Navy Sued for Sonar-Blasting Whales

An anonymous reader wrote to mention a CNN report about a suit brought against the U.S. Navy for sonar pollution. From the article: "The environmentalists want the Navy to use harmless passive sonar -- listening for sounds made by marine mammals themselves -- to locate the animals before using mid-frequency sonar. They also want the Navy to avoid migration and calving areas and to turn on sonar systems gradually so that the animals have time to flee."

Comments

bye

[mboverload]

Good bye, and thanks for all the fish....you sonar blasting n00bs.

Re:bye

[ch3]

Troll? Someone needs to revise his classis...

Yeah right

[jtrainor]

Sonar is too useful for the Navy to accept restrictions on how it's used. This suit will go nowhere.

Re:Yeah right

[biryokumaru]

It'd be like tearing up all the highways because they interfere with bird's migratory patterns.

Re:Yeah right

[pinkocommie]

Don't see why this is considered outlandish (I admit I havent RTFA but) if they can minimize environmental impact in non war conditions for low costs (some sort of power ramp up circuitry?) I dont see why they shouldnt. Seriously doubt anybody would expect them to do that in a war scenario but for training exercises and other routine uses dont see it as being a bad and/or outrageous thing

Re:Yeah right

[MrFlannel]

You play like you practice.

Re:Yeah right

[TimmyDee]

No, it's more like telling radio and microwave tower operators to use white blinking lights instead of red ones because the red ones interfere with bird migration (really -- they do).

This sort of thing does not interfere with any sort of economic well-being, nor does it require a significant cost up front, like your analogy presumes.

Re:Yeah right

[biryokumaru]

Haha, that really is a much better analogy.

I'm just kind of annoyed by some of the sillier things environmentalists/hippies say/do (this sonar thing being on the much more reasonable end of the spectrum). They make us beatniks look bad!

Re:Yeah right

[harlows_monkeys]

Sonar is too useful for the Navy to accept restrictions on how it's used. This suit will go nowhere

I live near Bremerton, Washington, and so know a lot of ex sub-mariners. Most of them tell me that in all their years on subs, they NEVER used active sonar. It gives out too much useful information to anyone who might be trying to locate the sub.

So, don't be too sure the Navy couldn't live with some restrictions.

Re:Yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

You're forgetting the war on drugs.

Re:Yeah right

[Kasar]

When it comes to detecting hidden submarines that're potentially carrying tactical warheads, what is routine? You can't wait for a launch to be detected and then try to locate them. It's a continuous thing.

The Cold War ending only made more countries able to send submarines capable of patrolling the US coasts.

Re:Yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but those are submarines, which as far as I know try to operate quietly. A carrier battle group won't exactly be quiet, so they might as well use active sonar since they're going to be noticed already.

Re:Yeah right

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> It'd be like tearing up all the highways
> because they interfere with bird's migratory patterns.

Or more like demanding large power windmills not be build because these uber-politically correct, but innumeracy-suffering savages are concerned a vanishingly small fraction of birds get killed by them.

Re:Yeah right

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> they NEVER used active sonar. It gives
> out too much useful information to anyone
> who might be trying to locate the sub.
>
> So, don't be too sure the Navy couldn't live with some restrictions ...so if they never use it, what's the problem?

And in any emergency or war situation, they would be able to use it anyway, and they need to

Ahhh, what the hell's the point of wasting electrons...

Re:Yeah right

[chenjeru]

It's true, active sonar is almost never used by military subs since it's a clear broadcast of the source position. However, for coastal monitoring networks, active sonar is becoming much more common.

Re:Yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, active sonars are not used on submarines only.
Surface ships use them too.

Re:Yeah right

[tsotha]

I live near Bremerton, Washington, and so know a lot of ex sub-mariners. Most of them tell me that in all their years on subs, they NEVER used active sonar. It gives out too much useful information to anyone who might be trying to locate the sub.

Well, yeah, they were on a platform that depends on stealth for safety. Subs don't go active unless they're sure they've been discovered. On the other hand, there's lots of platforms that use active sonar, like helos, sonobouys, and destroyers.

The other point to consider is whether or not this stuff would be used against another navy in wartime. If you plan to use a system under pressure, you have to test it frequently and train under the most realistic conditions possible. My prediction is this suit won't go anywhere, except maybe a face-saving settlement that doesn't have any real effect. Personally, I'd rather the navy was given every lattitude to train - when a war comes it's too late.

Re:Yeah right

[thrillseeker]

a lot of ex sub-mariners ... tell me that in all their years on subs, they NEVER used active sonar.

But if the commander of the vessel decides he wants to use it, he shouldn't need to to worry if he has a mother-may-I from Greenpeace to do so.

Re:Yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

There is one reasonable restriction - you should try not to run exercises in areas where whales are congregating. That's doable without affecting operational readiness, and will minimise the impact of sonar on whales. Anything else is a non-starter.

Re:Yeah right

[Chris Mattern]

If the training exercise is not as close to how you actually fight as you can make it, then when the time comes to actually fight, you will discover that you haven't trained in how to fight, you've trained in how to do well in training exercises.

Chris Mattern

Re:Yeah right

[DarkTempes]

then the navy could agree and just have a 'all bets are off' policy applied to environmentalism in a wartime.

wait, we're in a wartime now, oh well.

Re:Yeah right

[Pulse_Instance]

Your post is too long, and has wasted too many electrons. I'm going to bring a suit to slashdot demanding that all posts be shorter, to ummm... save the electrons. Won't someone please think of the children.

Re:Yeah right

[mindstormpt]

I'm sure you'd also support missile training exercises on your house. After all, they might have to bomb a house or two (with civilians inside) when in war, and it's better to practice before.

Re:Yeah right

[Dwonis]

Doesn't Congress have to declare war in order for the U.S. to be legally "in wartime"?

Re:Yeah right

[Wyatt Earp]

The difference is, the ex-submariers were submariners in the Cold War or the 90s. The future of surface and submarine warfare is going to be in the littorals, were passive sonar sucks. So the USN has been working on new active sonar systems for operating in the shallow noisy littoral regions.

Re:Yeah right

[RWerp]

Still, it's better for the group to be more quiet than less quiet. Besides, carrier groups are a thing of the past.

Re:Yeah right

[wolrahnaes]

Pilots firing missles and dropping bombs don't need "realistic" training. If you can hit a target out in the middle of the desert, you can hit anything else. Oncer you lock on, the computers basically take care of the rest.
On the other hand, sonar operators must be able to listen to the sounds being picked up and make a judgement call of what the object they're pinging is. The only way to get good at this is practice, so they must practice in a crowded environment, which may include various sea life as well as other vessels.

Re:Yeah right

[Stoutlimb]

Really? So hitting an unmanned truck sitting in the Nevada desert is the same as hitting a single residential house in a crowded neighborhood? And I'm sure there are some aircraft that don't use that kind of lock-on technology, such as gunships, helicopters, etc. How are they going to train without shooting at houses in crowded neighborhoods?

I think the analogy was great! I just wish I hadn't used up all my mod points....

Re:Yeah right

[medelliadegray]

real war, versus training are two different beasts. the training aspect SHOULD be altered to be less dangerous to marine life.

i fully believe that training is hella important beforhand. BUT you dont see the navy jets firing real rockets at each other in training because it'll kill.

Why is it so hard for them to use the sonar differently in training? I didnt RFA but the headline even said that they wanted the navy to first listen for animals, then progressively turn on their sonar systems such that animals had a chance to flee. whats so hard about that? how is having animals within your training area going to adversely effect your training?

dumb.

Re:Yeah right

[ldspartan]

That is, by far, the dumbest article I've ever read. The guy claims that, as the result of one war game, carrier battle groups are completely useless. Despite the fact that everything he talks about only applies to operations close to land. And that he really doesn't talk about much. I'm no military expert, but this fellow strikes me as well and truly full of crap.

--
lds

Re:Yeah right

[RWerp]

The core of his argument is that anti-ship missiles are too effective for a large surface ship to survive long in the naval battle. It does not have anything to do with the fact that it operates close to shore. Being close to shore only maked the odds even worse. I tend to believe this argument.

Re:Yeah right

[hax4bux]

Why send submarines when coastal missiles are cheap and plentiful?

If you were in charge of coastal defense, what would you buy?

Remember the Falklands? I think Argentina had a diesel boat which didn't hit anything (surprisingly). But exocets (which Argentina had not been fully trained on) managed to leave a lasting impression.

Re:Yeah right

[trygstad]

In my Navy career as an anti-submarine warfare helicopter pilot, I can tell you I always used passive detection whenever possible; active was a last resort. I even used marine life to locate subs; although I could never get any offical sanction or confirmation, we found that often schools of dolphins hung out over submerged subs. On one occasion while passively tracking a "not U.S. or known friendly" submarine contact for over two hours, we noticed that a dolphin school seemed to consistantly be right under us when we marked "on top" of the contact using our magnetic anomoly detector (MAD). We went off station to refuel and returned over an hour later to our projected position for the contact. We dropped sonobouys but had no luck. We did see the school of dolphins, so we reeled out our MAD, made a MAD run over the dolphins and BINGO--gained contact. We tracked it for another couple of hours and the dolphins hung in there the whole time as well. We think they may have been attracted by the pressure ridge produced by the passage of the submerged sub.

All that aside, I personally never observed any adverse reaction on the part of marine mammals to active sonar, which my destroyers were the most likely to use. They loved to cavort in our bow wake--dolphins, pilot whales, killer whales--and I never saw a reaction when we lit off the sonar. Purely anecdotal, I know, but I was a pretty serious ASW guy for a long time, and have always been fascinated by marine mammals as well. Even when it is used, the modes active sonar is used in tend to be highly directional. Active sonar is sort of a last-ditch tool, and if the tactical situation requires its use, you can't afford to spend time at low power to "warn off the whales". And you have to train the way you'll fight, or there's no point to it.

Just my 2 cents.

Re:Yeah right

[Danger Stevens]

Naval sonar isn't just a nuisance - it's a very serious problem. I live in Seattle and there have been whale-damaging amplitutes of sonar received in the Puget Sound that came all the way from California. Active sonar actually kills or seriously maims aquatic life (especially marine mammals who use echolocation).

This isn't a meaningless, treehugging, war-ignoring request being made to the navy. What the navy is doing is the equivalent of old-time whaling in terms of the effect it's having - except it hurts even more than whales.

Re:Yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

1) No. See, for example, the precedents of the U.S. Civil War.

2) It has. It's well-established that Congress doesn't have to use the words "declare war" to declare war. Congress, by its authorizations of the use of military force in both Afghanistan and Iraq, has declared war twice in conflicts where combat is ongoing.

Re:Yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever learnt self-defence? Ever attempted to kill someone during lessons?

Ever learned to fire a gun at a target of a person? Why didn't you use real people?

Stop being an idiot.

Go ask someone in the military about their training exercises. I'm sure if you actually looked into it, you'd find numerous examples of modifications made for training purposes. This is no different.

Re:Yeah right

[lgw]

There are all sorts of military training excercises done without the destructive potential of the real event. There's no automatic reason for this to be any different. Some of these tree-hugger (kelp-hugger?) requests are quite reasonable. Avoiding a few problem areas for training excercises involving active sonar shouldn't be a big deal, and learning what you can with passive acoustics before using active sonar is SOP for subs anyway. Scaring away the local wildlife would be impractical for some excercises (where all players are hidden at the start), but I suspect could be arranged most of the time.

Of course, national security takes precedence, but that doesn't mean you can't the easy steps to protect the wildlife in those cases where the cost is minimal.

Re:Yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

so what's your recommendation on how sonar systems are to be modified to 'fire blanks' for operator training? You can't.

I propose that the environmentalists filing this suit be lined up single file and be used as test subjects to determine how many live bodies can be pentrated by a single round from a vulcan cannon.

Re:Yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, it was all over for destroyers and Carriers in 1967. A patrol boat owned and operated by the Egyptian Navy, hiding in Alexandria harbor launched a cruise missile that sunk an Israeli destroyer. That was nearly forty years ago. Ever since the early 80's when the French started selling exocet cruise missiles to practically anyone, and more recently the Chinese, a country like Iraq or Iran should have been able to blow our entire navy out of the water. But they haven't. Lack of motive? Lack of opportunity? Or lack of capability on the part of the cruise missile?

And remember, the smartest cruise missiles ever developed were deployed during WWII. Kamekazi's. They caused a lot of damage, but didn't sink the U.S. Navy then, either. Yes, Kamekazi's _do_ count as cruise missiles.

And as former President Clinton amply demonstrated in 1998, there's a lot that cruise missiles simply can't do; you often must send combat troops who need the logistical and air support provided by a carrier battle group.

Re:Yeah right

[Lars T.]

And this is the sound the SONAR gives off when it detonates a whale...

Re:Yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

they could rotate training crews through a submarine or two based in the great lakes. No whales there,and deep enough water for at least some scenarios.

A lot of modern naval warfighting is expected to be in littoral waters anyway......

Re:Yeah right

[hax4bux]

You had a kewl job, I used to intensely dislike helos but now I wish I had rotory training. Maybe someday.

Real world experience will never get you modded up here. Next time, you should write as if your are speculating. You'll be 5+ in no time.

Re:Yeah right

[rnelsonee]

I work on sonar systems for the Navy, and in order to ensure that the system is operating normally, you do need to send out the same signal you're planning on using in wartime (the less variables the better and such). The intelligence gathered by these tests tell the captain how far he can be from a target/shoreline in order to protect his crew.

But the idea of listening for marine mammals beforehand and then gradually increasing ping volumes is interesting (and something that I've never seen aboard a ship, but maybe I was just out of the loop on that). I'm not sure how effective that is since you'd have to wait a long time for the mammals to leave the area, but still not a bad idea.

I've been on sea trials and heard the whales 'sing' over the passive sonar, and it's pretty neat. I've also been right next to the sonar dome when they go active, and that's on the opposite end of the fun scale.

Re:Yeah right

[HardCase]

I can say that, after spending 10 years as a sonar tech on a surface ship in the US Navy, there are a lot of people writing a lot here about something that they don't know much about - and pretty much getting it wrong. Even in littoral waters, passive sonar is an effective asset, but for a final targeting solution, nothing beats the accuracy of active sonar.

Subs tend to not use active sonar for what ought to be obvious reasons. Surface ships don't use it as a primary sensor because it's relatively easy for the target to hide below the thermal layer. Even aviation assets don't use it for the number one reason that everyone else doesn't use it: once you ping the enemy, they know that you're coming.

But, once you've made the decision to attack, you've got to have a very accurate fix on the target. Active sonar does that. Active sonar is the sensor of last resort - once you start pinging, you've given away the fact that you know where the enemy is - and the enemy knows that, too. No ship, submarine or aircraft in any Navy cruises around with their active sonar blaring away - number one, it's like waving a big old flag saying "here I am" and number two, it's about impossible to sleep through if your berthing area is below decks. You won't go deaf, but you won't sleep, either.

Also, just as anectodal evidence, when we participated in exercises off of the Bahamas and Florida, we never suffered a dearth of dolphins swimming with the ship, even when we were actively pinging a target. The sonar would be going off like crazy and the dolphins would stay right with the bow of the ship. And in the Gulf of Oman, there didn't seem to be any shortage of whales, either, even though there were destroyers alongside of a repair tender operating low and mid frequency active sonar for maintenance.

So don't get the idea that the Navy is out there pounding the water with sonar - they're not. And based on what I've seen and read, I'm not even close to being convinced that sonar is negatively affecting the cetacean population.

-h-

Re:Yeah right

[iamlucky13]

The Seahawk dipping sonars and the sonobuoys are both much lower powered than the systems on submarines and surface ships. On the LA class subs, for example, the sonar dome is 15 feet in diameter and the active array generates a pulse with something like 75,000 watts of power. Tom Clancy, who tends to be pretty good at getting fascinating details, claims that water vapor bubbles actually form on the hull when they do a full power ping. Also, if I'm understanding the details correctly, the sonobuoys use a lower frequency sonar that the whales don't seem to mind, but doesn't work as well as the medium frequency sonars in shallow waters. Nations like North Korea, who have an entirely diesal-electric sub fleet and are thereby restricted in range, would likely tend to operate more defensively in coastal areas. Had we ever had to face the Russians directly, on the other hand, we likely would've been dealing with their 100+ nuclear powered attack subs in middle of the major oceans preying on merchant ships and potentially attacking our carrier groups.

