren't even trained security guards, they're just "staff".

What we're doing now globally is the direct equivalent, which worked for a while under the umbrella of Pax Americana, but that era is over, mostly thanks to one person deciding it's somehow "unfair" to the nation that benefited from it the most.

by jiggawatts

5/3/2026 at 12:25:22 AM

That kind of armament, and the staff needed to operate it, is incredibly expensive. Even if scaled down to commercial-audience models. Even when compared to the cost of huge-displacement cargoes.

Not saying it’ll never happen, just that it’s a much more costly proposition than some might think.

And that’s before we get into the numerous second order issues. Crewing an armed ship suddenly requires very different HR practices. Parties interested in stealing one may now include much more developed military actors. Mooring a container ship across from an LNG terminal is low-risk. Mooring that same ship with medium range weapons may be outside the risk envelope of lots of ports.

by zbentley

5/3/2026 at 1:50:39 AM

Costly is relative. I’m sure Samsung could adapt the border-protection auto cannon turrets that they’re already producing in the thousands to ward off invasion by NK.

It’s a gun, on a turret, with some electronics.

It’ll be a thousand times cheaper than losing the cargo.

It’ll reduce insurance costs and “pay for itself” after just a few trips.

Speaking of which, a turret isn’t single use! It can sit there with minimal maintenance for dozens of trips, protecting tens of billions in cargo over its lifetime.

by jiggawatts