US Navy barred from sonar use over harm to whales

[kestra]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070806...t_070806223724

Wow! Quite the issue. One that I can definitely see both sides on.

[Liathano]

What would you rather have off the coast of our country: a fleet of people well-trained in what they need to do to protect this country by simulating these war games, or some whales that really don't do anything?

To me, this is pretty ridiculous, being a sailor and sonar technician. What are they going to do for submarines off the coast? There are no windows on boats so it's not like we can just disable it for the convenience of animals around us. Bleh.

[Darion]

You smell that?

*sniff*

Hippies.

[Snrrub]

Originally posted by Liathano
What would you rather have off the coast of our country: a fleet of people well-trained in what they need to do to protect this country by simulating these war games, or some whales that really don't do anything?

Whales.

Though I'm not convinced there can't be both.

[kestra]

What would you rather have off the coast of our country: a fleet of people well-trained in what they need to do to protect this country by simulating these war games, or some whales that really don't do anything?

I'll take the whales.

[Darion]

Despite my earlier off the cuff remark, I would be interested in hearing why people would side with the whales on this one.

[Graeblyn]

Originally posted by Darion
Despite my earlier off the cuff remark, I would be interested in hearing why people would side with the whales on this one.

not so much for "hippie" reasons, but rather for NIMBY reasons, I'd rather have the whales. I'd rather look out my window and see a whale, as opposed to a military vessel. I just think it would be more pleasant, and have a more positive effect on my property values.

[Darion]

I'd rather look out my window and see a whale, as opposed to a military vessel. I just think it would be more pleasant, and have a more positive effect on my property values.

Is the underwater house market expanding or something?

I suppose I was a little unclear initially - the choice is not between the military or whales, but rather having a well-trained Pacific Fleet versus having unmolested sea life.

[Graeblyn]

I dunno... I think it depends. Both the Clinton and Bush II administrations have made the point many times that the pentagon still gears a lot of its infrastructure around a cold war mentality. This point has been made even more loudly in the post 9-11 era. The whales aside, I would have to be convinced there was some merit, in the modern era, to investing our military resources as heavily as we do on submarines. I suspect we need to cut back on such exercises, and in that context, I might have no problem with the military being ordered to desist their war games in this particular part of the ocean, regardless of the reason they stop doing it.

Even if they DO need to be playing as many aquatic war games as they do, it still doesn't mean the military have to do so in such a manner as to molest the local wildlife. Absent national security reasons, I would expect the military to give the public a pretty compelling reason to continue these particular war games in this particular area, and as far as I can tell, in all the stories I read, I don't see any reasons given.

I certainly think the national security of American humans outweighs the needs of the animals living off America's shores. But, just because the military invokes national security concerns doesn't make those concerns valid, any more than simply expressing fears for the health of marine life make those arguments valid. I suppose what we need here is some sort of system to weigh these arguments and render a binding decision...

Perhaps a federal judge could get involved, and make a decision... either dismissing the concerns of environmentalists, or barring the Navy from these activities? We could call this judge Florence-Marie Cooper. Oh wait... I see such a judge is already listening to this case.

I think I will wait and see how the case unfolds before I form an opinion. The MAIN reason I have dwelt so much on why one might not agree with the Navy position is because this is the thinking Darion was most interested in.

by the way, I used to live on the seashore, and it was REALLY annoying when the coast guard was doing exercises or drills or whatever they called them in the ocean off our house. It DOES kinda ruin the view. I reckon that although, yes, the exercises in question are for subs, that there are all kinds of ancillary craft involved, and even the sub would be on the surface sometimes. The article implied that these exercises are being conducted near to shore, so I would imagine the local residents might be relieved if the Navy were permanently prevented from conducting these war games.

[Snrrub]

Originally posted by Graeblyn
I certainly think the national security of American humans outweighs the needs of the animals living off America's shores.

I don't see why. I don't think that humans are any more/less valuable than other type of animal life. I also think that the correct moral action isn't always what's in one's own best interests.

However, I'm confident that training can be had some way that doesn't pose such a threat to whales. Perhaps a change of venue as Graeblyn suggested, or through some other means.