The U.S. government may allow use of a powerful new system despite evidence that military sonar kills marine animals. For the last several years the U.S. Navy has been moving ahead with plans to deploy Low Frequency Active Sonar, or LFA -- a new extended-range submarine-detection system that will introduce into the world's oceans noise billions of times more intense than that known to disturb large whales. Now the National Marine Fisheries Service has proposed issuing a permit that would allow the Navy to proceed with LFA deployment and, in the process, to harass, injure, or even kill marine mammals while flooding the ocean with intense noise. Undeniable evidence that high-power "active" sonar systems can and do kill marine animals emerged in March 2000, when beach strandings of four different species of whales and dolphins in the Bahamas coincided with a Navy battle group's use of extremely loud active sonar there. Despite efforts to save the whales, seven of them died; A National Marine Fisheries Service and Navy investigation established with virtual certainty a connection between the strandings and the sonar -- and that active-sonar system put out mid-frequency sound, which generally does not travel as far as LFA. Although active sonar has been suspected in previous strandings, analysis of the heads of several dead whales enabled scientists to confirm, for the first time, the dangerous role of active sonar to a level of certainty that even the Navy could not ignore. All but one of the whales suffered hemorrhages in and around the ear, almost certainly the result of acoustic trauma. And in February 2001, a marine scientist observed that at least one of the whale species that stranded in the Bahamas had virtually disappeared from the area, raising questions about impacts well beyond the initial strandings and deaths. According to the Navy, LFA functions much like a floodlight, scanning the ocean at vast distances with intense sound. Each transmitter in the system's long array can generate 215 decibels of sound, a level millions of times more intense than is considered safe for human divers. Worse yet, not far from the array of transmitters the signals begin to combine, and the result as the signals travel is sound as forceful as if as much as 240 decibels had been transmitted at the source. (To understand just how powerful these sounds are, keep in mind that the decibel scale used for measuring noise is like the Richter scale used for measuring earthquakes -- both use small differences to express increasing orders of magnitude. ) Thanks to the combined power of all these sound waves, LFA can illuminate hundreds of thousands of square miles of ocean at one time. In 1991, scientists produced a loud, low-frequency signal off the coast of Heard Island in the southern Indian Ocean, and found that it was still detectable off the West Coast of the United States. That signal was effectively 100 times less powerful than LFA's. For years the Navy had been testing the LFA system in complete secrecy and in violation of environmental laws. In 1995, NRDC brought the sonar tests to light and demanded that the Navy comply with federal and state statutes and disclose how the sonar would affect marine mammals, sea turtles and other ocean species. As a result, the Pentagon agreed to conduct a full-scale study of environmental impacts before putting the LFA system into use across an estimated 80 percent of the world's oceans. In late January 2001, the Navy released its Environmental Impact Statement, which according to law should be a "rigorous and objective evaluation" of environmental risks. Yet the Navy's study fails to answer the most basic questions about its controversial system: How will LFA affect the long-term health and behavior of whales, dolphins and hundreds of other species? Taking place as it does over an enormous geographic area, what effect might it have on marine populations? According to the Navy's study, scientists briefly exposed a 32-year-old Navy diver to LFA sonar at a level of 160 decibels -- a fraction of the intensity at which the LFA system is designed to operate. After 12 minutes, the diver experienced severe symptoms, including dizziness and drowsiness. After being hospitalized, he relapsed, suffering memory dysfunction and seizure. Two years later he was being treated with anti-depressant and anti-seizure medications. Whales use their exquisitely sensitive hearing to follow migratory routes, locate one another over great distances, find food and care for their young. Noise that undermines their ability to hear can threaten their ability to function and survive. As one scientist succinctly put it: "A deaf whale is a dead whale." But what concerns marine scientists even more than short-term effects on individual animals is the potential long-term impact that the Navy's LFA system might have on the behavior and viability of entire populations of marine mammals. Sound has been shown to divert bowhead and gray whales and other whales from their migration paths, to cause sperm and humpback whales to cease vocalizing, and to induce a range of other effects, from distressed behavior to panic. A mass stranding of beaked whales off the west coast of Greece