Slashdot Mirror


Marine Mammals Used To Fight Terrorism

pinkstuff writes "The Navy unveiled its terror-fighting marine mammals at a two-day homeland security and disaster preparedness exercise in California this week. From the article: 'A Navy seal — actually a sea lion — took less than a minute to find a fake mine under a pier near San Francisco's AT&T Park. A dolphin quickly located a terrorist lurking in the black water before another sea lion, using a device carried in its mouth, cuffed the pretend saboteur's ankle so authorities could reel him in.' Queue the 'frickin lasers' jokes."

131 comments

  1. Marine Life Kicks Ass by eagee · · Score: 4, Informative

    *This* is why we environmentalists want to protect marine life. It kicks ass.

    1. Re:Marine Life Kicks Ass by durrr · · Score: 4, Funny

      We need a new enviromental protection agency to protect us from the enviroment.

    2. Re:Marine Life Kicks Ass by thijsh · · Score: 1

      Anything that kicks extreme ass or is really cute and fluffy has a tremendous wallet-opening magic power. This is why environmentalists want to protect any creature that possesses these magical properties. It's a shame most people know the unicorn is already extinct otherwise they could make a fortune of mythical proportions.

    3. Re:Marine Life Kicks Ass by chameleon3 · · Score: 1

      Indeed. And good luck protesting funding for dolphins in counter-terrorism, PETA. Better just stick with mice in cancer studies.

      God I wish that had made sense.

    4. Re:Marine Life Kicks Ass by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, we need an Environmental Protection Agency that actually protects the environment instead of business interests. Non-mandatory pollution reduction programs instead of regulations - who knew only 2 businesses in the country would sign up for them and reduce pollution on their own without being legally obligated to do so?

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    5. Re:Marine Life Kicks Ass by The+Hatchet · · Score: 1

      Aquaman?

      --
      Where is the mod rating for "scary"? Also, ...
    6. Re:Marine Life Kicks Ass by Barrinmw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You took something moderately funny and ruined it. You sir, are a fail.

    7. Re:Marine Life Kicks Ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh

    8. Re:Marine Life Kicks Ass by Paranatural · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, we need an Environmental Protection Agency that actually protects the environment instead of business interests. Non-mandatory pollution reduction programs instead of regulations - who knew only 2 businesses in the country would sign up for them and reduce pollution on their own without being legally obligated to do so?

      People with functioning brains?

    9. Re:Marine Life Kicks Ass by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Maybe we ought to put some of them in charge, just to switch things up a bit.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    10. Re:Marine Life Kicks Ass by christianT · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wow! From zero to crazed activist in three posts. I think this is a new record!

    11. Re:Marine Life Kicks Ass by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      We need a new enviromental protection agency to protect us from the enviroment.

      EPA: Stubborn Environment Refusing To Meet Civilization Halfway/a/

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    12. Re:Marine Life Kicks Ass by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Are you a communist or something? ;)

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    13. Re:Marine Life Kicks Ass by CoryD · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Someone who believes that pollution reduction should be mandatory is a crazed activist? I think I'll side with the "crazed activist" who never stated what kind of programs he had in mind. Rather than you being my other option, the overly dramatic nut job that thinks the pretty sunsets over industry cities are just enhanced scenery. I'm mean, if we're throwing around blind accusations, that IS accurate no?

    14. Re:Marine Life Kicks Ass by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      For those who don't know.... PETA: People who Eat Tasty Animals

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    15. Re:Marine Life Kicks Ass by sqldr · · Score: 1

      Wait until you get a load of the dolphins I've been training as suicide bombers :-)

      --
      I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
    16. Re:Marine Life Kicks Ass by sqldr · · Score: 1

      in Europe, we have carbon trading. You can pollute as much as you like, but it will cost you.

      --
      I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
  2. Be carefull by geekoid · · Score: 3, Funny

    You could be training them or more sinister proposes...heh, yeah that was bad. And by bad I mean AWESOME.
    This is a great movie:
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069946/

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Be carefull by Devout_IPUite · · Score: 1

      Did you mean to type porposes?

    2. Re:Be carefull by element-o.p. · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, he did it on porpoise.

      (Actually, what he typed was wrong in either case: "proposes", as in, "He proposes to his girlfriend tonight.").

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  3. Dophins trained to kill by Quato · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's the Iranian Kamakaze Dolphins you have to worry about!

