When threatened by a criminal, many people respond with neither fight nor flight, but by giving the criminal what he or she wants. Many argue that this is the best individual response. By giving in, that person can avoid physical injury. Unfortunately, criminals alter or amplify their behavior to take into account victims’ responses.

When criminals expect members of the public to give in when their person or property is violated, their inclination to commit crime rises. In the long run, handing over your wallet instead of either running or fighting back means more and more wallets are going to get stolen. Every person who makes what they see as a rational individual choice is contributing to the problem in the aggregate.

So it has been with the case of the Somali pirates who have been plaguing the Horn of Africa in recent years and who made headlines last week when they attempted to hijack a U.S. ship. Too often, shipping companies and sovereign powers — particularly European and Middle Eastern nations — have simply paid the ransom money demanded. While this may increase the safety of hostages in the short run, it also makes the pirates more inclined to commit further kidnappings and hijackings.

The problem of piracy is not new. Although pirates in the age of sails focused more on loot and less on hostages, their behavior is not altogether different from that of today’s pirates — they rob merchant ships for material gain.

Piracy was only defeated when world empires mustered the political will and military firepower to hunt down and kill or capture the pirates. Public hangings and other severe punishments made a pirate’s life a lot less appealing. There’s no enjoying loot at the end of a noose.

Last week’s rescue of Captain Richard Phillips by the U.S. Navy should mark the beginning of a similar strategy for combating modern pirates. Three snipers simultaneously shot and killed each of the hostage-takers in an impressive display of marksmanship under relatively poor shooting conditions. Such incidents will serve as a warning to other would-be swashbucklers. An increased naval presence would further reinforce this message.

For now, other pirates are responding with bluster, proclaiming that they will kill hostages sooner rather than later and, not surprisingly, hurling abuse at the United States — the only country whose navy dared to call them on their bluff.

They would like to keep the world’s shippers cowed and paying endless ransoms, but the reality is that the pirates don’t really have the option to kill their hostages. Without any human bargaining chips to deter a military response, the pirates would quickly be slaughtered.

Fighting a war on piracy is not as complicated as fighting a war on terrorism. Unlike terrorists, pirates seek money and fear death, making them rational actors. While paying ransoms may be the path of least resistance, it will only make the problem worse by reducing the pirates’ perception of risk and increasing their rewards. Fighting the pirates will reduce the number of pirates and increase the real and perceived risk of engaging in piracy.

Therefore, the answer must, as it was in the 18th century, be the unaccommodating one. In the long run, the only acceptable response to pirates is to show them no mercy.

Reach columnist Russ Wung at opinion@dailyuw.com.