NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,20401262-5005941,00.html

Yay! Shooting at things from helicopters! No, really, it's a lot of fun!

CUSTOMS officials want to be able to fire weapons from hovering helicopters in the latest move to boost protection of Australia's borders and fishing grounds.

The capacity to shoot from the air will be part of the Rapid Response Helicopter Service the Australian Customs Service plans to launch next January.

The chopper will "enhance Australia's fisheries and maritime surveillance, compliance and enforcement arrangements in Northern Australia", say tender documents obtained by The Australian.

But officials yesterday ruled out following the example of US Customs, which uses sharpshooters in helicopters to disable the engines of illegal vessels.

Considering that no one in Australia should be able to legally own a weapon to shoot at a Customs helicopter with, one wonders if they're really just wanting to sponsor a Customs cook-out with wild animals on the menu.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,20401262-5005941,00.html

Yay! Shooting at things from helicopters! No, really, it's a lot of fun!



Considering that no one in Australia should be able to legally own a weapon to shoot at a Customs helicopter with, one wonders if they're really just wanting to sponsor a Customs cook-out with wild animals on the menu.

sell them some old vietnam hueys with m60s still in the doors......

lately they have been reinforcing their sea defences considerably.

It's to fight the upcoming Stingray invasion. First blood has already been shed by these terrorists attempting to undermine Aussie society.

Considering that no one in Australia should be able to legally own a weapon to shoot at a Customs helicopter with, one wonders if they're really just wanting to sponsor a Customs cook-out with wild animals on the menu.
What do Australian gun laws have to do with this?

The northern waters are frequently used for illegal fishing by boats coming from Indonesia and other countries. Often these boats do significant environmental damage.
Then there's also the issue of boats full of refugees.

It's a big area. Unfortunately, rather than buying more patrol vessels, the Aussie government is busy buying F-35 fighters, Tiger Helicopters and ancient Abrams tanks.

So it makes sense to use helicopters to patch up the glaring gaps. And if you have a boat down there fishing illegally, I'd say it makes sense to at least have the option to fire a warning shot or two...because a helicopter can't do all that much to a boat otherwise, so it'll be a little bit of an empty threat until a patrol boat can arrive from many, many miles away.

Apparently, the Customs agents will only be able to shoot feral animals, not anything else, so you're argument is rather weak.

Of course, with an F-35, or a Tiger helicopter, you can make short work of a boatload of refugees.

Of course, with an F-35, or a Tiger helicopter, you can make short work of a boatload of refugees.

*insert "Ah, Jeez not this shit again" picture here*

Apparently, the Customs agents will only be able to shoot feral animals, not anything else, so you're argument is rather weak.
So it is. How silly.

I really get angry at these fishing boats though. Most of these areas in question are wildlife reserve and marine parks, where rare animals live. And then these boats turn up, and they don't generally show much understanding for the environmental impact of dynamite fishing or rusty anchors being dragged through coral reefs.

So it is. How silly.

I really get angry at these fishing boats though. Most of these areas in question are wildlife reserve and marine parks, where rare animals live. And then these boats turn up, and they don't generally show much understanding for the environmental impact of dynamite fishing or rusty anchors being dragged through coral reefs.

When you think about the thousands of kilometers of coastline you would have to patrol, with boats and helicopters, it almost seems like too much to cover, given the resources available.

And I'm sure the illegal fishermen know that.

When you think about the thousands of kilometers of coastline you would have to patrol, with boats and helicopters, it almost seems like too much to cover, given the resources available.
Exactly.

But it's not like the Australian Defense Force is underfunded. Since the end of the Cold War, their spending has exploded.

But rather than useful stuff, like more of these useful patrol units (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armidale_class_patrol_boat) and even more Anzac frigates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anzac_class_frigate) (with a few basic mods and the helicopters they should be able to cover a pretty big area), they build crap to fight the war against...well, no one really knows.

If you can't disable a boat engine from the helicopter then what is the point?

If you can't disable a boat engine from the helicopter then what is the point?

Ummmm... that's my question.

It just goes to show you that just because someone has a gun, it doesn't mean they will shoot anything.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,20401262-5005941,00.html
Considering that no one in Australia should be able to legally own a weapon to shoot at a Customs helicopter with, one wonders if they're really just wanting to sponsor a Customs cook-out with wild animals on the menu. What are you talking about? Australians are allowed to own guns. I do. My father owns several, and my grandfather could arm a small army. The crazy thing in Australia is that you need a 'licence' to own and operate most forms of dangerous equipment.