Re:Yeah right

[tmortn]

Any particular reason they can't go out of the audible range? I know you still have to dump x amount of energy into the water.. but if it is by and large out of the frequency range that sound organs are sensitive to then I would thing the issue of damage would be reduced.

Re:Yeah right

[rnelsonee]

Lower frequencies have greater range and are needed to detect faraway objects. Low-freq sonar can reach the bottom of the ocean, while high-freq stuff will last only a kilometer. The same effect is seen when listening to the radio while you're in a tunnel - the AM can propogate through the water and the concrete, while higher-frequnecy FM programming can't.

High frequency systems are used in shallow water though when distance isn't as important as accuracy (with a shorter wavelentgh, a high freq system is better for finding underwater obstacles/mines). It just happens that the ideal frequencies used in sonar match the frequencies used by marine mammals (actually, I think sonar tends to be higher in frequency, but it's still well within the hearing range of the animals).

Re:Yeah right

[tmortn]

Probably not surprising they evolved the most effective frequency.....

This seems a sticky issue all around. You have reports of animals in areas of high sonar usage not making any attempt to leave the area and some evidence which seems to point to animals reacting negatively. I wonder if perhaps it is tied to a specific set of circumstances... like a particular formation of thermals, or perhaps concentration due to ocean floor formations. Like the difference between a gun fired in open air and in an enclosed space.

Re:Yeah right

[tjstork]

The Congress did declare war twice, when it authorized first the invasion of any country known to harbor Al Qaeda shortly after 9/11, then, the invasion of Iraq. Both votes are defacto declarations of war.

Re:Yeah right

[tsotha]

real war, versus training are two different beasts.

True, but only as a result of necessity. The goal of training is to simulate actual battle conditions as closely as possible.

i fully believe that training is hella important beforhand. BUT you dont see the navy jets firing real rockets at each other in training because it'll kill.

I was involve in surface-to-air missle training for many years. Believe me, they fired real missles at real flying targets. Sometimes the missle wouldn't hit because it wasn't maintained properly, wasn't fired under the right conditions, or wasn't programmed properly. It'd be a hell of thing to find out during a war that you really didn't know as much about operating active sonar as you thought you did. A hell of a fatal thing, in fact.

Why is it so hard for them to use the sonar differently in training? I didnt RFA but the headline even said that they wanted the navy to first listen for animals, then progressively turn on their sonar systems such that animals had a chance to flee. whats so hard about that? how is having animals within your training area going to adversely effect your training?

Couple things. One, how long are you going to wait for the animals to clear out? How far is safe? If they really have to go 1000 miles away to avoid injury then training with this sonar would be effectively barred.

Second, I don't see much in the way of science to back the claims in the lawsuit. We've been using medium-wave active sonar for sixty years, and in that time whale populations have been growing. So if it's harmful the harm is pretty localized.

Re:Yeah right

[tsotha]

In my Navy career as an anti-submarine warfare helicopter pilot, I can tell you I always used passive detection whenever possible; active was a last resort.

But that's my point. There are situations when you have to use active sonar, and you have to train for them. The fact that it's a last resort doesn't mean it's a capability you can do without.

Re:Yeah right

[carsamba]

In general, armies could really do with a lot more restrictions.. Budget for starters, anyone?

Re:Yeah right

[TheLink]

There are different sorts of sonar. How powerful were the ones your ships were using? Levels > 160dB can kill many things.

Lots of people talk about submarines not using active sonar.

While I am not a sub/military/sonar guy, I think that submarines can use active sonar pulses from fixed sonar arrays.

This way submarines can use "active sonar" without being a source of the sound themselves. There are so many possible ways to use that sort of thing.

Re:Yeah right

[petermgreen]

and (until we get true virtual reality) the question is always how much damage (to the environment, the people involved, the area being trained in etc) is acceptable in the name of making the training experiance more realistic.

Re:Yeah right

[trygstad]

I appreciate the perscipacity of your observation, and it probably would be helpful if I actually gave a rat's ass about being modded up. But thanks anyway!

Re:Yeah right

[trygstad]

In those instances where you need to use active sonar, you need to use it RIGHT NOW because the tactical situation is so severe that you will accept making yourself a beacon just to try to pinpoint the location of your opponent. No one uses active sonar unless they absolutely have to and then it's usually to nail down a firing solution. And you have to train like you fight or there's really no point to it. While it's true that you can't actually "fire real rockets" (they're missiles, by the way, not rockets--there's quite a difference) at an exercise aircraft opponent, you certainly can--and do--fire missiles at drones. As an anti-submarine warfare helicopter pilot, I certainly dropped enough exercise torpedoes, which actually run out, on real submarines--100% were scored as hits, BTW, although the torps actually turn out before impacting the sub. I had the cut-out fail on one and actually knock into the sub one time--boy, were they pissed off! Anyway, you MUST train like you fight. It's not just a good idea; it's critical to proficiency and to having the correct lightning-fast response in a real combat situation.

Re:Yeah right

[HardCase]

There are different sorts of sonar. How powerful were the ones your ships were using? Levels > 160dB can kill many things.

You're telling me? Of course there are different sorts of sonar! My ship had the most powerful surface sonar in the Navy - it was capable of producing sound intensities in excess of 200dB (one meter from the transducer). Could it kill? No. Could it injure? Not really - it would make your ears hurt, but not make you deaf. Actually, the sonar system was one of our defenses against attacks from divers when we were in port - it was obviously very uncomfortable to be in the water when the active sonar was pinging.

While I am not a sub/military/sonar guy, I think that submarines can use active sonar pulses from fixed sonar arrays.

Clearly you're not a sub/military/sonar guy. Fixed sonar arrays are almost entirely passive. Think about it - a fixed active array is like waving a flag to say "Don't come over here!" As soon as it goes active, it becomes worthless.

Now, you've touched tangentally on something called "ping stealing" that works a lot better in the movies than it does in real life. As the story goes, you can count the time between the active ping and the echo that you hear and tell how far away the target is. But you have to know where the active ping is coming from, you have to have a good idea of the bearing of the target and you have to be able to hear the echo. Suffice to say that any Sonar Tech in the Navy doing ping stealing is just playing a game.

By the way, there are a lot of mechanisms for sound to lose energy in water. Acoustic impedance mismatch as the sound passes through the dome window, heat loss as the sonic energy travels through the water, reflection loss as the energy bounces off particles in the water and, biggest of all, spreading loss. Spherical spreading loss goes as the square of the distance - the sound level drops dramatically as the "wave" spreads through the water. That's why the transmission is so loud to begin with - by the time the sound travels any appreciable distance, it has dropped in intensity by a lot!

This way submarines can use "active sonar" without being a source of the sound themselves. There are so many possible ways to use that sort of thing.

Many possibilities, but only a few implementations. Submarines do not rely on active sonar. Period. Most of the very best acoustic analysts come from the submarine service because they rely almost entirely on passive sonar for everything from strategic and tactical defense to navigation. That's just the way it is.

-h-

Re:Yeah right

[TheLink]

I was never talking about submarines being the source of sonar.

You'll know where the "ping" is coming from if it's from a fixed active array. And it should be possible to use the "shadow" effect.

As you pointed out the loud sounds are used because of transmission losses. So if you want a submarine to use sound from a fixed active array, the fixed active array has to send an even louder sounds.

Close your eyes. Clap your hands. From the sound reflections you can tell the rough size and sometimes even the shape of the room. Now get _someone_else_ to clap his/her hands in the room you are in, about the same effect (you still get info about the room), plus you know exactly where that person is now. Next get someone to walk between you and the clapper, and you'd be able to detect that someone (this even works with ambient noise).

I suggest that "ping stealing" can work well. If current technology can't do that, then it means it isn't good enough, not that it isn't possible.

And you don't have to steal pings if a fixed station on the ocean willingly loans them to you - even arranging for the pings to be done in a certain way so that you can get the most out of them.

If they managed to wire up a dolphin or bat to some sonar system they'd probably be able to do a lot more.

But maybe the very best acoustic analysts might be good enough? Can they tell the difference in sound _reflections_ from boat and figure out whether it's made of wood or steel?

Probably could start some kids young, getting them to interpret slowed down reflected chirps, and sped up noises.

Re:Yeah right

[HardCase]

I guess that I don't get it - you're arguing some theoretical idea with a guy who has both years of practical and theoretical experience. I know how ping stealing works and I've been involved in real-life exercises attempting to take advantage of it. The bottom line is that by the time you know enough about the environment and the target of interest to make ping stealing practical, you already know enough about the target to make ping stealing unnecessary - and that's in a surface ship. In a submarine, the target solution becomes clear even sooner because of the submarine's superior ability to passively exploit the different sonic layers in the ocean.

Also, bear in mind that active ranges in the ocean, on a good day, are maybe 20 miles using the most powerful, newest, low power sonars. Typical ranges are substantially less than that. Tactical passive ranges, however, are easily a hundred miles and more, depending on the target and water conditions. SURTASS and fixed passive arrays have much greater ranges.

To elaborate on the ping stealing problem, yes, you know the bearing from which the transmission comes, but you don't know the range. You may know the bearing from which the echo comes, but you don't know the range. If you don't know the range, you don't know if the transmission is arriving via direct path, bottom bounce or convergence zone transmission paths. Likewise, you don't know which transmission path the echo has taken. Is the target moving toward you or away from you? Without knowing the course and speed of the transmitting platform, you can't evaluate dopler effects of the echo. So, the best that you can do is tell that the target is on a line of bearing some distance from you. But you already know at least that from passive sonar. And through less than half an hour of target motion analysis, you can determine range, bearing, course and speed of the target, without using active sonar at all!

And, again, a fixed active array would almost immediately become useless as a tactical or strategic asset because it would be a piece of cake to avoid! Besides, there are no fixed tactical or strategic active sonar arrays out there anyway, so it makes the whole argument moot.

Re:Yeah right

[TheLink]

I never denied that you know a lot.

The detection range from the active transmitter you talk about is only applicable if the sound has to return all the way to the transmitter. The listeners don't have to be in the same spot as the transmitters, and the listeners don't all have to be in the same spots as each other too.

And why shouldn't you know the range of a ping, especially if the source of the ping is friendly AND stationary? Even if the thermoclines change with the seasons, I'm sure there are many measures that one can take to cope with those. After all, friendly pings could be modulated or constructed to carry information to help listeners figure some tricky things out. Plus listeners would know the original forms and possible locations of all the friendly pings (not sure if spoofing might be a problem, but I think we're far from that at the moment).

Why would it be useless if enemies avoid fixed active arrays? If they do avoid the arrays, it means you already have some influence over the enemy already. At least you'd know how many super quiet subs there are in certain areas. It may be useless for direct offense. But direct offense isn't the main thing most countries get up to.

Of course there are only very very few countries with extremely quiet subs. Maybe just 1 ;). That country is probably able to detect subs from other countries using existing other methods.

Anyway such systems might not so good for marine life - they could probably be designed to blast even louder than the combined/effective 230+dB that the SURTASS + LFA does. So perhaps they won't be such a good thing to have - even more sound pollution...

Lastly, yes I've zero years of experience in the systems you talk about.

Re:Yeah right

[Reziac]

Likely so. Similar to how if you fire a shotgun out in the open, your gundog gets all excited and thinks the noise is wonderful. But fire the same gun in an enclosed space, and the poor dog will cringe away from the barrage of reflected noise.

Might also be some individuals that have been conditioned to react negatively. Much as how if you repeatedly bang away right by your dog's ears, pretty soon he'll become gunshy, even if he wasn't by nature inclined to it.

But barring such events, noise shyness in dogs is entirely inherited (typically as one symptom of a sort of autism). There are probably whales that likewise suffer from such inherited issues, thus exhibit abnormal behaviour without readily-visible cause.

Just wait until

[zegebbers]

the dolphins come along

Re:Just wait until

[beaso]

Dude, the dolphins already left...

Re:Just wait until

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wait until the dolphins come along

Funny. Here I always thought dolphins were whales too.

Re:Priorities?

[Anonymous Coward]

OOOH evil TERRORISTS!

Do you believe everything your government tells you?

Good for them..

[aurb]

.. that those whales don't have frikking lasers.

Smallville...

[cldellow]

Sounds eerily like the plot of this week's Smallville episode.

Re:Smallville...

[endlessoul]

Maybe Clark and Aquaman can save the day and ruin the evil Navy's plans!

Pfft. Gotta agree with the parent, though.

Re:Smallville...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, what do you expect? It's a typical Zonk submission.

Twelve cetaceans died during military NATO actions

[Anonymous Coward]

Past September during NATO maneuverse killed eleven whales died. More info here.

The environmentalists also say

[Anonymous Coward]

The environmentalists also say that if the military will agree to do this, they'll give the military the formula for transparent steel

I love Westerners..

[boomgopher]

I hope everyone realizes that it's shit like this that gives environmentalism a bad name - and why regular guys like me vote against anyone who says they are environmentalists.

It's nice that we have (for the most part) stopped killing whales, but this is ridiculous. People need to get a life, and go protest something more important, like, say, the enslavement of 6 year old girls as prostitutes in Cambodia.

Re:I love Westerners..

[Fex303]

regular guys like me Why does this phrase stike terror into my heart?

Re:I love Westerners..

[Makenai]

It's of the utmost importance not to piss off the whales. The future of our planet could depend on it! Haven't you see Star Trek IV yet???!

Re:I love Westerners..

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly you have no idea just how much energy can actually be blasted into the water by active sonar.This isn't the first time this has come up of course, because it's a real problem. In fact, I'd be inclined to say that this is actually one of the more serious issues for environmentalists to look at, rather than so many other pointless things.

Re:I love Westerners..

[Mjaum]

The reason 'regular guys' like you vote against environmentalists is your immense ignorance and unwillingness to learn anything. Sorry.

  Active sonar is *extremely* loud and concentrated sound. It kills. Using such in fish spawning grounds and near whale gathering places is *stupid* and a criminal waste of resources.

  Environmentalists oppose this waste of resources.

  -Kristian da Mjaum

Re:I love Westerners..

[biryokumaru]

Or the Swedish Zombie Worms as evidence of the integral part whale fall plays in the deep sea ecosystem?

Re:I love Westerners..

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, we haven't been doing this for decades... nor has the whale population been on the increase...

Re:I love Westerners..

[MooUK]

Which are you more likely to have an effect against? Unnecessary and wasteful killing of marine life by people in your own country, or child prostitution in another country?

Comments like saying "Go protest something more important like..." are exactly the same as saying "We're fighting terrorists overseas, we should completely ignore all human rights at home until we're done" or "We should ignore people stealing things because we're not catching all those who are killing others".

Re:I love Westerners..

[TerminaMorte]

No... it's not ignorance. I think the reason that 'regular guys like him' vote against enviornmentalists is because they are bat-shit insane.
 
For example, comparing the killing of animals to the holocaust. http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/02/28/peta.ho locaust
 
Sadly, this isn't the worse things enviornmentalist groups have done. No, that would probably be comparing the owning of pets to owning human slaves. http://www.animalrights.net/archives/year/2005/000 353.html. And that's not even bringing up the Animal Liberation Front (a group of terrorists who firebomb research labs)
 
It's hard to vote for a group of people who are so morally replusive that they make W.A.R. look reasonable.

Re:I love Westerners..

[TerminaMorte]

Bullshit. You're assuming that animal life is as important (if not more important) than human life.

I would suggest that protesting the violation of human rights takes priority over a few dead whales. Do you disagree?

Re:I love Westerners..

[MooUK]

I don't disagree with that, but I do disagree that we should ignore a problem simply because there's a bigger problem.

Re:I love Westerners..

[TerminaMorte]

This has nothing to do with ignoring a problem.

If we have to choose between saving a few whales, and using a technology that saves human life, then the only option seems to be that we save human life.

If a building is burning down, you don't save a dog instead of a child.

Re:I love Westerners..