in 1996 has been associated with an LFA-type system being tested by NATO. And last year's whale deaths in the Bahamas add further evidence of the risks of intense active sonar. Leading marine experts say the Navy's limited assessment cannot tell us how long-term exposure to LFA sonar will affect the breeding, feeding, and migration of whales and other marine species. It is exactly such long-term effects on vital activities, say the experts, that pose the greatest risk of pushing endangered species over the brink into extinction. The National Marine Fisheries Service announced its proposal to permit LFA even as its own investigations into the Bahamas strandings continue. In the wake of the recent dramatic confirmation of the dangers of active sonar, NRDC is calling on the Fisheries Service to withdraw its proposed permit and deny the Navy's application to deploy LFA. What can you do: How You Can Help 1. Several US Senators, including Senator Barbara Boxer, are working to have Congressional Oversight hearings on Navy sonar. If you are a US citizen, write to your Congresspeople and ask them to push for these hearings. You can find contact information for your Congresspeople at the following websites: http://www.house.gov/writerep/ http://www.loc.gov/global/legislative/senators.html http://congress.nw.dc.us/c-span/elecmail.html 2. Go to the Natural Resources Defense Council’s website for the latest updates and actions. They currently have a sample letter you can edit and click to send to the Secretary of Commerce to express your concern about the Navy’s sonar projects: http://www.nrdc.org/wildlife/marine/nlfa.asp#act 3. Go to the following websites for more information and updates: http://www.nrdc.org/wildlife/marine/nlfa.asp http://pacificwhale.org/news/LFA.html http://www.cetacean-nation.com/LFAS.html http://www.oceanmammalinst.org/lfas-you.html http://www.lfas.net
Yes, yes. And dolphins can talk and if we could only communicate, we could save the planet from ourselves. A more immediate concern might be the proliferation of the nuclear platform known as the submarine to Iran, and Iraq, and certainly China's ever expanding force. And keep in mind that the Navy is not in the habit of 'pinging away' at the ocean floor in some constant billion watt barrage. That would be fairly stupid since the 'active' sonar gives any potential target a perfect reading on your location.
This is not some kind of alien/dolphin crap or whatever. This is a real concern to ocean life...whereas I don't think the threat of Iraq or Iran sneaking up in a nuclear sub is
I am far from a Tree Hugger, but I have seen the special about the whales in the Bahamas and this is just wrong. We don't need the system why put it out there if it KNOWINGLY kills whales and dolphins. Wrong is wrong. DaDakota
If your REAL concern is for ocean life you might want marshall your resources against something with a SIGNIFICANT impact on ocean life, like overfishing. Consider the resources being exhausted protesting this project which has a relatively insignificant impact on ocean life. Of course, its much easier to bash the Navy than to tell the Chinese or the Russians or the American shipping industry to stop harvesting so much fish that they are creating dead zones in the ocean. Certainly there seems to be a general malaise if not outright opposition on this board to ANY military modernization, but ASW is more important than some of you seem to think. DAROckets, I would be suprised if you knew ANYTHING or had (as Ms JB seems to do) checked into ANY literature about the proliferation of Non-Apocalyptic Weapons in places like Iran. Not sure how you dismiss it out of hand. "ASW embodies the essence of sea control, which in turn remains the foundation for global power projection. The Chief of Naval Operations clearly understands the importance of both: “In fact,” as Admiral Johnson noted, “at the core of U.S. security requirements lies one prerequisite — sea control…. If we cannot command the seas and airspace above them, we cannot project power to command or influence events ashore; we cannot deter; we cannot shape the security environment.” (John Morgan, Captain USN). Fact: There are now more than 40 states in the world operating conventional submarines. Fact: A submarine, even an older diesel, is problematic with current ASW means, particularly when stationary or moving under 5 knots. A diesel on batteries actually makes less noise than its nuclear counterpart. And the US Navy does not have the assets currently to train properly to interdict diesel boats, since they have none in inventory. There is ample literature on the threats submarine (and mines) pose. "...some "threshold" states are considering plans to deploy strategic SLCMs. Modern "Tomahawk" type SLCMs, which are aimed at land targets, are compact enough to fit in standard torpedo tubes of submarines. One can not exclude a possibility to create nuclear capable "Harpoon" or "Exocet" type missiles and mines by the "threshold" states. ...conventional mini-subs represent the best platforms to deliver small saboteur groups and nuclear devices." (from the Center for Arms Control, Energy, and Environmental Studies) On the threat from China... (Asia Times) "But a