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/670551.stm

  4. *CUE* the 'frickin laser' jokes by kg8484 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Cue as in the stage signal. Not the waiting line (or data structure named after it). Otherwise, does anyone else get reminded of Jones from Johnny Mnemonic when they read these articles?

    1. Re:*CUE* the 'frickin laser' jokes by nemasu · · Score: 2, Funny

      #include #include void main() { std::queue Q; Q.push_back("Need more frickin' sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their frickin' heads!"); Q.push_back("mutated sea bass?"); Q.push_back("Well, it's a start"); return; }

      --
      I made an app! Shoutium
    2. Re:*CUE* the 'frickin laser' jokes by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      < Try selecting "Code" formatting for your post next time >

      Good point though.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    3. Re:*CUE* the 'frickin laser' jokes by nemasu · · Score: 1

      Ah, didn't know about that, thanks.

      --
      I made an app! Shoutium
    4. Re:*CUE* the 'frickin laser' jokes by riverat1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If enough of the 'frickin laser' jokes were made you would have a queue of them.

    5. Re:*CUE* the 'frickin laser' jokes by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      I'd like to file a bug report:
      $ gcc -o frickinLaser.exe frickinLaser.cppfrickinLaser.cpp:1:9: error: #include expects "FILENAME" or frickinLaser.cpp:2:9: error: #include expects "FILENAME" or frickinLaser.cpp:3: error: '::main' must return 'int' frickinLaser.cpp: In function 'int main()': frickinLaser.cpp:5: error: 'queue' is not a member of 'std' frickinLaser.cpp:5: error: expected `;' before 'Q' frickinLaser.cpp:6: error: 'Q' was not declared in this scope frickinLaser.cpp:9: error: return-statement with no value, in function returning 'int' $

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    6. Re:*CUE* the 'frickin laser' jokes by warGod3 · · Score: 1

      Damn... and here I thought he was referring to a pool cue.

      --
      "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." General James Mattis
    7. Re:*CUE* the 'frickin laser' jokes by nemasu · · Score: 2, Funny

      Apparently the /. comment editor makes a horrible IDE.

      ....I don't know why I'm fixing this

      Tested under MSVS2008

      #include <string>
      #include <queue>

      int main(void)
      {
          std::queue<std::string> Q;
          Q.push("Need more frickin' sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their frickin' heads!");
          Q.push("mutated sea bass?");
          Q.push("Well, it's a start");
          return 0x2A;
      }

      --
      I made an app! Shoutium
    8. Re:*CUE* the 'frickin laser' jokes by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      lol, I really didn't expect a fix; I was just trying to get a laugh :)

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  5. This is not new by bigredradio · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually the Navy has been doing this for years. Harbor patrol using seals and dolphins has been around for a while. When I was in the Navy in 93' I wrote an article about it (Yep there are journalists in the military). I was unable to run the story though because they were afraid people might jump to conclusions and think they were strapping bombs to marine animals. The facilities for training the marine animals in San Diego ranked right up with SeaWorld (if not better).

    1. Re:This is not new by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      I think the Navy was doing this stuff back in Vietnam. I watched a documentary where they regretted not using killer whales in the Hanoi harbor to exploit the Vietnamese cultural fear of large fish.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    2. Re:This is not new by TheLink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > They regretted not using killer whales in the Hanoi harbor to exploit the Vietnamese cultural fear of large fish.

      Cultural fear of large fish? I'm not Vietnamese and I think I'd have a better chance against an attacking great white shark than a killer whale.

      Or at least a quicker death. See what killer whales get up to with their prey: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xk0fc_FzUs

      --
    3. Re:This is not new by meerling · · Score: 1

      I heard about this stuff when I was a little kid in the 70s. Definitely not anything new.
      There was even a movie (inspired by the real ones) that used this as it's gimmick.
        (I forgot the movie name, it was boring, the ad was the most exciting part.)

      They've trained various ones for guard duty, e.o.d. duty, and sabotage duty.
      Hopefully they've improved their training and gear by now, it has been a very long time...
      (Please note, I have no idea when they started this stuff, just that I know the info went public in the 70s.)

    4. Re:This is not new by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      I watched a documentary where they regretted not using killer whales in the Hanoi harbor to exploit the Vietnamese cultural fear of large fish.

      How the hell would that work? Every one knows that orcas are not fish - at least, they're no more fish than humans are.

