Recent Items

American Pirates and the Coming Militarization of Commercial Shipping 

Posted on by

A Chinese container ship recently spotted decked out with military hardware is receiving a fair amount of attention and is another sign of how commercial shipping is being absorbed into brewing global conflicts. What exactly is on the ship? Here’s The War Zone with a rundown:

The vessel has containers packed on its deck, both used for containing weapons and for mounting them, along with sensors. In other words, the layout appears to be designed as something of an improvised superstructure in order to turn the cargo ship into a heavily-armed surface combatant of sorts. This includes the mounting of a large rotating phased-array radar forward of the bridge atop three containers, as well as another domed radar or communications system across the deck from it mounted on two containers.

Near the bow of the vessel, high-up mounted above two containers, we see an Type 1130 30mm close-in-weapon system (CIWS) for last-ditch defense against incoming threats, especially cruise missiles. One container lower, on both sides, we see Type 726 decoy launchers mounted on top of another pair of containers. The large cylindrical pods appear to be emergency life rafts, likely required because of the expanded crew size to make a concept like this work.

Then we get to the real eyebrow raiser, a deck literally covered with containerized vertical launchers. Installed five wide and three deep, each packing four large launch tubes, this arrangement gives the vessel a whopping 60 vertical large launch cells. This is two-thirds the VLS capacity of a Arleigh Burke class Flight I or II destroyer.

There are arguments that it is a sign Beijing is preparing for a Taiwan conflict to escalate into a larger one. There’s also conjecture that China is producing so many missiles, they’re in need of more launch platforms, hence the appearance of them on a container ship:

It looks like the Chinese vessel is part of testing stages with an eye towards potentially converting cargo ships in the case the need arises during conflict.

But the possibilities are endless with many speculating how launchers hidden in cargo could be used in a devastating attack:

I’m no military expert but it doesn’t seem China needs to sneak attack its way to a military victory in East Asia. Its preference is to let its economic power do its conquering. It’s also unclear why China, which benefits from calm global trade, would want to turn itself into a pariah by using a container ship to sneak attack a military base or elsewhere. That’s a one-off move with long-term negative consequences. That type of behavior is more up the alley of the US and its proxies.

But here’s a thought: perhaps the Chinese see the current trajectory of global shipping becoming part of the battlefield. They’re not the ones initiating it, but like other nations, feel the need to respond.

Former US Assistant Secretary of Defense Chas Freeman was on Glenn Diesen the other day talking about how the US and its vassals are putting an end to freedom of navigation:

We are entering a world in which the rule of law, the rules found order based on consensus of international participants is disappearing, if it has not already disappeared.

And we’re back to the 18th or 17th century in terms of piracy on the high seas actions undertaken with no legal justification no reciprocity of rules no enforcement of regulations no norms that govern the action of sovereign states or for that matter non-state actors

With the United States of Pirates hijacking ships and trying to take control over global ports and chokepoint shipping lanes, would it be surprising if the Chinese are taking precautionary measures? Or are they to sit back and allow this to happen to their ships?

The US has been doing its best to incorporate global shipping into the third world war we’re approaching—if not already in—and Washington is succeeding. Freight rates are high and volatile amid costly reroutings and tariffs disrupting trade flows.

If weaponized tariffs being used as bargaining chips in non-economic discussions were the opening gun in this new chapter of confrontation, we’re already well into the remainder of the race.

The fight for control of the Panama Canal and other global ports continues, the US enacted port fees for Chinese owned and operated and Chinese-built ships but after a few weeks suspended them for one year, Ansar Allah doing its best to enforce the Genocide Convention and impose a Red Sea blockade on commercial vessels aiding Israel’s genocide in Gaza, and the US piracy and murder in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific.

We’ve seen new terms, such as “shadow fleet” and “narcoterrorist” become commonplace in an effort for Washington and the West to craft new unilateral laws of the sea.

Let’s not forget the Ukrainians, with the blessing of US-led NATO, hitting Russian tankers (of the “shadow fleet”) with submersible drones in the Black Sea and even the Mediterranean.

