NationStates Jolt Archive

We have a new ban on whale hunting, but I am concerned about another threat. The use of high energy infra- of ultrasound military detection systems.
It hurts the whale and dolphin population in the world seas, in all kinds of aspects. Navigation blinded, tissue demolished and communication also silensed by the damaging of communication organs.

That's why whales were behaving so strange during the last few years.
It's like you be put in a soundchamber with 120 dB of the most awfull industrial noise!

So please vote for our proposal to get it accepted for the UN!!

Many thanks from a country that depends very much on a healthy sea environment.

I really don't believe it!
How is it possible to get so few support!

I don't know.
Who's afraid of the big bad wolf - kinda story or something..

Maybe there should have been a lot of hoohah more in my proposal...

I put it here again....
It is very clear, I think...
---------------------------------

Protection of whales
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.


Category: Environmental Industry Affected: All Businesses Proposed by: Klopstokia
Description: It's alarming that naval military detection equipment is using high energy to scan the oceans.
There is more then enough proof, that whales and dolphins suffer from the intense energy in the infra- of ultrasound spectrum. The use of such high energy sources should be banned.

-It is hurting the ability of whales to navigate, so they strand on the beaches. Caused by a complete blinding of their navigation system.
-Another point it is hurting their tissue. It leads to internal bleeding and the distruction of vital organs.
-It is causing a threat to their social life and communication possibility over great distances.

So I urge the UN to take measures to prohibit the use of high energy detection systems.

Delegates, please vote for this proposal, before it is too late!

What you are proposing is that each nation of the UN disarm themselves from the ability to defend against submarines and any other underwater devices.

In my opinion, the whales and dolphins can suffer, they're not my people who are going to be nuked by the submarine I couldn't detect.

What you are proposing is that each nation of the UN disarm themselves from the ability to defend against submarines and any other underwater devices.

In my opinion, the whales and dolphins can suffer, they're not my people who are going to be nuked by the submarine I couldn't detect.

Maybe so but would your people not be affected by widespread destruction of the oceanic eco system if marine mammals such as these were to be come endangered or even worse extinct?

My nation votes in favore of this act- for obviouse reasons...

I propose that we have small coast guard or military vessles patrolling along whale migration routs at certain times of the year. My reason for this is that there have been many cases concerning many countries which traditionally hunt whales for meat. In japan for instance, it has been discovered that some japanese scientific vessles in the pacific were actually whaling boats in disguise and the meat was to be sold on the black market. Their origional exuse was that they were ordinary scientific vessles studying the migration routs of sharks and whales in the area. So if you havn't already figured it out i request that the UN gives naval authorities the right to search suspiciouse ships for meat hunted illigally so that these criminals could be put behind bars. A minmal fine of $50,000 and at least a 6 year jail scentance must be imposed on the criminals. These measures I believe must be enforced if we do not want to see the number of whales in the oceans dwindle on the edge of extinction in the coming years.

All you tree huggers and propasals that are foolish like this one (Yeah lets just let subarines attack us....) are one of the reasons I left the Un.)

This would make far more sense under "global disarmament" as you are attempting to stop the military from performing an action. Envrionmental: All Business makes no sense at all. How much deepsea diving does the Woodchipping Industry or the Automobile Manufactoring Industry do, anyway? And since you only mention the military in your resolution, it ceases to be an Enviro: All Business resolution.

Oh, and I may be confused, but what is "infrasonic"?

These are the sorts of reasons that we prefer you post your resolutions here first so that errors like this can be worked out.

I for one am not a tree hugger, but I am not naive enough to think that I can destroy the evironment and expect no ill effects what so ever. I believe in a militaristic state, but I also do not believe that sonar is the only option we have to detect enemy movement. For as long as sonar has been around we have yet to discover another means to the end. I believe science should come up with another solution that will allow us to track enemy movements underwater. Killing off of whales would have catastrophic affects on the marine eco system, first off what other animal could help keep the plankton and zoo-plankton numbers in check. Just like in a backyard pond where fish arent able to keep up with micro-organisms that eventually "choke" out the fish population by intaking too much oxygen and replacing it with carbon dioxide producing dead zones. If you think this couldnt happen on a larger scale such as in an ocean, just ask researchers currently off the coast of Oregon if it could happen.