      (And yes, I am fully aware that humans, orcas, and everything in between them and the natterjack toad are all "fish" in the sense of "bone-using gnathostome vertebrates".)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  6. Jeez .. you youngsters by OzPeter · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Day of the Dolphin Now git off my lawn or patch of seaweed or what ever is appropriate for you to git off

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:Jeez .. you youngsters by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      I'll take care of your dolphin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_man_from_atlantis

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    2. Re:Jeez .. you youngsters by Oyjord · · Score: 1

      "Pa doesn't love Fa!" still brings a tear to my eye.

  7. Re:Sharks by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 2, Funny

    Surely you mean dolphins with frick'n lasers?

    --
    Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
    altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
  8. finally following through on this suggestion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE9neghRfEs at 5:05 was thinking ahead.

  9. This was predicted in Red Alert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    It is also a good counter to the Soviet Squids.
    Do not forget the Chronosphere and Weather Control Station

    1. Re:This was predicted in Red Alert by meerling · · Score: 1

      Sorry to disappoint, but this stuff was done for multiple decades before Westwood was even founded, much less wrote Red Alert.

      Except for the squid thing, haven't ever heard of anyone training squid to do anything yet.

  10. Re:Sharks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No way, the dolphins have sonar weapons to fight off the giant squid.

  11. A tense situation by djconrad · · Score: 3, Funny

    Marine mammals used to fight terrorism? Why did they stop?

    1. Re:A tense situation by raind · · Score: 1

      Send in the Killer Whale....

      --
      Get up!
    2. Re:A tense situation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Behold the power of English!

  12. They gave up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    marine mammals used to fight terrorism

    Sadly, they've moved on to more interesting projects.

  13. They don't do it any more? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what made the marine mammals stop fighting terrorism? Did bin Laden give them an offer they couldn't refuse?

  14. locating terrorist by bagofbeans · · Score: 4, Funny

    A dolphin quickly located a terrorist

    Shouldn't TSA be given this detection technology to, ya know, help 'em out a little?

    1. Re:locating terrorist by Barrinmw · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Sir, will you please jump in this large tank of water so that the dolphin can scan you."

    2. Re:locating terrorist by lennier1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hey, at other places people pay a lot of money to swim with dolphins.

    3. Re:locating terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, thats all that i need is a horny dolphin, trying to hump my leg in the airport security section...

    4. Re:locating terrorist by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      A dolphin quickly located a terrorist

      Shouldn't TSA be given this detection technology to, ya know, help 'em out a little?

      Well, TSA agents do have near-dolphin intelligence, but their senses aren't as well developed. I don't think they can pull it off.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    5. Re:locating terrorist by thewiz · · Score: 1

      Actually, we at the TSA have ordered 2,000 800-pound gorillas to replace the current airport screeners.
      Just remember:
      o DON'T wear anything yellow
      o DON'T bend over
      o DON'T argue with the screeners

      --
      If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
  15. Queue by mcsqueak · · Score: 3, Funny

    I love it when my 'frickin lasers' jokes are in nice, orderly lines... ;)

    1. Re:Queue by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      I love it when my 'frickin lasers' jokes are in nice, orderly lines

      Sorted by length, arpeture and frequency of their frikin (pun intended).

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
    2. Re:Queue by MarbleMunkey · · Score: 1

      I love it when my 'frickin lasers' jokes are in nice, orderly lines

      Sorted by length, arpeture and frequency of their frikin (pun intended).

      pun intended ... but not included. /Fail

    3. Re:Queue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love it when my 'frickin lasers' jokes are in nice, orderly lines

      Sorted by length, arpeture and frequency of their frikin (pun intended).

      pun intended ... but not included. /Fail

      orly?

    4. Re:Queue by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      Frikin Frequency Fail? Fascinating.

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
  16. Cute application, but why? by BobMcD · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is a truly novel approach, but what kind of sophisticated aqua-terrorists are we genuinely preparing to encounter?

    9/11 was civilian aircraft, Oklahoma City was a Rider truck, and the attack on the USS Cole was a rubber raft.

    Color me stupid, but it seems that stealthy and/or sophisticated attacks are absolutely not the point of terrorism. They don't seem to be trying to show that they are worthy James Bond villains, but rather that an attack could materialize out of the simplest and most common things.

    But nice job with the seals and dolphins. Good luck with the sharks and the lasers.

    1. Re:Cute application, but why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Since when does Oklahoma City count as a terrorist attack? McVeigh was a white American and that makes bomber/tax protester/survivalist/separatist not a terrorist.