We also have EU nations threatening Russian oil-carrying ships that aren’t insured in the West, and Moscow looks to be preparing in case the Europeans get any crazy ideas:

China, of course, is not the only nation looking at decking out commercial ships with military toys. The US Army has been working on containerized counter-drone systems, as well as “boxes with rockets”:

An unknown containerized launcher able to fire the same suite of artillery rockets and ballistic missiles as the M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) and M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) seen at the U.S. Army’s Fort Bragg earlier this year has been identified. This comes as the Army’s top general in the Indo-Pacific region has highlighted the value of “boxes of rockets” hiding in plain sight as part of a broader strategy that “gives our adversary pause.”

As Freeman states on Diesen’s program, there’s one obvious way to prevent all this from continuing to spiral out of control, and we all know what that is:

The absence of war is not peace. But to have rules and agreed rules. Not rules imposed by one party, but rules agreed between many…

Seeing as one side refuses anything but hegemonic peace, it will have to be decided in another fashion, and at this rate it’s only a matter of time. And should global shipping, which carries more than 80 per cent of the world’s merchandise for export and import take a much more substantial hit, who will be hurt more? Smaller states that rely heavily on imports will be for sure; they already are getting hit by the upheaval.

Washington ignores that others can play the same game, with Iran on December 26 seizing a tanker in the Persian Gulf it accused of smuggling four million liters of fuel and some reports suggesting it was linked to an American businessman. As with many of the recent American violent adventures, this is not likely to end in the way the flight of fancy operatives in Washington hope for.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Subscribe to Post Comments
29 comments

    1. AG

      Guess what I was thinking of right now – among my favourite movies as a kid used to be those Swashbucklers about Robert Surcouf.

      Reply ↓
    2. Michaelmas

      Reminds me of what Napoleon tried before 1812.

      To some extent, yes.

      But on an even more unrealistic scale and the governments of the ‘political West’ are, when not actively participating, implicitly endorsing it. Either way, when it starts going bad, they’ll be along for the ride.

      Reply ↓
  3. Ignacio

    When you have guys commenting that a blockade is “quite a sensible” approach compared with full stupid invasion…

    I might be very much mistaken but this looks to me the last and least clever escalation attempt before realities sink and settle in imperialist circles.

    Reply ↓
  4. The Rev Kev

    That 1993 Yinhe incident deserves more coverage. The US convinced itself that it was carrying contraband chemicals so disabled GPS coverage in the are where the ship was so that it could not navigate and then surrounded it with warships. Then they tried to starve the crew for the next three weeks until fresh supplies were negotiated. When a joint US-Saudi inspection was finally negotiated to be done in Saudi Arabia, nothing was found. Not only did the US not apologize but insinuated that it was the Chinese that were responsible for that bad intel. Here is a thread on that incident which is worth reading-

    https://xcancel.com/CarlZha/status/1131548592810876928

    This was at the time a turning point for young Chinese in how they viewed the US – along with the 1999 US bombing of Belgrade Chinese Embassy – and China itself started to develop their own version of the GPS system.

    Reply ↓
      1. Jessica

        Thanks for this. I laughed a lot. The way they told the story reminded me of an anime called Dr. Slump (with Arale) in Japan in the early 1980s. That show was apolitical, though the Suppaman character did rif on American superhero culture.
        I hadn’t heard of the Yinhe incident. (Had a small child then and wasn’t paying attention to much else.)
        Definitely relevant to current US piracy.

        Reply ↓
  6. jefemt

    Didn’t Mike Lee (US Senate, Utah, R) suggest Privateers for the alleged drug boats?
    Maybe Lee and RFK Jr. will get some investors together to bring in more ‘snow’ to Utah?

    Mr. Lee would also like to dispense of citizen-owned Federal lands.
    Consistent, but no aligned with my thinking or world view.

    Reply ↓
  7. Carolinian

    Thanks for the informative report–an eye opener.

    And here’s suggesting that not just the US but the West in general has an Ancien Regime problem where geriatric leaders and their younger spawn are living in the 20th century if not the 19th. And we all know what happened to the Ancien Regime.

    Meanwhile the Silicon Valley futurists are living in a Sci Fi fantasy world that doesn’t even have a grounding in past reality. The elites in general lack that thing that ordinary people have no choice but to have: common sense.

