US Naval Exercise, Cancelled to protect endangered whales Options

[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.