Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Bombs dropped on Great Barrier Reef marine park

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

Audacity of Austraulian Navy?

The US Navy/Coast Guard had the audacity to threaten arrest of The Cousteau Society team as they landed on a bird sanctuary island off Louisiana's coast that took initial wave of oil from BP disaster.
Telling the Stewards of the Ocean (their trademarked name) to scram or else...
Audacity...indeed!!!!...




posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Granite
 


If you're going to blame the US for dropping inert weapons near the Great Barrier Reef, then you have to blame the Australians for doing the same thing. Or, and I know this is something truly horrifying to suggest, get all the facts before you start screaming about the audacity of the US for having an annual exercise with the Australians, and dropping inert weapons in an area that was cleared for weapons to be dropped if necessary.



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 11:15 PM
link   
make bigger deals out of more important things



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

Just trying my JeanPaulZodeaux imitation's...not bad for my 1st attempt!



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Kluute
 

And the audacity of the Australian military doing similar things. I'll guarantee that they have dropped ordnance in the area as well when they've had to.
edit on 7/21/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)


Could you provide an example to accompany such a bold statement?
I'd be much obliged if it was specific to the Great Barrier Reef as well.
edit on 22-7-2013 by HairlessApe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Kluute
 


Two of the bombs were inert, meaning no warhead, they just make a puff of dust when they land. The other two were unarmed, so the chances of them exploding are very remote. They were all dropped into a marked channel, 60 feet deep, and will almost certainly be salvaged if they haven't already.

They couldn't land with them, and they couldn't drop them on the range for whatever reason. The safest place to drop them was in a channel, in the ocean. They are deep enough they won't pose a hazard for ships until they can be recovered, and they're away from the reef itself so they won't damage the reef.

And the audacity of the Australian military doing similar things. I'll guarantee that they have dropped ordnance in the area as well when they've had to.
edit on 7/21/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

Well said, Sir! I for won am sick and bloody tired of the Aussies and especially the NEW ZEALANDERS - so much so that I have called off my sceintific field work in NEW ZEALAND becuase Mum and Dad paid for. I would rather be failed at university than to grovel and I don't like to fly either.

MATE - so sick of MATE this and MATE that too,

Darryl Forests
Your mate maybe never A MATE



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by HairlessApe
 



It'll take awhile. I was looking last night, and it was all about the US. But I stand by this statement. The island in the area is a bombing range, and you always have a safe area in the vicinity of the range in case of emergency.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by HairlessApe
Could you provide an example to accompany such a bold statement?
I'd be much obliged if it was specific to the Great Barrier Reef as well.


www.ens-newswire.com...

Great Barrier Reef Victim of Bombs, Oil Dumping TOWNSVILLE, Queensland, Australia, January 20, 1999 (ENS) - The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is taking a new series of steps to protect the environment of the world's largest reef that runs along the northeastern coast of Australia. reef A portion of the Great Barrier Reef (Photos courtesy Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority) The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) has been asked to stop live bombing of an area of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park where fringing coral reefs have been destroyed. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has called for an end to the use of high explosives for target practice at Rattlesnake Island and Cordelia Rock, in Halifax Bay just north of Townsville.


internetphd24.blogspot.com.au...

AAP General News (Australia) 01-12-1999 QLD: Marine park authority asks RAAF to stop bombing reefs By Selina Day BRISBANE, Jan 12 AAP - The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) has asked the RAAF to stop live bombing of an area of the World Heritage-listed park where coral reefs have been destroyed. But although the RAAF said it was examining alternative training sites it could not yet agree to the request by GBRMPA to stop live-fire activities in Halifax Bay. The air force has used Rattlesnake Island and Cordelia Rock in Halifax Bay, just north of Townsville, for bombing practice for about 50 years.


www.abc.net.au...

During World War II there was lot of military activity in the Great Barrier Reef and there's significant amounts of ordnance that were probably lost during the war. And around some of these other sites that have been used for bombing routinely over the past 50 years by the RAAF (Royal Australian Air Force) there's bound to be a large number of items of ordnance all across the reef.


The Great Barrier Reef has even been used for Mustard gas trials....
www.ozatwar.com...



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by MysterX
reply to post by Zaphod58
 




Since the reef IS Australian, i'd say that's their perogative..wouldn't you?
I don't doubt the US would have something to say about it if Aussies started dropping ordnance near Manhattan island.

Also is 60 feet deep enough to prevent damage to ships and boats? I realise it depends on the size of the bomb, but i would have thought a large explosion at 60 feet would do considerable damage to small ships and boats.
First of all, the US military has been officially recognized and invited by the Australian Government as per their mutual agreements (political/military). Second, this is a routine practice amongst most militaries should things go wrong during practice. Third, they will have coast guards and/or navy vessels monitoring the area until the unarmed munition(s) has been recovered which isn't too bad considering the depths at which the ordnance is laying currently. Its basically a political propoganda as usual thats circulating and/or gaining momentum in terms of controversy.
edit on 22-7-2013 by hp1229 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by HairlessApe

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Kluute
 

And the audacity of the Australian military doing similar things. I'll guarantee that they have dropped ordnance in the area as well when they've had to.
edit on 7/21/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)


Could you provide an example to accompany such a bold statement?
I'd be much obliged if it was specific to the Great Barrier Reef as well.
edit on 22-7-2013 by HairlessApe because: (no reason given)
Well there have been many. I'm not sure if the site has not updated their database but below is the link with mishaps (not necessarily bombs) from back in time.