Ummmm... that's my question.

It just goes to show you that just because someone has a gun, it doesn't mean they will shoot anything.

Ah. So they are like the UN, given weapons they can't even use.

lately they have been reinforcing their sea defences considerably.


Yes. That ship that they plan to put illegal immigrants on should bolster their naval forces substantially.

What are you talking about? Australians are allowed to own guns. I do. My father owns several, and my grandfather could arm a small army. The crazy thing in Australia is that you need a 'licence' to own and operate most forms of dangerous equipment.

Own a centerfire semi-automatic rifle with a removable magazine? Didn't think so.

Often these boats do significant environmental damage.


More environmental damage than a uranium mine in a UNESCO world heritage site? Australians seem to get more upset abotu environmental damage when it is done by "foreigners".

I live in the area! Indonesians and their boats turn up all the time to take fish out of Australian waters because they've cleaned out Indonesian waters. Now Chinese boats or Indonesians using Chinese-owned boats are turning up.

The Northern border is secure as a tennis net with cannon ball holes in it. Ships turn up on the islands all the time, I mean leaky wooden boats.

I live in the area! Indonesians and their boats turn up all the time to take fish out of Australian waters because they've cleaned out Indonesian waters. Now Chinese boats or Indonesians using Chinese-owned boats are turning up.

The Northern border is secure as a tennis net with cannon ball holes in it. Ships turn up on the islands all the time, I mean leaky wooden boats.

Your Customs department needs a helicopter equipped with a Minigun, like this:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2676268927161385975&q=minigun

Your Customs department needs a helicopter equipped with a Minigun, like this:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2676268927161385975&q=minigun

But knowing the governments, they'll squabble over who will pay for it and it will never be purchased.

More environmental damage than a uranium mine in a UNESCO world heritage site?
Yes.

Yes. Explain.

Explain.
Are you talking about the Ranger Mine (http://www.uic.com.au/emine.htm), right?

A uranium mine is generally a place where a lot of attention is paid to environmental and security concerns. Not only because of PR, but because of the potential dangers associated with the things they dig up. The Ranger Mine got ISO14001 (http://www.iso14000-iso14001-environmental-management.com/iso14001.htm) certification.

One can't prevent that a certain area is destroyed, true. But compare that with the boats that enter the waters. They don't pay attention to the environment, they can lay waste to a much larger area, and usually the very reason they are here is to kill endangered animals.

How many plants or animals were killed by the Ranger Mines? How large an area was laid to waste (p.s. the answer is 500 hectares, out of the 1.98 million that is Kakadu Park) by it?
And now compare that to the 607 boats (http://www.mffc.gov.au/releases/2006/06001m.html) intercepted last year, and the probably hundreds more that weren't caught. The damage done is significant (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1496476.htm). And the WWF (http://wwf.org.au/search?site_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwwf.org.au%2Fsearch&search_terms=illegal+fishing) agrees. Not even to speak of the pretty nasty practice of cutting off shark fins and throwing the fish back in the water still alive.

Own a centerfire semi-automatic rifle with a removable magazine? Didn't think so.
What would anyone need one of those for?!

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,20401262-5005941,00.html

Yay! Shooting at things from helicopters! No, really, it's a lot of fun!



Considering that no one in Australia should be able to legally own a weapon to shoot at a Customs helicopter with, one wonders if they're really just wanting to sponsor a Customs cook-out with wild animals on the menu.

What, they don't want just anyone crossing their borders? They're going to shoot illegal immigrants?

They're going to shoot illegal immigrants?
No. But I wouldn't even be surprised anymore, the government's immigration policy here is atrocious.

I'm shocked that I actually disagree with you for once Neu. Well, nnot disagree, but differ slightly. Your arguements are always just so damn logical, moderate, and inoffensive. But I am against illegal immigration to Australia, for economic reasons. Refugees are usually unskilled, and as such they bring unemployment and crime with them. However, I think we should triple the skilled immigrants we take it. They crate jobs, stimulate the economy, increase the economies of scale and make me smile.