    Reply ↓
  8. TomDority

    “turn the cargo ship into a heavily-armed surface combatant of sorts.”
    I call BS. Looks like a way to load non-container items on a container ship for shipment and, then, the article makes up a justification and excuse for the president to call the ship an enemy-combatant in order to seize or get around the trouble of getting congress to declare a war.
    Maybe Trump is going to get a vig before letting a ship go.
    I am sure I am wrong and, way to cynical so I apologize and do state that it is my cynical speculative opinion

    Reply ↓
  9. RJM

    It was sometime later in 1942 or early 1943 that I took a walk along an Atlantic beach as Dad was traveling from US Army Medical Corps service station to a new assignment. I remember that walk and after because of the scrubbing the bottoms of my feet took to get the oil off. I was three years old.

    It is little remembered how effective the U-boat attacks in early 1942 particularly sinking oil tankers. In January 1942, less than five weeks after Pearl Harbor 35 primarily oil tankers were sunk, in February 1942 34 ships were sunk and in March 1942 there were 48 attacks. It wasn’t until April 13, 1942 the first U-boat was sunk. In May-June 1942 there were 87 attacks along the Atlantic coast. The above information is from the New England Historical Society. This was when the alerts in Maine were seaching the skies for German bombers. Fortunately escorted convoys finally decreased the U-boat threat after the British made the suggestion. Now with underwater drones what could go wrong?

    Reply ↓
      1. jefemt

        The US does not produce enough oil for demand. Production approx 13-15 M bbl/day. Demand: Approx 18 to 19 M bbl / day.

        The US exports a fair bit of domestic production and distillates (refined products, such as my beloved disc golf discs.

        Reply ↓
      2. ISL

        What’s going on with shipping has a very detailed discussion on the reports of Chinese armed merchant marine container ships.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tblWObrXDsM

        Col wilkerson has repeatedly argued that China’s 6000 vessel merchant marine can be rapidly upgraded to the worlds largest Navy by many multiples, and that China has more missiles than platforms – it would take very few containers of hypersonic missile launchers to negate (sink) the entire US Navy – and the US no longer has the capactiy to rebuild (or even maintain/man) its existing fleet, and with the proliferation of underwater drones, such ships could protect themselves from submarines, too.

        Reply ↓
  10. Camelotkidd

    In Twilights Last Gleaming, John Michael Greer, described the Chinese using missiles hidden in shipping containers to attack and sink a US carrier
    Art precedes reality

    Reply ↓
  11. Camelotkidd

    I believe that it was 2015 when John Michael Greer wrote Twilights Last Gleaming, where he described how the Chinese used shipping containers to fire missiles, sinking a US aircraft carrier

    Reply ↓
  12. JMH

    So much for a globalized world, not that I have ever thought it a fine idea for all us proles. Piracy and murder on the high seas, armed merchantmen, the modern equivalent of the Dutch East India ships. What next? A guy sliding down a rope from a helicopter relies on the pacific nature of the reception committee. So does the crew of the helicopter. Do we really want to follow this path? Privateers? Condottiere? But wait, we already have contractors, mercenaries, so why not mercenaries afloat? Donnie’s private army is using bounty hunters who were the lineal descendants of slave catchers. What could be wrong with that? Well, it’s lawless. It’s immoral in my eyes. I heard a brief exposition that claimed we live in a post-moral world. Perhaps. I beg to differ. I am ashamed of what the US has become. I no longer believe anything that comes out of DC without objective proof. Those clowns are so addicted to spin, the narrative, that they cannot bring themselves to be truthful even if it were to their advantage.

    Murder and piracy will blow back. It has not happened yet. It will. The fools will be surprised. That is why they are fools.

    Reply ↓
  14. HH

    In any attempt to blockade Chinese shipping, the potent U.S. submarine force would be crucial. However, there are more Chinese vessels than there are torpedoes aboard the U.S. subs in the Pacific. In a shooting war, those subs would not be able to reload. Their supply ships and bases would be destroyed.

    Reply ↓
  15. Kouros

    I cannot retrieve it, but in a War on The Rocks article that I read several years ago a retired US Admiral cleared his throat and stated unequivocally that the US Navy’s role is not to protect shipping lanes and freedom of navigation but to detter enemy vessels to get around.

    Reply ↓
    1. Glen

      Sal’s got a pretty good take on this, especially the “they’re not trying to hide it” take.

      This whole “shadow fleet” nonsense is just that – nonsense. It’s just non-Western align countries trying to implement trade between other non-Western aligned nations. Sooner or later a Western ship trying to take out a non-Western ship is going to get a serious poke in the eye. What happens then? I don’t know, but let’s hope it’s not WW3.

      Reply ↓

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *