US Naval Exercise, Cancelled to protect endangered whales Options

[celebritygooner]

A federal judge in California has ordered the US Navy to temporarily stop using sonar equipment because it might harm whales and other sea mammals.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5143698.stm

I've seen many clashes between business and environmental interests, but I've never heard of environmentalists clashing with the military and actually winning. Is this a good thing?

[Seeker]

The Navy uses different types of sonars (active/LFA and passive), the active/LFA type is harmful to marine life and passive isn't.

I'm guessing that the judge banned only the use of the harmful sonar, and that's a good thing.

[celebritygooner]

I'm very nervous about civilians who aren't the President or Secretary of Defense giving orders to the military. The Congress? OK. Some district court judge? No.

Can't this precedent be applied more broadly to include other civilian-inspired weapons bans?

[Seeker]

It's not right for the U.S. Department of Defense to just issue the Navy an exemption from the Marine Mammal Protection Act whenever it feels like it. I'm glad someone had the balls to enforce our Nation's laws.

Secondly, since a safe alternative sonar exists I don't see the reason the Navy insists on using the high-frequency version that's harmful to marine life.

[chook]

It's not right for the U.S. Department of Defense to just issue the Navy an exemption from the Marine Mammal Protection Act whenever it feels like it. I'm glad someone had the balls to enforce our Nation's laws.

Secondly, since a safe alternative sonar exists I don't see the reason the Navy insists on using the high-frequency version that's harmful to marine life.

All sonar is pretty low freq. Active sonar is needed for objects that will not make a noise at the sonar freqs. I do not know too much about this, but there are some wako judges on both ends of the spectrum. I disagree with the decision based on the little knowledge i have.

[pebkac]

I'm very nervous about civilians who aren't the President or Secretary of Defense giving orders to the military. The Congress? OK. Some district court judge? No.

Of course, but if the military doesn't follow Congress's laws, who's going to correct them?

Personally, I myself don't know much about sonar either, but my view is that if the military can prove that:

1) They had a valid national security concern that required them to use that type of sonar
2) There was no way they could have held the training exercise in an area that has less marine life

then they should have gotten out of this.

[pysex]

so they don't know if the sonar actually harms whales....


just a hunch huh?


so its cool for scientists to have a hunch that whales MIGHT get hurt from sonar....their precious precious little ears...and get a district court to halt all actions of the military...







on a hunch...

[pebkac]

so they don't know if the sonar actually harms whales....


just a hunch huh?


so its cool for scientists to have a hunch that whales MIGHT get hurt from sonar....their precious precious little ears...and get a district court to halt all actions of the military...







on a hunch...

Notice that the judge didn't permanently stop the excercises. He called for a temporary moritorium until there's more info.

[celebritygooner]

a temporary moritorium until there's more info.

What if a judge would have done the same with uranium in 1943 and the Germans would have finished their bomb first? Or with the chem weapon antidote kits issued to soldiers in Desert Storm? Alot of people think "gulf war syndrome" is a reaction not to chem weapons but to the antidotes themselves ... but widespread chem-filled SCUD use against us would have been so much worse.

My point: when you're working with high tech weaponry in the interest of national defense, isn't there a moral obligation to err on the side of protecting the country? Yeah, the world would be a better place if there were no [insert horrible weapon here], but as long as [insert horrible weapon here] exists, we'd damn well better have more / better / bigger ones than our enemies. The Navy wouldn't have built this thing unless they perceived a need ... and, again, my interest isn't the merits of this need specifically, but in the precedent of judges defining ROE for the military.

[Seeker]

so they don't know if the sonar actually harms whales....


just a hunch huh?


so its cool for scientists to have a hunch that whales MIGHT get hurt from sonar....their precious precious little ears...and get a district court to halt all actions of the military...







on a hunch...

Actually there is proof, there are tons of studies published in scientific journals if you want to look them up.

[pebkac]

What if a judge would have done the same with uranium in 1943 and the Germans would have finished their bomb first? Or with the chem weapon antidote kits issued to soldiers in Desert Storm? Alot of people think "gulf war syndrome" is a reaction not to chem weapons but to the antidotes themselves ... but widespread chem-filled SCUD use against us would have been so much worse.