That being said, I support Idonesian rights to fish in some Australian territories. Mainly because they have been doing it for thousands of years. I know it's our water now, but we should just charge them for it. Seriously, it looks like a economic oppurtunity to me. People want to fish our fish? Sure come along pay us while you do it, and follow these rules. Then we'll buy the fish!

When it comes to the environment, it depends. Obviously they can't fish the Great Barrier Reef, but norther and North western Waters is fair. If they do something shockingly destructive, we can make it a condition of their legitimate fishing of the area. That is the inherent benefit of legitimising stuff, you can control it easier.

How many plants or animals were killed by the Ranger Mines? How large an area was laid to waste (p.s. the answer is 500 hectares, out of the 1.98 million that is Kakadu Park) by it?
And now compare that to the 607 boats (http://www.mffc.gov.au/releases/2006/06001m.html) intercepted last year, and the probably hundreds more that weren't caught. The damage done is significant (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1496476.htm). And the WWF (http://wwf.org.au/search?site_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwwf.org.au%2Fsearch&search_terms=illegal+fishing) agrees. Not even to speak of the pretty nasty practice of cutting off shark fins and throwing the fish back in the water still alive.

By that rationale, the fact that Australia's territorial waters only represent a small portion of the ocean must mean that the ecological damage of illegal fishing is only limited. But really, I am not defending the illegal fishing. I too am concerned by the environmental problems it creates. I am just pointing out there appears to be a double standard at play ... that Australians all of a sudden become more concerned about environmental damage when those darn foreigners are involved than when good ol' Aussie blokes are doing it.

I'm shocked that I actually disagree with you for once Neu. Well, nnot disagree, but differ slightly. Your arguements are always just so damn logical, moderate, and inoffensive. But I am against illegal immigration to Australia, for economic reasons. Refugees are usually unskilled, and as such they bring unemployment and crime with them. However, I think we should triple the skilled immigrants we take it. They crate jobs, stimulate the economy, increase the economies of scale and make me smile.


While I am no expert on Australian Immigration Policy, an economy needs both unskilled and skilled workers. It is usually the unskilled immigrants that come and do the crap jobs that nationals of that country are unwilling to do ... the night shift at a covenience store, crappy cleaning jobs and the like. If you bring in too many skilled workers that you don't have enough work for, then you end up with the phenomenon of underemployment; people doing work that is below what they are capable of. Unskilled workers play a vital role in the economy.

I'm shocked that I actually disagree with you for once Neu. Well, nnot disagree, but differ slightly. Your arguements are always just so damn logical, moderate, and inoffensive. But I am against illegal immigration to Australia, for economic reasons. Refugees are usually unskilled, and as such they bring unemployment and crime with them. However, I think we should triple the skilled immigrants we take it. They crate jobs, stimulate the economy, increase the economies of scale and make me smile.


While I am no expert on Australian Immigration Policy, an economy needs both unskilled and skilled workers. It is usually the unskilled immigrants that come and do the crap jobs that nationals of that country are unwilling to do ... the night shift at a covenience store, crappy cleaning jobs and the like. If you bring in too many skilled workers that you don't have enough work for, then you end up with the phenomenon of underemployment; people doing work that is below what they are capable of. Unskilled workers play a vital role in the economy.

But I am against illegal immigration to Australia, for economic reasons. Refugees are usually unskilled, and as such they bring unemployment and crime with them.
Do you really have a reason to believe that though? I have found that those people who sit in Amanda's internment camps are usually the most motivated, potentially hardworking people you will find (I mean, as far as I can know, I guess. Documentaries and stuff). I mean, they escape terrible hardship, they make these pretty horrid journeys - it's not like they're lazy. And generally the only criminals are the smugglers who get them into Australia in the first place. If they do have trouble fitting in, it would be because Australian employers are hesitant about hiring them, but generally I'd say that wouldn't be that much of a problem.

Recently I saw a little news bulleting about those guys from Sierra Leone who "disappeared" during the Commonwealth Games. All of them have found work by now, helping out in supermarkets and the like. They have made friends and they learned English. And their kids are going to be fully skilled Australians.

