Slashdot Mirror
US Supreme Court Allows Sonar Use
gollum123 writes "The US Supreme Court has removed restrictions on the Navy's use of sonar in training exercises near California. The ruling is a defeat for environmental groups who say the sonar can kill whales and other mammals. In its 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court said the Navy needed to conduct realistic training exercises to respond to potential threats. The court did not deal with the merits of the claims put forward by the environmental groups. In reinstating the use of sonar, the top US court rejected a lower federal judge's injunction that had required the US Navy to take various precautions during submarine-hunting exercises. The Bush administration argued that there is little evidence of harm to marine life in more than 40 years of exercises off the California coast. It said that the judges should have deferred to the judgment of the Navy and Mr Bush. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said overall public interest was 'strongly in favor of the Navy.' 'The most serious possible injury would be harm to an unknown number of the marine mammals,' Chief Justice Roberts wrote. 'In contrast, forcing the Navy to deploy an inadequately trained anti-submarine force jeopardizes the safety of the fleet.'"
"Can you hear me now? Good!"
They didn't deal with the claims put forth by the environmentalists? Then what the hell DID they consider besides the Navy's side? (No, I didn't RTFO.)
Those who anthropomorphize science and/or nature already believe in an intelligent designer.
"The most serious possible injury would be harm to an unknown number of the marine mammals," Chief Justice Roberts wrote. "In contrast, forcing the navy to deploy an inadequately trained anti-submarine force jeopardises the safety of the fleet."
Caution be-damned in the name of the national defense.
Chief Justice John Roberts said overall public interest was 'strongly in favour of the navy.' 'The most serious possible injury would be harm to an unknown number of the marine mammals,' Chief Justice Roberts wrote. 'In contrast, forcing the navy to deploy an inadequately trained anti-submarine force jeopardises the safety of the fleet.'"
Fools. Have they not seen Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home?
The Navy has even admitted that active sonar is harmful and results in deaths of marine mammals, but like with the EPA, investigations with facts harmful to the administration's opinions are erased.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
I don't think the Navy as a government organization or the president have anything relevant to say in the matter. It is what the marine biologists and the science they do says. If their science says that such operations definitely harm marine mammals, then the Navy should be required to take certain precautions before doing their exercises. If there is no conclusive evidence, or if the evidence is circumstantial at best, then there's no reason to stop the Navy from doing their thing until such evidence is found.
Now, if the evidence was indeed that strong, maybe PETA or some other animal rights group can and should bring suit against the Navy for harming the animals. If indeed the evidence is that strong, then this ruling is meaningless (the Supreme court didn't comment on the environmentalist's stance, which leaves the door wide open for more lawsuits). But until that time that the evidence really becomes that strong, I'm not sure national security should be jeopardized for the sake of a hunch or even an educated guess.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Well, the Cold War was relatively recent, nothing was really "fought" so to speak, but submarines were a big deal, a constant threat.
Breyer wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. He agreed that the district court failed to follow the law when it imposed the two restrictions at issue on the Navy's sonar testing pending completion of the environmental impact statement. In this portion of his opinion, he agreed with the Navy. In the second part of his opinion, he disagreed that the proper response was to get rid of the two conditions.
Stevens concurred in the first part of Breyer's decision and did not join the second part. In other words, he concurred in the judgment of the Court. In total, seven justices agreed with the Navy's position that the district court's order was not in accord with the law.
China has plenty of subs, and I promise you they don't give a crap about whales.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, no matter how ill-informed it may be. You could, however, at least have gotten the quote right: "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far."
This ain't rocket surgery.
True, and I ain't a hippie by a long shot, but it kills me that military advancement is always considered more important then environmental impact. Yeah it's a couple whales, who cares so long as our military is more stream lined.
I'm not pro-animal; I'm just anti-human superiority complex. For all we know, killing off all the whales could result in their food overpopulating, and so on and so forth. Of course, we won't know until we try, so let's go ahead and try so we can see just what kind of impact it would have.
Buuut if we're gonna go down the route of importance of lives, I would guess that deciding that the lives of these sailors, who are trained to kill people, are more important than the people we are training them to kill (whichever people they may be when the politicians sign the bill and write the check).
War is as pointless as the people that push for it. I'd say, you can't be pro-life if you are pro-war; war kills people, and as soon as you sign your life away or support it, you are saying that murdering people is important enough that you are willing to do whatever it takes to do it (and don't get me wrong, if someone shoots us, we should shoot right back, but it's a shame that us 'advanced humans' can't even manage to live on different continents without wanting to kill each other).
When the "fucking whales" go mad from all the pinging and start tipping over boats. Full of babies. American babies. Who will have white skin. All of them.
Or when they start humping US submarines thus giving away their position when those evil terrorist Al-Qaeda submarines come along.