My point: when you're working with high tech weaponry in the interest of national defense, isn't there a moral obligation to err on the side of protecting the country? Yeah, the world would be a better place if there were no [insert horrible weapon here], but as long as [insert horrible weapon here] exists, we'd damn well better have more / better / bigger ones than our enemies. The Navy wouldn't have built this thing unless they perceived a need ... and, again, my interest isn't the merits of this need specifically, but in the precedent of judges defining ROE for the military.

There's a difference. You're talking about things happening during actual wartime. This is a peacetime training exercise. If the Navy can prove that it's neccessary to use the sonar they used and that it's also neccessary to hold the exercises in the area where there is the endangered wildlife, then I'd grant this to them. But really, I seriously doubt there was any reason to have the exercises where they did.

[Hartmann]

So if they're out in international waters they still have to heed this order still? Seems a little off to me. Active sonar has been in use for years, why was the push to ban it not made till now?

As far as proof goes everything I have found states that the evidence linking whale strandings and sonar are very strong but haven't seen anything with "proof". It's normal science, a general consensus agrees that is what is happening. Just like global warming, etc, etc.

[pebkac]

So if they're out in international waters they still have to heed this order still? Seems a little off to me.

The species are endangered whether they're in our water or if they're in international water.

[Hartmann]

The species are endangered whether they're in our water or if they're in international water.

But how can a law imposed by the U.S. government affect what happens in uncontrolled waters? I understand that they are the Navy but whose to say that others aren't using the same active sonar? Just seems like a waste of judicial time...

[pebkac]

But how can a law imposed by the U.S. government affect what happens in uncontrolled waters? I understand that they are the Navy but whose to say that others aren't using the same active sonar? Just seems like a waste of judicial time...

Well, if the US government has no authority in international waters, what is the Navy doing there?

[Hartmann]

Well, if the US government has no authority in international waters, what is the Navy doing there?

Countries all over the world have submarines and ships in international waters...

[pebkac]

Countries all over the world have submarines and ships in international waters...

That's not really the point though. The Navy is an entity of the federal government, thus they are subject to the federal government's laws. I would agree that it would be dumb for us to try to govern what another country's navy does in international waters though.

[Hartmann]

That's not really the point though. The Navy is an entity of the federal government, thus they are subject to the federal government's laws. I would agree that it would be dumb for us to try to govern what another country's navy does in international waters though.

I understand what you are saying... I guess my point is that active sonar gives a distinct advantage in combat and when doing sub hunting or things like that in the open ocean it's a needed tool.

[Seeker]

The Navy submarines are like little outposts of America in international waters. The submarines are still subject to our laws.

[pebkac]

I understand what you are saying... I guess my point is that active sonar gives a distinct advantage in combat and when doing sub hunting or things like that in the open ocean it's a needed tool.

And I wouldn't have a problem with them using it if it's not around any endangered species.

[Seeker]

And I wouldn't have a problem with them using it if it's not around any endangered species.

Plus they have safe sonar alternatives that aren't harmful to marine life.

[pysex]

The only animals that are affected by sonar would obviously be whales, dolphins, and any other sea life with ears. All the navy has to do is look up migratory patterns of these animals and do it in an area where they aren't. That would've been a better judgement call than to cease and desist all exercises until scientists can PROVE that sonar hurts sea mammals.

[Hartmann]

Plus they have safe sonar alternatives that aren't harmful to marine life.

like?? And these alternatives have to produce the same result efficiency as active sonar...

[GhostofTHECHICKE...]

its been past precident that the courts have always stayed out of military decisions because they aren't qualified in the matters revolving around how the military works. There have been past happenings where a ship was allegedly blown up in a negligent way that killed sailors, but the courts would not rule on it because they knew they weren't going to get into the business of deciding how they think the military should and should not be run, because its out of thier job description.

I think this is something that will be over-ruled in the appeals courts because it is a judge over-stepping a usual past precident of judges not controling how the military OPERATES.