[aether_1980]

This seems like a poorly thought-out comment to me. Basically, you are claiming that all environmentalists are terrorists and/or insane? I guess the same would then apply to all Christians, given some of the less than intelligent things a small fractions of their number have done in the past.

The CNN article doesn't really have much detail. Some trivial googling yielded the following links:

http://www.nrdc.org/wildlife/marine/nlfa.asp
http://www.eurocbc.org/sonar_lfas_implicated_in_wh ale_deaths_30oct2002page1253.html

which have more useful information. I think the bigger problem is that the US Navy want to deploy a large scale, permanent sonar system to monitor the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Such a system would flood both areas of sea with very high volume sonar:

http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file =/headlines01/0618-03.htm

Anyway, there is a lot of additional information around about this. Personally, I think the problem of finding submarines should be solvable in a more elegant way than flooding 2 oceans with sonar.

Cheers,

Rhys Hill

Re:I love Westerners..

[MooUK]

Agreed. But if the technology can be used effectively in a way that also does not cause harm (or causes less harm) to anything else, what reason is there for NOT using it that way? (Yes, there can be costs and so forth, but when they're low, as I would think it would be in this case, then they're negligible.)

Re:I love Westerners..

[DrSkwid]

Why is feeling that the factory killing of billions of animals annually "bat-shit insane" ?

Re:I love Westerners..

[thre5her]

Likewise, your local fire department doesn't burn your house down as a training exercise.

Re:I love Westerners..

[Silverlancer]

Your argument: If one enviro group is insane, they all are.

Therefore, obviously all Christians are racist terrorists, because the Ku Klux Klan were. Are you a Christian? You must be a terrorist. You hate America.

Re:I love Westerners..

[TerminaMorte]

Not at all.

Your argument: Someone is ignorant because they don't agree with you

My argument: People are not skeptical of enviornmentalists out of ignorance, but because there has been a large amount of (deserved) negative news.

And thankfully I'm not a Christian. :)

Re:I love Westerners..

[TerminaMorte]

Actually, it does (with your permission). Usually with old/abandoned houses. Of course, this is usually done in areas that don't have a large concentration of human life.

Sort of like the ocean. :P

Re:I love Westerners..

[JaredOfEuropa]

The reason 'regular guys' like you vote against environmentalists is your immense ignorance and unwillingness to learn anything. Sorry.

I love the environment but I hate environmentalists. The reason I vote against them is because of their tendency to place politics above science, practicality and common sense. That means conveniently ignoring scientific evidence that goes against their dogma's, falsifying studies if the results are not as dire as to warrant a screaming fit protest, and decrying methods and policies other than their own that may have a similarly good effect on the environment, but a lot less impact on people. I get the feeling that many of these groups are in it to "fight the establishment" and for the power to meddle with people's lives. Professional activists who are activists for the sake of being activist. Most environmentalist groups are guilty of this, up to and including Greenpeace (read up on their approach of the Brent Spar issue).

To be fair, this group of environmentalists seem to be sensible and sensitive to what the Navy needs to do, and are willing to suggest suitable solutions. In most environmentalist circles, even the suggestion that you'd be working with the Navy (instead of against them) is enough to get you socially ostracized (as they have admitted themselves). It's this sort of unproductive, unscientific attitude that makes "guys like me" dislike the environmentalists in general, despite the sincere and useful effort of some of them. Let them remain activists... God forbid they should ever gain any real political power, because it will not be the sensible ones of their number at the helm; it will be the meddlers, dictators and power mongers.

Re:I love Westerners..

[Anonymous Coward]

People are not skeptical of US government (and the people who elected it) out of ignorance, but because there has been a large amount of (deserved) negative news (and watching the hordes of loud, overweight transatlantic tourists that crowd the streets of European capitals every summer won't help, either...)

Re:I love Westerners..

[maxpublic]

And yet I noticed that you failed to cite a single empirical source published in an accredited, peer-reviewed scientific journal. The closest you came was the vague reference to "whale bends", which is NOT linked to sonar in any way, shape or form - except by environmentalists, who apparently can't be bothered to do research or get published.

Next time, try for some *real* science articles, not propaganda pieces. The propaganda only impresses the choir.

Max

Re:I love Westerners..

[maxpublic]

Why is feeling that the factory killing of billions of animals annually "bat-shit insane" ?

Like a previous poster said, if we weren't meant to eat animals they wouldn't be made out of meat. Should be simple enough to grasp.

Hey, if you don't want to eat 'em, fine by me. Just don't bug the rest of us about it, especially not when we're enjoying a nice, big, fat, juicy steak. MMMMMMM!

Max

Re:I love Westerners..

[aether_1980]

I agree that the articles I linked to were not from peer-reviewed journals; generally when one performs "trivial googling", you don't get that kind of material. The article which most of these stories rely on for scientific credibility is from Nature, and is only accessible with a subscription. However I found this link: http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s962982 .htm through more googling which carries the meat of the paper in it. I would also note that I was not claiming either side was correct; merely that more investigation is required and that the Navy seem to be solving the problem with a very large hammer when one is not necessarily required. Cheers, Rhys Hill

Re:I love Westerners..

[maxpublic]

I get the feeling that many of these groups are in it to "fight the establishment" and for the power to meddle with people's lives.

I'll go one further. They seem to be doing their best to destroy all technological advancement, decrying every step forward as furthering some great evil against their god - Gaia. They are, for want of a better description, a sort of militant environmental Amish, willing to use whatever dirty tactic at hand to freeze all development so we'll be stuck in a state of perpetual crisis, where they can forever shrilly scream about how the rest of us heathens are doomed. I think there worst nightmare would be having the entire Earth's populatin turn 'green' overnight, because who then would they have to blame, to point fingers at, to call interdict down upon?

A further subset, characterized by the Earth First! and PETA folks, would only be happy if all but a few tens of thousands of human beings were wiped out, with the pathetic remainder returning to a hunter-gatherer existence - which would no doubt include their righteous selves as the new priests to their Mother Earth goddess. From that vantage they could spend the rest of their lives telling us what dirty little sinners we are just for daring the soil the surface of our Holy Mother with our filthy feet, and how greatful we should be that they, the priests, are there to show us The One True and Right Way(TM).

Disclaimer: I live in a university town, in Oregon. I get exposed to these crackpots on a regular basis, and college kids - supposedly the best and brightest of us - lap it up like born-agains at a tent revival. I don't know what they're teaching in college anymore, but it sure as hell isn't critical thinking.

Max

Re:I love Westerners..

[failedlogic]

Track with Satellites.

While the main objective is to find subs and they contentionnally carried nuclear warheads, if one of the objectives is to find ships, it would seem to me that using satellites would be a practical alternative. Cloud cover might/might not be a problem depending on how advanced the technology is. The US Navy recently launched a stealth ship that deflects sonar. When other nations have such ships, seems to me only practical way to track would be satellites.

That's not to say they shouldn't have sonar at all. Military always needs redundant systems incase the satellites go down.

Re:I love Westerners..

[DrSkwid]

"meant to"

sounds like you have a case of the intelligent design syndrome

try this one :

"if God didn't want me to fuck choirboys he wouldn't have made them so darn sexy"

etc. etc. etc.

Otherwise it is right there in the Bible, a direct commandment from God, with no exceptions or get our clauses :

Deuteronomy, chapter 5

Thou shalt not kill.

Exodus, chapter 20

Thou shalt not kill.

Matthew, chapter 5

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment.

Romans, chapter 13

For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Re:I love Westerners..

[Anonymous Coward]

The bible's thou shalt not kill is really a lot closer to thou shalt not murder. If you are going to quote translated scripture you should at least have some grasp of what it meant in the original language rather than twisting it to your own needs.

Re:I love Westerners..

[Deskpoet]

Like a previous poster said, if we weren't meant to eat animals they wouldn't be made out of meat. Should be simple enough to grasp.

You know, this is a perfect justification for eating human flesh, too. Do you want some Soylent Green with your steak, sir?

As Mr. Smith said, humans are a disease. Perhaps if we eat each other the contagion can be contained.....

Re:I love Westerners..

[Travelsonic]

[blockquote]No... it's not ignorance. I think the reason that 'regular guys like him' vote against enviornmentalists is because they are bat-shit insane.

For example, comparing the killing of animals to the holocaust. http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/02/28/peta.ho locaust

Sadly, this isn't the worse things enviornmentalist groups have done. No, that would probably be comparing the owning of pets to owning human slaves. http://www.animalrights.net/archives/year/2005/000 353.html. And that's not even bringing up the Animal Liberation Front (a group of terrorists who firebomb research labs)[/blockquote]

Those would be the actions of animal rights activists, not nessecarily enviromentalists (unless there are enviromentalists that are also ARAs) unless you count the Earth Liberation Front, sister to the Animal Liberation Front who is infamous for the exact same tactics (firebombing, sabotage (some that can put lives at risk) and heavy vandalism, but different targets. Still, the actions of these lunatics makes me sick.... I would love to crash a PETA protest using their tatics and see how they feel about it. ^_^

Re:I love Westerners..

[LurkerXXX]

Replace Environmentalists with Christians and I could say pretty much the same thing. "tendency to place politics above science, practicality and common sense", "conveniently ignoring scientific evidence that goes against their dogma's, falsifying studies if the results are not as dire as to warrant a screaming fit protest, and decrying methods and policies other than their own", I get the feeling that many of these groups are in it for the power to meddle with people's lives".

Extremists of any time are bad. You hate environmentalists? Should I hate all christians because some of the lunatic fringe blow up abortion clinics and do other nasty things?

There is nothing wrong with being an environmentalist. You just said that this group seems to be sensible and sensitive to what the navy needs to do. Therefore, they don't seem to all be the lunatic fringe elements that you naturally have problems with.

Extremists are bad, but don't confuse all people who consider themselves environmentalists with the extremists.

Re:I love Westerners..

[bigtrike]

. You're assuming that animal life is as important (if not more important) than human life.

Biodiversity is essential to the long term survival of the human species. When the time comes that you no longer need clean outside air to breathe, food from plants animals to feed yourself, and medicines derived from rare species, then you can stop worrying about other forms of life.

Re:I love Westerners..

[PeterBrett]

Track with Satellites.

You'd be suprised how easy it is to hide from NRO satellites. There are a limited number, and if you keep a careful eye on the satellite orbits it's perfectly easy to conceal an entire carrier battlegroup, let alone a single submarine, in plain sight. The ocean is big.

Basically, the problem is as follows. One has to assume that sneaky people in very quiet and fast submarines armed with nuclear tipped torpedos are trying to disrupt your carrier battlegroups. It's not possible to have continual real-time satellite coverage of the whole of a battlegroup's area of operation, and the sort of vessels being used for that kind of mission would be running ultra-quiet -- you almost certainly wouldn't pick them up on passive sonar.

Now, people will argue that no-one's trying to do that at the moment, but in the event of a war with country which has fast attack submarines armed with nuclear warheads -- like Iran, for instance -- a single mistake could really ruin your day. So carrier battlegroups train for that all the time.

Re:I love Westerners..

[dhakbar]

Eugene, huh?

Re:I love Westerners..

[Anonymous Coward]

it sure as hell isn't critical thinking.

Of course not, that would hinder everyone in power. Why, if students had critical thinking skills, they might be critical of their own university when after deregulation, they suddenly raise the tuition rates 37 percent, compared to 21% for the other major university using the same funding sources. If people had critical thinking skills, they'd understand why it's not "unamerican" to complain about armed vigilantees roaming our borders without training, even if the government refuses to step up to the task. It would be terrible if millions of people across our country stood up from their couches and decide they've had enough crap spoonfed to them through the airwaves. Imagine the nightmare that would result if people no longer trusted corporations. It would be absolutely horrible if millions stood up from their pews and decided that they will no longer follow the orders of their clergy on matters non-spiritual. And it would be downright catastrophic if people decided that a president that lies repeatedly to the public, starts a war without a real plan, appoints incompetent and inexperienced people to major roles in our country... even after a couple have been shamed out of office.

It doesn't matter what you do or who you are, if you're in a position of power, you want to be in charge of servile breeders, not critical thinkers who can form an argument, reason about facts, and not fall for your emotional pleas when your facts fail you.

Re:I love Westerners..

[EvilMagnus]

Well, I think he was saying is that the ones who get the press are the ones who make the crazy statements and do the stupid things. The Press loves Stupid and Crazy. Moderate, rational statements get little airtime.

The result of this is it makes all environmentalists look like flaming wingnuts. Because those are the only sort Joe Sixpack sees on TV.

There are many environmental concerns that are important, easily addressed and do not involve comparing pet owners to slave owners - but these issues get little airtime.

Re:I love Westerners..

[flycrg]

I agree there should be a more elegant way to detect submarines. One thought that I had was that you bring both oceans to boiling and all the submarines in the ocean will pop to the top.

Re:I love Westerners..

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, lets wait for the ocean to become abandoned. Or ask the life in there if the will let us. Just wait until they say "yes".

Re:I love Westerners..

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be terrific, but the truth of the matter is we really don't care about the six year olds in Cambodia. In fact, we appreciate the third world sex trade, so that our wealthy executives can fly out there for a weekend, get their kicks, and come home to a land of child welfare and saving the whales.

It's frikkin sad, but as a culture we are more concerned about image than anything else. Whales are a safe cause, and the Navy is the big bad guy.

Acive sonar is an absolute necessity. It is rarely used, but it's needed. I'm sorry for the occasional whale that gets it, I really am. But there are less than 100 nuclear subs in the world, and each of them contains over a hundred human lives. Call me insensitive, but I'm a little more concerned about those lives than I am about the baby whales. Tell me "you should give warning before you ping with active sonar" is like saying "You need to wave a big orange flag before you light up your M16." Expedience is important because as soon as you ping you give away your location; every ping has to be worth it, and if I shoot off a "warning" that brings me no information in return, I've just committed suicide.

This suit is sad on so many counts. It's boneheaded, denies the value of the military, emphasizes the foolish belief that freedom is free, etc. And yeah, it's in the wrong direction; but that's our comfy culture, we'd rather feel good on something harmless than actually improve the world at some personal cost.

I used to be a bit of a hippy tree hugger myself, but get real. It would be nice if we lived in a world where we could afford to make the whales a priority, but we don't.

It would be nice if people realized the harm environmentalists have done to the environment in terms of policies. The US burns a hundred times the oil that it should in part because the green crowd has protested and legislated against every true alternative energy source brought forth; nuclear, wind, water, citing fictional enviro impact and spouting FUD, and disregarding what comes from their Subaru and coal or oil fired electricity...

It's lovely. Posting AC to for political reasons of course.

Re:I love Westerners..

[Grantisimo]

Environmentists don't care about people. It's all about the earth and saving her from the evil human problem.

Re:I love Westerners..

[wolrahnaes]

Tourists are a problem everywhere, no matter where they're from or where they're at now. It seems that some people believe that going on vacation gives them the right to dress up like a total idiot and be obnoxious as hell. I can't count how many times I've seen 300+ pound people (men and women) wearing thongs tinier than those in the SI Swimsuit Issue when I go to Daytona Beach.

Re:I love Westerners..

[Stoutlimb]

What's wrong with the idea of taking care when using active sonar during peace-time training excercises?

Re:I love Westerners..

[gobbo]

Hey, good use of categories there. Environmentalists are "bat-shit insane," because there are a few nuts in the apple barrel, eh? I happen to know from good sources that mass murderers are all non-environmentalists, which makes non-environmentalists such as yourself into mass-murder suspects.

Or perhaps you should broaden your exposure to the arguments.

Re:I love Westerners..

[Anonymous Coward]

As an American, why are you opposed to people speaking out against the government? Maybe you would rather just classify yourself as a Loyalist.

Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is the history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of the limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it
--Woodrow Wilson

Here's some critical thinking: This isn't the cold war. The communists aren't at our borders with subs and nukes waiting for us to turn off our active sonar so they can attack. There's a reason aq-med and his friends hijack planes and use suicide bombing tactics: They don't have aircraft carriers, mig's, or nuclear subs to attack their enemies with.

Please respond with your: oh but they **could** be fear reasoning old man.

Re:I love Westerners..