series of incidents, stretching back several years, indicate that the United States has been hunting for signs of a breakthrough in Chinese submarine technology - one that poses a serious threat to America's most powerful conventional weapon, the aircraft carrier. There have been a rash of arrests of Western defense attaches in China. And recently a US vessel was chased from an exercise area. Both actions suggest China is close to a breakthrough in its long-stalled efforts to build an effective submarine threat. Sources in China confirm the Chinese military reaction to the EP-3E incident was sharp because the military is trying to safeguard its submarine secrets. There are two vessels at issue. The People's Liberation Army Navy placed a new version of the Russian-designed Kilo-class submarine into service on April 4, 2000, according to a brief report in the Hong Kong-based Sing Tao Jih Pao. The new Kilo is equipped with anti-ship weapons and has conducted recent drills simulating combat with carrier-type warships, according to the paper, which cited sources in the People's Liberation Army. It takes up to a year to qualify a new vessel and crew for duty at sea. But the Chinese navy may have made a more significant breakthrough. It has been working for years on a variant of the larger, more powerful Victor III submarine. This submarine, known in China as a Type 093 and which was due for completion some time in late 2000, was designed to launch cruise missiles while submerged. That would allow the Chinese to threaten the pre-eminent American weapons system in the region, the aircraft carrier. The flight of the EP-3E along China's coastline suggests it was monitoring transmissions of navy vessels and coastal installations. The aircraft may have been looking for signs of either of these two submarines as well. It appears the US Navy was taking an intense interest in a recent exercise far to the north in the Yellow Sea - not far from the port where the new boat has been under construction. That's where the US vessel was chased away. It is an unusual coincidence that the damaged American EP-3E made an emergency landing on Hainan Island. The island lies at the epicenter of China's efforts to extend its naval force far beyond its coastline. By doing so, it can interdict the sea lanes that bring oil to Northeast Asia. The Chinese also could put an end to their worst nightmare, realized in 1996, when American carriers were just off the Chinese coast. It appears likely the new Kilos not only have entered service but also may have been certified to take part in deep-water operations, ostensibly against American carriers in the case of war. The US Defense Department estimated last year that the Kilos will be adapted to use Russian technology in sonar as well as weapons systems. In a report last year, the department estimated China "is expected to begin arming some of its submarines with submerged launch cruise missiles". The Chinese navy is also emphasizing its own anti-submarine operations, especially training. "As a result, China's submarine fleet could constitute a substantial force capable of controlling sea lanes and mining approaches around Taiwan," the US military report concluded, "as well as a growing threat to submarines in the East and South China Seas". Operations in the South China Sea are the key for China to break out of its largely defensive naval posture. From the South China Sea, the Chinese can intercept an opposing force - far away from the mainland. Such a force can harass shipping, particularly ships carrying petroleum, to Japan and South Korea."
Russian built Kilo class submarines, operated by many 3rd world countries are VERY VERY deadly they are a silent embarassment of riches waiting to happen they pose a serious threat to carrier battle groups.. THE VERY FIRST THING a fleet commander needs to know when entering hostle waters is if enemy subs are thought to be present The best way to find an enemy sub is with your own submarines... but dramatic budget cuts in the last decade have limited our new submarine fleet to a grand total of 1 an modern Nimitz class carrier has a compliment of roughly 5000 ... or more than twice the number of people that died on 9/11 not to mention they cost 10 billion and take many years to build I would be EXTREAMLY hesitant to tie the hands of the U.S. Navy again (by not having the prefered number of attack subs) to save some whales it would be nice if the Navy could only use active sonar only when absolutely necessary... but funny thing about submarines is ya don't always know where they are and when it is necessary
Sometimes you need to figure out alternatives. Killing every mammal in the ocean (or even a large number of them) is reprehensible and unacceptable, and the rest of the world will see it that way also.
That's my thought exactly. Why is it MORE acceptable to just say, "Oh, well. So, we kill a bunch of sea life," than to actually LOOK for an alternative? Who is the person with no conscience who tested this, saw its destructive capabilities and DIDN'T send it back to the drawing board like a responsible person would do? There was a time when conservation was actually considered a moral and ethical responsibility.