But i could be wrong... in any case i think its bad.. active sonar has a the ability of protecting us wear passive can't, because it actually looks instead of just listening .... or so i've heard

[pebkac]

The only animals that are affected by sonar would obviously be whales, dolphins, and any other sea life with ears. All the navy has to do is look up migratory patterns of these animals and do it in an area where they aren't. That would've been a better judgement call than to cease and desist all exercises until scientists can PROVE that sonar hurts sea mammals.

I think that's what the court was saying. It wasn't that they can't use active sonar. It's not that they can't use active sonar. It's that they shouldn't have been using active sonar where they did. A quote from the article:

[The judge] wrote that the plaintiffs "have shown a possibility that Rimpac 2006 will kill, injure, and disturb many marine species, including marine mammals, in waters surrounding the Hawaiian Islands".

She said the navy should have considered holding the exercise in a less densely populated marine habitat.

[Psykopath]

BETTER NOT MAKE HIM MAD

[celebritygooner]

I wouldn't have a problem with [the military maintaining proficiency and readiness] if it's not around any endangered species.

I changed a couple words of your quote and would like to ask if the environazi movement is so advanced that THIS is actually up for debate.

Three questions:
If submarines don't threaten dolphins, won't killer whales?
If dolphins really are bothered, won't they leave the area?
If dolphins DO leave the area, who gives a shit?

[Seeker]

If submarines don't threaten dolphins, won't killer whales?

You can't compare humans to killer whales. Humans have a choice whether or not to harm other living creatures. Secondly, killer whales kill them for food. Humans using active sonar would not be killing them for food.

If dolphins really are bothered, won't they leave the area?

Active sonar goes out for miles. Dolphins have no chance of escaping before the damage is done, hence the reason they beach themselves in an attempt to get out of the water.

If dolphins DO leave the area, who gives a shit?

Dolphins have certain mating areas. Disrupting their natural habitat endangers them as a species.

Dude, did you even think before you asked such dumb ass retarded questions?

[celebritygooner]

The best cans of tuna have little chunks of dolphin in them. I'd love to eat dolphin, but dolphins are "intelligent" and "cute" and therefore more worthy of our protection than cows, pigs or chickens.

Are submarines plowing through pods of dolphins? Or are they just in the same general area? I don't imagine the Navy is out trying to harpoon narwhals, Queequeg.

The Navy has certain operating areas. You'll find that they're pretty close to naval bases. Forcing them to sail (potentially) hundreds of miles to exercise wastes their time, wastes your money, and forces them to train far from the bases their goal is to defend.

Dude, did you even think before you spouted the standard talking points on environmental issues?

... and will you think about them now, or just ban me for challenging the sanctity of the administrator?

[Seeker]

Dude, your reply post to mine didn't even address the arguments I put forth. You just called them names "standard environmental talking points". The first rule in debate is to attack your opponents points not to call them names. YOU LOSE SIR!!

!WHHHAAA WHAHHHAAHH! I CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING TO REFUTE YOUR ARGUMENT SO I'LL JUST CALL YOU NAMES!!"

I'll give you a chance to address my points then I'll ban you.

[pebkac]

I changed a couple words of your quote and would like to ask if the environazi movement is so advanced that THIS is actually up for debate.

Please. Tell me how it would have endangered national security for them to go elsewhere where there weren't dolphins that would be harmed by active sonar.

[celebritygooner]

Dude, your reply post to mine didn't even address the arguments I put forth.

Yes they did. In fact, they did ti so well, I didn't need to quote yours.

The first paragraph, the one about tuna, is a reply to your first. Killing is killing. You can't say people killing cows and whales killing dolphins is ok, but people killing dolphins isn't. Killing for food is ok but killing by accident isn't? What about killing for ivory or killing for fur or killing for religious ritual? Are those good enough? Killing is killing.

Edit: Twelve "killing"s in that paragraph.

The second paragraph, the one about Queequeg, is a reply to your second.