And haven't you seen that documentary earlier this year? It was in all theaters.
You don't fuck with the big underwater creatures.
Or they will come out, rip off the head off of the Statue of Liberty, rape it, and throw it in the middle of Manhattan.
Cause that is what happens when you fuck a whale in the ass, Larry.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not...
We've already killed off most of the megafauna that existed on this planet. I want to keep what we have left.
((really.. were you being sarcastic? It'd be kind of hard to justify the existence of any living being based on that criteria. YOU certainly wouldn't escape the rendering plant.))
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
Yes, and the new President, in an effort to be fair and to change, will only appoint middle-of-the-road, unbiased-as-possible judges.~
A very noble thought indeed, but unfortunately not liking war isn't the same as not understanding there are times for it, and preparing yourself for other countries which may not believe the same way.
Additionally, you have to remember that as far as our country's military leaders are concerned the people who choose to enlist in our military are more important than those who they may have to fight against.
A very similar test to simulate what this high powered sonar would sound like to someone under water, for Bush and the crypt keepers on the supreme court.
Stick their heads inside a 55 gallon drum and blast Metalica in the other end @ 400 db.
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
5 to 4 is stacked?!?!
And as soon as a spot opens, you don't think Obama will try and stack it either?
I dislike both the Democratic and Republican parties...If left to their own devices, each would destroy this country in a different way, either by overregulating it untill all the businesses leave or by being arrogant and pissing the entire rest of the world off. With the significant majorities in the House and Senate, the Supreme Court may be the only thing that stops this country from completely fucking itself up. They need eachother to kill off the stupid far left and far right ideas, so we get the moderate view that benefits most of the country.
As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
Despite China maneuvering itself into third-world status for the purposes of the Kyoto Treaty, China isn't third-world. By definition, I don't think you can consider one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council to be third-world.
But, yes, they aren't exactly hampered by lawsuits or demonstrations when they want to conduct military training.
I routinely spend large amounts of time at sea for the US Navy. The ship I am on doesn't have active sonar, but:
- We have a OS(W)or AB(W) topside at all times watching when we are underway watching for whales. The whale has the right of way.
- We're not allowed to intentionally encroach within 1km to a whale. Dolphins and similar are fast moving/smart enough to think we might eat them. Most whales appear to think we are a really big whale and seem to like coming over to visit.
- If our direction of travel is blocked by a whale, we must either steer to avoid or perform a rather unloved manuveur known as a 'crash stop'.
- If we are operating with another ship we must abort operations if a whale enters the area.
Of course they aren't, that isn't the point. The point is, they have a significant naval presence in the Pacific, and are more than enough reason to conduct sonar training exercises there.
Is there any way they can discourage the whales from coming around? Like maybe ring off the testing area for a couple hundred miles with buoys that make enough noise to be irritating to them?
The idea that anything labelled "national defense" automatically overrides the concerns of the local democracy (in this case the citizenry of California and Hawaii) would be in that category I mentioned above of "whatever ideology is in vogue". I don't happen to agree with that ideology.
"National defense" is why we threw US citizens of Japanese extraction into concentration camps in WW II, to our national shame.
"National defense" is why we wasted 58,000 American servicemen's lives in Vietnam, not to mention many times that number of Vietnamese, civilian and otherwise.
"National defense" is why the US has a military budget larger than those of Europe + China + Russia + all three "Axis of Evil" nations *combined*.
Feel safe yet? Maybe "national defense" shouldn't be an automatic, knee-jerk pass anymore.
The only practical way when using a "laser" is to attach it to the head of another marine animal. Obviously they can't be sonar-sensitive mammals, so would have to be fish. They'd also have to be large enough to be able to carry these "lasers".
Now, what large fish could we use to carry these fricking things... ?
Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!
I mean, what if the USN is operating off of Iran or Venezuala for some reason and they fire off a torpedo and sink a carrier because the Navy could never find the sub as they had no practice?
What if space aliens use their mental powers to sink a carrier? What if Indian super undercover operatives attack US military outposts around the world? OMG time to increase your military budget! It could happen any minute... Now... Or now!
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
So the Navy does these vital training exercises, oh, I don't know, somewhere else? Somewhere where whales are not.
Someone said earlier in the post, when the sound of the Navy's high powered sonar was just like an F22 jet breaking the sound barrier 100 feet above your house (ie, loud enough to cause you physical pain and hearing damage) that if there were jets doing that, they would simply move. It's a little hard for the whales to do that, because apart from the fact that the sonar travels for hundreds of miles in water, in the shallow portions of the coast where these exercises take place, there aren't a lot of places for the whales to escape to.
