Neutering the Navy to Save the Whales

I believe there is a solution that would be acceptable to both sides.

Allow the Navy to train with active sonar, but restrict this activity to dead spots that host very little life. There are a bunch of dead spots to choose from, and they're all growing (as far as I know), so there's no shortage of 'real estate' for this endeavor.

Is this not a solution that takes into account the needs of both parties?

Wouldn't solutions of this sort be easier to find and implement if the rhetoric on both sides was cut out, and people started approaching problems logically, and analytically, instead of with such extreme prejudice?

When it comes to warfare at sea there are fundamentally only two kinds of ships--submarines and targets. The sonar in question is more capable than any other in naval history, but it still can't reach down below the thermocline with any accuracy or do it reliably. ASW exercises can be conducted without high powered active sonar blasts and they can be conducted quite effectively. What is accomplished during such exercises is training of the men to conduct coordinated operations effectively. Actually blasting away with active sonar is generally counterproductive anyway and really only serves to make sure the equipment is working properly.

Is There Another Way ?

Yes there is . Simulators .

But , the military cannot just abandon “live “ and switch to newly developed BETAs of simulator technology . The budget for simulator development must be provided first and ramped up as live ASW exercises are scaled back .

There is a plus side though , Massive military spending in this area will have huge and positive impacts on Oceanography , Climatology , Marine Biology etc etc . As the required computer modeling to accurately provide the required level of ASW our naval forces need will be the best available , and light years ahead of current commercial and academic programs – IMHO .

Are we prepared to pay for it though ?

One thing is certain though , no navy can allow its ASW skills to degrade – they are not something that can be re learned from a manual in the midst of a crisis .

Maybe we have enemies because we do not take into consideration these things.

Would it be so bad to lose dolphons and whales.....is that statement Serious? Would it be so bad to lose humanity is a more salient question. Crushing Life because we are able too is a tragedy.

As far as the Sonar, it is ignorant progress like this that causes the trouble. The Navy never researched if the sonar would affect marine life..?? who was in charge of the program, find and fire them. Next time a weapons platform is discussed some research will be done to insure it does not affect life in a wholesale manner.

I think Wyrde has given us a decent solution to the problem. There are regions in the sea where few to no critters hang out. Since its cetaceans that are the primary users of sonar in the oceans, the navy could train in areas where whales and dolphins dont hang out. The navy gets their training, and the dolphins and whales arent in danger from following confusing sonar echos.

It is quite likely the next generation of sonar will be practically undetectable. Research has shown it is now possible to employ spread spectrum techniques to active sonar emissions. What that means is that the sonar signal would effectively be buried below the ambient noise floor and could only be detected by special equipment. Such sonars would likely not be heard by marine organisms and would certainly have no effect on them.

Training Must Be Realistic And Relevant

To address the issue of :

“ can the navy train in areas largely devoid of marine wildlife , to lessen the impact of their exercises ? “

The most dangerous ASW combat future navies will face is brown water littoral operations in shallow coastal waters . Where undersea terrain , massive and sudden changes in salinity and temperature etc will drastically affect equipment performance

You cannot learn how to fight in those conditions by training in a barren stretch of ocean 100s of kilometers from shore , over a submarine trench where salinity and temperatures are relatively constant

To use a more familiar analogy , You cannot effectively train infantry to fight in the deserts of Iraq by training in the Florida everglades .

Yes active sonar does have an impact on whales. There is video footage of orcas in the Puget Sound actually spy hopping constantly to keep there heads out of the water because a few miles away there is a US Navy ship blasting away with it's active sonar. They put a hydrophone in the water and the noise is defening. Most dolphins and the orcas rely on echo location to track fish and navigate. It's their own form of active sonar.

I personally run a whale watching boat and have a great love of these sea creatures. It would be a shame to lose them because of such short sightedness. Simulators can offer just as must benefit as the real thing and far cheaper than actually deploying assets.

Originally posted by DEEZNUTZ
Simulators can offer just as must benefit as the real thing and far cheaper than actually deploying assets.

Simulators might sound great but you have to keep in mind they will only react to how they have been programmed. It takes a human ear to detect the new anomalies that would appear when newer subs are built.

That is why simulators alone are not the total answer

I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I read this threadl

Many of you here seem to look at things one-dimensionally.

You're either going to give up the world to the Kim Jong-il and Osama bin Laden to save some worthless animals who probably aren't hurt anyway, or ...

Whales are much more important that the United States of America's defense posture, and besides, Kim Jong-il wouldn't harm a fly, so we can all agree to stop torturing the whales, and while we're at it, let's all sit around the campfire in a circle and sing "Kumbaya".

I like to think I have a bit of, if not understanding, at least some objectivity: I am an active diver and member of both the Ocean Conservatory and the Cousteau Society, but I also spent a year on a sub when I was in the Navy.

The bottom line is that they're both important and we have to figure out a way to get as much realistic Navy training as possible while damaging the marine environment as little as possible. And we have to do it cheaply, because we as a society don't have all the much money.

Someone said there're already dead areas and we could train there. That isn't the case. There are areas where the Crown-of-Thorns Seastar and bleaching have killed a lot of coral, but you won't find many whales there. Besides, we probably already have a theoretical baseline of the sonar in question in open seas; it's how the sonar acts on the littoral and around thermoclines which needs to be understood and trained; those are the places where, unfortunately, there are lots of cetaceans.

So what's the answer? I certainly don't know! No one that I know of (and certainly no one on this thread) understands the influence of sonar propagation on cetaceans, whether it can be minimized by changing frequency, amplitude or pulse rate.