[Anonymous Coward]

Disclaimer: I live in a university town, in Oregon. I get exposed to these crackpots on a regular basis, and college kids - supposedly the best and brightest of us - lap it up like born-agains at a tent revival. I don't know what they're teaching in college anymore, but it sure as hell isn't critical thinking.

You *must* be in Eugene! (Are you? I guess it could be Ashland. I can rule out Portland because you would have said "Portland". Corvallis is a possibility, but less likely.)

And you are saying almost exactly what I say. I've always said that the environmentalists won't be happy until we are living like pre-fire "civilization". ... pathetic remainder returning to a hunter-gatherer existence ...

I disagree with this. They would all be vegans, of course. No hunting, you evil murder!

Re:I love Westerners..

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you're a pussy.

Re:I love Westerners..

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, get to work and tell us how.

Re:I love Westerners..

[Psamtik]

the inherent problem i see in people's perceptions of ideologies is that they are based on the actions of others. people are responsible for their own. you can be an environmentalist and not "vote" for an environmentalist (which are not on the ballot, anyhow). Do not base your opinions of an ideology on other people's actions. other people are insane, hypocritical, and at best, human. i am an environmentalist becasue i believe in social and personal responsibility; that we can have everything we want and not fuck one thing up, if done right. i also "enslave" 3 pets, neuter and spay them, go to the zoo, and am skeptical of peta. be your own person and stop bitching about "them" versus "us".

Re:I love Westerners..

[Lemmy Caution]

Funny, I was just thinking how reasonable the requests were compared to some of the more extreme environmentalist positions. Seems like you've got some anger, buddy.

Re:I love Westerners..

[maxpublic]

sounds like you have a case of the intelligent design syndrome

No, I have a case of the "common sense" syndrome. As in, I'm an omnivore and my body is made to occasionally ingest things made of meat. Which turns out to be animals, once killed and properly cooked (not to mention seasoned and served with yummy side dishes).

Your post, however, is pretty amusing. Just take a look at my sig to see why.

Max

Re:I love Westerners..

[maxpublic]

You know, this is a perfect justification for eating human flesh, too.

It would be, if humans didn't taste so bloody bad.

Max

Re:I love Westerners..

[zippthorne]

I think a better justification is that if were weren't intended to eat meat, we wouldn't have focused binocular vision, pointy "tearing" teeth, and nutritional requirements that are best satisfied by having a certain amount of meat in our diets.

Re:I love Westerners..

[Bo'Bob'O]

Clearly a troll, but I guess I'll bite.

It's interesting how when the left groups together Middle America or Christians, founded or not, there is plenty of outrage over "arrogance" or whatever. However, when environmental issues come up, they have no trouble throwing everyone in with PETA, the ALF, or the ELF.

The fact is for the vast majority of environmentalists, maintaining and improving the current standard of living in the long term is really what is important. This is what the movement is about.

Have you ever noticed that both liberals and conservatives feel the media is biased? It's because they give attention to the squeaky wheels, and the views of the majority are rarely reflected. The media is after eyeballs, and outrage is easy to sell. Putting everyone with a concern in the environment in with the ALF, is the same kind of unfounded, reactionary FUD that you say you are so repulsed by.

Re:I love Westerners..

[DrSkwid]

I was addressing the "meant to" aspect.

For me there is no "meant". You body is *not* made to ingest meat, it just happens to be capable of doing so.

It is also capable of realising that animals suffer pain. I choose not to cause that pain.

hehe your sig is funny, nice.

Re:I love Westerners..

[Anonymous Coward]

The last time I checked, plants are alive. So I can't eat plants, and I can't eat animals. So what can I eat besides rocks (naturally sterilized of course) and glacier water? I guess take anti-biotics, and actually if I want to remain faithful to some interesting interpretation of religious babble I should probably take an immunosuppressant to prevent accidentally killing various microorganisms that inhabit my body. You know, maybe it's easier for a camel to get throught the eye of a needle thanf or a rich man to enter Heaven, because no humans can actually enter Heaven by virtue of their genocidal existence.

Re:I love Westerners..

[DrSkwid]

let's torture each other with red hot pokers until the end of time

Re:I love Westerners..

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. There are bigger fish to fry.

Re:I love Westerners..

[demachina]

Nice rant. I'd be inclined to agree that the environmental extremist are ... well ... extremists. Of course so are of the free marketeer, I want to make my millions, everyone else be damned, capitalist extremists. Extremists are extremists, and there are extremists occupying every idealogical niche.

Marine mammals evoke a lot of sympathy from environmentalists because they are mammals like us and they have language like us and they have big brains like us. We also hunted many of their families to extinction. The Right Whale got its name because it was the "right" whale for harpooning because its body weight was 40% blubber so they floated well when harpooned, and they produced rich quantities of whale oil. Whale oil was used in lamps and candle wax, it was one of our early forms of energy before we switched to fossil fuel addiction.

Me I'm quite fond of technology and all but the key problem I see with humans and our planet, isn't so much what we do on and to our planet, the main problem is there are simply getting to be to many of us. We are quickly filling every habitable corner of the planet and we are crowding out every other life form on the planet.

We are, for example, mowing down the rain forests at an astonishing rate. Blairo Maggi the governor of Mato Grosso in the heart of the Amazon in Brazil, who is responsible for the oversight of the rain forests there, also happens to be one of the world's largest soy bean producers, he is known as "Rei de Soja" the King of Soya. He is an extremist too, except instead of being an environmental extremist he is a capitalist extremist, he wants to mow down the Amazon's rain forest for lumber and to clear land for soy fields and cattle ranches to enrich himself and the other large land owners in his province. A small number of people will be enriched, and the world will lose one of its last great ecological treasures.

The main problem we have with technology is we've used it to eliminate many of the natural mechanisms for keeping population in check. We have eliminated a lot of disease so our life spans are longer. We've used technology to increase food production both on land and from the sea to push back starvation. End result is we have population explosion.

We could use technology to expand birth control and family planning to compensate but unfortunately religion, Catholicism and Islam in particular are working to frustrate birth control. Unfortunately organized religions have for millenia been designed to value increasing the size of their flock, because numbers were how they gained power and wealth.

So what do we have technology and religion both working to fuel massive population growth. We can no doubt sustain it for a while longer, maybe even until after we are all dead, but at some point the earth is going to crash. We are going to run out of some vital resources, for example, fossil fuels, fresh water, or food and there is going to be an ugly population crash. Another possibility is nature will regain a foothold and a global pandemic will restore the basic laws of population control to humans.

Bottomline is I guess I'm saying technology is all well and good as long as we learn to be responsible members of the ecosphere because at present we are not. The simplest step toward that goal would be to:

A - Make contraceptives universally available
B - Hit major religions with a clue bat, the pope and Christian fundamentalists in particular, and point out to them that continuing to frustrate birth contol will eventually and inevitably destroy our species and our planet.

Re:I love Westerners..

[Ariane 6]

From globalsecurity.org:

Iran's navy has 20,000 men, but they are young and inexperienced, and most of them are riflemen and marines based on Persian Gulf islands. And at higher levels, there is fierce rivalry between the IRGC and regular navies for scarce resources. Due to these shortcomings, Iran's three Kilo-class submarines would be vulnerable, and they are limited to laying mines in undefended waters.

Re:I love Westerners..

[zopf]

Somewhere between a quarter and a third of the US population has a bachelor's degree (from census.gov, 2004 census), and I highly doubt that a third of the US population could be expected to be the "best and the brightest". The best and the brightest are receiving higher-level degrees from excellent universities.

Regardless, environmentalism as you use it is not about a sort of civil/biological engineering - it's about an emotional, sympathetic response to the way that some of our citizens treat the environment in which they live. It is a movement that rationalizes its beliefs with often somewhat indeterminate scientific evidence.

Assuming the goal of environmental action ought to be the preservation of an environment in which humans can exist, the present movement cannot be trusted to make appropriate decisions. That said, neither can the present US administration. Both are extremists: the government currently favors a degree of ignorance to environmetal issues, while the environmental movement favors ignorance of technological necessities in their quest for environmental salvation. Both also share a lack of definite knowledge or evidence to support their views, and possibly the intelligence needed to interpret this knowledge and evidence and form it into law or policy.

Mostly, it seems that both sides misinterpret what seems as though it ought to be the final goal of our actions: survival. The military claims that it needs to operate its sonar to ensure our survival. Environmentalists argue that we should not disturb the environment because of their emotional attachment to it or the fact that disturbance could eventually endanger our survival (see biodiversity, stability, global warming, etc). Both are right in some ways, but are wrong in others. The problem is that extremists on both sides resort to mud-slinging, slander, and propoganda rather than open discussion and debate including knowledgeable experts from both sides.

Environmentalism, used to describe the concept that maintenance of our environment is essential to our survival and thus important to study, is then a just belief held by any evolutionarily rational being (that is, one who cares about his or her own survival or that of his or her progeny). So, to defame environmentalism defined as the movement of emotionally devoted but scientifically indeterminate or unaware activists is fine by be. Likewise, the defamation of the stereotypically greedy, short-sighted politician, CEO, developer, etc is just as valid. But to claim that the self-serving maintenance of our environment is unnecessary is as irrational as the assertion that we should halt all technological progress simply because there is a possibility that it may affect our environment. Instead, we need to examine all technologies or lack thereof with the goal of current and future self-preservation.

Disclaimer: I am a biomedical engineering student at a prestigious US university. I am by no means an environmental expert. I'm just presenting my perspective.

Re:I love Westerners..

[Ced_Ex]

I agree there should be a more elegant way to detect submarines. One thought that I had was that you bring both oceans to boiling and all the submarines in the ocean will pop to the top.

This seafood soup sounds tasty.

Just wait until they hear about THIS one

[smeenz]

They are obviously not aware of the Navy's latest plans to use high intensity soundwaves to destroy incoming torpedos

Re:Just wait until they hear about THIS one

[Filiks]

That works by focusing the sound from the speakers at one point, like a magnifying glass burning ants or leaves. Past the focus point, the sound will be much less harmful.

well, here's a cynical explanation

[Quadraginta]

What struck me about this article was the Navy's response, namely that they were already doing most of what the NRDC wanted. They sounded a bit bewildered, actually.

So what's up? Well, for a really cynical explanation, consider this. According to the linked article, the peak season for getting people to donate money to nonprofits and charitable groups is just before Christmas, a time rapidly approaching, and nonprofit execs are already forseeing a reduced supply because of the previous demand from Katrina, a sort of bad-news burnout.

Now if I were fundraiser in chief at NRDC, contemplating our usual Christmas appeal for donations mailing, I'd be worried about this. I might, depending on how desperate I was, consider advising that we do something to get our name in the news, something we could describe in our fundraising letter to illustrate how dire is our need for contributions right now.

Of course, I'd recommend that we be careful to pick a cause sure to tug at the heartstrings in the Christmas season. Say, a threat to mommy and baby whales in their breeding grounds.

Not saying this is true at all. Just that it's something to consider. Just because they carry weapons doesn't mean the Navy are always uncaring brutes. Just because they have photos of adorable animals on their newsletter doesn't mean nonprofit XYZ isn't as willing as the next firm to cynically grandstand a bit for the sake of next year's salary increases.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[emil.ede]

Oh come on. Like there aren't enough big real problems in the nature so the groups need to make up ones? As a general rule I believe the nonprofits on these kind of questions a lot more then the Navy. I think it's just as simple that the Navy doesn't want to look bad, or have to change anything, so they say what they are doing is all honkey dorey and act all surprised.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[killjoe]

"Not saying this is true at all."

No you are just making an accusation without any facts whatsoever. Since you were modded up to four I guess that's what passes for insightful around here.

"Just because they carry weapons doesn't mean the Navy are always uncaring brutes"

These people are training to kill humans, why would they care about killing a few animals?

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[NitsujTPU]

As a general rule I believe the nonprofits on these kind of questions a lot more then the Navy

Groups like the Christian Coalition and PETA really are more about getting the facts out to the public, than pushing a political agenda. That's what you're saying, right?

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[killjoe]

Well I hate to interjects actual facts into this conversation but PETA is not the group that filed the lawsuit, it was Natural Resources Defense Council.

So who do you trust more? The US Military or the Natural Resources Defence Council? I'd say that's a no brainer.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[killjoe]

"What struck me about this article was the Navy's response, namely that they were already doing most of what the NRDC wanted. They sounded a bit bewildered, actually."

No you read the article wrong. The actual quote is "Navy spokesman Lt. William Marks said the Navy already is doing many of the things demanded in the suit." Notice the weasel word "many". You got fooled by the weasel word "many" which became "most" in your head and instantly convinced you that the Navy is a harmless organization who would never harm any animals while the Natural Resources Defence Council cares nothing about the environment but is merely seeking to raise millions of dollars so they can drink expensive champagne and drive around in Feraris.

The Navy PR people are trained in psy-ops. They do this for a living. They know how to spin the story to hook people like you.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

I trust no-one.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[Stuart Gibson]

Because for the most part animals really aren't a major threat the way other humans are?

Stuart

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[killjoe]

"Because for the most part animals really aren't a major threat the way other humans are?"

What does that have to do with anything? Just today the US military killed 20 people in Iraq. Why? Because those people objected to the US occupying their country.

If you can kill people because they don't want you in their country then pretty much anything goes.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[Stuart Gibson]

Yes yes, but the US military is trying to *help* these people. I guess it isn't their fault they are too simple to understand.

In all seriousness though, it seems to be inbuilt that humans are happy to kill other humans to achieve their aims when those people stand in their way, yet we have a soft spot, or at least ambivalence towards the rest of the animal kingdom that makes us more likely to kill another human than a kitten.

I'm not saying that when push comes to shove it wouldn't happen if the cost/benefit ratio (or at least the bad press/benefit ratio) was high enough, but it does seem we'll go out of our way to protect animals and not humans.

Stuart

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[Quadraginta]

Well, it would be more like: there's not enough problems in nature that have very sympathetic victims and clearly identifiable "bad guys." Alas, too often, the "bad guys" in environmental problems are us ourselves, and the solutions are unpopular things that involve annoying small personal sacrifice, like driving smaller cars or sorting the damn recyclables every week or a longer commute (because the highway wasn't built) or higher prices for things (because someone's got to pay for pollution control at the factory).

It's always much neater and satisfying to find some big bad guys, like the unsmiling Navy in their big steel ships with nasty bristly weapons, and fasten your rage upon them. Means your audience doesn't have to take any unpleasant hard looks in the mirror when trying to figure out why Paradise has been lost.

I think it's just as simple that the Navy doesn't want to look bad...

Of course the Navy doesn't want to look bad. But, you know, the easiest way for the Navy to not look bad is to take care not to hurt the whales. Whales are cute. People like whales. If the charge that the Navy is callously hurting whales sticks, if people believe the Navy is hurting them when it could easily not, then the Navy looks bad.

So it seems fairly plausible to me that the Navy is already doing all they reasonably can to avoid hurting the whales. If they won't go further, it's probably because the Navy thinks they can't without compromising national security. The NRDC presumably disagrees -- although they're hardly in a good position to judge national security questions -- and then the question is: does the NRDC disagree on reasonable grounds? Or do they "disagree" because not disagreeing would make it harder to justify their own salaries? I don't really know the answer. But, unlike you, I don't think it's wise to automatically attribute to the NRDC only the best characteristics of humans (altruism, kindness, honesty) and to the Navy only the worst characteristics (laziness, deception, callousness).

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[DrSkwid]

What political agenda does *your* treatment of animals push?

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> The Navy PR people are trained in psy-ops.
> They do this for a living. They know how to
> spin the story to hook people like you.

Ok, then. How about the direct approach? It is stupid for the Navy to do this, since defense is more important than some whales.

There. No spin necessary.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[NitsujTPU]

Hi,

I didn't say that PETA was at all involved.

As for your issue of trust in the military vs the nrdc, I challenge that you have no well known track record on either entity in making your claim, and that you only do so because your political stance dictates your opinion on this.

IE, thanks for your opinion.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

many Audio pronunciation of "many" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mn) adj. more, (môr, mr) most (mst)
1. Being one of a large indefinite number; numerous: many a child; many another day.
2. Amounting to or consisting of a large indefinite number: many friends.
Seems to me many and most have the same definition. The Navy is either lying or it isn't. Personally I don't think our Armed forces would go out of it's way to kill or hurt shamoo.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[Quadraginta]

Well, no. They're not training "to kill humans." They're training to defend humans, if necessary with their lives. It may be some other humans get killed in the process, but that is not their purpose. And, someone who cares about people he's never met with such selfless dedication that he's willing to lay his life down for them seems like a good candidate for caring about defending innocent lives in general, including those of animals.

The reasons why someone is prepared to kill another human are very important when we ask what that preparedness means. The issue cannot be reduced, as you have, to a trivial syllogism: "If they prepare to kill, they must be callous killers."

In another /. comment thread, a parent commented that he might be prepared to hurt someone who for stupid and hateful reasons prevented him from getting medical care to his child. I think most people see that as admirable dedication to a child, an example of selfless devotion to the welfare of someone weak. But by your cramped moral calculus, we ought to have been surprised -- if he is prepared to hurt a person for any purpose, he can't really care for a child. I hope you can see how absurd that argument would be.

Killing someone may be a depraved evil act, an act of murder, and preparing to do so may demonstrate that a person is a true wretch. But killing a person may also be a great and moral act as well, an act of courage and noble purpose which saves the lives of countless others. It all depends on the circumstances. You can't expect a slogan to substitute for careful thought in deciding what a preparedness to kill means.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[DrSkwid]

The day's heaviest fighting came when U.S.-led forces raided five houses suspected of sheltering foreign fighters in Husaybah, a town near Iraq's border with Syria, the military said. The troops reportedly killed 20 insurgents and captured one.
The raiders found two caches of small arms, ammunition, rocket-propelled grenades, mortar rounds and bomb-making materials, the military said. Troops set off a car bomb found near one of the buildings, and the Air Force then used precision-guided munitions to destroy the houses.

I guess the right to bear arms doesn't extend to foreign nationals.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[NitsujTPU]

Hi,

What you've said is completely non-germaine. I was merely pointing out that some political group that I've never heard of before (had you?), serving their agenda release some political info. The guy said that he trusted such groups more than the Navy.

I was merely pointing out that the Christian Coalition and PETA aren't going to start handing out facts that don't serve their purposes. What I was saying is, these groups aren't exactly doing surveys or anything, and providing you with the results. If the Navy was doing a great job, we wouldn't hear anything.

What we heard was distilled political mumbo-jumbo, and you accept it as if it was published in Nature.

That's all that I was saying. It has nothing to do with whether or not I eat animals, though, I would submit that if God didn't want us eating animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[Quadraginta]

The Navy PR people...do this for a living. They know how to spin the story to hook people like you.

Alas, my point is that the NRDC people also "do this for a living" and also "know how to spin the story to hook people," albeit not people like me.

In fact, your argument seems more relevant to the NRDC than the Navy. The Navy mostly gets paid for driving ships around and looking fierce. Keeping up the PR image at home with respect to whales is rather a secondary mission. If they screw it up, well, they might have to get along with more restrictions on how they drive their ships around, but they're hardly in any danger of being disbanded and having to earn a living driving taxis, water taxis I guess.

On the other hand, if the NRDC doesn't convince people that the Navy (or whatever bad guy they've got in the crosshairs) isn't a threat dire enough to require you sending them a check for $20, $50, or whatever you can afford (every bit helps), then the corporation might well break up and everyone will have to get a job flipping burgers.

In other words, for the Navy proving the NRDC wrong is a matter of convenience, but for the NRDC proving the Navy wrong is a matter of survival. Which group is more motivated to, well, exaggerate things a smidge?

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[LWATCDR]

Well let's see. Do I think the Navy is more likely to get it's jollys blasting whales for no good reason or do I think that a none profit would use the idea that the big scary navy to raise money?
1. Mid range sonar has been around for decades. It is not new. So this is not a new threat?
2. What of the other navies that use it? Are they suing the French, the UK, Russia, China, or Sweden?

As one person already posted the US Navy is already doing most of what has been asked of them. As you said it. You think that the Navy just doesn't want to look bad or change anything and you trust the nonprofits more than the Navy. I.E. you are taking it on faith. You don't want to challenge your view of the world. So you take it on faith. Navy==evil nonprofit==good.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

'Alas, my point is that the NRDC people also "do this for a living" and also "know how to spin the story to hook people," albeit not people like me.'

Are you in the navy? My head is spinning...

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[maxpublic]

So who do you trust more? The US Military or the Natural Resources Defence Council? I'd say that's a no brainer.

Yep, the military wins hands-down. The NRDC is well-known for it's inability to accept new information which might put certain of its fundraising activities in question, especially where science is concerned. They have a track record for lambasting any scientist who doesn't toe their party line and support them in every proclamation, no matter how thinly supported by evidence that proclamation is. They're fanatics to the core, little different than GreenPeace, Earth First!, or PETA.

The military, despite what the conspiracy fools say, doesn't outright lie nearly as often as people think. They just say "that's classified, now get the fuck out of my face" and leave it at that.

Max

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[Decker-Mage]

I suppose it's pointless to bring some facts into this discussion but due to a 1 GB download, I have time to waste anyway. The reason why the Navy is bewildered is that: (1) no one has seen any evidence whatsoever that whales are affected by mid-range active sonar before and we've been using it for over fifty years; (2) mid-range sonar is not used in anything other than deep-water, due to reverberation effects, far off coast-lines so how it could affect breeding areas or beachings is beyond reason; (3) sonarmen (and now women) happen to like listening to whales as much as the next marine biologist and standard practice has always been to let the biologicals (as we call them) clear an exercise area before starting an exercise. Heck, I loved going up to combat and listen to the whales and other biologicals myself when I had free time, which wasn't very often.

For those that don't follow the NRDC, they do this about annually, as someone pointed out, around fund-raising time, and the US Navy is a favorite for their cross-hairs. Personally, I have more respect for Greenpeace (and was a member at one time) than the NRDC. At least Greenpeace is run by real activists with occasional flashes of real science behind their positions rather than a collection of lobbyists/lawyers with a collection plate in front of them. Not that Greenpeace wins any prizes but I won't go there today. The real people to talk to about this issue all pretty much work over at the Wood Hole's Institute and I've never seen them say anything about this subject. Those people live and breath marine biology.

One other point. One of the things that the US Navy likes to do, in addition to our regular duties, is to track the migratory patterns of the various species of whales. Actually, we collect a lot of data while out there, not just on whales; it gives us something to do on our watches. Now blasting whales with sonar wouldn't be exactly bright if you are collection scientific data on them at the same time, would it?

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[Decker-Mage]

Correction to my post: Woods Hole Institute. I need some sleep!

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[maxpublic]

These people are training to kill humans, why would they care about killing a few animals?

You really don't have a clue, do you? The idea that being in the military makes you nothing more than a killing machine intent on sadistically murdering every living creature that crosses your path went out of vogue in the '70's. Mostly because it's a load of hippy horseshit.

Max

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[NitsujTPU]

Uhmm, yeah. Warning everyone replying to this guy... He's the next Unabomber.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[maxpublic]

It should also be noted that since the late '90's the Navy has on a number of occasions let whale researchers use their equipment, or listen to parts of recordings made while on patrols, to do research on the animals. One of the more notable bits of research included the discovery that there were *at least* 800 blue whales in the northern Atlantic, when it was presumed that blue whales had been wiped out in this area. Turns out the blues that survived whaling just became more adept at avoiding ships, and passed this knowledge onto their young.

There was no mandate for this cooperation. They did it "just because", after the Navy changed it's policy on the use of some of its listening equipment (and recordings), which previously had been blanketed as classified. Why? Because quite a few folks in the Navy actually *like* whales, and a sizable fraction are amateur whale enthusiasts who thought it might be of use to their more professional counterparts.

The military is not the heart of evil that some people seem to think it is.

Max

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[HoosierPeschke]

Very well said. But most will blow off what you said because they are unwilling to realize that the job we're doing over there might actually be necessary.

In the eyes of the some, the Government can do no right. Simply because they don't like the person that was elected or because they think what the media says is the absolute truth. It is the Government's job to take care of its people. And, being a world superpower, we must take care of the world's people by squashing tyranny so everyone has the chance at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Some complain about democracy not working but those people need to look at the freedom they enjoy that was provided by that democracy. Those people need to think of what life would be like living in Saddam's Iraq. As a minority religion. Sucks huh?

I know everything I said is in vane to those whose ideals are set and their minds are closed. I serve in the US Navy. I know that I could die serving for the same people that think what I do is wrong so they can have the freedom to tell me I'm nothing more than a barbaristic killing machine, but believe me when I say, force on our part is ALWAYS a last resort.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[Quadraginta]

Are you in the navy?

Nope.

But if your comment is meant to suggest that you suspect people often have practical and personal motives for public statements that purport to defend innocents -- why, you'll have seen from my earlier posts that I quite agree.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[bhiestand]

That's all that I was saying. It has nothing to do with whether or not I eat animals, though, I would submit that if God didn't want us eating animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat.

And I submit that if the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't want us eating meatballs he wouldn't wrap them in his noodly appendages!

Furthermore I'd like to be the first to say that I am about to release a study (which will support my legal claim against the US Military) that active radar dishes are the primary cause of the near extinction of pink unicorns. I suggest they switch to optical aircraft tracking systems before this goes to court, because I'm here to kick ass and chew bubble gum, and I'm all out of gum!

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[Crixus]

Maybe the NRDC just wants to save the whales from being killed by deadly sound waves?

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[EvilNecro]

For what it is worth...

Persons in the military, or doing work for them as civilians, are specifically instructed NOT to lie about stuff. They are told not to talk about stuff to begin with.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[DrSkwid]

God? sorry what's that ? And you laughingly talk of "facts" like you hold them dear.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

but believe me when I say, force on our part is ALWAYS a last resort.

Good one. Could you fwd that on up to your commander-in-chief? He could use the heads-up. Thx.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[sydb]

Put to one side my brother's Spaghetti Monster rantings and consider that people are also made from meat. Being made from meat does not make you food. Being eaten does. But someone has to choose to eat. I, like you, have free will. Where does God come into it?

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[FireFury03]

Yes yes, but the US military is trying to *help* these people. I guess it isn't their fault they are too simple to understand.

I've got to say thay is possibly one of _the_ most arrogant things I've ever read. Just because _you_ think your helping doesn't mean _they_ think your helping.

And who gets to make the choice as to whether "help" is provided? An outside country like the US who constantly insists on sticking their nose in everyone else's business or the people themselves?

Having seen the outcome of some of the "help" that has been provided to various countries by the west over the past few decades, I can't say it's always (often?) resulted in a better situation than was there originally.

I'm sure if the rest of the world invaded the US to free you from your oppressive government then there would be a few people in the US objecting too.

Seriously, there are lots of views in the world - blowing people up to "help" them conform to your world view is the stupidest thing ever (can you say "crusades?"). How is this different from extremists flying a couple of planes into your buildings? The "help" given to Iraq has resorted in many many more civillian deaths than any terrorist attack against the west.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

Come to Norfolk for a visit. Read anything the Navy produces.

Navy spokesmen, reporters and PR folks aren't teh 1337 psy-ops agents you want to believe they are... generally, they're barely literate. The JAG office is worse: enlisted personnel seem to have issues with conjugating the verb "to be."

This is not the CIA we're talking about here. It's the Navy.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

Drawing this comparison is sheer demagoguery, and what's more, unless you're an utter moron, you know it.

Of course, since your point isn't that strong to begin with (for instance, it has no correlation to the topic at hand) I can see why you did it. You're rationally challenged.

No big deal, really, except that you probably see yourself as part of some solution, when really, you are the problem.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[NitsujTPU]

It's called a joke.

You've probably seen it on bumper stickers near your headquarters if you've ever actually been down there.

Making fun of a person's faith is an indication of pseudointellectualism. I never insult the faiths of my Indian colleagues, though I don't hold it as my own.

You are a closed-minded person, trying to push his views on others. You view all others as unenlightened. I'm sure that eventually you'll see the light.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[NitsujTPU]

It's a joke. You're the second person that I've explained it to.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[sco08y]

The Navy mostly gets paid for driving ships around and looking fierce. Keeping up the PR image at home with respect to whales is rather a secondary mission.

That's also a pretty fair estimation of how it works in other branches of the military. The Army, for example, has an Environmental Compliance Officer and NCO in every company. I'd say that for the common sense stuff, like energy conservation, protected habitat and proper disposal of POL, the rules are followed 95% of the time. Where I work, we have various chunks of the training area marked for an endangered bird and no one goes in those areas unless they're lost.

If it were a case where someone blatantly broke existing rules then I'd expect the PR guys to try to cover up or find a scapegoat. But that's not the situation here.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[LurkerXXX]

I have many friends. Are most people my friends? No. They have different meanings Mr. Coward.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[NitsujTPU]

1) It's a joke
2) Insulting my use of the word "God" doesn't make you any more intelligent. See other posts/replies. Simply put. I don't insult my the religions of those around me. I don't see others as inferior for their faith. Lets add that you're a biggot to the list of things that are wrong with you.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[Stuart Gibson]

Oops, I guess that one slipped past the sarcasm radar. I'm posting from the UK so all the "your" references were off the mark.

The first paragraph was a side-swipe at the attitude that seems to prevail from some corners of the US, hence I started the the second paragraph with "But seriously". Apologies if it was misconstrued.

I stand by the rest of the comment, and I don't think it only applied to the US, but to the human race as a whole.

Stuart

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[Gulthek]

Insightful means drawing insight from the facts at hand:

1) Christmas pledge time is coming
2) Environmentalist pledge based company needs pledges
3) (insight)

That's what passes for insightful anywhere with a dictionary or reasonable level of intelligence.

Informative means offering more facts, as you seem to want. There is a moderation for that too, but inappropriate here.

You argument makes an unwarranted simplification. I could just as easily, and more accurately say, that "these people" are training to protect humans. Your statement says nothing to counter the grandparent's assertion that they Navy aren't uncaring brutes.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[dontbgay]

Well, for starters, we're not in the business of killing large swaths of people at random. Regardless of a smattering of isolated instances (to the best of my recollection), the military actually trains to achieve certain objectives. Whether it be killing people, providing humanitarian aid, or whatever the situation dictates; it's not for pleasure. Your crass observation of the military is undeserved. With that being said, why would the military want to kill animals unintentionally?

I know that the military is viewed as some large killing machine bent on world domination, but remember that there's real actual people forming our armed services.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[sydb]

I don't find it funny because:

a) the formula is overused, and
b) it is an attempt to avoid the issue

I like to laugh as much as the next person. Humour is often used as a coping strategy for difficult situations; witness how disasters like the recent tsunami and hurricanes were accompanied by some quite dark jokes (at least they were in my social circle). That's fine because they are natural disasters outside our control; we can give to alleviate the suffering but we can't prevent it in the first place.

But when humour is used to excuse or paper over what is, quite frankly, evil behaviour such as factory farming animals for human consumption, I don't find it funny. That is something quite firmly within our control. People who eat meat are, by and large, simply putting their taste-buds and convenience before the life and feelings of another sentient being. I can't countenance that, joke or not. The fact that people joke about it tells me that they know deep down it is wrong but would rather avoid being conscious of that reality.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[wolrahnaes]

Here's the thing dumbfuck, it's perfectly fine to object to the occupation. When you use your weapons to object against the strongest military in the world, you basically dug your own grave. If these people were killed, it means that they were either using or attempting to use their weapons against soldiers.

Plain and simple, shooting at a soldier = death. That's not hard to understand, nor is it hard to avoid, just DON'T FUCKING SHOOT AT THE SOLDIERS!

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[DrSkwid]

I am a bigot. A bigot for reason.

If you think killing animals is great because you god made them of meat then I consider you a barbarian too.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[killjoe]

That sounds all noble and shit doesn't it. The reality is that the Navy trains to kill in order to further American Interests not to defend America. Take Iraq for example, iraq didn't attack america, it had nothing to do with 9/11.