And the third paragraph, the one about naval bases, is a reply to your third. It be inconvenient for dolphins to have to find somewhere else to do what they do, but it's also inconvenient for humans to find a different place to do what we do. What's the difference? I don't see one.

[celebritygooner]

Please.  Tell me how it would have endangered national security for them to go elsewhere where there weren't dolphins that would be harmed by active sonar.

What if the dolphins move? Or if there's another animal at the new location? Bottom line: you're putting environmental protection on a higher pedestal than national security. We won't lose a war solely because of that. But what if next time it's birds hurt by a new radar? Or groundhogs hurt by a new bunker-busting bomb? Will China or Iran or North Korea limit themselves in equally environmentally-friendly ways? Hardly. And THAT endangers national security.

[Billy]

Celebrity....the sky isn't falling.

[celebritygooner]

Celebrity....the sky isn't falling.

That's not the point of the thread at all ... the "NSA wiretap scandal" wasn't the end of the world, but everybody said "that's it, the beginning of the end" because of the potentially dangerous precedent it set. This exercise is the first time I've ever seen environmental interests score a win vs the military (or second after Agent Orange / Napalm / Vietnam / etc) ... and I think that environmentalists scoring wins against the military is a very dangerous precedent.

[Seeker]

Yes they did. In fact, they did ti so well, I didn't need to quote yours.

The first paragraph, the one about tuna, is a reply to your first. Killing is killing. You can't say people killing cows and whales killing dolphins is ok, but people killing dolphins isn't. Killing for food is ok but killing by accident isn't? What about killing for ivory or killing for fur or killing for religious ritual? Are those good enough? Killing is killing.

Edit: Twelve "killing"s in that paragraph.

The second paragraph, the one about Queequeg, is a reply to your second.

And the third paragraph, the one about naval bases, is a reply to your third. It be inconvenient for dolphins to have to find somewhere else to do what they do, but it's also inconvenient for humans to find a different place to do what we do. What's the difference? I don't see one.

How did your first paragraph address my argument? I said you can't compare humans to killer whales. Humans have a choice whether or not to harm other living creatures. Secondly, I said killer whales kill them for food. Humans using active sonar would not be killing them for food.

Killing animals for food (cows, whatever) is A-OK. Killing dolphins using sonar is not killing them for food and it is not accidental since we know very well that the sonar is killing them.

How can you say we are killing dolphins by accident when we know good and well the sonar is killing them? You need to think your arguments over a little better before you spout them off in a public forum.

Next, I said that active sonar goes out for miles. Dolphins have no chance of escaping before the damage is done, hence the reason they beach themselves in an attempt to get out of the water.

In response to that paragraph you go off on a tangent about norwhals and a fictional character from Moby Dick. What on Earth does that have to do with my argument?

Last but not least I said dolphins have certain mating areas. Disrupting their natural habitat endangers them as a species.

You popped back that avoiding the mating areas forces to the Navy to waste time and money to go to other areas. This is the only argument in your incoherent rambling that actually made any sense. In response to that, I'm sure the Navy can float their submarines a few miles away from the mating grounds to perform their exercises since the Navy continuously fuels their submarines to patrol international waters. The time and money used to avoid mating areas is insignificant.

At least think your arguments through before you put them on Techsans so they're not so easy for me to rip apart. I like a challenge and you're not giving me one.

[Seeker]

That's not the point of the thread at all ... the "NSA wiretap scandal" wasn't the end of the world, but everybody said "that's it, the beginning of the end" because of the potentially dangerous precedent it set. This exercise is the first time I've ever seen environmental interests score a win vs the military (or second after Agent Orange / Napalm / Vietnam / etc) ... and I think that environmentalists scoring wins against the military is a very dangerous precedent.

Somone has to make sure the military isn't going around destroying our Earth will-nilly.

The American government is all about checks and balances. For a long time the balance was one-sided (in the military's favor), but with this recent ruling the balance has been restored.

Why are you against such fundamental American values such as checks and balances?

[celebritygooner]

How did your first paragraph address my argument?

