Legality of private warships

If you were a multi-billionaire would it be possible to somehow acquisition an armed corvette "legally" and have it in international waters? Are there any laws blocking this?

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    From US stores, no. From some thirdie who's short on cash yeah but it would be old and in bad shape. Once it's yours, it's yours though quite a few places wouldn't let you into port

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >would it be possible to somehow acquisition an armed corvette "legally"
    Probably
    > and have it in international waters? Are there any laws blocking this?
    As long you don't cross any countries waters or block any maritime shipping no

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://medium.com/history-in-bytes/when-pepsi-had-6th-largest-navy-in-the-world-4612708b70d2

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      pepsi did it so can you

      Weren't the Pepsi ships disarmed though?

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    pepsi did it so can you

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      [...]
      Weren't the Pepsi ships disarmed though?

      I don't think pepsi got to touch those ships, they went from dock to scrapping and the scrapper just gave the money to pepsicorp instead of russia. If anything the lesson here is that if you want a private warship you should start a maritime scrapping business

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    perfectly legal. every cannon and shell would have to be registered with the atf, there are storage requirements for the explosives as well, but if you have warship money none of that is a problem.
    there is really vanishingly little weapons regulation in the usa at the federal level.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      just renounce your US citizenship and buy one from Yemen or whatever

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Just get a private island bro.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Private islands are still under jurisdiction of countries.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        not if you secede

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I never understood the "Founders couldn't have imagined AR15s" argument because the Founders definitely, explicitly looked at the idea of any asshole being able to buy a frigate that could roll into a harbor, shell a city, kill thousands of people and do millions of dollars in property damage in a matter of minutes and then just sit there for weeks or months strangling global trade routes until somebody got tired of his shit, mustered enough strength and pried him out by force

    And they were fine with it, they fully supported private citizens having that kind of capability.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The point isn't it ar-15s or private warships were imaginable for the founding fathers, the point is that they wrote the constitution during a time of muskets and age of sail warships under the threat of pirates. They meant the constitution to change with the time. If under the circumstances they - not wrongly - imagined a society would be better with free, responsible men owning firearms, that was a reasonable choice.

      If you now would fast forward to 2023 moronized America, where each day gun retardation leads to so many avoidable death and just over the ocean there are based, gun-free societies that *obviously* work better, the founding fathers would be shocked at the moronized mess their second amendment has caused.

      They would look at you like total obvious retards, point to the spots where they obviously wanted the constitution to live with the times and change, and if anyone who would claim this moronized mess where cops shoot people at will, mass shootings are normal and 6 year olds shoot their teachers or sisters is what the founding fathers would want.
      They would get a smack with a glove, a questioning of their mental state and their parentage and an invitation to a duel with those fancy new AR-15s at dawn.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Reddit anti-gun gay. Obviously PrepHole isn't the place for you.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Wanting less school shootings doesn't make someone reddit and if it did, it still wouldn't matter on PrepHole.

          Gun ownership isn't necessarily incompatible with gun control and you'd be surprised how many PrepHole would prefer more regulated gun control as the price for reducing the avoidable deaths of children.

          And then of course, you have lots of people who are here for military stuff rather than gun ownership. It's their board too.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm so demoralised Mr. Glowmoron, please take my rights away.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Get the fuck off this board. You came here for the Ukraine threads nobody wants your shit opinions

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Anon, I've been here since before anyone sexually identified as an M82, since Jawman and before. I also use Reddit.
              What are you going to do about it?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm 37 and use reddit
                thanks for sharing

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The point isn't if ar-15s or private warships were imaginable for the founding fathers, the point is that they wrote the constitution during a time of muskets
        Puckle guny0t4a

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >PLEASE give up your guns
        >it's what the founders would have wanted
        Nice try, redcoat.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >and just over the ocean there are based, gun-free societies that *obviously* work better
        you should consider cutting off your dick and balls to prevent rape

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Wanting less school shootings doesn't make someone reddit and if it did, it still wouldn't matter on PrepHole.

        Gun ownership isn't necessarily incompatible with gun control and you'd be surprised how many PrepHole would prefer more regulated gun control as the price for reducing the avoidable deaths of children.

        And then of course, you have lots of people who are here for military stuff rather than gun ownership. It's their board too.