I don;t think I'm going to convince you to consider other arguments though, given your immediate leap to the unpatriotic "why do you hate america?" spiel and your general axe that you seem to want to grind regarding people who aren't just thinking about number 1 all the time.
Try poking your head above the Halliburton-sponsored propaganda materials for a few minutes, you might learn something. Ohh, I went there. Probably shouldn't have, but you have to keep the flames going I guess.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
giving the fact that most of the groups trying to stop this are irrational most of the time I would suggest the Navy only be permitted to test sonar on land.
I read some of the quotes. The fact remains that no harm was shown to marine life in the area the Navy uses for testing. Harm was shown elsewhere in the world but not specific to the claims presented here. Throw in the fact that according to one of the protesting groups the NRDC said the use of high- intensity sonar could disturb or threaten 170,000 marine mammals, and it predicted the exercises would cause permanent injury to more than 500 whales and lead to temporary deafness in at least 8,000 whales.
In other words, there isn't an area of sea on this planet that would be acceptable.
Find a place a majority of the group agree the testing can take place and the rest will get it blocked. The simple matter is that there are times when the "possible" harm to marine life must be acceptable.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
"But even if it's against a real threat, it's obvious some put the lives of whales over the lives of our sailors. In fact I noticed that the far-whacko environmentalists are more anti-human than pro-animal. That's a lot of self-loathing there."
Questions:
1) Do you have any pets?
2) How much have you spent on them compared to people dying of starvation in 3rd world nations?
It's possible you don't have any pets, but you'll hopefully see my point - that many humans care more about animal welfare than they do about humans, it's really not that unusual. In fact, it happens all around us- if animals are shot on a film for example it can often bring up far more emotions than a human being shot. Many people would rather go out and buy a pet dog than send the money to Africa.
I'd guess it's perhaps the fact that animals are too dumb to be evil and intentionally be malicious pulls on people's conscience much more when these animals have had problems caused to them by humans who are very easily capable of being both evil and malicious.
So really, I wouldn't call them whacko, I call them humans with a conscience. At the end of the day, the loss of many human lives will likely actually have a positive effect on the world when you look at it scientifically (i.e. less pollution, perhaps less conflict) whereas the loss of a group of many of a species of animals has a negative effect (food chain collapse for example perhaps). Perhaps it's just a matter of realising that the world consists of more than just humanity and that many species of animals are as important to the world as any human ever will be.
I can't believe you got modded up so high. /. really lacks an understanding of global finance. In fairness, it is a tech site, so....
All I am saying is that people have been "predicting" the demise of the US capitalistic system for 100 years. Yet, here we are. We made it through the depression. We made it through the 70's and we made it through every single hiccup in global finance since it began. Over that time, we have amassed more wealth than any other country in the history of the world. I am correct that the US has more wealth than other nations - that is indisputable. The reason this matters is because we have a lot of "slack" to make mistakes (like you are seeing on the front pages right now)
Bury your head in the sand but here ya go. Here's a list of per capita GNI. The US is #7.
Here's another list, based on GDP. Please notice the US is compared to the ENTIRE EU -- not just individual countries.
Seriously, if the US wants to "work itself" out of this, we just reduce the Social Security commitments we've made. People don't seem to grasp that the government can pay any debt it needs to. Whether there is the political will to do it is another story. This isn't a story of the US not being able to pay its debts....that is nowhere near the case right now.
I mean, this isn't even close. Why do you think Treasury prices have been pushed up so far over the last 3 months? People around the world have been FLOCKING to the safety of US treasuries. People around the world still view the US as the safest place to invest your money. If they were junk, as you indicate, they would trade as junk and nobody would want them. Your claim is testable and easy to verify - just go look at the US Treas charts. After looking for about 2 seconds, it is easy to see that you are just plain wrong. IOW, you have no idea what you are talking about here....
Call me when the US defaults on it's bonds. That is news. Until it happens (and it won't), what you posted is just idle wanting. I understand where it comes from, I do. But it is not based in any rational evidence. It's simply emotion based on what you want to happen.
By the way, I don't know what country you are in but take a look at what has happened to your own country's bonds. Do you think they are a safer or riskier investment than US bonds right now? The world market for bonds says, not only is the US safer, but they are THE safest of all countries.
This is nowhere near 1929. Totally apples and oranges comparison. Things worked WAY differently back then than they do now. Additionally, your insinuation that US Tbills are backed by "toxic debt" is woefully simplistic. US Tbills are backed by 200+ years of the US paying it's bills.
Lastly, I really wasn't kidding about betting against us. If you are soooo sure of your position, then you can put your money where your mouth is and if you are right -- you will be set for the rest of your life. Please watch out for the bodies of your predecessors, however.
