What is Digg?185 Comments
- ChazHollywood, on 01/17/2008, -9/+50The practice is also harmful to Chinese subs.
- SilentSpyder, on 01/17/2008, -24/+63*****
- sotopheavy, on 01/17/2008, -11/+34Is there even another technology for detecting submarines besides trained dolphins lol? If our navy couldn't detect submarines, we would not be able to defend this country from attack period. If attacked our navy would be sitting ducks without sonar. Like it or not we do need a navy that can detect threats above and below the water for defensive purposes even if our current president doesn't want to use it that way.
- inactive, on 01/17/2008, -10/+26In the Navy
Yes, you can sail the seven seas
In the Navy
Yes, you can put your mind at ease [from threats of environmental lawsuits] - Lennalf, on 01/17/2008, -6/+19Yeah, remember when those extremists hijacked a submarine and flew it into the World Trade Center? Wait...
Here are some things I find to be considerably more threatening to my life/liberty than submarines:
- Carcinogenic pollutants in our air and water
- Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles
- Drug Enforcement Agency
- Cars on the road after bar time
- Clowns
- B2 stealth bombers
- Nuclear winter - nsummy, on 01/17/2008, -9/+22This has been going on way before Bush. While I don't agree with the decision, you can't solely blame him. The title sure does help it get dugg though.
- UncleCrapper, on 01/17/2008, -4/+16I don't know why some ***** dugg you down because I had the very same thought. How is that Bush can just sign an exemption to any law (unless the law gives him that authority)? Congress makes the law, the courts interpret the law and the President is obliged to execute the law. It's third grade social studies, people.
- bradcrc, on 01/17/2008, -3/+15I'm against harming animals, but until an alternate technology is available, if they need sonar, they should keep using it.
The part of this that really is concerning is that Bush continues to function as a king or dictator, and ignore the rule of American law. Unbelievable that he continues to do so with no accountability or even media attention. "The president's action is an attack on the rule of law," Pretty amazing that this continues to happen. - jasqwerty, on 01/17/2008, -4/+15LOL, people mad at this must have been ***** themselves when the japs said they're whaling again
- fyngyrz, on 01/17/2008, -5/+15Do you understand how seldom active sonar is used in combat? Sending even one active sonar pulse is a big "hello, here I am, shoot me" signal.
Strategy and tactics aside, it's ***** illegal, and it's just Bush acting as Supreme Dictator again. Just one more year. That's what I keep telling myself. Just one more year. - EllieElliott, on 01/17/2008, -22/+31torture
- DorXtar, on 01/17/2008, -0/+8The use of sonar is not the issue. The issue is, the Navy has a new type of sonar that is designed to "reach-out" farther. This new type of sonar is causing problems with marine life. The navy can keep using it's old sonar, but the new sonar tech obviously needs some tweaking if it's causing animals miles away to become disoriented and die. They don't "need" to use the new sonar, even though they keep pushing the idea that the new sonar is the only sonar that they should be using "in the name of national security". I agree with you about the king/dictator comment. A federal judge already handed down a ruling. The presdient can't just simply pick and choose what rulings he likes.
- inactive, on 01/17/2008, -1/+9I just want to point out that the US Navy was running training exercises recently and two Chinese subs surfaced - previously undetected - in the MIDDLE of the exercise. It turns out they have undetectable rubber-plate coated subs, and the Navy got all shook up over it. So the Decider is fscking with the law just because he can, not because it will help anything. Although it's one way of compensating for a small Johnson.
- DorXtar, on 01/17/2008, -1/+8Bush did this in direct response to a ruling handed down by a Federal Judge on January 3rd.
http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_7877568
http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id ... - brdsofprey, on 01/17/2008, -1/+8You said "Can you tell me how old Sonar technology is? Is there really a need to still test it."
Do you know how old X-ray technology is? Is there still a reason to test that? Do you know that there have been serious advances in x-ray and sonor technology in recent years that only come from this type of testing.
I think that we should respect the sea and its inhabitants, but try to make a better point than it's old. And like DKCO said above, it's too bad that people can actually make a point that may have some validity but end up sounding like they have a grudge to bare. - overridemymind, on 01/17/2008, -0/+7Precisely. Because, you know... Submarines can't carry missiles or anything.... Oh... wait... Yes they can.