That being said, I support Idonesian rights to fish in some Australian territories. Mainly because they have been doing it for thousands of years. I know it's our water now, but we should just charge them for it. Seriously, it looks like a economic oppurtunity to me. People want to fish our fish? Sure come along pay us while you do it, and follow these rules. Then we'll buy the fish!
The idea is not too bad - if you could expect those guys to follow the rules. I mean, their own waters are pretty much decimated by now precisely because they're not into environmental protection and that sort of thing.
Right now they're not paying anything, other than some possibility of getting caught (and due to a loophole in the law, they can't actually be jailed at the moment). If you charge them for it, chances are they'd actually be worse off.

I really don't care whether it's Australians or Indonesians doing the fishing. I just want it to be done in a way that is environmentally sound and sustainable. And I think it's reasonable to assume that Australian fishing fleets are more likely to act responsibly than Indonesian ones. Quotas would be a possibility, but you'd still be stuck having to monitor the waters.

<lots, which I mostly agree with>
...
I really don't care whether it's Australians or Indonesians doing the fishing. I just want it to be done in a way that is environmentally sound and sustainable. And I think it's reasonable to assume that Australian fishing fleets are more likely to act responsibly than Indonesian ones. Quotas would be a possibility, but you'd still be stuck having to monitor the waters.

If there was a level playing field, with a tax applied depending on the amount of fish taken, it would be ALL indonesian boats taking the fish. Their crews are payed a fraction (a tenth I'm guessing) of what aussie crews are payed, their legal liability for unsafe boats is virtually non-existent, and there are many many boats there with no fish to take.
You mention quotas. Quotas are the major limitation on australian fishing operations already. There is hardly a single boat which couldn't work longer, start earlier in the season, but for their quotas. Either adding to the take, or reducing the existing quotas for registered australian fishing businesses to permit Indonesian boats to take some of the fish (oh, and Malaysian, and Vietnamese, Chinese, South American even) is really not going to go down well with those businesses which not only are already limited by quotas, but also by australian labor laws.
As I understand it, shrimp and scallop businesses have licenses which are worth more than the rest of their business added together. More than their boats, their insurance and their office. Diluting that by reducing their quotas is like nationalizing their businesses, at 60 c in the dollar.
To draw an analogy, imagine letting a foreign company start farming northwest australia, and shipping grain or sugar or whatever directly to the world market, completely exempt from tax, or even having to buy the land they farm. "Quotas" is like saying 'ok, you can do that, but no more than 10,000 acres."
That ocean is our country, those fish are our natural resources, as much as any country's maritime zone is theirs.
In fact, it's worse than that. Fisheries are more like mining than farming. Only the most regulated, the most enforced fisheries come even close to being sustainable, and otherwise, it's pure exploitation, Nairu style. We eat the swordfish, then the cod, then the sardines, the anchovies and the shrimp. Then we eat the krill, and after that we whine about how the previous generations left nothing for us.
Oh god yes, I know I'm a hopeless idealist. We will eat every living thing in the oceans, we will be even more ruthless than we are on land, since almost none of us ever go out on the ocean. Those creatures are not furry or cute, we will eat them all. Then we will farm the oceans, and every acre of them will be owned and in some way fenced off. When the ocean can be bought and sold by the acre, then they will be protected by law.

Note to self: make more jokes. You're good at jokes.

Yay! Shooting at things from helicopters! No, really, it's a lot of fun!

Yay!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ilL4wICrEs

It's a bit of a long video, but good fun. The action starts at about 4 minutes if you're not interested in the Corvette.

Yay!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ilL4wICrEs

It's a bit of a long video, but good fun. The action starts at about 4 minutes if you're not interested in the Corvette.

It's more fun to see the people running away from the stream of fire, and then seeing them disappear in the blizzard of lead and dust.

It's more fun to see the people running away from the stream of fire, and then seeing them disappear in the blizzard of lead and dust.
Only if you're ever so slightly sick and twisted. :)

Only if you're ever so slightly sick and twisted. :)

No, it's easier than shooting at moving vehicles. You just don't lead them as much.

No, it's easier than shooting at moving vehicles. You just don't lead them as much.

Where's the fun in 'easier'? You need a good challenge to keep things interesting.

No, it's easier than shooting at moving vehicles. You just don't lead them as much.

Gee that's clever. "Full Metal Jacket" isn't it?

Gee that's clever. "Full Metal Jacket" isn't it?

Yes, and at least you have a sense of movie trivia (and perhaps a sense of humor).

Most people here lack both.