Actually, the inner ear gets damaged first, long before the eardrums actually rupture. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_damage#Long-term_exposure_to_environmental_noise
C - the footgun of programming languages
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This assuming that
I'm by no means saying that I'm against technological progress here. But I'd also like to be able to live through it; and that means not fucking up the environment beyond repair.
>>>provide me a war scenario on which submarine warfare has more importance in getting closer to the conflict resolution than tactical ground attacks, bombing, or hurling long range missiles from one continent to another
>>>
You have got to be kidding. Have you never studied WW2? Submarine attacks waged against Japan effectively cut-off the nation from access to natural resources, oil, even food. Germany did the same thing to Britain during WW1. In Britain's case the anti-sb destroyers were able to sink enough subs to save themselves, but in Japan's case they reached a point where the subs had cutoff their ability to continue waging war.
In a modern conflict between, say the EU and the U.S., submarines could have a similar affect of cutting-off the U.S. oil supply. That would effectively end the war. The U.S. needs its own submarine force to make sure that does not happen (sub-vs-sub warfare).
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
yes, submarine are cool, useful, stealth and so on. But future is unforeseeable and the only thing history teaches us is that the generic dug in tactic doesn't work. most of submarine task could now be performed by long range missiles.
You do realize how close England was in being starved out due to the U-boats right? And submarines aren't dug in the wall, nor are sonar nets. And you mention radar not stopping bombing raids, then grant that interceptors helped stop the German bombing raids, well part of that was due to radar providing warning of where the bombers were. As for the "dug in a wall", not every siege in history was successful(see Vienna).
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
On one hand I feel the need to explain to you that there is no unified front of communist environmentalist hippy liberals who are all out to screw up whatever you support. On the other other, I realize that holding such mistaken and backwards beliefs is probably one of your biggest weaknesses when it comes to influencing society, so why not let it be?
I think your forgetting that we aren't living in the past. You see, Intel can get you information about where other people's missile bases are, all anyone will have to do is either disable them or strike outside their range. Now enter Submarines, they move, aren't detectable from the surface in most cases and you have no idea were the other side's missile bases are.
So lets fast forward to modern special opt insertion tactics. We send seals, rangers, Green berets, and other tactile personnel in on subs, The subs get the people so close to the shore or objective and they are released to either swim or use some sort of powered vehicle to go the remaining way to the objective. Now they do whatever they need to do, make it back to a place the sub can find them and poof, they are gone. There is nothing inherent about the US that means we are the only people who can do something like that. However, if the sub is detected by sonar, then we can either stop others from doing that or at least monitor them and take whatever action is appropriate.
Subs are not just about sinking ships. They aren't just about scaring enemy fleets. They gather intelligence information, they deliver troops, they move missile launch platforms around, they cut undersea communications cables, they even allowed us to tap into them to spy on the Russians during the cold war. Those tactics were and are effective unless we have a way to find the other subs and stop them. Stopping them doesn't even have to be that important either. In the Pacific theater during WW2, we found out that the Japs have broken parts of our codes and were able to intercept certain messages and could tell when we were moving troops, to where, where our defenses were down and so on. Instead of changing our codes and locking down our communications (something that would have taken considerable time and effort) we started feeding misinformation into the works and leading them into traps. Of course we eventually changed things up but knowing what was going on gave us the advantage that we simply wouldn't have if we didn't have the ability to know. Now, I'm not so sure that subs played a role in that but if we can't detect some subs, it will play a role in others gathering information against us if they use those subs just like we did with the Russians and other potential enemies in the past.
China invades Taiwan is one scenario where subs win the day.
Russia asserts its ownership claims of the arctic circle is another.
The US can launch a cruise missile attack at any position on earth with zero warning ONLY because we have an effective sub fleet. Long-range missiles launched from surface ships are no substitute since the target government might notice a carrier fleet creeping up to its coast.
As far as I can tell the yields for US bonds are sharply dropping at the moment
Methinks you need to quit while you are still whole. You have a serious misunderstanding here. It' so far offbase it's like you are sitting there telling me the sky is red. This is finance 101 stuff.
Here's why: Yields fall because the price paid for the bonds goes up (which drives down the yield because the coupon amount is fixed). Which is actually what *I* saying and the opposite of what you were saying. I have been sitting here telling you that US bonds are being bought for safety (thus the price goes up) and you reply to tell me yields have gone down. Yep, you're exactly right. If the US was going to junk, or even AA, you would see the yield go up and the price being paid for the bonds going down. Unfortunately for you, the charts are evidence for my position, not yours.
I won't reply to the rest as I've read Taleb's "The Black Swan" too. Like peak oil, it's interesting to think about.
BTW, are you really suggesting the bond markets and GDP are meaningless? If you think that, there is nothing more to talk about here. It's like a Java programmer telling me he doesn't know what an operating system is. No, thanks. I'll pass. Ask someone else because I can't help...