The US Navy has settled a whale-saving lawsuit filed by environmentalists challenging the use of military sonar for testing and training exercises around the world, with both parties proclaiming victory. Five environmental groups, headed by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), said they reached the deal because the Navy …
Well, better than nothing I guess
Better than nothing, I guess. But, "The Navy welcomes an approach that relies more upon scientific research than litigation" kind of contradicts the "The Navy agrees that high-intensity military sonar can injure and kill whales, dolphins and other marine life"
It's good that some outcome came out of this rather than just having the case dropped, but they relied on litigation because, you know, damage was already known to be occuring and scientific research won't stop that while litigation could have. The research might show the extent of damage though... I bet once the research is done, these groups will just refile their suits, and then have actual data showing how serious a problem it is.
My question is, how much damage does it cause? A lightbulb will kill off any insects that fly within like an inch of it, but I wouldn't consider lightbulbs particularly bad (well, I do admit I now have the low-power bulbs, but it's not to help the bugs out, it's to save on the power bill..)... It's a big difference if the sonar is injuring creatures that get within like 50 feet of it, versus if it's injuring and deafening creatures for miles around.
Nuts to the whales: Why not get Shakesperian on the lawyers instead?
This is actually rather worrying in the long run. The effectiveness of a Navy to effectively defend its' personnel, the national borders, and its' ability to conduct operations in support of its' National Interests via its' Naval Military Services, has just potentially been severely restricted by lawyers of that very same nation.
Whose side are the lawyers on? Obviously not their own country, or I suggest that they would not have taken up legal arms against it. Leading on from this, is there possibly a case for both them and the Environmentalists who paid them to be charged with treason, perhaps?
Or should we all, as Shakespeare once intimated, solve the problem once and for all, and put all the legal profession against a wall and do something rather drastic and final to them?
Thumbs down, because all that lawyers seem to do these days is line their own pockets, and not really perform any useful function in support of their own countries.
Re: Who's side are the lawyers on?
Your nation is not worth defending if it gives up on the principle that all of its institutions are subject to the rule of law.
Nuts to the whales and proper grammar
The possessive of "it" does not have an apostrophe. If it did, its apostrophe would be before the s, as it's a singular pronoun.
Sorry about that but it made it hard to read.
However I agree with the sentiment. First, let's kill all the lawyers.
These people want to save the whales, right? Well, I'm certain there're whales starving to death SOMEWHERE. Let's grind 'em up and feed 'em to the hungry whales! Everybody wins!
"Mid-frequency active sonar sends sound pules through the water to listen for what objects the sound bounces off of ..."
Sound pules? Alas, "pule" is a verb and not the noun pertaining to that verb (to make a thin wail, in some definitions similar to one of the sounds a chicken makes) and so mid-frequency sonar doesn't send chicken-mutterings through the water. Must be a regular ol' typo, then.
- Breaking news: Google exec veep in terrifying SKY PLUNGE DRAMA
- Geek's Guide to Britain Kingston's aviation empire: From industry firsts to Airfix heroes
- Analysis Happy 2nd birthday, Windows 8 and Surface: Anatomy of a disaster
- Google CEO Larry Page gives Sundar Pichai keys to the kingdom
- Something for the Weekend, Sir? SKYPE has the HOTS for my NAKED WIFE