The reality is that the military kills to increase profits for American companies which is what furthers american interests.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[killjoe]

SO if they just bent over and let the US occupy their country then everything would be a-ok right?

LOL. I guess "shut up and take it bitch" has become the official moral position of the United States now.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[killjoe]

"With that being said, why would the military want to kill animals unintentionally? "

Why not? People who would kill in order to keep a country occupied would have no moral compunction to kill animals for any reason.

"I know that the military is viewed as some large killing machine bent on world domination, but remember that there's real actual people forming our armed services."

Right, and those people all believe that it's ok kill human beings who object to your occupation of their country. They also have no moral objection to invading and occupying countries either. Why would they care about killing whales?

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[ksheff]

the military

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[wolrahnaes]

Geez, how dumb can people be?

According to you, they have two options:
a: Shoot at the US troops, thus "proving" Bush's point and allowing him to keep saying there are more "terrorists" to flush out
b: "bend over" and allow the occupation

There's a whole spectrum of things they could do, not just the two extremes.

Protesting with violence doesn't get your cause anywhere. Last weekend here in Toledo there was a planned Nazi march over their percieved "problem" of black gangs. Guess what happened? (if you watched the news anywhere in the US, you already know, but whatever) Pretty much every gang member in the city showed up, the march was cancelled, and the gangs tore the living shit out of part of town (not to mention putting a rock through a window of my car....). In a sense, by turning so violent, the gangs proved the Nazi's point. It's the same situation over in the middle east. By attacking the troops, all they're doing is providing more fuel for the war. If they put the same effort in to getting their government re-established and then had that government tell the US to get the fuck out, IMNSHO it would be far more productive.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[NitsujTPU]

Eh, ok.

As long as you're not one of those nuts who kills people over this issue, then you're fine with me. If you're one of those ALF terrorists though, I hope that the politicians stop politicking, and throw you and your murderous brethren in maximum security prison, where you belong.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[Scott7477]

Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" illustrates in fiction(exaggerated just a little, of course) just this possibility that you describe. The book is worth a read by anyone interested in global warming issues and environmentalism in general. I think that Crichton is one of the most even-handed explorers of current day issues.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[NitsujTPU]

Thanks.

PETA funds the ALF. The ALF blows up labs, killing people to free test animals.

Your linked site is a PETA site.

You support terrorists.

Have a nice day.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[DrSkwid]

Got any links to an ALF action that killed anyone ?

I've never heard of it and I'm an ALF prisoner supporter here in the UK with links to many animal rights organizations.

It is *impossible* to fund the ALF by it's organizational nature.

I suspect you are talking out of your arse.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[sydb]

Do I sound like a murderous ALF terrorist? I'm not, and I don't think that more killing is the answer to killing. I can understand their train of thought, but I don't agree with it. They do the animal rights cause harm by behaving no better than the people they seek to villify. People are animals too, after all.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[NitsujTPU]

Reference Penn & Teller's Series Bullshit. Available from Amazon.com.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[NitsujTPU]

http://www.answers.com/topic/animal-liberation-fro nt

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[NitsujTPU]

You're off the hook. The other guy posting in this thread IS one though.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[DrSkwid]

I can't see where anyone ever caused an explosion killing anybody, contrary to your assertion.

3 sabs dead, many more severely injured including personal friends of mine.

http://hsa.enviroweb.org/news/huntviol.html

"Born to Hunt,
Forced to March,
Prepared to Fight....."
Horse and Hound. July 1999.

I've been on the front line of animal rights mate, I know the drill, I've been on the receiving end of hunt violence, I've watched teenage girls get attacked and hospitalized by men on horseback. I was sat in the public enquiry into the death of 15 year old Tom Worby, run over by the hunt. I know David Blenkinsop and he'd never claim that he was on an ALF action.

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

We're not Mahatma Ghandi, push us and we push back.

# 1991 British hunt sab Mike Hill was killed after being run over by a hunt 4x4 vehicle.
# 1993 15-year old British hunt sab Tom Worby run over by hunt horsebox.
# 1995 UK animal rights activist Jill Phipps killed by truck during demonstration against live animal exports.
# 1998 US environmental activist David "Gypsy" Chain killed during tree protest while attempting to prevent logging. Activist eyewitnesses describe the incident as deliberate.
# 2003 US activist Rachel Corrie blockades Israeli military bulldozer with fatal consequences.
# 2003 British activist Tom Hurndall shot by an Israeli solider - after nine months in a coma, he dies in January 2004.
# 2003 US activist Brian Avery shot in the face by Israeli soldier. (See http://www.palsolidarity.org/activists/ISMattacked .php.)
# 2003 British activist Martin Shaw survives horrific fall after his - and Gesine Wenzel's - climbing ropes are cut by Swiss police during a G8-related blockade from a road bridge. Gesine survives, as fellow activists are able to grab her rope.

http://www.arkangelweb.org/barry/violence.shtml

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[NitsujTPU]

Ok. Well, lets just say that I consider firebombing buildings to be terrorism, and I don't support that. There are more constructive ways to express your opinion than blowing things up, and I'm more likely to take them seriously, as are most people.

Which is why most people don't take you folks very seriously.

You may consider yourself a freedom fighter, but I consider you an arsonist, a criminal, and a terrorist.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[DrSkwid]

I've never set fire to anything nor comitted a crime in pursuit of my cause.

You, however, continue to be an accessory to murder, kidnapping and torture. Day in, day out. And that's what you don't take seriously.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[DrSkwid]

How many of God's creatures did you eat today ?

Did you say grace before smearing the pig's blood soap across your face this morning ?

Did you thank the mother of the cow that supplied your shoes for the life of the child torn from her breast?

But why would you care, it is only us terrorists that are bothered about such trivialities.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[NitsujTPU]

You've won me over. I want to join the ALF.

Re:well, here's a cynical explanation

[DrSkwid]

You can't join.

That's the point.

There is no "joining"

Action is the only step on this path.

I think this is a great idea

[masterpenguin]

turning off sonar at predictable times sounds like a great idea. Its a good thing that groups like drug cartels can't get their hands on advanced military equipment like russian submarines Its not like terrorists groups learn from drug runners on how to get past american security.

Re:I think this is a great idea

[t_allardyce]

They're gonna get past bullshit US security one way or another, hell if all else fails they can just go through mexico. Its not like drug runners don't already get through on a daily basis, so who knows who else is doing it, sonar or not.

Re:I think this is a great idea

[m50d]

turning off sonar at predictable times sounds like a great idea.

Who said anything about predictable. Having it turned off whenever you go into a new area and listening on passive for a while is best practice generally anyway - once you start pinging whoever's on the receiving end definitely knows you're coming, wheras you may be able to hear them passively without getting detected.

Re:I think this is a great idea

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are in a sub... maybe. If you are in some big honkin' surface ship, I think everyone knows you are coming sonar or no sonar. I'd rather be happily pinging along looking for bad subs rather than passively listening for sounds of a torpedo if I were in a surface ship.

Re:I think this is a great idea

[JonnyCalcutta]

Ah, the 'terrorist' and 'drug' combo card. You win.

Re:I think this is a great idea

[(H)elix1]

The link got hacked. The article is there, but they updated the graphic. Nasty...

Re:I think this is a great idea

[Lehk228]

more importantly in active you can be heard far longer distances than you can hear echo's, so a threat my be able to hide themselves and avoid all detection when passive would have heard them

Why just sonar?

[slashdottinitup]

Just nuke the whales already and be done with it.

Re:My thoughts whenever something like this comes

[martinX]

'Whales are fucking stupid. Can you mention one whale in the history of mankind that has had a record in the top ten? Can you? Can you mention one whale who's written the equivalent of, er, 'Othello', Shakespeare, 'Health & Efficiency'? They've produced nothing in the way of literature. All they've fucking produced is a load of other whales and all they eat is fucking plankton, and they call them intelligent. Can you imagine drifting along in the sea with your mouth open and a lot of fucking plankton going in?'

Re:My thoughts whenever something like this comes

[QuantumG]

To summarise: Nuke The Whales.

Re:Forty Years Of Bad Parenting Caused This

[Inaffect]

Why? Because they want to protect the environment at _any_ cost? There are mass extinctions going on. Maybe they are just thinkers on the wrong side of politics.

Gee, it's not enough that the US tortures Iraqi...

[blankoboy]

prisoners....they have to go after the wales now too? /mission accomplished!

Re:My thoughts whenever something like this comes

[Anonymous Coward]

so having a record in the top ten denotes intelligence in your mind? what a strange little world you live in.

Resources? Cool.

[FluffyWithTeeth]

Active sonar is *extremely* loud and concentrated sound. It kills. Using such in fish spawning grounds and near whale gathering places is *stupid* and a criminal waste of resources.

Whales are resources again, now? Cool, man! I'm gonna go get my harpoon right now, and score me some of that luverly whale oil!

Re:Resources? Cool.

[Waffle Iron]

Whales are resources again, now?

They would be a valuable resource today if it weren't for centuries of gross mismanagement.

Re:Resources? Cool.

[Stoutlimb]

Maybe you slept through grade school biology, or maybe you dropped out. Food chains are CONNECTED, and every time a species is eliminated, it causes repercussions all over the place. So yea, whales are definately part of our natural resources because they're connected some way with everything else that lives in the sea.

Dork.

Outline

[dawhippersnapper]

A summer beach party at Crater Lake takes a dramatic turn when Lois (Erica Durance) hits her head while jumping into the lake. Before Clark (Tom Welling) can save her, a mysterious swimmer, Aquaman, a.k.a. AC (Alan Ritchson), comes to her rescue, out-swimming Clark and leaving him baffled. Professor Fine (James Marsters) tells Clark that Lex (Michael Rosenbaum) is behind a covert operation manufacturing weapons. AC attempts to break into the Luthercorp Marine Center in an attempt to destroy one of Lex's torpedoes and is captured by Lex. Kristin Kreuk and Allison Mack also star. Todd Slavkin and Darren Swimmer wrote the episode directed by Bradford May.

Re:Outline

[Anonymous Coward]

AC attempts to break into the Luthercorp Marine Center

Yep, that was me!

I'm a superhero! Slashdot, mod me up!

AC

Re:Outline

[Thing 1]

"Darren Swimmer", that's rich.

Reminds me of one of the producers on Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (2005): "Jay Roach".

Even funnier, this guy really exists: imdb -- and it states "Sometimes credited as M. Jay Roach" which makes his name even less obscure a reference. ;-)

omg!

[neko9]

omg! think about the child^H^H^H^H^Hwhales!!!11one

Re:Forty Years Of Bad Parenting Caused This

[goldspider]

"There are mass extinctions going on. Maybe they are just thinkers on the wrong side of politics."

There have always been "mass extinctions" going on. Maybe they are just bitter because Katrina sucked their donation base dry.

Good eatin' too

[dapendragon]

I had some whale meat (Minke whale) with red wine sauce just last week, tasted great! Whale meat is the most tender meat I've ever eaten, too bad most of the world seems to think eating whale is almost as bad as eating human flesh.

I don't believe Sonar hurts whales

[joh_tank]

Let me start by saying I'm a retired Sonar technician. I spent 20 years in the US Navy working on various Sonar systems. Never mind the fact active Sonar is the best way to catch a diesel powered submarine. Never mind the fact almost every country in the world has diesel submarines, including Iran. Lets just focus on whether or not Sonar hurts marine mammals. The Navy has been using Sonar for over 50 years and there hasn't been a mass extinction of marine mammals due to Sonar. If you believe the environmentalists and then consider the number of ship's that have been blasting sonar into the ocean in the vicinity of San Diego, CA and Norfolk, VA, the natural assumption would be massive marine mammal deaths in those areas. Guess what? It hasn't happened. In fact, one of the joys of my job was the listening to the dolphins that were attracted by the Sonar. They certainly didn't appear stressed. The Navy has spent millions of dollars trying to determine if Sonar hurts marine mammals. The Navy already complies with most of the environmentalist requests just in case Sonar "might" hurt a marine mammal. I was personally involved in an investigation over the death of a dozen beak whales off of the Canary islands. There was 5 Spanish ships and 1 US ship. The Spanish ships were closer to shore than the US ship. Guess who got blamed for these whales beaching themselves? In the end, it was determined the whales beached themselves trying to get away from the shipping traffic, not the Sonar. The Spanish ships sonar operate in the same frequency range as the US. Since these ships transmit in this area on a regular basis and there have been no mass deaths of beak whales Sonar was absolved of the cause. There still has been no definitive proof after 50 years. If you want to protect marine mammals, go after the industries that regularly dump trash and industrial waste. Have whales beached themselves? Yes! Does anyone know why? No! "Hmmm look around...oh yeah! The Navy has money, lets sue them for research dollars!" It's a frivolous lawsuit by a bunch of folks that have nothing better to do than hate their own government.

Re:I don't believe Sonar hurts whales

[Crixus]

I don't believe Sonar hurts whales

And some people think cigarette smoke is harmless.

In fact, one of the joys of my job was the listening to the dolphins that were attracted by the Sonar. They certainly didn't appear stressed.

That's great, except we're talking about WHALES here. And how do you know they weren't stressed? Just because it might not have seemed to be harming them, doesn't mean that it wasn't. Perhaps they were swimming towards you to communicate with you to STOP using the sonar (in whatever sort of communication they use).

In the end, it was determined the whales beached themselves trying to get away from the shipping traffic, not the Sonar.

How was it that this was determined? Did you ask the whales or something? Later in your post you state that no one knows why whales beach themselves, thereby invalidating the argument that we know it wasn't sonar, but shipping that caused the Canary Island incident.

It's a frivolous lawsuit by a bunch of folks that have nothing better to do than hate their own government.

This is always the classic argument against anyone group protesting the government's actions. It assumes that our government would NEVER do anything wrong, and that these environmental groups are all US hating pinkos. That sort of argument is just an appeal to emotion, and is NOT rational debate, and therefore has no purpose.

Re:I don't believe Sonar hurts whales

[aquatone282]

And yet you failed to address a main point of his argument - that after 50 years of active sonar use there has been no noticable change in the whale population.

Hmmm.

Re:I don't believe Sonar hurts whales

[brianber]

I'm a 2nd class FT on a submarine, so I work pretty closely with our Sonarmen. Every time we go active in an area with heavy "biologics" they don't leave, no matter how many times or how loudly we ping. So this business of "ramping up" the intensity of the pulse is going to do absolutely nothing, except giveaway your position with nothing gained. Remember, they can hear your SONAR long before you can get a return from it.

Re:I don't believe Sonar hurts whales

[Crixus]

I thought his article was called "I don't believe Sonar hurts whales".

That seems to be the thrust ("main point") of his argument (or why else would he have called it that?)

I didn't see him cite ANY evidence or studies about whale populations.

  Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

Re:I don't believe Sonar hurts whales

[joh_tank]

I did point out there has been no massive marine mammal deaths in the vicinity of San Diego and Norfolk. One of San Diego's biggest tourist attractions is Whale Watching. IF Sonar hurts whales THEN there would be no whales to watch since the Navy has been transmitting 235db of Sonar off the coast of San Diego for 50+ years. IF Sonar killed whales, La Jolla beach would be covered in dead whales. Since it is not, I have to make the assumption that Sonar does not harm whales.

Re:I don't believe Sonar hurts whales

[multipartmixed]

235dB???

Holy crap.

What would happen if I was scuba-diving near one of those suckers? Ear drum explosion?

Re:I don't believe Sonar hurts whales

[novus ordo]

"I was personally involved in an investigation over the death of a dozen beak whales off of the Canary islands...Guess who got blamed for these whales beaching themselves? In the end, it was determined the whales beached themselves trying to get away from the shipping traffic, not the Sonar."

Are you talking about this?

FTA:
"Last year 14 beaked whales were stranded during an international naval exercise off the Canary Islands. They appeared on beaches four hours after the sonars were turned on."

I don't know about "definitive proof" but lets look at our options. Maybe the sonars in some way affected the beachings, or there happened to be a flotilla of shipping traffic due to the heavy volume of canary purchases at ebay.
It's also mentioned in this article. The Nature article they both refer to is entitled "Gas-bubble lesions in stranded cetaceans" if you can get your hands on it. They are, however, cautious to reach any blatant conclusions without sufficient evidence. Also here's some background information on acoustic sensitivities of marine life from NRDC. Sorry, but these "government haters" are trying to save marine life from being trampled by our preparations for armageddon.