We're not out just randomly hunting dolphins, Buffalo Bill-style ... they're "dying", if we're going to just make that jump (Some scientists believe the powerful sound waves emitted by underwater sonar equipment can harm sea mammals.), as a byproduct of our presence.

Is it acceptable to kill a rat or mouse that breaks into your pantry?
Or a wolf that tries to attack your flock of sheep?
What if rhinos "naturally" want to stampede your village ... can you shoot them?
What about killing animals for clothing and shelter?

My point: plenty of justified reasons for killing something, and the sonar example isn't even deliberate like the others. Killing is a fact of life, and I strongly suspect that alot of people (including the judge) just don't like the military.

[Seeker]

I have no problem with the military, but I think they should exercise a bit of caution and common-sense when it comes it comes to military exercises.

[celebritygooner]

Why are you against such fundamental American values such as checks and balances?

That's BS and you know it ... and since when did some random judge have the authority to check and balance the US Navy? Probably best that CINC, SECDEF and Congress be the only civilians who give orders or have the right to define ROE ...

[Seeker]

That's BS and you know it ... and since when did some random judge have the authority to check and balance the US Navy? Probably best that CINC, SECDEF and Congress be the only civilians who give orders or have the right to define ROE ...

Checks and balances is BS? By that same reasoning you're calling our Constitution BS for incorporating checks and balances. I thought conservatives were supposed to be pro-constitution?

Isn't that hypocritical of you?

[GOB]

way to blow his argument way out of proportion, douche bag


edit: he's saying that if this is happening, why can't some random county judge on the border of mexico tell the marines that they can just open fire because he believes it's bad for the citizens of this country and they're "invading" and threatening national security. not that i would have a problem with that, but i'm just saying.

[Psykopath]

douche bag

yikes!


?!?

[GOB]

?!?

do it!

[Seeker]

why would i ban anyone in this thread, i totally owned it and ripped my opponents a new a-hole

i ony ban people when i have work to do or i'm too lazy to sit around and argue with them

[Mommy]

GIGGLEZ

[Seeker]

GIGGLEZ

[Psykopath]

GIGGLEZ

[celebritygooner]

Checks and balances is BS?  By that same reasoning you're calling our Constitution BS for incorporating checks and balances.  I thought conservatives were supposed to be pro-constitution?

Isn't that hypocritical of you?

You know that's not what I'm saying (frankly, I thought you were smarter than that). The issue at hand isn't the merits of a checks-and-balances system in our government ... the issue at hand is oversight authority being usurped by people who shouldn't have it; it's the same issue that YOU cry about when the President doesn't double-and-triple-check with Congress on anti-terrorism programs, except that the roles are reversed this time ... this time instead of one person consolidating authority, completely random people are stealing little pieces of authority, which undermines and muddles the process and in the end, makes our country less secure.

*celebritygooner stops before he hurts anyone's feelings*

[Mommy]

a wise man once told me "LOLZ ROFFLEZ thanks for the WAFFLEZ"

[GOB]

a wise man once told me "LOLZ ROFFLEZ thanks for the WAFFLEZ"

[Mommy]

is the black lady foot fucking her?

the gif baffles me

[GOB]

is the black lady foot fucking her?

the gif baffles me

haha, that's horatio sanz and i think he's trying to do the worm

[Mommy]

FAT PEOPLE

[GOB]

FAT PEOPLE

we just made this thread much better than it was

[Mommy]

we just made this thread much better than it was

politiks is no joking matter

[Jyan]

The whales should mount a counterattack!

[pysex]

I think I would be in agreement with a judge's decision if it was over something more crucial than whales dying off....because now...this one judge shows all the other judges that they can halt military activities if say a marine accidentally stepped on an endangered cockroach on his way to the latrine....


If they were ramming submarines into coral reefs, launching torpedos up whale's asses, and stuffing dolphins into their turbines for extra boost....THEN I might have a problem with it...

BUT SONAR MAYBE KILLING MARINE LIFE....



BOO


HOO

[celebritygooner]

nicely put.

