Locked and Loaded, But at What Cost?
When I shared my recent DeepDraft article on armed merchant shipping across different platforms, the responses were as revealing as the subject itself. Some were thoughtful, few were emotional. Some went straight into geopolitics and missed the maritime point completely. But taken together, they showed why this issue cannot be handled with a simple shore-side answer.
One line of response was predictable: “Ships have the right to defend themselves.” Of course they do.
No Master wants to take a vessel, cargo and crew into a threat area with nothing more than circulars, advisories and carefully worded assurances from ashore. Seafarers are not expendable. A crew under drone, missile, boarding or piracy risk has every right to expect real protection, not sympathy after the incident.
But then came the more practical responses.
One reader made a fair point: a heavy machine gun is not a complete answer to the drone threat. But it would also be wrong to say that it is useless. Against a low, slow, close-range aerial drone, it may still damage or bring it down. Against an unmanned surface vessel, its relevance may be even clearer. A USV is a physical surface target closing the ship, often within the same threat picture as fast craft, explosive boats or coercive boarding approaches.
Get Raghu Sharma’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
The limitation is reliability. A gun may help against a close drone or USV, but it is not detection, tracking, early warning or layered protection. It may deter a small craft closing with hostile intent. It may engage or disrupt a USV before impact. It may complicate an attempted boarding. It may affect the calculation of a helicopter-borne team approaching a vessel in a politically charged interception.
Another reader raised the port problem. That matters more than many people realise. A merchant ship does not operate inside one legal box. It moves from flag jurisdiction to coastal waters to foreign ports, each with its own rules on firearms, ammunition, declarations, custody, armed personnel and customs control. What may be accepted in one passage can become a detention risk at the next port.
Others treated the question as if it were still only about Somali piracy. Well, piracy skiffs, armed boarding teams, naval inspection parties, drones, missiles and sea drones are not the same threat. Maritime security becomes weak when we use one old template for every new risk.
The weapon is only the visible part. The real problem is who is responsible for protecting civilian trade when commercial shipping enters a militarised sea? It should not fall entirely on the Master. A Master can manage navigation, cargo, weather, crew discipline, fatigue, reporting, port pressure and emergency response. But a Master cannot turn a merchant vessel into a warship by order, contract or wishful thinking. The ship remains commercial, crew remains civilian, cargo remains exposed and legal consequences remain real.
People want seafarers protected. Good. Now we need to ask whether we are protecting them properly, or merely handing them a harder problem at sea.
I wrote the fuller DeepDraft analysis here:
https://thedeepdraft.com/2026/08/17/the-return-of-armed-merchant-shipping/
Originally published at https://www.linkedin.com.
