Slashdot Log In
US Supreme Court Allows Sonar Use
Posted by
samzenpus
on Wed Nov 12, 2008 10:17 PM
from the dolphin-earplugs dept.
from the dolphin-earplugs dept.
gollum123 writes "The US Supreme Court has removed restrictions on the Navy's use of sonar in training exercises near California. The ruling is a defeat for environmental groups who say the sonar can kill whales and other mammals. In its 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court said the Navy needed to conduct realistic training exercises to respond to potential threats. The court did not deal with the merits of the claims put forward by the environmental groups. In reinstating the use of sonar, the top US court rejected a lower federal judge's injunction that had required the US Navy to take various precautions during submarine-hunting exercises. The Bush administration argued that there is little evidence of harm to marine life in more than 40 years of exercises off the California coast. It said that the judges should have deferred to the judgment of the Navy and Mr Bush. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said overall public interest was 'strongly in favor of the Navy.' 'The most serious possible injury would be harm to an unknown number of the marine mammals,' Chief Justice Roberts wrote. 'In contrast, forcing the Navy to deploy an inadequately trained anti-submarine force jeopardizes the safety of the fleet.'"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Navy's response. (Score:5, Funny)
"Can you hear me now? Good!"
Re:Navy's response. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Navy's response. (Score:5, Insightful)
I have the irrational need to stab you. Repeatedly. In the groinal area. Did I mention repeatedly?
I disagree. Based on my post, the need is actually rational, not irrational.
Parent
Re:Navy's response. (Score:5, Interesting)
That's irrelevant. There are plenty of other places where testing can be done - place other than those we know that whales are frequently at.
The testing and training isnt at issue - the location was.
Just like the example cited above by the guy you responded to. Jets can fly reaaaally fast - but not at 1000 feet above a house while breaking the sound barrier.
Parent
What? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
China and Russia. We're going to have to do something once our credit rating gets updated [cnbc.com] and our economic inertia burns out.
It's not getting any better.
Parent
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
My guess is they considered the science, not the Chicken Little hyperbole.
Environmentalists (as opposed to conservationists) depend on emotional appeal rather than science and rational analysis to further their agenda. Ergo, the court rightly dismissed their claims for the bullshit that it is.
Maybe you should have tried applying some of that rationality by reading the actual article instead of, I don't know, making shit up.
In its 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court said the navy needed to conduct realistic training exercises to respond to potential threats. The court did not deal with the merits of the claims put forward by the environmental groups. It said, rather, that federal courts abused their discretion by ordering the navy to limit sonar use in some cases and to turn it off altogether in others.
They didn't consider the science at all.
Parent
Re:What? (Score:5, Interesting)
Environmentalists (as opposed to conservationists) depend on emotional appeal rather than science and rational analysis to further their agenda. Ergo, the court rightly dismissed their claims for the bullshit that it is.
Seriously? And this sentence isn't emotional appeal with a lack of science how?
Jepson et al. reporting in Nature has stated that there is a "generally accepted link between some beaked-whale strandings and sonar use" [1 [seaturtle.org]]. More specifically, during a Spanish mid frequency sonar exercise 14 beaked-whales beached themselves. Spanish scientists autopsied 10 of the whales and all had damage similar to decompression sickness [2 [bbc.co.uk]].
There is some science regarding this issue. To completely throw it out the window without consideration, calling it bullshit, is more emotionally driven than the environmentalists you accuse in your post.
And as a side point, what would emotionally charged environmentalists have to gain by stopping sonar exercises around whales?
Parent
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, questioning the patriotism of people with a different view than yours, wonder where you learned that?
Since you claim the environmentalists want dead sailors and a weakened America, please cite your proof, or are you just name calling because you have no other reason to hate them aside from the fact you hate them?
You can make make up all the shit you want, but unless you have proof of something, at least admit you're spouting shit.
Parent
Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)
Look up Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, yo.
Or, for more recent examples:
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
Rasul v. Bush
Boumediene v. Bush
Parent
Let the wolves decide whether to eat the sheep (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think the Navy as a government organization or the president have anything relevant to say in the matter. It is what the marine biologists and the science they do says. If their science says that such operations definitely harm marine mammals, then the Navy should be required to take certain precautions before doing their exercises. If there is no conclusive evidence, or if the evidence is circumstantial at best, then there's no reason to stop the Navy from doing their thing until such evidence is found.