Re:I don't believe Sonar hurts whales

[Anonymous Coward]

What the heck is an FT? Never heard of that rate.

Re:I don't believe Sonar hurts whales

[RaveX]

Have whales beached themselves? Yes! Does anyone know why? No! "Hmmm look around...oh yeah! The Navy has money, lets sue them for research dollars!"

If you read the text of the suit[pdf link], the only monetary relief requested is for the cost of the suit. So... if the suit is decided against NRDC, they lose money; if it's decided in favor of NRDC but costs are not granted, they lose money; and if it's decided in favor of NRDC and costs are granted, they break even.

The alternate claim, that they'll get money from donations, which we can presume might increase following the publicity associated with the suit, is more plausible... but we'd have to consider that a defeat could result in negative publicity, which could harm donations, etc, etc.

Is it at all possible that the group has good enough reason to believe that mid-frequency sonar is killing whales that they're willing to submit it to the independent judgment of a court so that they can get a binding ruling or settlement that would alter the Navy's practices?

As far as your personal experience goes, thanks for the contribution to the discussion, but don't extrapolate too far-- just because I know someone who survived a refinery explosion doesn't mean that refinery explosions don't kill people. Are all the important variables the same in your example as in the suit? Do you even know (answer: no, since you clearly haven't read any of the relevant information)? If you take the time to read the information offered as evidence in the suit, it's far more substantial than your portrayal suggests. If the suit is frivolous, it will be dismissed-- so don't you lose any sleep over it.

Precisely what problem do you have with the Navy agreeing to a settlement that binds them to adhering to the practices requested?

Re:I don't believe Sonar hurts whales

[bungo]

      Never mind the fact active Sonar is the best way to catch a diesel powered submarine. Never mind the fact almost every country in the world has diesel submarines, including Iran.

So what is your purpose of stating that?

Are you trying to scare people in to believing that a diesel electrics from places like Iran have the range and capability to make it to the US?

You must know full well that the range and ability of diesel electrics limit their operating areas to mostly coastal locations.

Geez... so those Iranians are going to be able to attack the US of A with their weapons of mass destruction via diesel submarines!

Very emotive.

You should consider getting a job in the White House.

Re:I don't believe Sonar hurts whales

[chromozone]

The thing you want to remember is that a lot of the people arguing with you want the whales to be getting threatened. It supports their need to judge something and feel superior/important/justified etc. It's a distraction from themselves really and they secretly love to get upset over stuff like this. God forbid the world was perfect.

Re:I don't believe Sonar hurts whales

[jamesborr]

This is one of the most ill-informed comments I have seen in a awhile. Diesel subs are perfectly capable of operating in non-coastal waters -- Last time I checked, the Germans used to post whole "wolf packs" of subs in US waters during WW II, which were responsible for numorous sinkings. The diesel subs of today are vastly more capable then the 1930's designed German submarines.

Re:I don't believe Sonar hurts whales

[Anonymous Coward]

FT stands for Fag Toy. He stands bent over a pipe all day to help with seamen release.

Re:I don't believe Sonar hurts whales

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but it sounded Really Really good.

Re:I don't believe Sonar hurts whales

[mkcmkc]

The Navy has been using Sonar for over 50 years and there hasn't been a mass extinction of marine mammals due to Sonar.

The fact that sonar hasn't killed off a substantial fraction of marine mammals doesn't necessarily mean that it's benign. The obvious presumption here would be that sonar is tantamount to torture--this wouldn't have to be fatal in order to be horribly immoral.

I don't know what the answer is here, but the question clearly needs to be studied scientifically.

Mike

Re:I don't believe Sonar hurts whales

[Anonymous Coward]

Delphinidae is a family in the sub-order of the Cetacea known as the Odontoceti, which includes all toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises. You might immediately think of Orcinus Orca--the dolphin always referred to as a whale. These are all closely-related sea mammals.

Re:I don't believe Sonar hurts whales

[bungo]

Whoever modded that as offtopic, I hope you get killed in meta-moderation.

Just beacuse you don't agree, doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Let me restate in clearer langauge -

The parent makes an emotive argument, saying offhand that diesel subs are a big threat and even Iran has one.

I point out that this is not correct. Subs from places like Iran could never make it close to the US. You need a alot of support for a diesel sub, they can't travel anywhere as far as a nuke.

And the topic.... the article is about sonar for detecting subs, right?

If you don't agree, or have more information, saying that a diesel sub is a threat to the US, then come up with your argument, and I'd respect you.

The biggest sub threat to the US has been, and will always be, a Russian boomer under the artic ice pack, and not any of the countries that could get a diesel sub close enough without ship support (unless you're scared of Canada).

Re:I don't believe Sonar hurts whales

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoever modded that as offtopic, I hope you get killed in meta-moderation.

Done. Your statment was knocked for being off-topic yet the parent wasn't even though both of you were on the same topic. Sorry, but I do find that to be unfair and have knocked the moderator as a result. I hope that made your day. However, I do agree with another comment in their thread that criticized you for your ill-informed statements. You need to study history a bit more.

Re:I don't believe Sonar hurts whales

[Vellmont]

It's interesting, but hardly proof of sonar as the culprit in the whale beachings. It's not as if these "environmental" groups don't have a history of just plain lying and ignoring evidence, so I have a hard time accepting anything they say at face value. PETA and Greenpeace are full of nutjob fanatics who only seem to care about their own emotions and not about actual truth. Is the NRDC the same?

Re:I don't believe Sonar hurts whales

[brianber]

FT = Fire control Technician. FT's are specific to submarines.

The fish have a protector

[Darkn3ss]

Don't worry about the whales, Aqua-man will save them!

Poison Darts

[connah0047]

Nah, just arm the whales with poison darts like they did the dolphins and give them a fighting Chance. Of course, the whales are a little nigger so you could arm them with mini-torpedoes.

Re:Poison Darts

[connah0047]

Bigger, I meant to type BIGGER, I swear!

Re:Poison Darts

[cnerd2025]

Hahahahaha! We forgive you. 'B' is next to 'N' after all. ;-) That was one of the funniest things I've seen in a while.

Re:Poison Darts

[Yaotzin]

A little Freudian slip, perhaps?

Re:Poison Darts

[Anonymous Coward]

I figured it was a typo. After all, the sea's little niggers are the sea lions, breeding uncontrollably and abusing their children, and just being horrendously overweight.

Re:I think this is a great idea (Mod Parent Up)

[Cochonou]

Exactly. You're indeed right.

Re:My thoughts whenever something like this comes

[Anonymous Coward]

Psst: Derek and Clive...

Re:Forty Years Of Bad Parenting Caused This

[jo7hs2]

Are you on crack? How far up your @ss did you pull that one? I could say the radical left is the way it is because mommy gave them the tit until they were 7, but that would be just as baseless of a claim as yours. Have you considered a career in sociology?

peer-reviewed publications on passive detection

[dankelley]

Vanderlaan, A.S.M., Hay, A.E., and Taggart, C.T., 2003. Characterization of North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis sounds in the Bay of Fundy. IEEE J. Oceanic Eng., 28(2), 164-173.

Laurinolli, M.H., Hay, A.E., Descharnais, F., and Taggart, C.T., 2003. Localization of North Atlantic right whale sounds in the Bay of Fundy using a sonobuoy array. Marine Mammal Science, 19(4), 708-723.

These papers (and others that are not yet published) come from a Physics-Biology interdisciplinary collaboration at Dalhousie University in Canada; for more see http://oceanography.dal.ca/index.html and follow links to get to Hay's (Physics) page or Taggart's (Biology) page.

This work has already led to policy changes, e.g the shipping lanes in the Bay of Fundy have been shifted, to try to reduce the probability of ships striking whales.

More work is needed, and not just on the acoustics. For example, we have no clear understanding of what happens when a ship strikes a whale at a given angle and closing speed, so it is impossible to make policy recommendations on the speed of ships in key areas. (It is undesirable to build up statistics by observing nature, because the right-whale population is on a path of extinction, so every individual matters.)

Windmills and Martha's Vinyard

[Anonymous Coward]

Read about the firestorm that the politically-correct liberals like Walter Cronkite caused when someone wanted to put power-generating windmills in Nantucket Sound near Martha's Vineyard:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/26/sunday/m ain560595.shtml

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/clevey/?i d=110002097

Note how a Kennedy opposes it here:

http://www.grist.org/news/powers/2002/12/19/grisco m-windmill/

Fricken' hypocrits. Nothing like a leftist environmentalist to tell everyone what's good for them, until it interferes with the view from their $10 million estate on the Vineyard.

And speaking of Kennedys, Martha's Vineyard, and submarines:

Q: Who do you get if you cross Mario Andretti and Jacques Cousteau?
A: Teddy Kennedy

Has Tom DeLay or Bill Frist or Karl Rove actually killed anyone?

Not needed. We have better technologies.

[Deputy Doodah]

I've been a part of these sonar experiments, and let me tell you, there is a big misunderstanding of the physics of sound going on here.
So that the animals have time to flee????
Flee where? The next ocean? These are exremely low frequency transmissions. The only thing literally preventing the sound from traveling around the world is the placement of the continents. Once when these transmissions were being transmitted from Alaska, I was in a submarine just south of Hawaii and I was being woken up in my rack. It was very damned loud. When sound penetrates the hull of a sub it's notable for being either very close or very powerful.
I question the need for this technology because we have better means of tracking enemy ships and subs. We have MAD (magnetic anomaly detection), SOSUS, etc.
We don't have to be killing wildlife. And it does kill them....I've seen the reports.

Re:Not needed. We have better technologies.

[Geoff NoNick]

It's pretty clear you have no idea what you're talking about - Sonar operates in the VHF to UHF range, so even at the high-power end, it only has a transmittable range of 2 to 5 miles through the water.

Also, SOSUS, as you probably know, is a series of underwater microphones that is monitored from a shore-based station. It does nothing for ships and other submarines trying to search for something in an area with no pre-place microphones. Passive sonar has a very limited range and does little to detect most diesel submarines (ditto SOSUS), and Magnetic Anonmaly Detection can only be used if the detector is literally on top of the target. NOt much use there.

Do you suppose that maybe the hundreds of Navy research scientists who think about this stuff for a living may know something you don't about it?

Re:Not needed. We have better technologies.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you ?

We're talking about LFA sonar, which operates below 500Hz and can certainly go beyond 5 miles.

Re:Not needed. We have better technologies.

[iggymanz]

what the...??? SONAR is sound waves, not electromagnetic, and not in the megahertz range of UHF and VHF. The high frequency sonar goes into the hundreds of KHz, but has much more limited range than low frequency sonar. By reflection from the surface and lower lays, it is sometimes possible to go to a few hundred miles with low frequency sonar, but then we're talking about signal strength so low as to be inaudible to humans and probably to sea creatures too.

Re:Not needed. We have better technologies.

[Deputy Doodah]

That's really pretty stupid of you. Sonar is audible. It is not VHF or UHF. It is an audible frequency that you can hear with your ears if you dunk your head in the water. Are you thinking of radar perhaps?

Low frequency sonar is just that...low frequency. If you know basic physics, you'll know that low frequencies travel for thousands of miles in water not 5. For example, in my work, I've sat off the coast of California and listened to low frequencies being emitted by research ships near Japan.

Maybe you should read up on the subject before you try to argue with with someone who actually has thought about this stuff for a living.

Re:Not needed. We have better technologies.

[evilviper]

So that the animals have time to flee????
Flee where? The next ocean? These are exremely low frequency transmissions. The only thing literally preventing the sound from traveling around the world is the placement of the continents.

You don't seem to have any idea what you are talking about. This isn't some magic curse incantation going out over a loudspeaker on a sub. Just being able to hear it wont seriously harm anything. They just need to flee a great enough distance away, where the force of the soundwaves won't be so great.

Energy drops exponentially as you increase your distance from the source. Even moving a relatively small distance away from the source will make a tremendous difference.

Re:Not needed. We have better technologies.

[Vellmont]

The only thing literally preventing the sound from traveling around the world is the placement of the continents.

I don't know if you're ever experienced this with this "sound" thing, but it gets quieter the further away you are from the source. Intensity fall off with the square of the distance, so at 200 meters it's 4 times quieter than at 100 meters.

Re:Priorities?

[Anonymous Coward]

How many frekin terrorists are in the water?

Moron.

Not so terribly often

[kriston]

Attack and SSBN boats have stealth as one of their highest priorities. Except for these training exercises you won't have boats on patrol using active sonar at any time.

Re:Not so terribly often

[BCW2]

Good Lord, someone commented on this that actually has a clue about sub ops!

Except on trials or to prove it works (quarterly tests), boomers (missle subs) never ever use active sonar, their job is to do the best imitation of a hole in the ocean that you never heard, and they are exceptionaly good at it. Fast attack boats might go active on a snap shot at a diesel electric that got in close. Surface ships on the other hand go around merrily pinging away, like they will actually find anything that way other than in training. In all exercises in the 70's our fast attack boats had a sound augmentor that played tapes of Russian boats through a 500 watt McIntosh tube amp. That was the only way skimmers ever found us. I will not say the same for P3 Orions with their MAD gear, thse things were scary. You can hear a skimmer pinging at around 80 miles, no sub will get caught with that kind of notice.

Back in the late 70's a fast attack would follow a Russian (sometime inside of 300 yards) for a week or more and tape every sound made. When we got done we would ping them once and tape the full power run that followed. Before the BQQ5 sonar system some skippers would give them a nudge, but you can't do that with a (at the time,$2 million) plastic dome which is the bow of the boat. A full power ping inside of 500 yards will just about make your ear drums switch sides. Of course it is very directional and not radiated in all directions unless desired.

Yes I was there, 1976 - 1980 USS Silversides SSN 679.

:Fuck the Fucking "Whales".

[Anonymous Coward]

If they don't want to get sonar-blasted let 'em sign up for duty and carry explosive charges to use against ChiCom subs.Dolphins are with us on this Whales better be part of the solution or they are part of the problem.

It's like some super-hero story

[galego]

... where the bad guys will go ahead and use their weapons (or sonar) with reckless abandon while the good guys have to restrain ... except here, the hero is being overseen by third-party enviromentalists (and lawyers of course) standing by (in Armani suits of course) making sure that the hero doesn't allow the whales to be harmed in the process of the battle/mission.

Scene ends with the US Navy saving whales as the 'bad guys' ride away cackling, having succeeded at their mission.

[To Be Continued] ...

Re:It's like some super-hero story

[hey!]

third-party enviromentalists (and lawyers of course) standing by (in Armani suits of course)

I spent almost fifteen years of my career in environmental organizations, and I can tell you in all that time I never saw a single Armani suit, unless it was on TV. Sandals -- check. Jeans and T shirt -- check. Above costuming made "dressy" by throwing a blazer over -- check.

Of course, you do need to look rich to ask for a lot of money. Things may be different on the West Coast, but in the Northeast Armani would definitely mark you as a poseur. I've seen more of comfortably scuffed, rumpled Boston Brahmin costume affected. Dockers, stout walking shoes, tweed jacket and polo shirt for every day; for meetings dress shoes, blue blazer, suitably themed tie. Suits are mainly worn by accounting and finance types, I can't think of many instances where I've seen them on others. Usually if the distinctive old money look (basically something you might wear tramping around the stables while making it completely clear you're not a groom) isn't right, then you go right for evening wear.

Re:My thoughts whenever something like this comes

[Anonymous Coward]

and only then if they're nuked in the name of Christ.

Nuke a black, gay, unmarried, baby, pregnant whale for Christ!

In other news

[mi]

Oil companies are being sued for global warming, that caused the Katrina destruction.

And I am not kidding...

Re:In other news

[Oracle of Bandwidth]

Man, I'm beginning to think that loving nature makes one inherently crazy. Good thing I know some sane ones.

"Sonar-blasting whales"! Ingenious!

[Trelane]

I've heard of trying to equip and teach dolphins and other animals to do the Navy's work, but now they've equipped and trained whales to blast sonar for them! Incredible!

