6 ms·

The US navy does not care. They have known about this for years; they have either finished the testing OR they have completed their purpose with regards to the

The US navy does not care. They have known about this for years; they have either finished the testing OR they have completed their purpose with regards to the weapon. My guess is the later Sorry for the DMlinks but 2012 - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2142763/U-S-Navys-sonar-explosives-hurt-dolphins-whales-previously-imagined-causing-creatures-deaf-die-greater-numbers.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2142763/U-S-Navys-so... 2014 - http://www.rt.com/usa/204191-navy-whales-dolphins-military-drills/ http://www.rt.com/usa/204191-navy-whales-dolphins-military-d... 2014 - (about a report from 2000 http://www.wired.com/2014/07/war-of-the-whales/ http://www.wired.com/2014/07/war-of-the-whales/ Given this has been on going for a 15 years we know about, and most likely another 5-10 years before the public noticed it does make me wonder what they were up to 20+ years of Sonar abuse towards animals. Feels more like they had a plan rather than simply testing a weapon.

masklinn 11y ago
> The US navy does not care. Of course it doesn't, which is why it's being made to care by court order.
- TomGullen 11y ago
  > Of course it doesn't Well why not?
  - saiya-jin 11y ago
    not utilizing weapons and tools available to full potential vs possible harm to some marine life... guess what a soldier chooses?
    - TomGullen 11y ago
      So we must just accept the fact that military is there to destroy environments and they just don't really care? I expect more from them.
      - spenczar5 11y ago
        I think that "of course" is often intended to be descriptive of the way things are, not the way things ought to be.
      - Zach_the_Lizard 11y ago
        Destroying the environment is half of what the military does during wartime. So long as we have militaries, it's hard to see a future where we're not burning cities, bombing bridges and other critical infrastructure, and driving around highly environmentally unfriendly tanks, planes, and warships.
        knowaveragejoe 11y ago
        Well, to be fair, the military is also the largest and most capable humanitarian organization at the disposal of the world's governments. To think their sole purpose is destruction for the sake of destruction is also a bit of an oversimplification, peacekeeping is a useful role as well.
        usefulcat 11y ago
        Sole purpose, no; primary purpose, definitely.
        dajohnson89 11y ago
        Yet often, military humanitarian missions are in relief to atrocities caused by... other militaries.
        knowaveragejoe 11y ago
        Sure. They're also the first to respond to natural disasters.
        dajohnson89 11y ago
        That's more likely to be the National Guard or something like that. Which is military indeed, but not the same type of military that we're talking about here.
    - kohanz 11y ago
      > possible harm to some marine life It's not "possible", it is certain and documented. 155 whales and dolphins killed in 5 years and over 2000 injured [0]. And by accounts from marine biologists, they are dying agonizing deaths. [0] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/navy-to-limit-some-training-that-harms-whales-dolphins-pacific/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/navy-to-limit-some-training-that...
  - mhurron 11y ago
    Their entire purpose is to kill people, why would you expect them to care about some animals?
    - wuntune 11y ago
      Search for "navy rescues people" and you will see that the military and other navies around the world do far more than fight and are trained to do far more than fight and do so willingly and without regard for their own safety, every day of every year.
  - droopybuns 11y ago
    Their function is to both perform War and to project enough strength that War is undesirable to other parties. What is the reasonable argument that this institution should prioritize Whale protection in that continuum? I am arguing against you, but I am pro-whale, pro-dolphin, pro-environment. I am trying to make the point that "why not?" is a silly question. It's not simple. People need to fight for doing the right thing here. The Navy's job is "war." If your institution is in possession of & has the opportunity to use nuclear weapons, you aren't spending time focusing on "doing nice things".
- Bluestrike2 11y ago
  It's a settlement, and not a court order. Huge difference. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/navy-settlement-sonar-explosives-testing-in-california-hawaii_55f73373e4b0c2077efbba5e http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/navy-settlement-sonar-ex...
wtbob 11y ago
> They have known about this for years; they have either finished the testing OR they have completed their purpose with regards to the weapon. Sonar is not a weapon; it's a sensor system intended to discover enemy submarines.
- Amezarak 11y ago
  I have no idea what sonar frequencies are what, but to expand on your point, sonar is basically the only kind of sensor that works underwater. Radar and sight are basically useless. Sonar is really all you have to see underwater, and is used heavily for scientific purposes, not only military purposes. Ocean-floor mapping is done with sonar. Active sonar of the kind that hurts whales is not in frequent use by deployed military vessels on military or surveillance missions because, while it gets you a good picture, it also announces "HERE I AM!!!" to the entire world.
  - rustynails 11y ago
    According to Wikipedia, the issue is with (low frequency, active) LFA sonar. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetacean_stranding https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetacean_stranding I read somewhere it's about 240db. For reference, a jackhammer at about 1m (3.3ft away) is 130db and is classified as Painful for humans, http://www.asha.org/public/hearing/Noise/ http://www.asha.org/public/hearing/Noise/ I am not knowledgeable on acoustics, let alone acoustic dissipation or acoustics in water - but I can see logic behind the argument that LFA sonar causes a problem for whales.
    - nitrogen 11y ago
      Also keep in mind that decibels are logarithmic, so 240dB is 10^(24-13) times as much sound power as 130.
      - jleader 11y ago
        No, you forgot that the d stands for deci (i.e., 1/10th). So 240dB is 10^(2.4-1.3) times as much sound power as 130dB.
knowaveragejoe 11y ago
Actually, from my reading on the subject, they're required to stop what they're doing if they see any wildlife in the area. It's the same with other developed navies for the most part. It doesn't always happen, but I got the impression that it does most of the time(and coincidentally is a source of frustration on their part as they have to wait for the wildlife to leave). I can't seem to find the article I was reading about this, but in the comments there were a number of people claiming to be current or former members of various navies, and their responses were mostly along those lines. Some people said they willingly ignored those requirements, however.
MrZongle2 11y ago
"The US navy does not care." Devil's Advocate: why should they? It's not part of their mission. The armed forces of the United States exist to defend the nation. Full stop. Saying that the USN doesn't care about whales is like complaining that Susan G. Komen doesn't care about landmines. It doesn't mean that whale-killing or landmine use is any less repellant, but expecting either to do something about it is out of scope.
pvaldes 11y ago
> the US navy does not care Maybe they should reconsider their position them for practical 'poorpoises', like saving the last 55 maui's dolphins remaining on earth, or preserving the truly unique native aquatic vertebrates frequenting the coasts of Hawaii in their annual migration. http://www.coupay.com/topoften/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/obama_swimming-3.jpg http://www.coupay.com/topoften/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ob... Sound travels at 0.9 miles by second in the sea, so this poses a very interesting question about what should be a theoretical safe distance for a sonar. Maybe somebody here could answer this. I hope they keep the keys for this engine safe and not sound in any case.
- vonmoltke 11y ago
  > Sound travels at 0.9 miles by second in the sea, so this poses a very interesting question about what should be a theoretical safe distance for a sonar. Maybe somebody here could answer this. I hope they keep the keys for this engine safe and not sound in any case. Speed doesn't matter, it's all about the wavefront. The radar equation provides a rough guide here, in that the power of the signal drops off at a ratio proportional to the distance squared, the r^2 dependency. I have no idea what the rest of the terms in that equation would be, though, as I have only ever done the calculations for RF in air.

masklinn 11y ago

> The US navy does not care. Of course it doesn't, which is why it's being made to care by court order.

TomGullen 11y ago
> Of course it doesn't Well why not?
- saiya-jin 11y ago
  not utilizing weapons and tools available to full potential vs possible harm to some marine life... guess what a soldier chooses?
  - TomGullen 11y ago
    So we must just accept the fact that military is there to destroy environments and they just don't really care? I expect more from them.
    - spenczar5 11y ago
      I think that "of course" is often intended to be descriptive of the way things are, not the way things ought to be.
    - Zach_the_Lizard 11y ago
      Destroying the environment is half of what the military does during wartime. So long as we have militaries, it's hard to see a future where we're not burning cities, bombing bridges and other critical infrastructure, and driving around highly environmentally unfriendly tanks, planes, and warships.
      - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
        Well, to be fair, the military is also the largest and most capable humanitarian organization at the disposal of the world's governments. To think their sole purpose is destruction for the sake of destruction is also a bit of an oversimplification, peacekeeping is a useful role as well.
        usefulcat 11y ago
        Sole purpose, no; primary purpose, definitely.
        dajohnson89 11y ago
        Yet often, military humanitarian missions are in relief to atrocities caused by... other militaries.
        knowaveragejoe 11y ago
        Sure. They're also the first to respond to natural disasters.
        dajohnson89 11y ago
        That's more likely to be the National Guard or something like that. Which is military indeed, but not the same type of military that we're talking about here.
  - kohanz 11y ago
    > possible harm to some marine life It's not "possible", it is certain and documented. 155 whales and dolphins killed in 5 years and over 2000 injured [0]. And by accounts from marine biologists, they are dying agonizing deaths. [0] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/navy-to-limit-some-training-that-harms-whales-dolphins-pacific/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/navy-to-limit-some-training-that...
- mhurron 11y ago
  Their entire purpose is to kill people, why would you expect them to care about some animals?
  - wuntune 11y ago
    Search for "navy rescues people" and you will see that the military and other navies around the world do far more than fight and are trained to do far more than fight and do so willingly and without regard for their own safety, every day of every year.
- droopybuns 11y ago
  Their function is to both perform War and to project enough strength that War is undesirable to other parties. What is the reasonable argument that this institution should prioritize Whale protection in that continuum? I am arguing against you, but I am pro-whale, pro-dolphin, pro-environment. I am trying to make the point that "why not?" is a silly question. It's not simple. People need to fight for doing the right thing here. The Navy's job is "war." If your institution is in possession of & has the opportunity to use nuclear weapons, you aren't spending time focusing on "doing nice things".
Bluestrike2 11y ago
It's a settlement, and not a court order. Huge difference. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/navy-settlement-sonar-explosives-testing-in-california-hawaii_55f73373e4b0c2077efbba5e http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/navy-settlement-sonar-ex...

wtbob 11y ago

> They have known about this for years; they have either finished the testing OR they have completed their purpose with regards to the weapon. Sonar is not a weapon; it's a sensor system intended to discover enemy submarines.

Amezarak 11y ago
I have no idea what sonar frequencies are what, but to expand on your point, sonar is basically the only kind of sensor that works underwater. Radar and sight are basically useless. Sonar is really all you have to see underwater, and is used heavily for scientific purposes, not only military purposes. Ocean-floor mapping is done with sonar. Active sonar of the kind that hurts whales is not in frequent use by deployed military vessels on military or surveillance missions because, while it gets you a good picture, it also announces "HERE I AM!!!" to the entire world.
- rustynails 11y ago
  According to Wikipedia, the issue is with (low frequency, active) LFA sonar. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetacean_stranding https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetacean_stranding I read somewhere it's about 240db. For reference, a jackhammer at about 1m (3.3ft away) is 130db and is classified as Painful for humans, http://www.asha.org/public/hearing/Noise/ http://www.asha.org/public/hearing/Noise/ I am not knowledgeable on acoustics, let alone acoustic dissipation or acoustics in water - but I can see logic behind the argument that LFA sonar causes a problem for whales.
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    Also keep in mind that decibels are logarithmic, so 240dB is 10^(24-13) times as much sound power as 130.
    - jleader 11y ago
      No, you forgot that the d stands for deci (i.e., 1/10th). So 240dB is 10^(2.4-1.3) times as much sound power as 130dB.

knowaveragejoe 11y ago

Actually, from my reading on the subject, they're required to stop what they're doing if they see any wildlife in the area. It's the same with other developed navies for the most part. It doesn't always happen, but I got the impression that it does most of the time(and coincidentally is a source of frustration on their part as they have to wait for the wildlife to leave). I can't seem to find the article I was reading about this, but in the comments there were a number of people claiming to be current or former members of various navies, and their responses were mostly along those lines. Some people said they willingly ignored those requirements, however.

MrZongle2 11y ago

"The US navy does not care." Devil's Advocate: why should they? It's not part of their mission. The armed forces of the United States exist to defend the nation. Full stop. Saying that the USN doesn't care about whales is like complaining that Susan G. Komen doesn't care about landmines. It doesn't mean that whale-killing or landmine use is any less repellant, but expecting either to do something about it is out of scope.

pvaldes 11y ago

> the US navy does not care Maybe they should reconsider their position them for practical 'poorpoises', like saving the last 55 maui's dolphins remaining on earth, or preserving the truly unique native aquatic vertebrates frequenting the coasts of Hawaii in their annual migration. http://www.coupay.com/topoften/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/obama_swimming-3.jpg http://www.coupay.com/topoften/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ob... Sound travels at 0.9 miles by second in the sea, so this poses a very interesting question about what should be a theoretical safe distance for a sonar. Maybe somebody here could answer this. I hope they keep the keys for this engine safe and not sound in any case.

vonmoltke 11y ago
> Sound travels at 0.9 miles by second in the sea, so this poses a very interesting question about what should be a theoretical safe distance for a sonar. Maybe somebody here could answer this. I hope they keep the keys for this engine safe and not sound in any case. Speed doesn't matter, it's all about the wavefront. The radar equation provides a rough guide here, in that the power of the signal drops off at a ratio proportional to the distance squared, the r^2 dependency. I have no idea what the rest of the terms in that equation would be, though, as I have only ever done the calculations for RF in air.