Navy Vs. Whale
- NRDC News
- NRDC News Team, NRDC Offices Worldwide
- Blog | About
- Posted October 8, 2008 in The Media and the Environment
In the Chicago Tribune, Henry Henderson points out that though there is a great opportunity to use wind power in Chicago, before the city moves forward, there are tough questions that need to be addressed… Ann Alexander is quoted numerous times in a lengthy Illinois Business Journal article explaining the refinery settlement with ConocoPhillips... Today, the US Supreme Court will hear opening arguments in the “Navy vs. whales” case; Christian Science Monitor reports, quoting Joel Reynolds… Sharon Buccino comments on the possible roles for natural gas in America’s energy future in McClatchy Tribune News Service… David Hawkins emphasizes that any national cap-and-trade legislation " must preserve existing Clean Air Act authority and the ability of states to operate as innovation laboratories” in E&E News…
(bookmark or email this entry)
Comments are closed for this post.
We close comments on a blog post when it's clear the conversation has moved on -- click on the tags (above) or on our homepage to see if we've got fresh news and views on this post's topic.
Comments
Steven Dickens — Oct 8 2008 07:43 PM
It is ridiculous to try to prohibit the effective training of our Navy personnel over the cause and effect on marine life. It is crucial that our service men and women be able to perform their duties to protect and preserve HUMAN life I don't think Shamu and Flipper are up to the task!!
John Denton — Oct 8 2008 11:56 PM
See my post on dailykos at 12pm Pacific.
Courtney Hamilton — Oct 9 2008 10:55 AM
Steven- thanks for commenting. I think you bring up a good point. It's important to make this clear: *Every* court that has considered this issue has unanimously concluded that the Navy can reduce the risk of harm to marine life by using commonsense safeguards, *without* compromising our military readiness.
We do not need to choose between saving flipper and training to protect Americans.
We can have both.
And if we can have both, why would we ever settle for less? Why would we ever settle for marine safeguards that a district court judge called "woefully inadequate"?
You can learn more here:
http://www.nrdc.org/media/2008/081008.asp
Ray Carpenter — Oct 9 2008 05:36 PM
Steven,
What people here do not either understand, or just don't care about, is that American lives rely on the ability to accurately target and respond to any underwater threat.
The victor in a tactical underwater environment is the one that can remain stealthy while maintaining a "fix" on his enemy. Both sides will initially endeavor to remain quite and concealed as they quietly maneuver to acquire tactical and targeting information. As silently as possible, they will slowly glide and turn to optimize their sensors position and remain hidden. Active sonar, the villainous type bemoaned here, would be disastrous in this scenario. The Sender of these acrostic waves may, or may not acquire his enemies, but he would certainly be broadcasting his precise position and depth to any and all of them in the process. It would be a suicidal act that would spell certain doom against todays lethal underwater weaponry. The situation that would compel any Submarine Captain to utilize the ability would certainly be urgent, dire, and a last ditch attempt to survive.
In that event, I have no problem with the use of Active Sonar, I am still of the politically incorrect mindset that American life must prevail in a wartime environment, even at the expense of animals, as sad as that may be.