The UN is worried that naval escorts make tankers a target. This isn't just a miscalculation; it is a fundamental misunderstanding of how kinetic deterrence works in the 21st century. When international bodies suggest that hiding in the tall grass is a "safer" alternative to a destroyer-class escort, they are effectively asking the global supply chain to play a high-stakes game of peek-a-boo with non-state actors who have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
The "lazy consensus" suggests that an armed presence provokes an escalation. In reality, the lack of a visible, overwhelming deterrent is what invites the initial strike. Modern piracy and militia-led maritime interdiction are not driven by ideological offense at the sight of a grey hull; they are driven by the cold, hard math of risk versus reward.
The Myth of the Low Profile
The argument that merchant vessels are safer when they blend in assumes that the adversary is looking for a fight. They aren't. They are looking for a prize.
If you are a Houthi insurgent or a Somali pirate, you aren't hunting for a showdown with a Burke-class destroyer. You are looking for 200,000 tons of crude oil that has no way to bite back. The idea that removing the escort makes the tanker "less of a target" is like saying a bank vault is safer if you remove the armed guards and the steel door so as not to "provoke" the burglars.
In the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, the "target" status is already assigned by the flag of the ship, the destination of the cargo, or simply the presence of the hull in the water. An escort doesn't create the target; it creates a cost for hitting it.
The Physics of Deterrence
We need to talk about the $10,000 drone versus the $2 million interceptor. The UN and various "risk analysts" point to this cost asymmetry as proof that escorts are a failing strategy. They argue that because it costs more to defend than to attack, the defense is inherently flawed.
This is a failure of basic economic logic. You don't measure the cost of the interceptor against the cost of the drone. You measure the cost of the interceptor against the value of the ship, the cargo, and the potential environmental catastrophe of a sunken VLCC (Very Large Crude Carrier).
If a $2 million missile saves a $150 million ship carrying $80 million in oil, the ROI is massive.
Why "Avoidance" is a Corporate Fantasy
Shipping companies are currently being told that the "safe" play is to reroute around the Cape of Good Hope. On paper, it looks like a clean solution. In practice, it is a logistical nightmare that destroys margins and fuels global inflation.
- Fuel Burn: Adding 10 to 14 days to a journey isn't just a delay; it’s a massive increase in carbon emissions and fuel costs.
- Tonnage Compression: When ships spend more time at sea per trip, the global "effective capacity" of the fleet drops.
- Insurance Spikes: Think the Cape is cheap? War risk premiums don't just vanish because you took the long way. They shift.
By advocating for "de-escalation through avoidance," we are essentially allowing a few thousand men in speedboats to dictate the terms of global trade. That isn't risk management. That's surrender disguised as "prudence."
The Counter-Intuitive Truth: We Need Privatized Lethality
If the UN is so concerned that state-sponsored naval escorts turn tankers into political targets, there is a clear, albeit controversial, alternative: the massive scaling of Privately Contracted Armed Security Teams (PCAST).
For years, the industry has been squeamish about "mercenaries" on decks. But the data from the height of Somali piracy tells a different story. Not a single vessel with a professional, armed security team was successfully hijacked. Not one.
The "target" argument falls apart when the lethality is organic to the vessel. When the defense is decentralized, the "political" provocation vanishes. It’s no longer a NATO vs. Militia conflict; it’s a "don’t touch my boat or you’ll be shot" conflict.
The Problem With "Passive" Defense
Many "experts" suggest hardening vessels with non-lethal means:
- Long-range acoustic devices (LRADs)
- Water cannons
- Razor wire
- Safe rooms (Citadels)
I have seen crews try to use water cannons against men with RPGs. It’s like bringing a garden hose to a gunfight. Non-lethal measures are a psychological sedative for the board of directors, not a physical deterrent for a boarding party. A pirate doesn't care if his clothes get wet if he’s about to hold a crew for a $10 million ransom.
The Logistics of the "Escort Target" Fallacy
Let’s dismantle the "Naval escorts make you a target" argument with a thought experiment.
Imagine two tankers, Tanker A and Tanker B. Tanker A is sailing alone, relying on "low profile" tactics. Tanker B is in a convoy with a French frigate.
A drone operator on the coast sees both. He has two missiles. Does he fire at the ship that might shoot his missile out of the sky and then counter-battery his launch site into dust? Or does he fire at the floating duck that can’t do anything but send an SOS?
✨ Don't miss: The Silk Road Stranglehold and the Merchant’s Defiance
The UN’s logic suggests the operator fires at Tanker B because it’s "more provocative." This ignores the fundamental human instinct of survival. Adversaries target the weak, not the "provocative."
The High Price of Institutional Cowardice
The reason we are even having this conversation is because of a vacuum in maritime leadership. We have prioritized "de-escalation" over "dominance," and the result is a maritime environment where the law of the sea is being rewritten by the least civilized actors on the planet.
The shipping industry has become a "soft target" because it behaves like one. We hide behind "unclear jurisdictions" and "flag of convenience" loopholes to avoid the responsibility of self-defense.
If we want the Red Sea, the Black Sea, and the South China Sea to remain open for business, we have to stop treating "escorts" as a liability. They are the only thing keeping the global economy from a total seizure.
The Real Risk Nobody Talks About
The danger isn't that a tanker gets hit while being escorted. The danger is the normalization of interdiction. Every time a ship reroutes or a navy pulls back to "avoid provocation," the threshold for what constitutes an "acceptable" attack on trade lowers. We are teaching our adversaries that the global supply chain is a nervous, skittish animal that will run if you just throw a few rocks at it.
Stop Asking Permission to Exist
The UN’s warnings are designed to prevent "incidents" in the short term, but they ensure a "catastrophe" in the long term. By discouraging naval protection, they are creating a playground for asymmetric warfare.
We don't need fewer escorts. We need a fundamental shift in how we view the protection of trade. We need to stop viewing the presence of a destroyer as an "escalation" and start viewing it as the baseline requirement for operating in a world that has forgotten the value of Pax Nautica.
If you’re a shipowner and you’re listening to the "avoidance" crowd, you aren't managing risk. You’re just delaying the inevitable. The pirates and the militias aren't waiting for you to be "less provocative." They are waiting for you to be alone.
Buy the guns. Hire the teams. Demand the escorts. The ocean isn't a "peaceful commons" anymore—it’s a combat zone, and it’s time we started acting like it.
Stop hoping the sharks won't bite because you're being quiet. Start making it clear that if they bite, they lose their teeth.
