A good step would make merchant seamen immune from local firearm laws while on ships and while on land up to 25 miles from the port. As is is today, it is incredibly difficult to carry weapons on board a ship that travels internationally.

> Countries that engage in Piracy shall be given the same consideration as those who harbor terrorists.

And, under Obama, that means they'll be give a Stern Talking To. And if they're found to do it again, it will come with a Firm Reprimand. A third offense will produce a Disappointed Sigh and a Heartfelt Expression of Regret. A fourth occurrence will mean a Long Sitdown Over Tea. Fifth and Sixth events will result in A Consideration of Sanctions and A Deeper Consideration of Sanctions. The seventh time will result in a Public Call For A Committee On Sanctions. The eighth time will result in an Open Request For Sanctions and Determined Foot Tapping of Impatience.

Obama hasn't announced the plans for the Ninth and Tenth events in this sequence, but I think it's clear that, whatever form it takes, he will make a similarly Discerning Show of Determination.

Damn, Vootie!

I'm supposed to be the pessimist here. :-(

First thing.
Don't use or invoke the Useless Nations!
Second thing.
Take over their ports.
Anything moves without authority sink it and jail the crew

Mostly great ideas, but the ships will need more than an armed detail aboard. The oil tanker had such a detail, but the pirates had stand-off weapons that could blow holes in the hull and dump oil in the water (remember, oil is less dense than water, so there is the oil above the water line). Once the pirates board the ship, shooting them can result in one of the distance boats using tank-busters or other stand-off weapons and cause an ecological disaster.

So, in addition to an armed detail, these ships would need on-board, stand-off weapons of their own in 4 corners in order to defend themselves. Some mini's would do the trick, esp. with computer-controlled targeting.

> Damn, Vootie! I'm supposed to be the pessimist here. :-(

Nothing "pessimist" about it. It's flat out realism and listening to what the man has been saying for years.

Obama foolishly believes that Soft Power alone can solve international problems. Having expressed a strong disbelief in applying hard power AT ALL, he's going to find out why that doesn't work with unruly teenagers *or* tyrannical despots. Those two kids of his are probably going to go down as two of the most f***ed up presidential daughters in history. And the USA, along with the world, is going to get f***ed up as he shows time and again, despite all the existing evidence to the contrary (and all the evidence he will see first hand) why the stick is the most essential part of "Talk Softly and Carry a Big Stick". If you'll never apply it, and people know that, it's nothing but dead weight. If you make it clear you're willing to apply it, you may never, ever have to.

Look at Bush. Once we'd invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam, Libya's Khaddafi fell over himself making his nuclear efforts known, despite the fact that he'd been thumbing his nose at Clinton's soft-power efforts in that regard for 8 years.

The same with Reagan. Khaddafi was all bluster and noise when Reagan started out. Once he'd bombed Libya and shown he had a stick which he wasn't afraid to use on loudmouthed asshole foreign leaders, Khaddafi STFU and stayed STFU.

Show a willingness to use hard power ONCE, and you may never again need to use it at all, especially if you're bringing reasonable requests to the table.

But if the bully has nothing to fear, they'll continue to do exactly as they please, even when they've agreed differently.

Some people need a swift kick in the seat of the pants, or a damned good reason to believe one might be on the way, at which point they'll become reasonable.