From President Brian:

This resolution would do nothing to protect whales and demonstrates a significant lack of understanding in how military vessels and commercial naval vessels operate.

First of all, active sonar has been used for nearly 60 years. Why whales are now exhibiting "odd behavior" has little or nothing to do with high energy sonars. Second of all, active sonars are rarely used - particularly by submarines - and only during anti-submarine warfare and only for minimal periods of time, as they are dead giveaways of a vessel's location. Further, bottom mapping sonars are also rarely used do to hyperaccurate charts of most areas ships would worry about grounding. These are not areas whales frequent.

Further, the only other use for the systems you describe as limiting here are used to ensure that naval and commercial maritime vessels do not strike whales in the first place. If they are restricted, you increase the likelihood of whale strikes - which rarely result in more than minimal damage to a ship but generally kill the whale.

This is, as usual, a harmless sounding environmental resolution that will, in effect, cause more of the harm it seeks to nullify.

How about you propose that we encourage research on the issue, and if it appears sensible, research on alternatives to sonar? This way, we aren't forced into actions which may not make sense.

Oh, and I may be confused, but what is "infrasonic"?

www.dictionary.com[/url]]A wave phenomenon sharing the physical nature of sound but with a range of frequencies below that of human hearing.

According to Online Encyclopaedia Brittanica, that's anything under 20Hz.

From President Brian:

This resolution would do nothing to protect whales and demonstrates a significant lack of understanding in how military vessels and commercial naval vessels operate.

First of all, active sonar has been used for nearly 60 years.


You probably did not read very well.

The proposal is not about the normal short range sonar.
It's about the long range excessive use of High Energy LFA.

This very high intensity is damaging for whales and dolphins.

This would make far more sense under "global disarmament" as you are attempting to stop the military from performing an action. Envrionmental: All Business makes no sense at all. How much deepsea diving does the Woodchipping Industry or the Automobile Manufactoring Industry do, anyway? And since you only mention the military in your resolution, it ceases to be an Enviro: All Business resolution.

Oh, and I may be confused, but what is "infrasonic"?

These are the sorts of reasons that we prefer you post your resolutions here first so that errors like this can be worked out.

You're right.
But I could not help it.
My intention was to care about the whales health.
It wasn't my intention to act against military research as such.

Once chosen Environmental, there are some subchoises of which you have to pick one of them.
But, I will put this proposal in the disarmement sector.
Thank you!

You probably did not read very well.

The proposal is not about the normal short range sonar.
It's about the long range excessive use of High Energy LFA.

This very high intensity is damaging for whales and dolphins.

To be fair you did not make this very clear in the proposal text.

Well... We have a new version...
Now adjusted to the remarks in this thread.

----------------
Protection of whales
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.


Category: Global Disarmament Strength: Mild Proposed by: Klopstokia
Description: It's alarming that there is a new developing trend,
that naval military detection equipment is using extremely high energy to scan the oceans.

-There is more then enough proof, that whales and dolphins suffer from the high intensity energy in the infra- of ultrasound spectrum. The use of such high energy sources should be banned.
-It is hurting the ability of whales to navigate, so they strand on the beaches. Caused by a complete blinding of their navigation system.
-Another point it is hurting their tissue. It leads to internal bleeding and the distruction of vital organs.
-It is causing a threat to their social life and communication possibility over great distances.

So I urge the UN to take measures to prohibit the use of high energy detection systems.

Remark:
This proposal is not to prohibit the use of
(low energy) sonar navigation and fish seeking,
that is common for the last 60 years!

-------------
Edit 001 ... Changed Strenght: Strong into Mild.

Category: Global Disarmament Strength: Strong
You lost my support right there. Removing everyone's nukes is Strong. Changing the way sonar works doesn't even make it to Mild in my book.

Pass.

You lost my support right there. Removing everyone's nukes is Strong. Changing the way sonar works doesn't even make it to Mild in my book.

Pass.

Hmmm...
Sorry, I understood it was meant to be a strong plea for prohibiting the use of high energy sonar systems..

Wilco

Just style points - there's no need to add in line breaks mid-sentence, and personally I'd prefer a more formal, official-sounding style.