The alternative is, very simply, more attack submarines which use passive sonar, almost exclusively but they cost billions like he said... call your congressman
Your post sounds like so much cold war PARANOIA ....the chinese are coming ...the chinese are coming.. It's a good thing we didn't have this system in the 50's.. we would have destroyed vast amounts of ocean life searching for those russians who never came. I could understand using this if we were in the midst of WWIII....but to tow this around causing harm to our ocean is nonessential. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Retired Senior Navy Sonar Expert Questions LFA Ms. Donna Wieting Chief, Marine Mammal Conservation Division Office of Protected Resources National Marine Fisheries Service Silver Spring, MD 20910-3226 USA Dear Ms. Wieting: Let me introduce myself. My name is Joseph E. Blue. I have my BS degree in physics with majors also in biology, chemistry and mathematics, my MS in engineering science with my thesis being on Acoustic Cavitation and Bubble Instabilities and my Ph.D. in mechanical engineering with an engineering acoustics option. I am a former member of the Navy Civil Service Senior Executive Service (SES). In that position I was in charge of the Underwater Sound Reference Detachment (USRD) of the Naval Research Laboratory which became the Underwater Sound Reference Division of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division Newport? The USRD was the lead laboratory for SPAWAR in contracting for the first 18 LFA projectors. During that procurement process, an LFA projector was tested at high levels (~207 dB re 1 mPa at 1 m) in USRD's Lake Gem Mary Facility in Orlando. This test was conducted while I was on travel as I would have not allowed it had I been informed in advance that it was going to be done. When I returned, I received several telephone calls from neighbors complaining about rattling dishes, items dancing on shelves and fear of structural damage to their home foundations. I banned any further high power tests in the USRD facilities. I am generally in favor of sonar systems as I have seen where better sonar could have prevented many combat deaths. However, from my 40 years of experience in underwater acoustics, I have learned that sonar can be dangerous to humans and sea animals in ways that most people associated with the development of these systems cannot imagine. I also learned that the focus is on systems that work with little thought to negative environmental consequences by engineers and scientists who are not familiar with the biological aspects of sound in the sea. The reward system is for positive results, not for pointing out the negative. Such, I fear based on my experience, has been the case for LFA. LFA might be an important system if alternatives to it cannot be found. However, in my scientific opinion, LFA should not be allowed to proceed under the currently proposed FEIS. LFA has the potential of doing great harm, not only to marine mammals, but also to the many people who derive their livelihood and food from the sea. A potentially fatal flaw in the analysis of LFA effects by biologists hired by SPAWAR as bioacousticians is their lack of understanding of acoustics as a branch of physics. That leads them to the use of anecdotal observations that, in the case of LFA, is not supported by a large enough database to arrive at statistically significant conclusions necessary for the SPAWAR nor the opposing sides of this issue to feel confident enough to proceed. A case in point is the insistence by the SPAWAR LFA office that enough testing has been done to ascertain the safety of the system to marine life. Even that small amount would not have been done if it were not for the insistence by environmentalists that sonar was killing marine mammals. Until the stranding of many marine mammals during Navy exercises in the Caribbean, the Navy attempted to blame every stranding as due to causes other than sonar. Not until the Navy was presented with proof that the stranding was due to sonar did it get serious about sonar stranding evidence. Even now, the Navy tries to isolate the damaging effects to frequency regimes. Examination of Minnaert's equation for relating bubble size to resonance frequencies shows that there are air cavity volumes of all sizes that may resonate in marine mammals and other sea life. When acoustic displacements get large enough in a sea life form, tissue tearing will occur. One cannot define an absolute displacement size for this to occur because the significance of the displacement depends on the size of the organism and the level of the excitation source. Thus, it is not sufficient to say that LFA is safe because it is a different frequency regime that the sonars that caused the Caribbean stranding phenomena. That represents a gross misunderstanding of the resonance process. Further, not all marine life damage can be attributed to air cavity resonance alone. Damage to hearing apparatus of marine mammals such as uncovered by Dr. Darlene Ketten from Woods Hole illustrates my point. The entry to the brain and on to the hearing apparatus was through a nerve foramen from a sinus cavity. The air cavity of the sinus will not vibrate as a bubble because the bony sinus cavity presents a different acoustical impedance to the sonar. The whole of the lung/bronchial tubes/trachea/sinus/air-volume complex must be considered. Modeling of this complex air volume may be possible by considering the lung to vibrate like a bubble and the remaining part act as a Helmholtz resonator. A coupled resonant system such as this can explain the punch through at the nerve foramen site which is soft compared to the bony sinus cavity thus concentrating the displacement on the soft foramen site into the brain where Ketten observed the bloody mass and hearing apparatus trauma. SPAWAR's contention that no damage has been done during LFA tests because of lack of evidence of marine mammal deaths is not convincing. The endangered right whale apparently escaped harm as they float when killed as opposed to most other whales that sink when killed. Many unrecorded deaths would go unnoticed if they sank rather than strand themselves. The LFA system idea was hatched during the Cold War. The threat from quiet diesel submarines from rogue nations may be better addressed by the military intelligence community and lower power shorter range systems. The end of the Cold War should have caused a more thorough examination of LFA rather than following the lead of the military/industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about. Apparently, the threat was redefined from the original cold war to rogue nation threats to allow the LFA program to continue. My belief is that there are more pressing security problems that are not being pursued where the money being spent on LFA should be channeled. Sincerely, Joseph E. Blue, Ph.D. 3313 Northglen Drive Orlando, FL 32806 Telephone: (407) 851-4105 FAX: (407) 850-2075 Email: jblue46498@aol.com
