I agree completely. Even worse is how some people (in the article) think that there should be regular patrols to prevent "illegal" diving at these sites. So w

I agree completely. Even worse is how some people (in the article) think that there should be regular patrols to prevent "illegal" diving at these sites. So we want to waste resources and fuel just patrolling some remote ocean site to keep people from messing with an old ship sunken decades ago, and also not let any non-salvagers just look at it? It's crazy. I'm all for museums and saving history, but this isn't it. Museums are great: you take something that could otherwise be lost, and you preserve and protect it and put it on display so that people can see it and learn from it. Keeping people away from a sunken warship doesn't do that at all. And the concern for the feelings of relatives of these long-dead crew is nuts too. How much concern is there for the feelings of the descendants of King Tut with his body on display? With these old ships, there are no bodies in many cases: human remains don't last long in the sea, unless they're locked up in a watertight compartment. The final paragraph of the article is the only place where they really got it right: if you want to preserve these things, then salvage them yourself and put them in a museum. If you're going to leave something abandoned in the middle of nowhere, you can't get mad when someone comes and takes it.