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
4 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 ↓

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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