      Newsweek said so: http://www.newsweek.com/id/233949

    2. Re:Cute application, but why? by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1

      So only furriners can be terrorists? That doesn't make sense. What about an American citizen that joins an Al-Qaeda group and blows something up in the US? Are they not a terrorist while the Sudanese guy next to them is?

    3. Re:Cute application, but why? by Infiniti2000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is a truly novel approach, but what kind of sophisticated aqua-terrorists are we genuinely preparing to encounter?

      Prior to 9/11, people like you would ask the same questions about civilian aircraft. Maybe you should pull your head out of your ass and look towards all avenues of terrorism.

    4. Re:Cute application, but why? by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you're intending the conflict to reflect your point, but in the case that you're not:

      bomber/tax protester/survivalist/separatist == terrorist

      There has never been a difference, and there isn't one now just because we've gone about replacing all our fear-speak with 'terrorism' rather than 'communism'. The Boston Tea Party patriots were terrorists, too. They were on 'our side', but still they attacked a civilian target and tried to frame it on the Native Americans, all towards their political agenda.

    5. Re:Cute application, but why? by Infiniti2000 · · Score: 1

      Newsweek said so...

      Holy shit, that makes it true, then!

    6. Re:Cute application, but why? by lennier1 · · Score: 1

      Didn't you get the memo?
      Terrorists always have to be Muslims and wear a turban. It's part of the union regulations.

    7. Re:Cute application, but why? by BobMcD · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My head is in the fresh, clean air, thank you.

      I am looking at all avenues of terrorism, which only include things that would terrorize us, and not every conceivable thing the US Government would like to spend tax money on.

      Rationalize for me how the plot of your typical action movie would generate fear in the general public. Please.

      Head in ass, indeed.

    8. Re:Cute application, but why? by Issarlk · · Score: 1

      That's why some senator tried to pass a law that removes american citizenship from terrorists.

    9. Re:Cute application, but why? by Issarlk · · Score: 1

      Ultimately, that means looking toward everybody. Maybe the UK is actually on the right track to fight terrorism with it's attempted implementation of 1984.

    10. Re:Cute application, but why? by robot256 · · Score: 3, Informative

      IIRC, the Mumbai bombings were executed by terrorist operatives who swam to shore from dinghies in scuba gear in order to enter the country illegally. But yes, it does just sound like an excuse for sharks with lasers.

    11. Re:Cute application, but why? by nohelix · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is a truly novel approach, but what kind of sophisticated aqua-terrorists are we genuinely preparing to encounter?

      This is not a novel approach.
      Both the US and Russian governments have been training and using marine mammals (wikipedia) as well as other animals (wikipedia) to help with military tasks. Dolphins and sea lines have been in training and use in the Gulf Wars. Perhaps the funniest example of military animals is the dogs that the failed Russian anti-tank dogs (wikipeida) that due to their training attacked Russian instead of enemy tanks. Its worth noting that this was again unsuccessfully attempted by Iraqi insurgents in 2005.

    12. Re:Cute application, but why? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

      There are really two sides to this, one somewhat hopeless, one somewhat cynical. The cynical one is that defense procurement is subject to substantial regulatory capture, and is thus driven more than one would like by what defense contractors can produce, rather than what is needed.

      The somewhat hopeless one is ultimately more problematic. Because we are a high-tech, highly integrated society, with a fairly high cost-of-living, we have a comparative advantage in high-tech wizbangs, and a comparative disadvantage in, say, nihilistic but plucky 18 year olds with primitive explosives. If we cannot find viable ways to make our high-tech wizbangs into sufficiently potent force multipliers, we will have serious issues. The supply of disaffected third-worlders is basically inexhaustible. If there isn't a high-tech solution to that, we have a problem. Therefor, we operate under the assumption that there must be one.

    13. Re:Cute application, but why? by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the funniest example of military animals is the dogs that the failed Russian anti-tank dogs [wikipedia.org] (wikipeida) that due to their training attacked Russian instead of enemy tanks. Its worth noting that this was again unsuccessfully attempted by Iraqi insurgents in 2005.
      Man, you think you get bad press for child soldiers, just wait until the public finds out about your kamikaze dogs. Might as well hang yourself, and spare the world another nuremberg style trial.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    14. Re:Cute application, but why? by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      Civilian-ish. The East India Company wasn't exactly a hallmark of free enterprise.

      As for being terrorism ... no one died, so if it's terrorism its a particularly weak soup variety. I'd call it a lawless protest or a mob action.

      But then on the other hand, the guy who thinks Tim McVeigh wasn't a terrorist is an idiot.