[Guest_CANNONBALL_*]

whoa whoa wait...they're considering canc'ing rimpac becase of fuckin sonar?

and it's some JUDGE!?

how the hell can they justify doing that? I did a rimpac once (we called it rimjob, but hey)...and it's a big ass multinational hullabaloo that takes about 1.5 months out of a unit's training schedule (factoring in the transit from conus).

and it's not just us involved...so let's say we can't participate, but that leaves a bunch of other countries with massive funds and troops allocated/budgeted just kinda standing there with their dicks in their hands?

rimpac is fun, it's good training, and it helps reinforce an alliance with other countries that I am sure is hurting as of the past few years.

that judge needs to stick to DUIs and battered women and shit...

what a crock.

[Guest_CANNONBALL_*]

also you would think that since this is an annual exercise (the largest one of its specific kind...which is a lot of sub-ops...not just hunting, but in our case deploying raiders from sub silos)...that after 20+ goddamn years they would have been able to gather enough quantitative evidence on the hazards of sonar. I mean you'd think by now that you'd see a slew of blue whales corpses floating ashore on waikiki or some shit...

[Hartmann]

also you would think that since this is an annual exercise (the largest one of its specific kind...which is a lot of sub-ops...not just hunting, but in our case deploying raiders from sub silos)...that after 20+ goddamn years they would have been able to gather enough quantitative evidence on the hazards of sonar. I mean you'd think by now that you'd see a slew of blue whales corpses floating ashore on waikiki or some shit...

Exactly... Active sonar has been heavily used for years (since somewhere around 1970) and we're just now seeing the effects?? BS.

[Seeker]

If it harms human snorklers you don't think it would harm marine life?

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_..._61/ai_78966509

Also during the Hawaii test, a snorkler was exposed to a 125 decibel LFA broadcast over a period of thirty to forty-five minutes. She emerged from the water with symptoms a doctor diagnosed as similar to acute trauma: "She could barely talk, had difficulties in expressing and finding words, expressed dizziness and confusion.... There was tremor in reaching for things and difficulties in walking straight forward with open eyes.

For example, seventeen whales from four different species stranded themselves in the Bahamas in March 2000. Seven died. At the same time, the navy was conducting the Littoral Warfare Advanced Development Sea Tests, which used various sonar devices and included high intensity (235 decibel) broadcasts.

the navy has known the resonance frequency of airspaces in Cuvier's beaked whales since 1998 and places the resonance frequency in the whales' cranial airspaces at about 290 hertz at 500 meters depth--precisely the middle frequency of the LFA system.

[Hartmann]

So how far do the whales have to be from the boats? I can just imagine this getting worse and in the time of crisis a ship/sub encountering an enemy, taking sufficient measures, then a school of whales floats by so the captain has to order the active sonar turned off, then the enemy boats sinks them... A few hundred (or thousand) men dead so some whale doesn't beach itself...

[Seeker]

So how far do the whales have to be from the boats? I can just imagine this getting worse and in the time of crisis a ship/sub encountering an enemy, taking sufficient measures, then a school of whales floats by so the captain has to order the active sonar turned off, then the enemy boats sinks them... A few hundred (or thousand) men dead so some whale doesn't beach itself...

If whales keep popping up dead all over the place that would tell our enemies precisely the location where our subs are at. They wouldn't even need to use sonar they'd just have to follow the dead whales.

[Guest_CANNONBALL_*]

She could barely talk, had difficulties in expressing and finding words, expressed dizziness and confusion....

I've had that diving too...brought on by alternobaric vertigo, hypothermia, and too much nitrogen in my blood due to rebreathers.

[Guest_CANNONBALL_*]

If whales keep popping up dead all over the place that would tell our enemies precisely the location where our subs are at. They wouldn't even need to use sonar they'd just have to follow the dead whales.

LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!

[Seeker]

I've had that diving too...brought on by alternobaric vertigo, hypothermia, and too much nitrogen in my blood due to rebreathers.

She wasn't diving, she was snorkeling... which is breathing through a tube on the surface of the water.

[Seeker]

LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!

AM I RIGHT?!?!

