Comments for Overlooked: Sonar and Navy »
Posted By Dakota 1 year, 5 months ago in NewsLast week, the Supreme Court agreed to review the case of Winter v. NRDC, a case ostensibly about the Navy's use of sonar during military training exercises, but in reality about the extent of President Bush's power in influencing court decisions.
Read Full Story at newsquake.netscape.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 55
-
Neutral
bigurn1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sonar used in active mode will find a target, but will show the target where the sound waves are coming from. The Navy rarely uses active sonar except in actual hunting exercises, and usually from a sonar drone and not a ship. The most common sonar is passive arrayed sonar, which collects sound and doesn't emit it.
The evidence thus far is not conclusive, and is clouded by our own lack of understanding of the behavior of whales. The 9th District essentially pronounced the Navy guilty without any scientific evidence.
Certainly there needs to be more studied here, and certainly we should think about national security. China is quietly building the world's largest sub fleet, and they are a world power.
Good article here: http://www.holology.com/whale.html
Reply-
Neutral
injest1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Good link big, I noticed it was updated June 2008, strange they left "Chinese sub pops up middle of U.S. Navy exercise" out. Guess it didn't fit their narrative.
"The pervasive diesel sub threat propounded by the Navy seems unlikely.
Although they are stealthy when using electric power underwater they must surface to run very loud diesel generators to recharge their batteries.
This tactical role suits most countries such as Iran or China fine but the threat they pose to American forces would seem to be rather limited, basically the unlikely possibility of a stealthy rogue sub sneaking up on an American carrier battle group patrolling foreign waters.
"unlikely possibility of a stealthy rogue sub sneaking up on an American carrier battle group"
Reply-
Neutral
injest1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced
By MATTHEW HICKLEY
Last updated at 00:13 10 November 2007
One Nato figure said the effect was "as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik" - a reference to the Soviet Union's first orbiting satellite in 1957 which marked the start of the space age.
Reply-
Neutral
lfergie8121 year, 5 months ago
-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive3 Replies
-
-
-
Neutral
injest1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
jimdoze
"Active sonar is worse than useless, when not in attack mode, because its source can be traced"
Uhm surface ships, Carrier Battle groups are not trying to hide.
Submarines on the other hand, are trying to hide, that's why their under the water, that's why making them ultra quiet is the goal.
That why surface ships need to use "Active Sonar" to locate them.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
bigurn1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree that China is an economic threat. Read "China 2030", an astounding read. Their policies suggest that their economic growth will be supported, in part, by their military strength.
And.... THEY DON'T CARE. They will be successful, no matter how long or what they have to do. The Chinese see time in very long viewpoints, because their history is thousands of years long. They are a patient people, and are quite happy to peck away at their goals a little at a time.
Reply-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well given that the US has been using its military in support of business imperialism for over a century now, we are hardly in a position to complain. When and if we start closing down our 700 foreign military bases and stop threatening the whole world, then we might have reason to object to China, which so far has committed far fewer crimes than the US.
Blowback
The Costs and Consequences of American Empire
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blowback_CJoh...
Abolish the CIA!
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/1984/chalmers_j...
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, you are correct. That is why there are so many parts of the US with strong Spanish heritage that outdates the US. None the less, our imperialists really got the bit between their teeth on a world scale with the Spanish-American war. I wonder how many Americans know that in the last 100 years we have invaded Cuba five times or that we had to ask Brazil to help rescue our troops when the Mexicans were throwing them out just before WWI?
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The evidence thus far is not conclusive, and is clouded by our own lack of understanding of the behavior of whales. The 9th District essentially pronounced the Navy guilty without any scientific evidence. "
Isn't this what Creationists say about Evolution? The evidence is fairly conclusive. When the Subs use active radar, whales, porposes, dolphins, and other cetaceans tend to beach themselves in the vicinity or act extremely out of character in dangerous ways.
The danger, though, isn't in that (so much) but it is in the fact that BushCo tried to overturn a legal ruling based on the assertion of the idea of a 'unitary executive.' Much like he does with every signing statement where he says he is going to violate the law without regard.
Reply-
Neutral
Gransater1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You're right. This really is about two separate issues.
1 - Are we harming cetatians, by using assorted technology, both in civilian and defense settings. So far the observed results would seem to indicate harm is being done. Acording to one of the articles, if they can "track a whale for 43 days in the open ocean", on a passive system, why isn't that enough in tracking capability? Put a SOSUS system strategecaly located in the Pacific and Indian oceans, and we ought to be able to do all tracking we need.
