There is another fisheries dispute based on contested sovereignty. This time it is between South Korea and Japan. The dispute is over the Liancourt Rocks, called Dokdo by the Koreans and Takeshima by the Japanese. Sounds like the Japanese may be pushing there claims on the waters sounding these rocks which the South Koreans have been administering since 1954.

To give you an idea how seriously the the South Koreans take this dispute, the largest warship in the South Korean Navy, an 18,000 ton big deck amphib, is named Dokdo.

This and other disputes, are why it is so difficult for these two countries, which would appear to be natural allies, find it so hard to work together.

Jamaican Coast Guard reportedly fired into a Honduran fishing vessel with the intention  of disabling it, killing the captain. Needless to say the Hondurans are upset. A report by ABCNews is here. What I found strange in the report was that the Honduran fishing vessel reportedly had 100 people on board, quite a few for a fishing vessel.

What can I say, it’s a company news release, but it is interesting. It’s quoted below in its entirety:

——————————————————————————————————————-

“BAE Systems Develops Non-Lethal Laser to Defend

Against Pirate Attacks on Commercial Shipping

“10 Jan 2011 | Ref. 004/2011

“Bristol, UK: BAE Systems has successfully demonstrated a prototype device that will serve as an effective non-lethal deterrent against pirate attacks on commercial vessels such as oil tankers and container ships.

“Piracy worldwide is on the rise according to reports from the ICC’s International Maritime Bureau (IMB), with 430 attacks worldwide reported last year, up from 406 in 2009. As pirates increase their range of operations and their capabilities, commercial shipping agents are increasingly looking for ways of preventing attacks whilst avoiding armed guards on their ships.

“In order to help combat the growing piracy threat BAE Systems conducted a study of pirate’s behaviour and a company-wide capability survey. This led to the development of the concept of using a non-lethal laser, which would leave only temporary effects, to distract and deter potential attackers from a distance.

“Leveraging the capability of its Optics and Laser Technology Department within its Advanced Technology Centre, BAE System’s researchers conducted a number of experiments to assess the feasibility of laser distraction as a non-lethal weapon. The research team has now successfully demonstrated a suitable laser at the Pershore Trials Range in Worcester over a variety of distances in a variety of conditions.

“The laser beam is capable of providing a visual warning to pirates at distances greater than 2km, and of disorientating attackers sufficiently at lesser distances so that weapons cannot be targeted effectively. At all times the power levels of the laser remain eye safe.

“Roy Evans, BAE Systems capability technology lead for laser photonic systems, said: “The effect is similar to when a fighter pilot attacks from the direction of the sun. The glare from the laser is intense enough to make it impossible to aim weapons like AK47s or RPGs, but doesn’t have a permanent effect.”

“The laser was trialled during night and day in varying weather conditions at the Worcester facility. Cameras were placed at the target location to demonstrate the level of beam intensity and divergence produced by the test runs. Beam oscillation techniques were also demonstrated.

“The researchers have developed a bespoke Neodymium Yttrium Aluminium Garnet (Nd:YAG) laser which is an effective deterrent at relatively low power levels. By utilising targeting systems and changing beam patterns, the distraction effect can be made more pronounced and be used against multiple targets.

“Evans continued: “We successfully showed that the laser works not just during the night, but also in full daylight. But, there are many more requirements to meet before placing a non-lethal laser weapon on commercial ships.”

“When fitted on commercial ships the laser distraction system could utilise its own targeting capability or integrate with existing ship radar and sensor systems to control the direction and power of the beam. It could therefore work semi-autonomously and would also include security features to ensure it could not be used by pirates if they boarded the ship.

“Bryan Hore, BAE Systems business development manager and the lead for the anti-piracy programme, said: ‘Laser distraction is part of a wider programme of anti-piracy technologies being developed by BAE Systems, including radar systems, which utilises expertise and knowledge from the military domain. The aim of the laser distraction project is now to develop a non-lethal deterrent to pirates, which has no lasting effects, which can work in a maritime environment, be operated by the crew at no risk, and be cost effective.'”

——————————————————————————————————————-

We wouldn’t want to hurt any pirates–Maybe you can use it to make popcorn!

The Coast Guard Compass announced their 2010 Video of the Year based on viewers “likes” on YouTube.

“Receiving 162 votes, Coast Guard Port Security Unit 307 wins first place for their video featuring the PSU members and the Haitian Coast Guard providing medical attention and medicine during an orphanage relief project after the magnitude 7.0 earthquake struck the Port-au-Prince.”

They go on to identify the second and third place videos as well.

The Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS) is returning to the “NCIS” television program, Tuesday night, Jan. 11th. The Coast Guard Compass has the story.

A fine tribute here.

This article, which talks about the controversial decision to name LPD-26 for the late Pennsylvania congressman John Murtha, highlights a pet peeve of mine, the breakdown of the Navy’s naming conventions for ships, apparently for political purposes. Naming ships for recent presidents is bad enough. It introduces partisanship where it is not helpful, but the Murtha decision seems a particularly egregious case.

• The Coast Guard could certainly can find another 25+ heroes who could be honored by having a cutter named after them. Can’t see any down side except that it doesn’t immediately distinguish the class members from the FRCs.
• Naming for famous cutters seems another likely choice.
• They might also be named after small cities and towns. Perhaps as a thank you to communities with long close Coast Guard association. There is the small possible problem of possible misunderstanding in communications. Names might reprise those of the 75 Coast Guard manned patrol frigates of World war II which were also named after small cities and towns. The Navy is naming the Littoral Combat Ships after small towns too. This could be seen as a conflict or as an expression that the OPCs are also littoral combat ships. Naming would have to be coordinated with the Navy to avoid duplications.

Somewhere this may have already decided but, any thoughts?

This is the second in a series comparing two incidents from World War II in which ships tried to force entry into a hostile harbor. Part one looked at the bloody, but ultimately successful British assault on the fortified port of St Nazaire. This part will look a German attempt to force their way into Oslo, Battle of Drøbak Sound. Part three will consider what these incidents can tell us about what it takes to stop a terrorist attack on an American port using a ship as a weapon.

————————————

Early in World War II, After the invasion of Poland, but before the invasion of France, the Germans invaded Norway to secure their access to Swedish steel and Iron ore and deny it to the British. (Denmark was also invaded on the same day, to secure airfields to support the Norway invasion.) Unlike their other invasions, there was no direct land route into Norway, so the invasion had to came by sea. With the Royal Navy and their French ally dominate at sea, the transit would be risky, but resistance from the Norwegians was expected to be light. Norway was at peace. They had only a small Navy and standing Army. Their defense depended primarily on mobilizing reservists. If they could be defeated before they mobilized, it would be a quick and relatively inexpensive campaign.

Six separate task forces would seize critical facilities all along the Norwegian coast. Rather than a Normandy style assault, the invasion of Norway looked like several simultaneous Special Forces operations. Troops would be landed from warships that could make the transit quickly. It would all be over before the Norwegian military could react–or so they thought. Continue reading →