    15. Re:Cute application, but why? by riverat1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter. It all depends on your POV.

    16. Re:Cute application, but why? by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Color me stupid, but it seems that stealthy and/or sophisticated attacks are absolutely not the point of terrorism.

      "Terrorism" is the magic word that makes the red tape disappear from your budget request.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    17. Re:Cute application, but why? by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      As for being terrorism ... no one died, so if it's terrorism its a particularly weak soup variety. I'd call it a lawless protest or a mob action.

      I wasn't aware that we had accurate historical records of the event. Can we be certain that no one was killed? It seems somewhat unlikely, unless there were just so many in the mob that the ship security elected not to resist.

      Even so, I'm not sure it matters. See the case in Atlanta of the autistic child accused of making terroristic threats via stick figure drawing.

    18. Re:Cute application, but why? by SkOink · · Score: 1

      It's actually not a new program - the Navy's had marine mammal units for many years now. Long before "terrorism" was ever a buzzword. Of particular interest is the Mark-6 unit (MK-6 MMS) which is an antipersonnel unit. It makes a lot of sense if you think about it - a suicide diver with the right explosives could probably take out a small naval vessel. A ship's sonar probably can't distinguish a diver from any other underwater mammal. And even if it could, bullets are ineffective in the water. It's a significant vulnerability if you think about it.

      --
      ---- I'll take you in a Hunt deathmatch any day.
    19. Re:Cute application, but why? by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      It makes a lot of sense if you think about it - a suicide diver with the right explosives could probably take out a small naval vessel. A ship's sonar probably can't distinguish a diver from any other underwater mammal. And even if it could, bullets are ineffective in the water. It's a significant vulnerability if you think about it.

      I don't think you can use the phrase 'a lot of sense' in this application:

      1) If it were viable, it would be being practiced, particularly by our own side. There's probably something more to it that complicates the approach or somehow makes it non-workable. Otherwise we would have heard about it happening by now, to someone - even if only to or by Somali Pirates.

      2) Even if such a defense were necessary, there's no accommodating these creatures in our present infrastructure. Perhaps in our own ports, but many of the ship-at-rest issues we've had have been in hostile waters.

      3) Depth charges...

      It just seems to me that we're off in la-la-land here. Perhaps there is more information here that isn't being presented.

    20. Re:Cute application, but why? by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

      rather that an attack could materialize out of the simplest and most common things.

      Exactly. That's why I've put money down on a Trebuchet attack.

    21. Re:Cute application, but why? by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      I've wondered about this saying. It only makes sense in the context of McVeigh, Embassy bombings ('83 or '98), IRA, Contras, that sort of thing. The difference is those people were fighting something that existed where they actually lived. The 9/11 attack was carried out thousands of miles away. No freedom fighting there. Just exporting violence. I'm not saying McVeigh or the mujaheddin were freedom fighters. Just that they saw themselves as such. Remember, the US backed a lot of these groups when it was in our "best interest."

      I just don't know how the 9/11 guys could see themselves as freedom fighters. I don't think they did. I think they saw themselves as holy warriors, instead. Maybe a global freedom from American imperialism? But that's stretching it, if you're attacking on our home turf.

    22. Re:Cute application, but why? by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yep, it sure is in the union regulations. I have the regulation manual right here and on page 29 titled section 219- paragraph A- subsection S, it says that in order for a child apprentice to become a legitimate terrorist, it has to take the diaper off their ass and put it on their head. When the diaper is full of shit again, it gets called a turban and they are bona fide terrorists subject to wages of scale until they die.

    23. Re:Cute application, but why? by dnahelicase · · Score: 1

      Actually you don't know about the aqua-terrorists because we've always been adequately protected by our marine protectors. Terrorists only make headlines when the security measures fail and it becomes a public incident.

      The reason they reveal this to the world now is because BP has been used in a dastardly plot to kill our marine-mammal-soldiers. This oil slick will not only provide cover, but the "dead-zone" created by the spill/microbes/plumes will provide the perfect opportunity for them to swim right up to our beaches in FL, AL, MS, and TX.

      You haven't heard of them yet, but soon you will see that we will invade/save the country/people/militant group that did this to us, killed our fishes, and put our oil in jeopardy!

    24. Re:Cute application, but why? by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Some are oppression fighters (fighting for oppression), the rest see the US as occupying their home and strike at US anywhere. Bin Laden is a little bit of both, he became offended when the Saudi leadership invited the US in during the first gulf war and he also wishes to impose a global Caliphate where a select group of islamic clerics impose anything they say as absolute law and all non-muslims are exterminated.

