Q Ships -- Fighting Fire With Fire

Nearly 100 years ago, the Royal Navy came up with a partially effective method for combatting German U-Boats in the North Atlantic. Q-Ships, heavily disguised and armed merchant ships, manned by RN crews, sank several U-Boats in surface engagements in which they heavily outgunned the U-Boats. The use of Q-Ships in WWII proved less successful, and was subsequently abandoned.

It would seem that the use of Q-Ships deserves at least try in the battle against piracy we are now facing, although it might require a little bending of current international maritime laws. In WWI, the Q-Ship hoisted the White Ensign (in place of the Red), at the moment of engagement. In addition, it would also seem possible for patrolling military aircraft to require any suspicious-looking craft (especially the so-called mother ships) to identify themselves, or risk boarding.

The huge sums being paid out by the maritime insurance companies would surely justify at least a trial of these tactics.

Bailing Out

There seems to be much confusion, and I am among the confused, about what the Government's role is vis-à-vis these companies we are bailing out. If we are giving them money, we surely have no say over what they do with it. If we are lending them money, then we expect eventually to get it back, with interest. But, if we are investing in them, we are buying ownership proportional to our investment, and you don't own something without having control over it. Why, therefore, is the US Government not insisting on putting it's own people on their boards of directors? You may be sure that if China is allowed to go ahead with its intended investment in Rio Tinto, there will soon be a sizeable number of new Chinese directors on Rio Tinto's board. So far, I have heard no discussion of this issue.