Since we do need to be able to use sonar wherever there's water, our first effort would be to start the Government, with the oversight and help of private research organizations like universities and the Cousteau Society, carrying out as much research as possible to find out what is the least invasive sonar approach while still maintaining a modicum of good defense capabilities.

Second, we should task our defense contractors to get the most from passive acoustic and temperature sensors, with the newer processors available now integrating as much of the passive spectrum as possible; and to increase the sensitivity of active acoustic sensors so that lower propagation amplitudes are possible.

This can certainly be done without too much re-prioritization of the defense budget!

But looking at the problem as an all-or-none argument will not improve the lives of the cetaceans or the country's defense capabilities, and ultimately we will all look like ignoramuses.



[edit on 9-7-2006 by Off_The_Street]

You cannot learn how to fight in those conditions by training in a barren stretch of ocean 100s of kilometers from shore , over a submarine trench where salinity and temperatures are relatively constant

Excuse me?

Trenches are the best for fishing, I know this from experience on boats in the Atlantic. You don't drop a line off the pier if you want to catch a big fish, you go to the trenches. They're not devoid of life, not at all.

The dead spots I'm speaking of are nearer to the coast. They're caused (If I'm remembering my reading correctly) primarily by agricultural run-off that strangles the oxygen out of the water. That means we're talking about estuaries and coastal shallows. Perfect for replicating the conditions you describe, no?

wyrdeone says:

"Perfect for replicating the conditions you describe, no?

Unfortunately, no. There are relatively few estuarine thermoclines, which have a tremendous effect on sonar; also, the boats need to train both against targets in deep water (other submarines, of course) and from deep water in order to get the ability to fight in all depths. In other words, while estuarine environments are a good place to train some aspects of undersea warfare, we're going to have to be able to fight and train everywhere there's salt water.

Besides, despite pollution, the typical estuarine environment is pretty rich in biodiversity.

In response to OTS's earlier post (not the one above).

Check this out, especially the map presented with this article.
www.commondreams.org...

*sings* Do you see what I see?

Edit: Hah! Funny how that worked out. I actually meant to respond to the other post, but you beat me to the punch and wedged one in there when I was responding.

2nd Edit: Do you know if the absence of oxygen in these dead spots would invalidate the training for some reason? Would it measurably reduce the efficacy of the simulation? I don't know a thing about submarines, and very little about sonar, so I'm in deep water myself here, on this subject.

[edit on 9-7-2006 by WyrdeOne]

[edit on 9-7-2006 by WyrdeOne]

My honestly blunt opinion on this issue is who gives a crap about a few whales. Nice animals I'm sure, but I honestly dont care if they run themselves on the beach or not. Not my problem. Id rather our boys get the training they need than save 1 or 2 whales or some other form of marine life. THis bleeding-heart crap has to go, this is whats going to kill us all in my opinion. OHHHHHH NOOOOO an animal died, its not like it has a soul. Cmon and grow up folks, death is a natural part of life. If theres 1 less whale, I'm not going to lose sleep or shed any tears for it. It happens, deal with it!!!!

Interesting to point out that this not by any means an attempt to stop the Navy from training.

But rather is been pointed out that the resources and studies available are credible enough and substantial enough to show the impact of sonar on mammal life, this now some capricious complain, mammals die from these sonar exercises.

They want precautions are in place to protect whales and other marine life.

Considerable convincing scientific evidence demonstrating that the Navy's use of MFA sonar can kill, injure and disturb many marine species, including marine mammals."

from source

Also evidently environmental laws are at stake here . . . Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)

The impact on marine life after the last exercises show how bad the sonar impacted whales in the area.

The NOAA has issue guide lines to be use by the navy in the area.

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration

www.noaa.gov...

I see all these as a very credible and very serious issue.

I see so that the effects of sonar must suck for them whales. I think they should of done it anyway I like whales alot we must persever life no matter what mercy teachs is more than what hate and violence does.

Junk science. This is why the judicial branch needs to be neutered. They are un-elected and unaccountable.

we shouldn't even be training! why are we even killing each other just for countries when all contries could be free together, as one we could MAKE all contries free! then there would be no war! then noone will get killed! and with no war, we won't kill the whales!!!



signature: cody900

So let's see, on one side we have the military's best interest in question,
and . . . on the other side we have the "Eco-terrorists" concerns in question?

Oh my, I think the military has done such a great job of "preventing" our
extinction. They've invented and continue to invent tools of war that appear to
only benefit large industrial corporations and their bottom lines. Have they come up
with anything to prevent war or preserve life ? It's not profitable!
Saving an eco-system would not be profitable.


The "Eco-terrorists" want to preserve life, all types of life. And that's a bad thing?
When will some people see that "fighting and dying and winning" at all costs
will indeed be just that, "at all costs".

Originally posted by ludaChris
My honestly blunt opinion on this issue is who gives a crap about a few whales. Nice animals I'm sure, but I honestly dont care if they run themselves on the beach or not. Not my problem. Id rather our boys get the training they need than save 1 or 2 whales or some other form of marine life. THis bleeding-heart crap has to go, this is whats going to kill us all in my opinion. OHHHHHH NOOOOO an animal died, its not like it has a soul. Cmon and grow up folks, death is a natural part of life. If theres 1 less whale, I'm not going to lose sleep or shed any tears for it. It happens, deal with it!!!!

Well my honest blunt opinion is that you and all other humans dont have souls either, the thing thats supposed to make us "different" from 'animals' (we are animals too) is that we are supposed to care about life, not just shrugg it off and use some sort of crazy religious ideal to help us sleep at night