    25. Re:Cute application, but why? by boxwood · · Score: 0, Troll

      That was so they could torture them and it would all be nice and quasi-legal while torturing an american citizen would be just plain illegal.

    26. Re:Cute application, but why? by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      It is even funnier when you understand that like pigs, dogs are considered an unclean animal by most Muslims. Any Iraqi killed by "friendly fire" in such an attack would be damned.

    27. Re:Cute application, but why? by ErkDemon · · Score: 1

      Well, they're certainly "unclean" after they've exploded.

    28. Re:Cute application, but why? by boxwood · · Score: 1

      yes they definitely say themselves as fighting for freedom from American imperialism. Most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, as is Osama bin Laden. We don't know exactly what the terrorists themselves were think seeing as how they're all dead, but bin Laden has said many times he want the US out of the Middle East in general and Saudi Arabia specifically.

      And didn't Sun Tzu once say you should strike your enemy at its heart, not at its arms? The heart of America is its economy, and many companies were headquartered in the WTC. And of course he wanted the US to go crazy so hitting civilians is a good way to do that. Attacking the USS Cole got some reaction, but just a few cruise missiles fired at a couple places. And its harder to attack a warship than it is to attack civilians.

      It worked out really well for him. The US went insane and killed bin Laden's #2 enemy, Saddam Hussein. When your biggest enemy spends hundreds of billions of dollars to kill your second biggest enemy... I don't think even bin Laden dreamed things would work out so well.

    29. Re:Cute application, but why? by 2short · · Score: 1

      "I wasn't aware that we had accurate historical records of the event. Can we be certain that no one was killed?"

      Well, be aware. We have eyewitness accounts from several participants and uninvolved bystanders, and multiple newspaper stories. They are not in perfect agreement as far as matters like where exactly along the warf the ship was, or what time the last of the tea was dumped. Based upon them one can certainly debate more possibly significant matters like how well planned the event was and by whom. (In actuality, the probably apocryphal plannning by Adams has so entered our National mythos that all the arguments are about where-on-the-warf the tourist-trinket-sellers ought to congregate)

      But none of these accounts make any mention whatsoever of anyone being killed. It seems not only unlikely, but wholly fantastic to imagine that in the course of the bitter arguments that followed over whether the action was justified, nobody would happen to mention a murder in the midst of it. So yes, I think we can be pretty certain no one was killed.

    30. Re:Cute application, but why? by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's what I thought as well. Seemed like all of the above was hearsay, and that none of it was recorded properly at all.

      Considering the participants, this would be strange.

      Seems there could be a reason to me, but I'll stipulate that it is unfounded speculation.

    31. Re:Cute application, but why? by 2short · · Score: 1

      "Yeah, that's what I thought as well. Seemed like all of the above was hearsay, and that none of it was recorded properly at all."

      No, what I said isn't what you thought and are still saying; It does not seem like it is all hearsay; It was all recorded quite extensively. The event was heavily reported. Heated debates were had over whether the tea ought to be paid for. Suggesting someone probably got killed isn't just unfounded speculation, it's outright denial of well founded history.

    32. Re:Cute application, but why? by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      It was all recorded quite extensively. The event was heavily reported. Heated debates were had over whether the tea ought to be paid for. Suggesting someone probably got killed isn't just unfounded speculation, it's outright denial of well founded history.

      I see. Because the absence of a fact is the same as the presence of a fact? That doesn't seem very scientific, but I can tell that you're getting annoyed, so I suppose I'll just let it go.

    33. Re:Cute application, but why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh come on, of course we have accurate historical records of the event. This was the late 1700s in Boston, not the middle ages! It would have been brought up in numerous documents and papers, just as we know exactly who died in the Boston "massacre".

    34. Re:Cute application, but why? by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      I have to agree with you. In an overreaction to 9/11 we got rid of Saddam Hussein who was probably the biggest thorn in Iran's ambitions and weakened ourselves by spending a lot of money and going into debt pursuing the war in Iraq while reducing respect for the US around the world. What a waste.

    35. Re:Cute application, but why? by Eivind · · Score: 1

      Is it possible that there's solutions to the supply-side of this problem too ?

      To put the resources spent in perspective, the US alone has over 400 bilion, in a country with a GDP of around 15. Other countries have spent less, but also significant amounts, overall it's likely that 50 times the GDP of Afghanistan has sbeen spent in Afghanistan.