Whoa, Cohen. Where does anybody say this sonar will kill every mammal in the ocean? Or anything even remotely close to that? As for what the rest of the world thinks, NATO countries jointly own a research ship called the Alliance (i think) that has done a lot of work on these new sonar systems. Ship operates in....a whale sanctuary. Haven't heard about any mass extinctions in the Med.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In a 1998 Nature article, Alexandros Frantzis pointed out that 12 Cuvier's beaked whales beached themselves alive on a Mediterranean coast while NATO was testing LFAS there. He concluded the chance of that happening for any other reason was less than 0.07 percent. The U.S. Navy research vessel Alliance performed that test for NATO but at a higher frequency than the United States used, said the Navy's Johnson. Scatterplots from the Hawaii LFA study show the distribution of whales around the ship. Ten gray whale calves stranded alive in California in January-February 1998 (during and after LFA tests there), an abnormally high number, said EnviroWatch Inc. Two dead whales were seen near the Kauai ATOC source in November and December 1997, the Cetacean Society International reported. Three humpback whales died in northern California in November 1995 within a week after the ATOC equipment was turned on for engineering tests -- before the formal program to monitor mammals began. But the project resumed "following a determination that it was highly unlikely the test transmissions could have been responsible," the Marine Mammal Commission reported ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ These events occured after TESTS ....what happens after the constant barrage of noise ? I'm sure YOU don't have that answer.
Oh, right. I forgot that we don't actually ever have REAL enemies, we just make them up constantly so we can continue to build weapons for no reason... I'm sure the whole China thing is just another big red scare (we all know how lovely the Soviets were, after all). Saying the US has no potential for conflict with China, or that a rogue state like Iran or Iraq could/would not use naval technology to attack the US or its interests (like SLOCs), is like me saying there are no environmental problems on the planet. Simply silly stuff. I would note however, that you raging greenies have been doomsaying for quite awhile yourselves. In the 60s Ehrlich and Ehrlich warned of the end of the planet from the 'population explosion,' and the subsequent resource scarcity and wars the would consume the planet in the 70s. 'This vast tragedy, however, is nothing compared to the nutritional disaster that seems likely to overtake humanity in the 1970s (or, at the latest, the 1980s) ... A situation has been created that could lead to a billion or more people starving to death. - Paul Ehrlich, "The End of Affluence" (1974), p.21' Uh, didn't happen. Resources became more abundant. In the 70s it was the next 'Ice Age' and in the 80s it was polar shift and the ozone hole. In the 90s its been global warming (not denying its happening but not anywhere close to doomsayers projections in either intensity nor time frame). So, while you can trot out the old 'MIC is just making it up to justify their budget,' I can say the same thing right back at you. The fastest and most efficient way for an environmental group to get money is to scream bloody murder about the end of the world. Just ask Greenpeace. Well if you don't test it, you won't have it when you need it, will you slick. Interesting read. However, he admits himself that the criteria those in charge of the project use is how effective the system is in its assigned mission. His main gripe is that they ignore the eco impact, not that it doesn't work. He then contradicts himself by slapping out generalizations like 'there are more pressing security problems.' He does certainly have engineering credentials, but he has ZERO expertise in international relations or security policy or anything close that would make him an 'authority' on whether the system should go forward or not. So what we have is his determination that it can hurt ocean life, which no one denies. Big deal. Does not come close to answering whether the system is necessary for future threats. If you look at most of these reports, you'll see that whale beachings have also happened in these spots when THERE WERE NO TESTS, so don't act like its the only possible explanation. In fact, the Navy has to file environmental impact assessments, and another government agency (the same your sonar boy was writing to, Fisheries and Wildlife Management?) has to approve them. Well, I mean, holy cow. That almost..what, 10 whales in 10 years? We've got quite a catastrophe on our hands! You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it would make any tactical sense to have the system on constantly. But even if that's true there is NO ONE that says this will cause mass extinction in the oceans, or that the removal of one species or hundreds of species, will doom the planet. You worried about the oceans? Call you Congressman about overfishing. Worried about whales? Call your Congressman about how the IWC should allow culling of Menke whales to prevent wholesale blackmarket whaling.
I'm no raging greenie but to say the warnings from the 1970's aren't valid because they haven't happened yet kind of ignores the fact that things that happen on a planetary scale tend to happen slowly compared to a human's lifespan We're already seeing the effects of human industrialization..(sp?) and we've only been at it about 100 years if humans plan to survive another thousand years we'd better change our ways I don't see how that isn't obvious to everyone
No, actually my point is that environmentalists continually make extremely dire predictions designed to drive action through fear, and that these predictions are frequently completely wrong. Feel free to point out where Ehrlich was correct. True, and I don't think its fair to say we've had no adverse impact on the planet. Certainly there is a huge list of things we've done wrong, and need to do. That doesn't mean we should go to the other extreme, and assume that any environmental impact should be avoided no matter what the issue. Or that the environmental lobby is somehow free of self-interest.
hmm I don't remember saying we had no enemies ..I just don't think that a sub attack on the US is eminent. I'm far from a "raging greenie" ...I was against koyoto for cripes sake...however this picture of you comes to mind,as I read this thread.. May I ask where your expertise lies, in this particular area ? Thats a very callous statement and also contradicts what you've said previously.
DAROckets hmm I don't remember saying we had no enemies ..I just don't think that a sub attack on the US is eminent. The U.S. didn't think an attack via airliner was eminent either the problem is there ARE enemy submarines North Korea has a sizable fleet for instance I'm not sure what Iraq's capabilities are... but you can be sure if he has them, he'll use them and for gods sakes, who could blame him... we've flat out said we're going after HIM and our dang plans for doing it are sitting on his desk thanks to the Washington Post (I think) but a single submarine is a threat to over 5000 Americans aboard carriers I don't know what kind of improvement this sonar makes compared to what it replaces, or how much more damaging this new sonar is vs the old so it is difficult to wage a complete argument over this issue but honestly millions, if not billions of people and governments hate the United States
Well when I pointed out there is a threat from 'rogue states' and China's military buildup, you said it was 'Cold War paranoia.' From that I assumed you were denying that there was a threat. Maybe you are not aware how closely China watched as the US whipped Iraq's ass in the Gulf War. I assure you they did. The PLA made the decision then to pursue modernization, including blue water capabilities. There is only one reason for China to HAVE a blue water navy, and its not for flower delivery. Maybe you aren't cognizant of the threat diesel submarines represent. They are platforms for ballistic missles. If Iran parks a sub with ballistic missles in international waters off the US coast, do you think that would alter the current balance of power in the Middle East? I think it would. If the Iraqis or the Iranians use sub to close the Gulf, is that a threat to the US? You bet it is. Oil shocks reverberate around the globe. Insurance for shipping skyrockets because of the rogue sub threat launching transportation costs into the stratosphere. Japan and Western European governments fall as their economies collapse under the snowballing financial panic. Same thing could happen in the South China Sea, the worlds busiest shipping lanes. The PLA sends their new subs to secure the Spratly Islands and their potentially rich oil fields. Same scenario. Those are TWO of thousands of possible scenarios where diesel subs are a threat. ASW is not a joke. The Soviets may be gone but their freaking technology is just being unloaded to all these smaller powers that have thier own interests and present their own unique challenges. Sure, 10 years of public policy research and thousands of hours of research and public debates about emerging threats. Not sure how its contradictory. I don't favor killing whales for no reason. I just don't think a few whales outweigh the impact of threats to our power projection capabilities. I don't see anything to indicate some major disruption in the world ecosystems from this and I don't believe in 'keystone' species arguments.