SOURCE

edit on 22-7-2013 by hp1229 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 





Aside from the obvious risk of setting off the ordnance on landing


Thought you said they didn't have a fuse and were unarmed..basically implying they were safe?

"Inert' was a word you've used multiple times on this thread.

If they were unarmed, missing a triggering fuse, 'Inert' and / or just empty casings...why would they be worried about setting off the ordnance upon landing?

edit on 22-7-2013 by MysterX because: added text



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by MysterX
 


I wasn't talking about this specific incidence, when I was talking about landing with bombs on the wings. I was talking about why you can't land with them there ever. Regardless, inert, or armed, you can't land with them on the wings.

Did you bother to read the other reasons why they can't land with them there? Or did you just stop at that one?
edit on 7/22/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by MysterX
 


I wasn't talking about this specific incidence, when I was talking about landing with bombs on the wings. I was talking about why you can't land with them there ever. Regardless, inert, or armed, you can't land with them on the wings.

Did you bother to read the other reasons why they can't land with them there? Or did you just stop at that one?
edit on 7/22/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)


Thats my bro right there and he is a freakin wealth of aviation knowledge. If he dont know the answer about it, he will find it for you!!!

Silver



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by MysterX
 



The emergency happened on the second day of the biennial joint training exercise Talisman Saber, which brings together 28,000 US and Australian military personnel over three weeks. The US Navy and Marine Corps were working with Australian authorities to investigate the incident, the Navy said.


www.guardian.co.uk...

Well I guess the Aussie Military should have kept the exercise away from the area then!!!!!! They are the host nation so I guarantee they were consulted on where these Marines should drop ordinance when returning back to the carrier as it was guaranteed to happen as it does every dam time they need to land back on a carrier.

I am willing to bet more than one Aussie Captain was on the ship at the time as they know the waters better!



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by MysterX
reply to post by Zaphod58
 





Aside from the obvious risk of setting off the ordnance on landing


Thought you said they didn't have a fuse and were unarmed..basically implying they were safe?

"Inert' was a word you've used multiple times on this thread.

If they were unarmed, missing a triggering fuse, 'Inert' and / or just empty casings...why would they be worried about setting off the ordnance upon landing?

edit on 22-7-2013 by MysterX because: added text


Because it will break the wings off or the bomb straps and then have a 500-1000 pound steel bomb rolling around on deck possibly causing a big disaster. On a non-Harrier it would break the wings off and the bombs would probably go thru the flight deck, destroying everything in their path.

In other words the dam U.S. Navy is not stupid so stop questioning what they did!!!



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


but Nemo is orange... how can he be Comunist?



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Me think they wanted to blow GODZILLA &co. out of the water since they are popular nowadays with pacific rim block buster.

Who knows…!





posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   
I'm a little confused. How do you anger an environmentalist? Seems to me environmentalists are always angry.



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by HairlessApe
 



It'll take awhile. I was looking last night, and it was all about the US. But I stand by this statement. The island in the area is a bombing range, and you always have a safe area in the vicinity of the range in case of emergency.


Until said evidence emerges, I'm inclined to disbelieve you. It's way too convenient to say "Hey, we're not the only ones!" without evidence.



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by HairlessApe
Could you provide an example to accompany such a bold statement?
I'd be much obliged if it was specific to the Great Barrier Reef as well.


www.ens-newswire.com...

Great Barrier Reef Victim of Bombs, Oil Dumping TOWNSVILLE, Queensland, Australia, January 20, 1999 (ENS) - The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is taking a new series of steps to protect the environment of the world's largest reef that runs along the northeastern coast of Australia. reef A portion of the Great Barrier Reef (Photos courtesy Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority) The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) has been asked to stop live bombing of an area of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park where fringing coral reefs have been destroyed. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has called for an end to the use of high explosives for target practice at Rattlesnake Island and Cordelia Rock, in Halifax Bay just north of Townsville.


internetphd24.blogspot.com.au...

AAP General News (Australia) 01-12-1999 QLD: Marine park authority asks RAAF to stop bombing reefs By Selina Day BRISBANE, Jan 12 AAP - The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) has asked the RAAF to stop live bombing of an area of the World Heritage-listed park where coral reefs have been destroyed. But although the RAAF said it was examining alternative training sites it could not yet agree to the request by GBRMPA to stop live-fire activities in Halifax Bay. The air force has used Rattlesnake Island and Cordelia Rock in Halifax Bay, just north of Townsville, for bombing practice for about 50 years.


www.abc.net.au...

During World War II there was lot of military activity in the Great Barrier Reef and there's significant amounts of ordnance that were probably lost during the war. And around some of these other sites that have been used for bombing routinely over the past 50 years by the RAAF (Royal Australian Air Force) there's bound to be a large number of items of ordnance all across the reef.


The Great Barrier Reef has even been used for Mustard gas trials....
www.ozatwar.com...


And there's the evidence.
Thank you.






top topics



 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join