      That is a truly stupendous amount. Is it possible that a small fraction of this money, spent on activities designed to undermine terrorist recruitment, would suceed in reducing the supply of terrorists from Afghanistan ? For that matter, is it likely that the current war *increase* or *decrease* the headcount of Afghans who hate the US sufficiently to be willing to die to punish you ?

      I'm not saying I know the answer. But I think it's worthwhile pondering the question.

    36. Re:Cute application, but why? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      There is evidence to show no one was killed at the Boston Tea Party in a lack of court filings and court cases, public discussion of the Tea Party and the debate over it. Boston has complete court records going back that far and celebrity court cases like the Boston Massacre trial are on the record.

      So where is your evidence that someone died at the Boston Tea Party?

    37. Re:Cute application, but why? by 2short · · Score: 1

      You know, there is no report either way about whether alien flying saucers helped dump the tea. Would forming any conclusion on that be unscientific?

      The absence of evidence that your theory predicts should exist indicates your theory is wrong or incomplete. This is the very essence of science.

      There being no evidence, in the form of reporting, your theory "Someone was killed" is wrong or incomplete. Unless I misunderstood, you hoped to complete your theory with the further postulate "The event was not well reported." Unfortunately, this is false. It was widely reported and debated. Various persons (e.g. Franklin) insisted the mobs actions were unjustified, and that they ought to pay for the tea. But none of them ever says "Oh, yeah, shame about that innocent sailor you butchered."

      Having been informed that your postulate is false, you would like to let it go. Only to spare my feelings of course, not out of any reluctance to admit you didn't know what you were talking about. Well, I appreciate your concern.

  17. Re:Be carefull[sic] by FlyByPC · · Score: 1

    No, he meant to type porpoises.

    --
    Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
  18. They Used To Fight Terrorism? by sabinelr · · Score: 1

    Marine mammals used to fight terrorism. Now they don't any more, huh. What, the younger generation has gone over to the dark side, or have they just zoned out and now spend their time surfing the web???

    1. Re:They Used To Fight Terrorism? by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      They looked into the frikin laser with their remaining eye and are now on permanent military disability, supported by your tax dollars. This is turning out to be more costly than anticipated as the sheets on the bed need to be changed after every rehydration and the fish smell is incredibly difficult to remove completely.

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
  19. Minor problem by lennier1 · · Score: 1

    (shark instanceof Mammal) == false

  20. Re:Sharks by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    Apparently it's sharks with frick'n lasers, and dolphins with frick'n handcuffs.

    Who knew?

    By the way, it might seems like sharks + lasers is scarier than dolphins + handcuffs, but just wait until they decide that cuffing random swimmers is hilarious.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  21. Not new by Barrinmw · · Score: 1

    Well, I was in the navy and it was a semi-regular occurrence of seeing them use Sea Lions for mine detection. So this has been around for years. My guess is this is the first non-military use of them.

  22. Nothing really new here. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

    It's worth pointing out that, despite the anti-terrorism/Homeland Security spin currently in fashion, the Navy has been working on using marine mammals for underwater security since at least the 1960's, with preliminary work going back into the 50's.
     
    The general idea is that it's rough and dangerous to send people into the water, E.G. to inspect the hull of a submarine moored in the 50 degree water of the Hood Canal, so it's better to use animals evolved to survive in that environment. Trained animals can also provide 24/7 coverage with greater detail over a larger area than humans can.

    1. Re:Nothing really new here. by ArcCoyote · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the dolphins and sea lions likely consider the training exercises to be a hell of a lot of fun. It's a game to them. What a job.

  23. Re:Be carefull[sic] by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 1

    Which is exactly why it was bad. :)

  24. They used to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When did they stop?

  25. Why would marine life attack the US government? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    Did they develop drysuits or missiles or what? ;)

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  26. Re:Sharks by Gravitron+5000 · · Score: 2, Funny

    By the way, it might seems like sharks + lasers is scarier than dolphins + handcuffs, but just wait until they decide that cuffing random swimmers is hilarious.

    ... or one dolphin that is into bondage slips through the screening.

  27. Nothing new, really by lemur666 · · Score: 1

    Mankind's been using animals to provide warnings, attack and/or restrain intruders and root out evil for quite some time.

    --
    Corollary to Hanlon's razor: Any significantly advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.
  28. cue not queue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When used that way, it's "cue" not "queue." Malapropisms are interesting from a demographic standpoint. I bet other, correct, uses of "queue" more often get spelled as cue by non-technical people, and correct uses of "cue" get morphed into "queue" by techies.