- Gir53457, on 01/17/2008, -4/+10Yeah it's harmful to marine wildlife, but what happens when we have a naval warfare situation on our hands? (Cough cough, north Korea). Doesn't the Navy have some sort of computerized training simulation tool that enable them to train troops in the use of computer aided combat via some sort of amazing computer simulation tool? I'd call it a computer simulation.
- wvdavis, on 01/17/2008, -0/+6As a STG you should know that sound travels four times faster and further in water than in air. You say "the sound loses its intensity very quickly after the first few thousand yards." So what's the Navy going to do? Send out a test ping (at a lower decibel) to let all of the animals clear the area before they go to full power. Not likely. Even if they did, due to the sensitivity of these creatures hearing, I doubt several thousands of yards is safe for them. I am sure while you were station aboard the ship you went to the bow and saw dolphins riding the bow wave or watched them as they swam along side for what seemed like miles. As a diver I know 230 will probably collapse any air cavity in your body. These mammals have similar cavities, they are also curious so they going to hang around the ship. Bottom line, there is no safe way for the Navy to run these high powered sonar devices. Sadly you are right; they will continue to run them, but I believe that training is one thing and tracking submarines is another. Besides they (the subs) have not came out to play in earnest since the late eighties.
- angryredplanet, on 01/17/2008, -1/+7I still want to kick his ass.
- slayernine, on 01/17/2008, -4/+10Wait so you guys are in favor of not using sonar? This is one of those matters where its either us or the animals, and as much as I love our furry friends I will go with protecting the life of my fellow man.
- Frostman3D, on 01/17/2008, -0/+6You mean the most overturned court in the us? I'm sure it was.
- pintomp3, on 01/17/2008, -2/+8it has been going on for a while, but he decided to continue it's use despite increasing evidence of the harm it causes marine life.
- autobotguy, on 01/17/2008, -0/+6i think airships can only detect submarines to a certain depth, i.e. a visible on. Also, the majority of them kind of got blown up/ shot down once anti-aircraft weapon technology got better. They were sweet for the day but not a very long lived technology.
- yetAnotherCroc, on 01/17/2008, -1/+6well I guess you can take consolation in the fact that not may would be crazy enough to try to invade the US. The reason they are worried is that they will soon start encountering this type of sub on campaigns in the middle east and Korea etc. Makes policing the world a lot harder when you don't have tactical naval superiority anymore. (Besides the Reagan is not a destroyer, its your biggest Aircraft carrier. So while you are trying to bomb our capitol we sink the landing pads for the bombers. :P And yes I know about long range air craft and airfields on Iceland and in Germany:P As I said, no one would be crazy enough to try it. But if push came to shoves the Swedish coastal waters might turn out to be tougher than you expect.)
- yetAnotherCroc, on 01/17/2008, -5/+10News flash! It has been proven your navy can't find the smaller more modern subs. You had one of our subs over there for excercises for two years and couldnt find it once. We sunk the Reagan, The Los angeles and a few other ships in those excercises. And guess what? That was a ten year old class of our submarines. The new subs we are making now are designed to be even more silent, be able to stay submerged even longer and survive a direct hit by a torpedo. So your navy is in deep sh*t and they know it.
- jdepp, on 01/17/2008, -0/+5In an end-of-times scenario when they're on a mission to nuke 100 million Russians / Arabs / Europeans / etc in the name of national security, then we'll permit them to take a couple of whales as collateral damage. In the meantime on "war games" or exercises they should act like they're interested in the world having a future and mute their system to the point where it doesn't harm wildlife.
- soden240, on 01/17/2008, -4/+9Listen, I'll tell you right now that sonar will only harm animals at a VERY CLOSE RANGE. Yes, It can harm animals. It can harm people as well, divers in particular. I was a sonar technician aboard a destroyer in Japan for a few years. Now, 230 decibels into the water is very very loud. However, the sound loses its intensity very quickly after the first few thousand yards. Big deal? Not really, because the Navy is going to continue to use it's sonar to screen the waters for chinese(or north korean... they're all russian-engineered anyways) submarines that just so happen to wander so far... as they have had a tendency to do in the past.
- ronaldinho, on 01/17/2008, -2/+7If the navy has been doing fine within the Coastal Zone Management Act before, then I don't see why we should exempt the navy. I think the injunction that a no-sonar zone to be erected will work out well and is a good ruling, and Bush's exemption has no effect on it directly (yet).
- sunamc, on 01/17/2008, -1/+6You sir are a moron.You are just apart of and just as dependent on the environment to survive, as every single organism is on this planet.
- alexandramw, on 01/17/2008, -5/+9I hate it when people are only concerned with themselves and their own safety and are not with the other creatures of this world...some humans are entirely selfish.
- Wander2000, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4As someone who worked at a local government environmental agency for over 20 years; I can tell you that the military is exempt from all local, and state laws having to do with environmental regulations and restrictions. They must however, follow their own federal rules.
- Teku, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4Let me get all these out of the way right now:
***** whales on this ***** plane
nuke the whales
blah blah bush is evil
blah blah ron paul would save the whales with his x-ray vision
blah blah the environment is important
blah blah the environment is not important
all done - gpw11, on 01/17/2008, -9/+13Evolution and the food chain disagree.
- yetAnotherCroc, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4I could have given you other links, including from your own military, but I'm at work and dont have time to go researching right now.
Well we have only done a little bit of practice with you guys but apparently they also "sank" two of your subs in excercises. I dont think our detection systems are that spectatular. But it helps to be near undetectable in the water. Apparently the american subs could only detect the Gotland when using active sonar. And we all know how that would end in a real engagement. - ahawks, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4For those who don't have some automated means of detecting/blocking that link, BirdCatcher would like to RickRoll you.
- cg06vx, on 01/17/2008, -13/+17So sacrifice the livelihood that you so enjoy, because the training of navel defense will scare off whales?
You people have you priorities skewed. I would understand if it was a commercial enterprise, but if i had to chose between me and a whale, I'll pick my safety any day over a whale. - an0nym0uz, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3how does have anything to do with the Chinese?
- pintomp3, on 01/17/2008, -1/+4flipper has been placed on the no swim list.
- inactive, on 01/17/2008, -1/+4I have had it with these ***** whales on this ***** submarine! Everybody strap in! I'm about to open some ***** screen doors.
- artwork, on 01/17/2008, -2/+5Booo
- dsmx, on 01/17/2008, -2/+5So environmentalists want to stop the navy using sonar now? Do they have anything to replace sonar?
- angryredplanet, on 01/17/2008, -3/+6World peace
- angryredplanet, on 01/17/2008, -3/+6Conversely, the whale would also choose it's safety over yours. Moot point.
Did you read the article? It's not an all out ban on sonar, just in areas near the coast that support cetacean and other mammalian life affected by sonar. - tricks574, on 01/17/2008, -2/+5Our navy might not be tops, but our air force has not allows a ground based u.s. casualty by enemy air support since the 50's or 60's, so while you are sinking our destroyers, we are bombing your capitol.
- inactive, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3Actually flipper has been on the CIA payroll, codename NEPTUNE, since 1963. He likes his martinis wet with a side of anchovies.
- angryredplanet, on 01/17/2008, -1/+4Dick
- inactive, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3Profit
- angryredplanet, on 01/17/2008, -2/+5Evolution has nothing to do with a species right to a chance at life. It just means that over several epochs, genetic mutations that enable them to survive better are more likely to become the norm for that species (nothing in there about one species being superior over another). Everything is a part of the food chain. By extincting a species, you ***** with the balance that is the food chain by punching holes in it. When you ***** with large species like whales, we don't even know what effect that will have on subsequent levels of the food chain.
Humans are not the be-all-and-end-all. Biodiversity helps us, as a species, stay alive. Realise that. - Frostman3D, on 01/17/2008, -5/+7In our country, supposedly NO ONE is above the law. Bush has nibbled away at the constitution like a fat man on a bag of Doritos.
- ChiefShaman, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2Let's test these military technologies on Bush and his administration first, before it is put into use.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 178 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is