Now, if the evidence was indeed that strong, maybe PETA or some other animal rights group can and should bring suit against the Navy for harming the animals. If indeed the evidence is that strong, then this ruling is meaningless (the Supreme court didn't comment on the environmentalist's stance, which leaves the door wide open for more lawsuits). But until that time that the evidence really becomes that strong, I'm not sure national security should be jeopardized for the sake of a hunch or even an educated guess.
Re:Let the wolves decide whether to eat the sheep (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey - I'm all for protecting the enviornment. However, it certainly isn't the ONLY consideration in a case like this. I don't think that anything could be worse for the enviornment than hundreds of nuclear ballistic missles, and yet I certainly sleep better knowing that they're present as a deterrant against a nuclear attack.
Yes, we ought to care for the planet we live on, and that includes its ecosystems. It is in our own interest, and it also is generally the right thing to do. However, when the interests of humans collide with the interests of animals, you need to be realistic. A navy that is inadequate for the task of defending US interests encourages an attack upon those interests. Some have implied that submarines are unnecessary in the modern world - nothing could be further from the truth. However, a perfect army is one that never needs to fight a battle. When you have the perfect army then nobody messes with you in the first place. That doesn't mean that we should go around picking fights - but it is not in the interests of the US to fall behind either.
Parent
It was actually 6-3 (or 5-1-1-2) (Score:5, Informative)
Breyer wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. He agreed that the district court failed to follow the law when it imposed the two restrictions at issue on the Navy's sonar testing pending completion of the environmental impact statement. In this portion of his opinion, he agreed with the Navy. In the second part of his opinion, he disagreed that the proper response was to get rid of the two conditions.
Stevens concurred in the first part of Breyer's decision and did not join the second part. In other words, he concurred in the judgment of the Court. In total, seven justices agreed with the Navy's position that the district court's order was not in accord with the law.
A sailor chimes in.. (Score:5, Informative)
I routinely spend large amounts of time at sea for the US Navy. The ship I am on doesn't have active sonar, but:
- We have a OS(W)or AB(W) topside at all times watching when we are underway watching for whales. The whale has the right of way.
- We're not allowed to intentionally encroach within 1km to a whale. Dolphins and similar are fast moving/smart enough to think we might eat them. Most whales appear to think we are a really big whale and seem to like coming over to visit.
- If our direction of travel is blocked by a whale, we must either steer to avoid or perform a rather unloved manuveur known as a 'crash stop'.
- If we are operating with another ship we must abort operations if a whale enters the area.
Re:Third world (Score:5, Insightful)
China has plenty of subs, and I promise you they don't give a crap about whales.
Parent
Re:Third world (Score:5, Insightful)
Despite China maneuvering itself into third-world status for the purposes of the Kyoto Treaty, China isn't third-world. By definition, I don't think you can consider one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council to be third-world.
But, yes, they aren't exactly hampered by lawsuits or demonstrations when they want to conduct military training.
Parent
Re:Third world (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course they aren't, that isn't the point. The point is, they have a significant naval presence in the Pacific, and are more than enough reason to conduct sonar training exercises there.
Parent
Re:Third world (Score:5, Insightful)
A very noble thought indeed, but unfortunately not liking war isn't the same as not understanding there are times for it, and preparing yourself for other countries which may not believe the same way.
Additionally, you have to remember that as far as our country's military leaders are concerned the people who choose to enlist in our military are more important than those who they may have to fight against.
Parent
Re:lol... (Score:5, Insightful)
We've already killed off most of the megafauna that existed on this planet. I want to keep what we have left.
((really.. were you being sarcastic? It'd be kind of hard to justify the existence of any living being based on that criteria. YOU certainly wouldn't escape the rendering plant.))
Parent
Re:Little evidence my ass (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
I wonder if you will stand by your words (Score:5, Funny)
When the "fucking whales" go mad from all the pinging and start tipping over boats. Full of babies. American babies. Who will have white skin. All of them.
Or when they start humping US submarines thus giving away their position when those evil terrorist Al-Qaeda submarines come along.
And haven't you seen that documentary earlier this year? It was in all theaters.
You don't fuck with the big underwater creatures.
Or they will come out, rip off the head off of the Statue of Liberty, rape it, and throw it in the middle of Manhattan.
Cause that is what happens when you fuck a whale in the ass, Larry.
Parent
Re:Take that, hippies (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Similar test (Score:5, Funny)
Parent