  29. A Little RA2 if you please :-) by sir+lox+elroy · · Score: 1

    Ah reminds me of Red Alert 2

    --
    Kosh: "Understanding is a 3 edged sword, your side, their side, the Truth."
    1. Re:A Little RA2 if you please :-) by lennier1 · · Score: 1

      Orca?

  30. mIRC even has a built in script for it! by AVryhof · · Score: 3, Funny

    /me Slaps Terrorists around with a Fish

  31. In Soviet Russia... by t_ban · · Score: 1

    The environment protects you!

    --
    First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win. -Gandhi
  32. That explains it... by radish · · Score: 1

    Marine Mammals *used* to fight terrorism, but now all they do is swim around and eat fish and stuff! Explains the increase in attacks.

    --

    ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

  33. Wait! Have you ever done this before? by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    Has the fish?!?

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  34. Its not just about terrorism by BaShildy · · Score: 1

    The US Navy Marine Mammal Program has been in place for fifty years now and predates the "war on terrorism." It used to be heavily classified but its a lot more open than it used to be. The short summary of its mission:
    1) The Navy claims they have never used the program in an attack mission, but does admit they have been used in combat zones.
    2) The Navy recognizes the animals use in Mine Detection, object/personnel recovery, and enemy detection
    3) While originally a large array of animals were used, due to efficiency the only known mammals in-use are Bottlenose Dolphins and California Sea Lions. Since each of these creatures don't get too much larger than 500 lbs, they are easily deployable from San Diego to wherever they are needed. Earlier posts about using Orcas or larger creatures would most likely be more hassle than they are worth.

  35. And at some places people PAY to be probed by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    And at some places people PAY to be put through a strip search, sniffed by a dog, publicly humiliated and probed by a big guy with a grudge.

    Doesn't mean I want this top happen to me... well at least not when I am trying to catch a flight... maybe if it is delayed, you know, to kill the time... If I put a sausage in my luggage, will that trigger that sniffer dog and his hunky handler?

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  36. What the hell? by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    He used terror to further his agenda. That makes him a terrorist. White people can be terrorists you know, and black people can be president, regardless of what McVeigh would have thought of that.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  37. Except that this is also regular navy defence by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    Not everything is about terrorism, it just sells now to call it that, but this kind of stuff went on during the cold war, it is a known fact that various armies (or rather navies) have used divers and small subs to sneak into harbours to blow stuff up. It is very difficult to protect against them and ship by their nature make high value targets. If you can sink or at least severely damage a carrier with just a small team... well that would be very nice indeed. Better then having to send in a fleet of your own to brawl it out on the open seas. Ask the Japanese how well that goes against a carrier.

    And at war, if you blow up a tanker, that could cause even more damage when that goes up. Just ask the Americans at Pearl Harbor.

    This seal defence is nothing more then having guard dogs around an army base. Or shouldn't we have them either because no terrorist would be silly enough to attack one of them either? Oh way, they did.

    I for one think it is a good idea that they got guard seals around floating nuclear power stations, possibly armed with nuked, sitting on top of aviation fuel.

    Amazing that even after Pearl Harbor you still think that in times of relative peace (and the US is involved in two wars) you don't have to guard your stuff. If I wanted to start a war, I would make sure to first disable what I can of the US fleet, build some small subs, strap high explosives to them, and bring them in to the harbors.

    Read up on the Tirpitz and how it was disabled for the duration of WW2.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Except that this is also regular navy defence by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      You're weird and make large logical leaps for no apparent reason. If you'd like to continue this conversation, please demonstrate the value of trained seals as it would have pertained to Pearl Harbor.

  38. They USED to? by dbrossard · · Score: 1

    Marine Mammals Used to Fight Terrorism? They USED to? Why aren't they still doing it?

  39. "We Environmentalists"? by DesScorp · · Score: 1

    *This* is why we environmentalists want to protect marine life. It kicks ass.

    Many environmental groups are on record as opposing the marine mammal program. You may be the minority in your own crowd.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:"We Environmentalists"? by eagee · · Score: 1

      I am. I was really just making a joke, though.

  40. Wait, I've seen this before... by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

    Wasn't this done in Red Alert 2? Oh shit, we need to stop the Russians from taming giant squids!

  41. Thanks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As one of the dolphins in San Diego, all I can say is "Thanks for all the fish!"