[Guest_CANNONBALL_*]

She wasn't diving, she was snorkeling... which is breathing through a tub on the surface of the water.

I know. my point is, if I can heal up from it just fine, can't a fuckin whale that weighs 20x more than me?

[Seeker]

I know. my point is, if I can heal up from it just fine, can't a fuckin whale that weighs 20x more than me?

Nope, the damage is much worse to whales and dolphins since the sound resonates in their cranial cavity somehow, you'd have to read the study on it since I'm no biologist.

[Hartmann]

If whales keep popping up dead all over the place that would tell our enemies precisely the location where our subs are at. They wouldn't even need to use sonar they'd just have to follow the dead whales.

Except they don't just "pop up" and there aren't a ton of them...

[pysex]

I still don't like any of this. Humans are destructive. We build things that destroy our environment. My dog ate a nest of sparrows in my backyard. I killed an entire population of ants and cockroaches under my porch. I hit a coon and flattened it's head on my way back to Lubbock last week. WE DESTROY THINGS. I don't think a couple of fucking whales washing up on shore is going to make a difference. Why are we limiting our defensive capabilities when North Korea just launched a shitton of practice missiles? You think that shit was for the 4th? North Korea's version of a grand finale? THEY WANT TO FUCKING DESTROY US. Give power back to the military and mow the fuckers down.

[Psykopath]

since when did four failed missles = a shitton of missles?

[pysex]

i'm saying shitton because frankly i have no idea how many there were... news agencies reported 30 different things the day it happened


saying things like japan had missiles launched at them, 6 armed missiles, missiles were duds, blah blah blah, north korea just launched a life-size godzilla into tokyo, blah blah blah

[Seeker]

ghey

[impala454]

who gives a shit about whales

the hippies only care about "cute" animals anyways. if it was some deadly mosquito that was endangered by a cruise missle nobody would give a shit.

[celebritygooner]

since when did four failed missles = a shitton of missles?

If the DPRK loaded uranium onto four SCUDs and launched them at Seoul, it would cease to be.

Furthermore, if the Navy accidently killed four whales in the name of national defense, you'd be calling for Admiral Roughead's resignation.

Much easier (perhaps 4x easier???) to shoot a SCUD across the border than a Taepodong across the globe.

[Psykopath]

If the DPRK loaded uranium onto four SCUDs and launched them at Seoul, it would cease to be.

Furthermore, if the Navy accidently killed four whales in the name of national defense, you'd be calling for Admiral Roughead's resignation.

Much easier (perhaps 4x easier???) to shoot a SCUD across the border than a Taepodong across the globe.

1.) But the "shitton" of missles launched didn't have said payloads. Way to stretch it!

2.) I would?
Yeah, avoid the whales if at all possible (in training exercises), but if the shit starts hitting the fan then too bad Willy, you're free from your corpeal woes now.

3.) No shit.

[Hartmann]

Maybe we should pay more attention to the people who actively try and kill whales: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5153602.stm

[Guest_CANNONBALL_*]

from my buddy...
________________
I don't really wanna have you post what was effective and why/how on an open forum. When I make it to Texas, I'll be sure to stop by your casa and give you my "IEDs in Iraq 101" 'til you tell me "Dude, get the fuck out....you drank all my beer!!!!"
________________
makes sense I guess? I doubt there are any insurgents on here, but whatever...

[Hartmann]

from my buddy...
________________
I don't really wanna have you post what was effective and why/how on an open forum. When I make it to Texas, I'll be sure to stop by your casa and give you my "IEDs in Iraq 101" 'til you tell me "Dude, get the fuck out....you drank all my beer!!!!"
________________
makes sense I guess? I doubt there are any insurgents on here, but whatever...

Wrong thread??

[Guest_CANNONBALL_*]

yeah I guess it is...

I'm a rock.

[Hartmann]

Sounds like the issue has been settled. The Navy can use the active sonar as long as they stay away from sensitive marine habitats and increase monitoring for whales. The environmentalist groups involved agreed to this.

So basically, during these exercises, the Navy can't use the sonar within 25 miles of the newly established Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument.