NationStates Jolt Archive

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/11/12/navy.sonar.whales/index.html)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday lifted sanctions placed on the Navy over its underwater sonar testing, a setback for environmental groups that claimed the warfare technology was harming whales and other marine mammals.

An endangered blue whale surfaces off the coast of Southern California in July.

At issue in the 5-4 ruling was whether the Navy's need to conduct exercises to protect the country from enemy submarines outweighed concerns raised by environmental groups.

The case focused on whether the president had the power to issue executive waivers allowing such tests and whether federal judges can issue preliminary injunctions blocking them. The high court ultimately sided with claims of national security over environmental concerns.

Those environmental interests, said Chief Justice John Roberts for the majority, "are plainly outweighed by the Navy's need to conduct realistic training exercises to ensure that it is able to neutralize the threat posed by enemy submarines."

Roberts said a lower federal court "abused its discretion" by imposing a 2,200-yard perimeter for testing and ordering a shutdown of sonar use during surfacing exercises.

But in dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg warned that the ecological damage was significant.

"This likely harm cannot be lightly dismissed," she said, "even in the face of an alleged risk to the effectiveness of the Navy's 14 training exercises."

Justices David Souter, Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens also questioned the Navy's arguments.

The exercises have continued while the case was under appeal.

Environmentalists had sued the Pentagon over the practice, and a federal judge ordered major changes to the Navy's annual offshore training exercises in March.

President Bush had issued an emergency waiver to allow the exercises to go on without the filing of an environmental impact study, but the lower court ruling blocked the use of sonar. That federal judge, in ruling against the government last March, said it was "constitutionally suspect" for Bush to issue the national security exemption to allow skipping the impact study.

Military officials argued that the restrictions could hamper readiness in time of war, because new sonar technology is needed to detect increasingly sophisticated enemy submarines.

"This case was vital to our Navy and nation's security, and we are pleased with the Supreme Court's decision in this matter," Navy Secretary Donald Winter said. "We can now continue to train our sailors effectively, under realistic combat conditions."

One of the environmental organizations that sued the Defense Department told the justices that the exercises had been planned in advance and that the Navy was required under law to conduct more extensive environmental tests than it had.

The waters of southern California are home to dozens of species of whales, dolphins, seals and sea lions, nine of them federally listed as endangered or threatened. Federal courts have cited scientific studies and the Navy's own conclusions that high levels of sonar can cause hearing loss and disorientation in the animals.

In February, the U.S. Navy demonstrated for CNN its onboard procedures for turning down mid-frequency sonar when whales come within 1,000 meters and shutting it off completely when they approach 200 meters.

The sonar sounds like a "ping, ping" noise, and it can be reduced as necessary, officers said.

But environmentalists say that the sonar can hurt whales much farther than 1,000 meters away and that the noise created by the sonar "was like having a jet engine in the Supreme Court multiplied 2,000 times, compensating for water," attorney Richard Kendall told the justices.

Reacting to the ruling, Kendall said, "It is gratifying that the court did not accept the Navy's expansive claims of executive power and that two-thirds of the injunction remain in place."

In 2000, 16 whales beached themselves in the Bahamas, and the Navy concluded that too many sonar ships had been operating in a narrow underwater channel.
The service says it is funding $16 million in independent research to minimize sonar's effect on marine mammals

How the hell did 4 Justices vote for the whales? National security should have curshed this case before it started.

...because wantonly killing off endangered species is, y'know, bad?

they better get their testing done quick before the democrats bow to the environmentalist lobby.

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/11/12/navy.sonar.whales/index.html)



How the hell did 4 Justices vote for the whales? National security should have curshed this case before it started.

So what, if it's the military, it's more important than anything else?

You want to talk national security, OK. Tell me how the US Navy is playing a vital role in our national security right now. I want to know! Are they protecting us from pirates in dhows? From terrorists in motorboats? Oh I know, the renowned Afghanistani navy.

No, none of that. Right now the entire USN is pretty useless IMO. Making ever more advances in naval technology is of questionable value considering the state of affairs for our national threats. I'm not saying scrap the navy, but it's definitely not all-important.

On the other hand, environmental damage and the collapse of ecosystems WILL effect humans. That could prove rather threatening to our national security. It requires more thought than you've given it, and that's why 4 justices didn't just go "LOL NATIONAL SECURITY LOL."

...because wantonly killing off endangered species is, y'know, bad?

Question answered, so /thread.

...because wantonly killing off endangered species is, y'know, bad?

... and blocking the navy from testing sonar equipment at a time when even drug smugglers can afford submarines is, y' know, bad when there's loose nukes in russia, is kinda stupid.

So what, if it's the military, it's more important than anything else?

You want to talk national security, OK. Tell me how the US Navy is playing a vital role in our national security right now. I want to know! Are they protecting us from pirates in dhows? From terrorists in motorboats? Oh I know, the renowned Afghanistani navy.

No, none of that. Right now the entire USN is pretty useless IMO. Making ever more advances in naval technology is of questionable value considering the state of affairs for our national threats. I'm not saying scrap the navy, but it's definitely not all-important.

On the other hand, environmental damage and the collapse of ecosystems WILL effect humans. That could prove rather threatening to our national security. It requires more thought than you've given it, and that's why 4 justices didn't just go "LOL NATIONAL SECURITY LOL."

There are other nations with good submarine fleets, you know. A couple of them are only sort of friendly with us.

I'd agree that the chance of us fighting a naval war right now is fairly low. And though I am a bit of a naval buff (though the current USN continues to disappoint me), I oppose the judges' majority decision.

Because, as said before in the thread, killing endangered species is kinda bad.

... and blocking the navy from testing sonar equipment at a time when even drug smugglers can afford submarines is, y' know, bad?

not to mention sonar has been tested there for 40 years. so any whales that would have been wantonly killed would have died long ago.

... and blocking the navy from testing sonar equipment at a time when even drug smugglers can afford submarines is, y' know, bad?

So just legalize drugs.

And which drug smugglers are going around in submarines, exactly?

So just legalize drugs.

And which drug smugglers are going around in submarines, exactly?

the world's apparently
http://www.oobject.com/category/drug-smuggling-submarines/

So just legalize drugs.

And which drug smugglers are going around in submarines, exactly?

These drug smugglers. (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/379835_coastguard20.html)

So, is it really that hard to imagine some terrorist group, funded by the Afgan heroin trade, getting one of these, and using drug money to buy one of those missing nukes from russia, and blowing it up in New York, Los angles, London, ect, ect?

These drug smugglers. (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/379835_coastguard20.html)

So, is it really that hard to imagine some terrorist group, funded by the afgan heroin trade, getting of these, and using drug money to buy one of those missing nukes from russia, and blowing it up in New York, Los angles, London, ect, ect?

It would be way easier just to put one on a container ship.

Believe me, if they get a nuke, the navy being able to fuck with whales' heads isn't going to stop them.

It would be way easier just to put one on a container ship.

Believe me, if they get a nuke, the navy being able to fuck with whales' heads isn't going to stop them.

How would it be easier? Using something they already have, and loading it with a nuke instead of several tons of drugs and having some guy with a Koran in one hand and the other on the red button, or sneaking it into a shipping container, and hoping the fuse works when it gets there?

not to mention sonar has been tested there for 40 years. so any whales that would have been wantonly killed would have died long ago.

Whale beachings have been reported for about as many years I believe. Many reasons have been listed as possible causes, but sonar is one of them, and whales do use echolocation, with organs vulnerable to sonar, for both navigation and detection.

How would it be easier? Using something they already have, and loading it with a nuke instead of several tons of drugs and having some guy with a Koran in one hand and the other on the red button, or sneaking it into a shipping container, and hoping the fuse works when it gets there?

Your examples don't even have a logical connection. All it is made of is hand waving panic ranting. Fail.

Whale beachings have been reported for about as many years I believe. Many reasons have been listed as possible causes, but sonar is one of them, and whales do use echolocation, with organs vulnerable to sonar, for both navigation and detection.

And I would rather have dead whales than dead people.

And I would rather have dead whales than dead people.

You'd be just as dead with a dead ecosystem. It will just be a prolonged death, with a great deal of suffering in between.

And I would rather have dead whales than dead people.

How many dead whales are you willing to accept for an undefined increase in security? Ten? A hundred? All of them?

How many dead whales are you willing to accept for an undefined increase in security? Ten? A hundred? All of them?

I'd say 1 person is equal to about 10,000 whales.

How would it be easier? Using something they already have, and loading it with a nuke instead of several tons of drugs and having some guy with a Koran in one hand and the other on the red button, or sneaking it into a shipping container, and hoping the fuse works when it gets there?

It would be remarkably easy, trust me. My dad worked on the waterfront for almost forty years, and I know quite a bit about it.

You just list the container as "waste paper" or something mundane like that. Nobody will know until it blows up. Seriously.

You see, those containers aren't opened at the port. They're loaded at warehouses, then put on the back of a trailer and driven to a port. From there a crane lifts the container right off the back of the truck and onto the ship.

I'd say 1 person is equal to about 10,000 whales.

And when the ecosystem and fisheries collapses, you'll have 100,000 people out of work and starving to death. All in the name of the great god Security. Congratulations.

Whale beachings have been reported for about as many years I believe. Many reasons have been listed as possible causes, but sonar is one of them, and whales do use echolocation, with organs vulnerable to sonar, for both navigation and detection.



Martin, Anthony R. (1991). Whales and Dolphins. London: Salamander Books Ltd..

Every year there may be beachings adding up to 2000 animals. Although the majority of strandings will result in death, they pose no threat to the species as a whole. Of all of the species of cetaceans, only about 10 species are frequently involved in mass beachings, with a further 10 species rarely being involved. All of the frequently involved species are toothed whales, meaning that none of the baleen whales are regularly involved in beachings.


No treat to the species as a whole the test should continue.

Actually, its tied 1-1.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_t44siFyb4

And to solve the issue of Whales Vs. Navy, I suggest we hire someone fluent in whalesong to act as an arbitrator.

Actually, its tied 1-1.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_t44siFyb4

And to solve the issue of Whales Vs. Navy, I suggest we hire someone fluent in whalesong to act as an arbitrator.

We could start cloning them and then pumping them full of fat growth hormones and kill them and switch back to whale oil. That would solve to bird with one stone.

We could start cloning them and then pumping them full of fat growth hormones and kill them and switch back to whale oil. That would solve to bird with one stone.

i like the way you think

what the fuck, did someone sign NSG for a conservo-troll of the week or something?

what the fuck, did someone sign NSG for a conservo-troll of the week or something?

I'm guessing that after the trouncing in the elections, they need to come to some place to air their gripes. The ultra-conservatives we normally have here tend to gripe about this place being a den of "liberals" after all, so word might have spread and they're here to spread their gospel equivalent a bit.

what the fuck, did someone sign NSG for a conservo-troll of the week or something?

So because I feel that human lives are more important than animal lives, that makes me a troll?

There are other nations with good submarine fleets, you know. A couple of them are only sort of friendly with us.

Yeah, but we outclass and outnumber the bad ones. A lot. I mean how many of those potential enemies have the kind of naval airpower the US does, for example? Not to mention the ability to completely incinerate the planet Earth a few times over with nuclear fire... that tends, I think, to limit what certain countries wanna try doing.

Maybe this is a touch of national hubris, but I believe the USN is pretty much unchallenged, realistically speaking, except in certain situations where it's not so much about national defense as protecting overseas interests.

Regardless, this "fuck the whales" attitude is disturbing in its vapidity. Honestly, did people just not pay attention in biology classes or what?

Yeah, but we outclass and outnumber the bad ones. A lot. I mean how many of those potential enemies have the kind of naval airpower the US does, for example? Not to mention the ability to completely incinerate the planet Earth a few times over with nuclear fire... that tends, I think, to limit what certain countries wanna try doing.

Maybe this is a touch of national hubris, but I believe the USN is pretty much unchallenged, realistically speaking, except in certain situations where it's not so much about national defense as protecting overseas interests.

Regardless, this "fuck the whales" attitude is disturbing in its vapidity. Honestly, did people just not pay attention in biology classes or what?

I'm not saying fuck the whales. I'm syaing that people should come first in this case.

So because I feel that human lives are more important than animal lives, that makes me a troll?

no, but your overly simplistic worldview makes you..well, overly simplistic.

Your staunch adherence to such a myopic worldview, to the point of insulting anyone who disagrees with said myopic worldview is what makes you a troll.

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/11/12/navy.sonar.whales/index.html)



How the hell did 4 Justices vote for the whales? National security should have curshed this case before it started.
This argument is fucking stupid.

Why does national security always come first? It's disgusting. We're here, debating on whether or not we should be killing nature. If you have to kill nature in order to make great, great progress, such as in animal testing, fine, but only sparingly. Going around randomly killing animals "in the name of national security" and arguing in favour of it is as bad as pouring water into a bottomless bucket and hoping to hold water with it. It just will not work.

Let's say, you have twenty submarines. They have the machines that go, "ping!" You float about in your submarines, going "ping!" the whole time when you never discover anything and end up killing ten whales. Let's say then, you stay in port. Nothing ever happens, and nothing dies. What's the point of sending so many submarines when you can send one, perhaps have a chance of killing one whale, just to maintain your "national security"? And you're arguing that we should scrap everything in the name of "security"? The fuck?

EDIT: In addition, humans are worthless in general. Every stinking one of them is a greedy bastard. Deep down, anyway. Sure, you have the philanthropists and such (:p), but still, if everyone was not greedy, then we would all be commies.

no, but your overly simplistic worldview makes you..well, overly simplistic.

Your staunch adherence to such a myopic worldview, to the point of insulting anyone who disagrees with said myopic worldview is what makes you a troll.

When did I insult people that disagree with me?

I'm not saying fuck the whales. I'm syaing that people should come first in this case.

And that is a false dilemma. It's not about "support gizmo research for the USN and save human lives, or save some whales and kill the humans." I've already made the case that supporting gizmo research for the USN is not vital to national security.

And that is a false dilemma. It's not about "support gizmo research for the USN and save human lives, or save some whales and kill the humans." I've already made the case that supporting gizmo research for the USN is not vital to national security.

That's not what I mean. its not gizmo research they were trying block its training drills.

Just a quick question - has there been any reliable impartial study of the effects of sonar on cetaceans, or is this a case of "OMZ, there's a chance that maybe it's bad so STOP EVERYTHING NOW AND QUESTIONS MEAN YOU DON'T CARE???"

I'm not saying fuck the whales. I'm syaing that people should come first in this case.

You still haven't responded to my post.

Just a quick question - has there been any reliable impartial study of the effects of sonar on cetaceans, or is this a case of "OMZ, there's a chance that maybe it's bad so STOP EVERYTHING NOW AND QUESTIONS MEAN YOU DON'T CARE???"

From the article:


In 2000, 16 whales beached themselves in the Bahamas, and the Navy concluded that too many sonar ships had been operating in a narrow underwater channel.
The service says it is funding $16 million in independent research to minimize sonar's effect on marine mammals

The Navy itself admits that yes, sonar does harm whales. However the navy's contention is that turning sonar down, and then off when whales come close mitigates that harm, while the environmentalist view is that no, it really doesn't.

In neither case is anyone saying "lol sonar can't hurt whales" so I dunno why you would adopt that attitude.

So....what the Hell do they expect the Navy to do, not use sonar?

So....what the Hell do they expect the Navy to do, not use sonar?

Read the article. They want the navy to figure out how sonar is affecting the environment and to restrict its use.

Read the article. They want the navy to figure out how sonar is affecting the environment and to restrict its use.

You know other nations are reading this and laughing at us....

You know other nations are reading this and laughing at us....

We live in a country where Britney shaving her head made headlines for days in major news.

They'd better be able to laugh at that!

And trust me, pissing on environmentalism is not going to win us brownie points in the international scene either. I mean note how everyone thought highly of the US after the Kyoto Protocols? Oh right, they didn't.

From the article:



The Navy itself admits that yes, sonar does harm whales. However the navy's contention is that turning sonar down, and then off when whales come close mitigates that harm, while the environmentalist view is that no, it really doesn't.

In neither case is anyone saying "lol sonar can't hurt whales" so I dunno why you would adopt that attitude.

I'm using hyperbole to make a point. There is an apparent correlation, then, but no hard data.

At least we don't do the shit that Japan does to whales.

Just a quick question - has there been any reliable impartial study of the effects of sonar on cetaceans, or is this a case of "OMZ, there's a chance that maybe it's bad so STOP EVERYTHING NOW AND QUESTIONS MEAN YOU DON'T CARE???"

Yes. We know perfectly well that whales and other cetaceans navigate by echolocation, and the sorts of noises produced by sonar systems can really, really fuck with their ability to do so, such that they have been known to swim directly into rocks, ships' propellers, and so forth. The effect of loud, confusing noises on species using echolocation has been accurately compared to how a human would feel trying to navigate around an extremely noisy, shapeshifting discotheque lit only by strobe lights and playing fifteen songs at once, only more so. It is, in fact, not only dangerous for them, it is unpleasant to the level of torture even if they don't end up swimming directly onto land. There is a case to be made for the majority opinion here, but it sure as hell isn't "Fuck the whales, why should we even consider this?"

So just legalize drugs.

And which drug smugglers are going around in submarines, exactly?Renard in The World is not Enough. Though that's only the cover story he told the Russians that ran the sub.

Please there are many things killing whales. the biggest would be us overfishing the worlds oceans and thus redcing the avaliable food. Also consider hunting by Norway (and Japan but they are slighly better) as well as lesser known countries.

But why do we even care so much about whales. I work in a supermarket and there we sell Orange Roughy in seafood. This fish can be 100+ years old, is possibly in a worse state than the humpback whale facing extinction, and we can stop it being killed by us just choosing not to eat it in Australia.

But I guess it is better to whine about others killing marine life than fix something ourselves

Please there are many things killing whales. the biggest would be us overfishing the worlds oceans and thus redcing the avaliable food. Also consider hunting by Norway (and Japan but they are slighly better) as well as lesser known countries.

But why do we even care so much about whales. I work in a supermarket and there we sell Orange Roughy in seafood. This fish can be 100+ years old, is possibly in a worse state than the humpback whale facing extinction, and we can stop it being killed by us just choosing not to eat it in Australia.

But I guess it is better to whine about others killing marine life than fix something ourselves

Whales are intelligent mammals. That is why people care about them more than about fish.

Please there are many things killing whales. the biggest would be us overfishing the worlds oceans and thus redcing the avaliable food. Also consider hunting by Norway (and Japan but they are slighly better) as well as lesser known countries.

But why do we even care so much about whales. I work in a supermarket and there we sell Orange Roughy in seafood. This fish can be 100+ years old, is possibly in a worse state than the humpback whale facing extinction, and we can stop it being killed by us just choosing not to eat it in Australia.

But I guess it is better to whine about others killing marine life than fix something ourselvesSonar doesn't hurt most kinds of fish on grounds that they don't have the same kind of organs cetaceans do. Overfishing is indeed a problem, but this isn't a thread about overfishing, it's a thread about a court case pertaining to the military use of sonar and its side effect on cetaceans.

Just a quick question - has there been any reliable impartial study of the effects of sonar on cetaceans, or is this a case of "OMZ, there's a chance that maybe it's bad so STOP EVERYTHING NOW AND QUESTIONS MEAN YOU DON'T CARE???"Substantial, ranging (Depending on how much wattage is poured into the sonar & the distance; significantly more so on the former, since sound is carried remarkably well in water) from 'Causing shock and confusion & the whales to flee' to ''Causing damage to their blood vessels and internal organs'.

Hence why the Navy is, well... Acknowledging the problem.

This said, I'm surprised that people are outraged at the article. It states quite explicitly that The navy is acknowledging the problem
The navy is spending resources in researching and, if possible, reducing the problem (Only a few million, of course, but not everything can be solved by throwing money at it, this being one such issue)
The navy is, in fact, trying to reduce its sonar-imprint as much as possible without endangering its actual mission, in order to reduce the effect on various cetaceansI don't know... To me, these sound like good things.

not to mention sonar has been tested there for 40 years. so any whales that would have been wantonly killed would have died long ago.You can't compare sonar from decades ago against the one they're testing now. The power output is nowhere near equivalent. It's like saying you shouldn't complain about turning a landing strip for ultralights next to your house with a landing strip for passenger airliners. After all, they're both types of planes. Never might the actual difference in noise.

And I would rather have dead whales than dead people.If that were the choice, it might have some merit. But the new sonar system is very unlikely to actually having any impact on saving lives. Whereas there's good evidence it's killing whales.
Movie plot threats like nuke-filled terrorist minisubs are frankly ludicrous. And this newer type of sonar wouldn't contribute to locating them anyway.

You actualy think Russia "lost" its nukes?
I think its a BS story they made up, they probably still have all of them
Yeah anyways, this sucks for the whales
And honestly, I doubt terrorists with drug money could build a proper nuclear submarine in the first place

You actualy think Russia "lost" its nukes?
I think its a BS story they made up, they probably still have all of them
Yeah anyways, this sucks for the whales
And honestly, I doubt terrorists with drug money could build a proper nuclear submarine in the first place

And as I said earlier, why the hell would you bother when you can just stick it in a container and blow it up when it gets to port? Way easier.

Save the Whales!!!

Like already mentioned in this thread, the USN are investigating the effects of military sonar use on cetaceans; which is a good thing but I feel that the advancement of military sonar at the expense of whales is sucky indeed. The case for human life being at risk if this military sonar isn't advanced doesn't really seem to be there.

...save the whales!!..
:[

If you don't totally disregard all other concerns aside from national security, then you hate freedom!

So what, if it's the military, it's more important than anything else?....


Bwahahhahahhahahhahahahahahha! Nope.