Frag Out! Magazine
Issue link: https://fragout.uberflip.com/i/1497523
the silo-like nature of the national security system. Ports are protected based on a special act of law on the protection of shipping and harbors. The Act on Crisis Management places ports and harbors in the group of elements of critical infrastructure. The act on the protection of persons and property places the harbors among facilities that are required to be compulsorily protected. The convoluted legal framework does not make the situation any better. The members of the security service at the port can control entrance passes, inspect luggage, or catch criminals red-handed. They can also use firearms, or means of physical coercion, but based on the rules applicable to any other security officers. And this is where the first problem emerges - the security service may use firearms to attack unmanned vehicles - but only the aerial ones - in specific circumstances defined by the aviation law. Furthermore, the security service can only work within the limits of the protected areas or facilities. To provide better protection, away from the potential targets, state assets shall be employed. Police can conduct their activities within the territory of Poland - on internal waters, and the territorial waters of the sea. The Border Guard can work internally, territorially, in the adjacent area, and the EEZ. Furthermore, as no special credentials are granted to the Police, the Border Guard can use onboard armament when handling vessels. That may happen in specific circumstances though. It seems that this complicated legal landscape can be easily solved, by assigning protection of critical infrastructure and shipping lanes to the Police, or the Border Patrol, as these entities own vessels as well. However, these formal regulations do not have a tangible measure attached, that allows the aforesaid entities to take action. The security detail may only use machine pistols or shotguns, to protect military storage facilities and warehouses, or escort valuables or hazardous goods. Rifles can only be used in case of standing security detail working at military facilities - including Naval bases. The Police have no armed water force. Here, the individual weapons are the strongest asset (for instance belonging to the CT units). The Border Guard also operates vessels designed for Police applications, without any fixed armament. That means that the vessels of those organs can be armed with general-purpose machine guns. This is not the best option when handling unmanned surface assets, or underwater threats. In situations when assets available to the Police, or the Border Guard are insufficient, the Armed Forces may help. UAVs, helicopters, aircraft, and vessels can all be used against adverse unmanned assets. These tools are not built specifically for that purpose. A vessel with sonar or an ASW helicopter have a major advantage over a Police boat. They can detect underwater threats. The guns and heavy machine guns of the ORP Ślązak OPV, or the 23 mm cannons, so common on our warships, are all better suited to tackle surface threats, than desperately armed Police boats - with the policemen yielding automatic rifles. That requires certain decisions to be made at the ministerial level. Several acts of law are at hand here, with a set of separate competency domains to be addressed. For instance, the Act on Border Guard envisages that the Border Guard officers can be supported on land, by the Army. The use of warships or other naval assets is regulated by two other acts of law. The Act on Protection of Shipping and www.fragoutmag.com