        GET FUCKED

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    As shown from Piracy in the Indian Ocean and even the Tanker War in the Persian Gulf from the 1980s, which saw western naval ships and even Soviet Naval ships escorting tanker and merchant vessels, any sort of disturbance of shipping in international waters brings the ire of almost every country with a half capable navy. Countries like China, Russia, the US, Pakistan, India, France, and even the fucking JMSDF work together in some capacity to squash any threats that might disturb international shipping. Nations that are at each other’s and who often threaten war or even have violent skirmishes with each other would put their differences aside to stomp out piracy in international waters.
    An independent armed corvette would immediately draw suHispanicion from the world and would constantly tracked for even physically followed by ships and submarines invade the event of the armed independent ship deduced to do something ballsy. As soon as an act of piracy is committed, every country in the world would mark you as enemy no.1. The idea of threatening trade alone might cost companies and nations millions if not billions of dollars. Just look at the great lengths taken for Somali piracy and the Tanker War.
    Even if your intentions aren’t nefarious and it’s a give won’t disturb international shipping or any territorial waters of foreign nations, a flagless ship not bound by any sort of set international laws, codes, regulations, or traditions would mark you and your vessel as a pariah at the least.
    The world of international shipping among the oceans and seas is a different way than life on land with nation states and borders. Disturbances on water have ripple effects.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      thank you for a new war to research I was ignorant of. In return, I offer you new insight:
      No longer is Somalia the world's base of piracy but instead it is West Africa. ICC-CSS has a very helpful maritime incident map.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Pepsi owes me a Harrier

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Most of the museum ships are owned by private companies, and can *theoretically* be returned to active use if the owners REALLY wanted to.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Are there any laws blocking this?
    Kind of.
    I doubt that any reputable flag nation would permit a privately owned armed frigate outside of a PMC which absolutely could but would need a tonne of paperwork and permits.

    There are PMCs that own Hind-Bs and such so it should be doable under those conditions.

    If you want one to just cruise around the place and use it as a leisure craft...you'd be taking a big risk any time you entered a country's waters, they might just seize your ship. It would violate a lot of laws about registering leisure craft which are all bound up in international law, being refused entrance to a country's waters and escorted out would be your best case scenario.
    Aside from anything else, leisure craft are officially limited to 12 passengers. Every superyacht that exists has an official max passenger count of 12 (crew don't count), it's not enforced but it exists and it's hard to insure them if they don't comply, some oligarch yachts might ignore it and Russian insurance companies have no choice but to eat it but most superyachts restrict themselves to 12 cabins for passengers to at least pretend to comply.

    Start here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea
    Then look up the SOLAS Convention which has a tonne of fine print about how ships have to be for civilised ports to touch them.

    Now if you demilitarised it, most of your problems would disappear. There's been more than one ex-military frigate used as a private yacht.

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The SS organisation has something close, a private founded long range high speed patrol and pursuit vessel, has an ice breaker bow for operating against illegal fisheries in the antarctic waters. No guns, but interesting vessel.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >No guns
      I wouldn't be surprised if they had some very powerful firefighting equipment for putting out fires on other boats.

      Sea Shepard are a pretty hardcore group, I admire them.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They have normally somebody with police authority on board and that guys personal firearms. There's some vids from (me thinks?) Senegal where they have an entire Senegal navy boarding squad on board, and they do stomp some illegal Chinese fishers. Can't find the vid right now but it's some real entertaining black on yellow violence while white sits in the driving seat and enjoys the show type of thing.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That's a far cry from a decade ago when they were getting bullied by LRADs constantly

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I am so fucking glad those boys are still out in the southern ocean fucking up nippon “research” vessels

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It kind of blows me away that they did a full-on harbour raid and sunk a ship with a limpet mine.

        They're sunk eight fishing/whaling ships in different ways.
        It's more PrepHole than any of us will be.

        I see why the Japanese hate them so much though lol

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >sinks half your whaling fleet
          Nothing personnel

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Really seems like eventually you'd just arm a Q-ship and when Sea Shitter came calling, sink them and then machine gun them in the water while they begged for rescue.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >arm a Q-ship
              Not unless you want somebody's navy to intervene and since Sea Shepard are (usually) operating against ships that are half a world away from their home ports, it's not going to be a friendly navy that intervenes.

              Everything Sea Shepard does is going to be filmed and uploaded by sat phone and radio and everybody is going to know, then you go to jail for murder.

              That said, Japanese have been known to send escort ships occasionally and I think it was the Japanese who had a kind of plausibly deniable ramming device on one of their ships. I forget what it was officially described as but Sea Shepard said it was basically an old fashioned can opener and it destroyed a donated boat that played chicken with it.

              I'm not sure whether Sea Shephard is officially against all fishing or just abusive fishing but there's an intersection of interests between fishing industries of most countries and Sea Shephard, in the same way that hunters and conservationists have common interests.
              Sea Shephard spends most of their time acting against Japanese whalers and Chinese/Indonesian driftnet fishing boats. The navies of many countries probably appreciate the assist which is why they'd sometimes have cops on board (I think that's kind of a new thing).

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >old fashioned can opener and it destroyed a donated boat that played chicken with it.
                its not a ram. the boat that was destroyed was a wood and fiberglass racing trimaran that only displaced 13 tons. the ship that hit it displaces 1,025 tons.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Get fucked, nip

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The US can license privateers.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The constitution provides congress with the power to issue letters of marque

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not all of us are burgers

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