/me waits for the ba-dump-bump-*ching*, but hears only crickets....

Must be a really tiny submarine!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that a bigger one wouldn't fit in... But despite the guy's effort to show the submarine, I can't see it. I only see the red goo around it!

dB in water is not the same as dB in air

[Solandri]

235dB???
Holy crap.
What would happen if I was scuba-diving near one of those suckers? Ear drum explosion?

dB in water is not the same as dB in air, primarily due to water being a denser medium (takes more energy to get those water molecules moving, while hearing is based mostly on the magnitude of the movement). For a rough conversion to dB in air, you need to subtract 62. And even then, the sound levels are within the range of other natural events.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/acoustics. htm#conversion

Re:dB in water is not the same as dB in air

[multipartmixed]

Interesting.

So, is it likely that I would go deaf from a sonar ping nearby? Or even blue whale moans?

Or does "nearby" change dramatically in water due to transmission effects?

The chart you provided makes it look like scuba diving is incredibly dangerous to your hearing, even if you don't get a pressure tear in your timpanii.

Of course, it's not, so I must be missing something. The chart you provided pretty much affirms that!

Thanks.

You're confusing sonar with coloscopy

[Anonymous Coward]

A sonar won't reveal this "submarine". A coloscopy, however, will.

(And yes, this method of smuggling drugs and other items is popular with prisoners... One of the rare places which officers usually won't search)

MOD PARENT DOWN! GOATSE LINK!

[Anonymous Coward]

nasty!

Note to those moderidiots who modded it insightful: Metamoderation will get you!

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN! GOATSE LINK!

[Anonymous Coward]

Note to those moderidiots who modded it insightful:

But you have to admin: the GP comment is insightful... indeed the perp grants the public a deep insight into his most private parts!

And I should also mention

[Solandri]

For a while, several environmental groups were raising quite a ruckus citing the high dB numbers (whether out of ignorance or deliberate deception), and the media was regurgitating it without asking questions. It's good to see both the media and environmental groups not making those kinds of mistakes or resorting to those tactics.

Was it Lex Luthor's idea? Where was Aquaman...?

[antdude]

It sounds like it was Lex Luthor's idea. But where was Aquaman and Clark Kent to destroy the project? See here. [grin]

Show Me The Money

[Anonymous Coward]

And who will be paying for upgrades from red to white lights? It is high time that the enviromentalists start bearing the costs of their whacky policies. Regardless, they should keep their unwashed mits out of my wallet.

No Problem...

[kylant]

Harm and Mac will have this sorted out in no time. What do you mean with I'm watching too much TV?

Re:My thoughts whenever something like this comes

[novus ordo]

Can you mention one whale in the history of mankind that has had a record in the top ten?

What about Free Willy??!

Enemy Submarines

[Namronorman]

If they're so anxious to save the whales and stop us from using important technology in certain locations, why don't we ship them off to North Korea and other possible threats so they can tell them to stay away from that water as well?

It'd only be fair, dammit!

Re:Enemy Submarines

[Anonymous Coward]

The whales got DUBYEMDEES!!

And so they should,

[Anonymous Coward]

What did the Welsh do to deserve this.

Yay?

[MaXiMiUS]

There's only two things the government will put over the environment. Money, and things that blow up. Why not exploding money? It solves both problems and.. oh wait. That probably would mess up the air and kill a lot of trees.

water boils

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC, the sonars cannot go over about 250DB because the water boils at that pressure and then you cannot get the sonic energy into the water after that.

Who Needs Whales - We Need Submarines For . . .

[jizzle]

For people who are like - who cares about these whales - its like have a 20 inch woofer blasting 2 inches from your ear. But of course people who don't care about the whales probably can't understand things that are not part of there perspective. This is too foreign of a concept - sonar doesn't bother me so why should the whales care. And if you don't mind blasting the whales with the sonar - then you are very unlikely to question why we need a huge cold-war relic of a submarine fleet. Hmmm billions of dollars on submarines because? Those subs are so necessary and that money couldn't possibly be spent on anything better. Of course if you are a non-thinking person you could justify the need for submarines because maybe alqueda is building a huge undersea army that is just waiting to attack . . . If you think we must have a strong military that is one thing - but if you think that having subs is a vital part of a strong military and that billions of dollars need to be spent on new ones - then you may have to accept the fact that you are brainwashed and not thinking in a logical manner.

Re:Who Needs Whales - We Need Submarines For . . .

[Neop2Lemus]

Its not the woofer blasting in your ears as I understood it to be. It's that it is cooking them alive like a microwave.

/The real test our species will face is not if we treat each other honourable but how we protect the undefended, the animals. And we're failinjg it horribly.

Damn AVALANCHE...

[benpretend]

I say drop the plate on those eco-freaks.

"Gradually" turn on the sonar...

[Kymermosst]

"They also want the Navy ... to turn on sonar systems gradually so that the animals have time to flee."

If you turn it on gradually you give away your position and movement. The whole idea is to put out a short burst at full power, so that there is little time for enemies running passive sonar to react to the signal.

This seems oddly familiar...

[FR007]

You know, the enviromentalist tried the same thing with Columbia University a few years ago. Tried to sue CU, saying they killed some whales in the Gulf of California while doing some sonar mapping. I wonder... did they lose the case and then just blame the Navy instead, or is this a different incident?

Look for a correlation

[KORfan]

It seems to me that the useful thing to do would be to assemble a database of the times and locations of known whale beachings and a database of times and locations of naval sonar exercises. Make the databases public so anyone can check the work. Look for a correlation between the events.

Re:"Sonar-blasting whales"! Ingenious!

[KORfan]

That's actually pretty old news. See "The Incredible Mr. Limpet" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058230/

Only two kinds of ships

[hax4bux]

Submarines and targets.

For surface units, most of the energy emitted by a SONAR is reflected back. To be really effective, instrumentation has to be lowered beneath certain (location dependent) thermoclines. Which of course, limits manuverability of the surface unit.

In a real open ocean fight, the only purpose SONAR would serve is as a targeting aid for the submarines. There is no way a surface ship will hear anything except other surface ships. Have you ever considered what sort of noise is generated by a aircraft carrier during launch operations? I'll give you a hint, 4 propellors going full blast and a jet catapult produce an unmistakable signature which is exploitable over vast distances.

In a real fight, the surface units would be assisted by subsurface assets. Hopefully there would also be some aviation assets to help prosecute whatever problem might emerge. But the real solution will be subsurface units doing what they do best.

My point here is that active SONAR from surface units is usually a liability, and reducing the noise signature is a good thing.

Some of you need to quit waving the flag and consider the question. Just because the Navy (or any) DoD component wants to play w/their toys doesn't make it good and useful. Be sure to catch my next lecture regarding torpedos from surface ships.

Re:Only two kinds of ships

[tsotha]

Submarines and targets.

You have been around sub jockeys. They're the only ones to spout that little bit of idiocy.

In a real open ocean fight...

Mostly irrelevant. Would you have the infantry train only during the day? One of the hard lessons the navy has learned over the years is the "blue water" fight is only part of what they need to prepare for. Most naval combat has occurred and will continue to occur in relatively shallow water, where active sonar is definitely a card you'd like to be able to play if necessary. The US navy is busy now training to fight in the Taiwan straight, the most likely place for the next big slug-fest. Lots of shallow water there...

In a real fight, the surface units would be assisted by subsurface assets. Hopefully there would also be some aviation assets to help prosecute whatever problem might emerge. But the real solution will be subsurface units doing what they do best.

You never depend on the availability of another platform. With the Europeans selling AIP technology all over the world US nuclear submarines will probably be at a disadvantage in coastal water for the first time in half a century. If I'm a destroyer captain I'll make sure I can operate without one.

My point here is that active SONAR from surface units is usually a liability, and reducing the noise signature is a good thing.

That word "usually" covers a big hole in your argument. You'd like to depend on passive sonar if you can. You can't always do that. If it were so useless this discussion wouldn't be taking place, as the navy wouldn't have active sonar.

Some of you need to quit waving the flag and consider the question. Just because the Navy (or any) DoD component wants to play w/their toys doesn't make it good and useful. Be sure to catch my next lecture regarding torpedos from surface ships.

Waving the flag? Now you're just spouting nonsense. Those "toys", as you call them, keep our sailors alive. I, for one, will oppose any law that keeps the US navy from being able to train effectively.

Re:Priorities?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you ask the victims of the attack on the USS Cole?

Moron.

Re:Forty Years Of Bad Parenting Caused This

[linguae]

Both you and the grandparent post don't understand what left and right really mean. Left-right is an economic scale that ranges from communism/socialism (far left) to pure laissez-faire capitalism (far right), with a mixed economy (e.g., United States's economy) somewhere in the middle.

Even though left-wingers do seem more sympathetic toward environmental issues, environmentalism isn't exclusively left-wing only; there are right wing environmentalists (the only difference between the two is that left-wingers prefer governmental involvement in environmental issues, whereas right-wingers prefer free-market solutions to solving environmental issues).

Being a right winger doesn't make you intolerant and anti-democratic (even though right-wingers tend to be more sympathetic to republics than democracies), and being a left-winger doesn't make one unpatriotic and extreme. Libertarianism, for example, is a right wing philosophy that supports tolerance and democracy/republicanism (as long as it doesn't trample over the liberties of its people). The left has philosophiles such as progressivism and American liberalism (who tend to be patriotic and not too extreme to the left).

JESUS CHRIST YOU ARE A FUCKTARD

[Anonymous Coward]

if you were a yank i could understand your stupidity but from your sig it looks like you are english. yet you dont understand sarcasm.

so where are those WMDs?

[Anonymous Coward]

still waiting for them.
not to mention COINTELPRO, the CIA LSD experiments, etc etc etc.

'oh cia isnt military'

lol then take away their guns.

Re:so where are those WMDs?

[NitsujTPU]

A thing about the LSD in the drinking water bit.

LSD breaks down in chlorine, such as would be found in drinking water. That conspiracy theory about LSD in the drinking water could never work. Anybody doing a feasability study would have seen that at the start.

Re:Forty Years Of Bad Parenting Caused This

[jo7hs2]

I have a perfect understanding of what left and right actually mean, however, this is Slashdot, and I am far too lazy for coherent thought on a Sunday.

Re:Priorities?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you believe everything your government tells you?

The government tells me to be nice and hire handicapped retards like yourself. I definitely do not believe in that garbage.

training

[falconwolf]

If the training exercise is not as close to how you actually fight as you can make it, then when the time comes to actually fight, you will discover that you haven't trained in how to fight, you've trained in how to do well in training exercises.

Does that mean we should have used real bullets while we were training when I was in the army? Instead we used blanks, attached lasers to our M16s and wore vests with sensors on them. Perhaps we should of used real grenades instead of "flash bangs"

Boy, we had some fun with those flash bangs. Take the shell from a rifle grenade, fill it with gunpowder and wedge the opposite end of the flash bang from the detonator then throw it like a grenade. That was almost as much fun as working with c4 and det cord.

Falcon

GOATSE

[Anonymous Coward]

Do not click link

who's going to pay?

[falconwolf]

It is high time that the enviromentalists start bearing the costs of their whacky policies. Regardless, they should keep their unwashed mits out of my wallet.

Are you also for making pollutors pay for pollution and the damage they cause to ecological systems or for health problems?

Falcon

sonar and whales

[falconwolf]

they wanted the navy to first listen for animals, then progressively turn on their sonar systems such that animals had a chance to flee. whats so hard about that?

Listening first may help some but progressively turning up the volumn won't. Some of these sonar systems travel thousands of miles, there's just no way for a whale to get far enough away not to cause damage.

Falcon

Re: "it does kill them ... I've seen the reports."

[ankhank]

Can you say more, specifically, without being dragged off and shot?

Published reports?
Unpublished but available if we asked for them? Classified?

Anything the Navy should have disclosed in the prior lawsuit, but didn't?

I realize that being a whistleblower can be risky.

Re:Forty Years Of Bad Parenting Caused This

[Oracle of Bandwidth]

What qualifies as "mass" and in that case name all these species that went extinct this year. I think pen and teller allready convinced me to hate envionmental groups.

Re:Gee, it's not enough that the US tortures Iraqi

[DiscoDave_25]

whales buddy not Wales...

Unless I'm not as safe as I thought here in Cardiff...

it is most improbable

[Anonymous Coward]

that the latest cutting edge sonar research is available either on the open web or on marginially more closed pay per view "peer review" journal web pages. You might get access to second or third tier level research at best, but not crown jewels quality first tier. first tier critical defense research on established vital defense products are closed shop, real closed shop. They "review" it themselves.

With that said, accept reality, the best anyone on the outside has access to is reports and anecdotals,such as task force A running training exercise someplace, next day 15 whales whatever wash up on the beach or strand themselves. Repeat around the world for many years now. the reports are out there, I know I've been reading them for years now. Apply occams razor. Once or twice a coincidence,sure, could happen,but dozens of times? That strains credulity to the extreme.

This isn't rocket surgery. If you want to justify it, go ahead, there is certainly a national security justification for it, but don't deny the collateral damage associated with it.

Re: "it does kill them ... I've seen the reports."

[Deputy Doodah]

I'm not really sure how much I can say without getting in trouble. The project was classified at the time, and I'm not sure of its status now. I hope you don't take me as an ass for that, but I do have to cover the ass I have.
The point of my post was only to state my opinion that there are better ways to track targets than by blasting sound waves all over the place.

Re: "it does kill them ... I've seen the reports."

[ankhank]

I respect the need to watch what you're allowed to say; I hope the Navy didn't hold anything back when they settled an earlier lawsuit, a year ago, maybe less -- I thought this had been dealt with and everyone now understood that the super-sonar had been clearly associated with deaths among cetaceans.

I don't know if the mechanism was ever established.

I remember there was some suggestion that it triggered nitrogen bubbles in the deep dive condition ("the bends" set in at an ascent rate that the animals have been save using). I don't recall much more than that.

There's plenty on the public record. It always puzzles me when people still insist there are no facts when they've been made public and agreed on, as with the super-sonar effects.

Just wondered what else might be known and not disclosed.

I recall a submarine officer telling a group of people one time about how they'd listen to whales until they got tired of hearing them, then crank up the active sonar to maximum and "blow them out of the area" -- big laugh -- that would have been eight or nine years ago, in the Atlantic. The new sonar's way louder, and as you point out, doesn't attenuate much around the world when it's in a layer that keeps reflecting it.

I remember another recent story about using super-loud acoustic emitters to focus on incoming torpedos and explode them at a safe distance -- and there's this trick for "beaming" sound being used in vending machines (!) and other places -- I guess there are a lot more uses for acoustic energy out there.

But yeah, it's always seemed to me that there must be better ways than loud active sonar to keep track of what's going on. Probably the first country to figure out what the whales are talking about will be able to tune in to more accurate and precise descriptions of where the submarines are than any human methods can provide, if there are still whales to pay attention.

New sonar, low frequency

[snowwrestler]

Very low frequency, actually. It doesn't ping, it booms. It is for very long-range detection, so it is low-frequency, and it is very very loud. This is not about pinging for a final firing solution. It is sonar that they hope can find subs hundreds of miles away. It is a strategic, not a tactical, tool, and it is new...unless you are still actively involved with sonar development you likely did not work with the technology that is the subject of the suit.

If dolphins are so smart,

[Scott7477]

why don't they borrow some lasers from the sharks and shoot the sonar emitters?

Re:If dolphins are so smart,

[Vegeta99]

Too late. The navy already gave them lasers.

Alt Methods of Aquisition

[Anonymous Coward]

Ive been told by a retired Naval officer that they are using (or at least experimenting with) electromagnetic fields as a method of contact and target aquisition.

The premise is that a few hundred thousand pounds of steel in the middle of the ocean can cause slight disruptions of the Earth's magnetic field, and thus might provide hints and clues to the location of another sub or vessel.

So you are right, SONAR may not actually be all that important currently or on the horizon.

Smallville, Aquaman (boy), Superboy

[Josepdin]

Wasn't this an episode on last week's Smallville?? ...Lex Luthor creates sonic weapon for submarine destruction, oh by the way, it kills fish too...