2 - The second issue is really about using the label of Homeland Security, to override established legal court procedures. It seems everytime this admin wants something, out comes the treat of Homeland Security. I think Goebels would have been extreemly proud of this admin in how it uses and emphasises the external/internal treat to demolish what our forefathers created, after long and careful thought.
Reply-
Neutral
mrbs1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
why isn't that enough in tracking capability?
because super quiet subs would be able to get around them sounding like a whale.also in noisy water ..say a fleet formation..one could easily sneak up hidden by all the other screws in the water.
external/internal treat to demolish what our forefathers created
what our for fathers created was destroyed long ago.to prove the point you were never taught that the only purpose of the goverment is to deal with internal and external threats.
Reply-
Neutral
Gransater1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If these subs are as quiet as whales, how do we then diferentiate one from another? Do we go after each and every target untill the acustic solution tells us what it is? Do we destroy cetatians in order to accomplish that? Are we that insecure about ourselves?
As to sneaking up in a fleet formation. Its not a question of sending out an acustic signal, we have enough power for that allready, its a question of reading the return, ie sensitive enough hydrophones to pick up the sound, and, a computer program to filter out "friendly" noise. This is where a lot of attention needs to be focused, not in the increase of noise.
External/internal treats. What our forefathers created is in the PROCESS of being destroyed. There is fortunately plenty still left over. Are you suggesting that because we are and have been gutting it, there is nothing to stop us from interely shredding it?
Reply-
Neutral
mrbs1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
yes it is a question of sending out a single when you have seconds to fire a torpedo.all that filtering takes time and in war a half a second delay one time can make the difference in not only a battle but whos flag is flying over head.personally i like ours instead of the furors or that of china.
as for shredding it already has ,the senate was to be appointed by the governors not a popular vote.in order to vote you had to be a land owner.the changes to these are what will lead to the destruction.
Reply-
Neutral
Gransater1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
All that filtering is done in real time, measured in miliseconds. Before you go of firing weapons you still have to be certain you are shooting at a valid target. Going of halfcocked leads to problems that often can't be repaired. Also, we are talking about peacetime routine here, not in a hostile envinronment during war. There are protocols to follow in peace time, and another vessel is not fired upon in open waters, unless they display hostile intent. That would be the time when seconds counts, not before, unless you are talking about being a bully and ignoring all kinds of treaties and international agreements.
If I read you correctly, since we have been shredding our country's foundation, its rules and moral/legal standards for some time, why bother trying to reverse the trend. Its a done deal anyway. Is that what you are saying? If so, don't you think we ought to try and reverse that trend, or are you willing to create a new country, possibly for the worse?
Reply-
Neutral
mrbs1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
if they dont use them in peace time they wont know how to use the effectively during war time.we are talking about training the military for its only reason of existence and thats to kill people and break things.an active ping gives exact location down to the inch and the shape size direction of travel and so much info you need to target then a passive system.a passive system is a public gps system that gets its info from 3 birds.. gets you to within 10 or 20 feet ..active is the military grade that gets it info from 5 or 6 or more.gets you down to the inch.now these men and women need to train with active so that when we are ALLREADY on a war footing they need to know how to work it blindfolded and one handed and know what to do with the information befor it comes out.
as to the second part it may be time
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
injest1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The evidence is fairly conclusive. When the Subs use active radar, whales, porposes, dolphins, and other cetaceans tend to beach themselves in the vicinity or act extremely out of character in dangerous ways."
Is there any historical data of whales, porpoises, dolphins beaching themselves before SONAR? (SONAR first used around 1916.)
Whales and others travel in "pods" doing "follow the leader", any data on
Whale traveling to close to shore becoming beached and others follow in becoming stranded as well?
Areas that have a very gentle slope to shore?
Truth is there are many reasons that whales, porpoises, dolphins beach themselves, it been happing for thousands of years.
Reply-
Neutral
quackpot1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Where is the burden of proof?
The burden of proof should NOT be on the whales.
Rather, the burden of proof should be on the Navy to:
1) CLEARLY demonstrate that EACH of these exercises is ESSENTIAL.
2) That the ESSENTIAL nature of the exercises trumps ALL other considerations.
The Bush Administration wants to reduce this burden of proof to a simple "I siad so, so it is true".
Not good enough.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
bigurn1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I believe the evidence is that the Navy tries a sonar exercise, then at some point afterward, there is an increase in cetacean beachings. There is no direct evidence that one casues the other, so no, it is not conclusive. There could easily be another cause. If I was the President, I would favor national security issues over cetacean activity until such a connection could be proven. The Chinese will NOT concern themselves with whales, and will use our concern as an "in" to the coastlines.
Reply-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ah my, another of the conservative scaredy-cats trying to dupe americans into accepting fascism. The "evil muslims" are not enough to justify continuing massive military corruption?
Conservatives and Their Carnival of Fraud
Politics â;; Did Adam Smith-tied evangelists of "limited government" have any idea they were greasing the skids for 22-year-old arms dealers? How could a kid barely able to buy beer secure a nearly $300 million defense contract? When they finally put their theory into practice, conservatives contrived one of the most wasteful systems ever seen.
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/06/30/...
Reply-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Exposing Pentagon and CIA Corruption
Politics â;; The Special Operations Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI), who is also a two-star general, sent extensive government corruption and cover-up information to Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform committee - in 12 separate cases.
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/06/12/...
Challenging the Militarization of U.S. Energy Policy
Politics â;; The use of the US military to "protect" foreign oil supplies costs Americans at least $140 billion per year. This is not generating security, but increasing blowback against America throughout the world. It's well past time to stop garrisoning the global gas station.
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/06/12/...
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
injest1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
miklkit
"The fact that this case has made it to the Supreme Court says it's not about the rule of law, but about the usurpation of our Constitution by the career criminals in the White House."
A truly stupid statement. This case goes back to 1997. Do a little research so you know the basics of what is being said.
Reply-
Neutral
miklkit1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You didn't read the article, did you?
By the Navy's own estimate, 170,000 marine mammals have been affected by its sonar exercises over the last two years. The military branch still argues that the exercises are vital to training. But when the Supreme Court hears the case this fall, the justices will not weigh in on whether the dolphins and whales are being harmed. As the New York Times point outs, the court is really considering "the balance of power between the executive branch and the courts in resolving such issues. In an effort to sidestep the courts, the Bush administration invoked national security to exempt the Navy from strict adherence to the two federal environmental laws that underlay the court decisions."
Reply-
Neutral
lfergie8121 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
mikkit
Touche' Some people get so involved with defending Bush that they lose sight of the actual topic of the article. Sure the case goes back to 1997 but that is not what's being discussed. The Navy knows that the sonar is harmful to sea animals but that isn't the issue. Bush is trying to use "national security" to stop the courts from making unfavorable decision concerning government dealings. As you implied, he doesn't want the Constitution to stop him from acting outside the law.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
miklkit1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Autopsies done on whales shows hemorrhaging around the brain. In other mammals with a similar brain size (us) this is usually attributed to blunt trauma. You know, car wrecks and baseball bats. The Navy has developed a weapon so powerful that it can kill over hundreds of square miles. Beware of unforeseen consequences. This was recognized and laws were enacted. Now you republicons want to turn this mass murder ( their brains are at least as large as yours and mine) into a test of their theory of the unitary executive. You are morally and ethically bankrupt. How will you ever wash the blood off of your hands?
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is just one more example of the Bush administration crying "national security" to cover up crimes and corruption.
The main difference here is that because the case precedes the Bush administration, they were unable to follow their usual practice - claiming "national security" to prevent the crimes from even being investigated.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
CrusaderRabbit1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This administration has totally ignored the Constitution feeling it gets a 'free pass' after 9/11 and the war in Iraq. This is just another area feel justified using the cover of 'national security.' Hopefully this election will begin to put big business, military interests and the republican power brokers in their place. Our personal freedoms, ecology and economy have been destroyed and its time for everyone to stand up and make a change on the local, state and national level.
We need to reclaim our voice in the affairs of this nation. It is time to take back the government from the fear mongers, militarists and big business. We need to take control as citizens and guide the government in our best interests, not be guided by the best interests of our government.
Reply-
-
Neutral
dwemm1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So why are they appealing the case to the Supremes based on an argument made by this administration? The Clintons are not arguing this, the appeal was just made.
Once again, this isn't about whales. It's about balance of power and the admin testing to see if national security issues will pass the Supreme Court-and see if the majority will rule in favor of them.
There are environmental laws that inconvenience the Bush/Cheney military establishment and they want to test the waters for later "security" related issues. They just want to see how long they can ignore congressional prerogatives.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Cityslicker1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Must have been a slow day at Nutscape , I mean now writing stories on e-mails sent between Nutscape employees .
Whales are smart , at least smarter than this person gives them credit for .
I though the Greenies already did the "Save the Whales" campaign , must have missed that one .
Cousteau use side scanning sonar for exploring , and they are the keepers of the Seas so to speak !
Reply -
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.