Court restricts U.S. Navy use of whale-killing sonar | Hacker News Reader

Court restricts U.S. Navy use of whale-killing sonar

wired.com

95 pointsourmandave34 comments

I haven't finished the decision yet, but from what I have read it seems the Wired reporter might have gotten a little eager to conclude that world is a quiet place for whales.

The HN submitter definitely got too excited when they paraphrased the article title. The ruling does not bar the use of LFA when there is an active military conflict. SECNAV is not going to get spend a lot of time at Woods Hole polishing an environmental impact study while the pacific fleet wonders where a couple of nuclear armed enemy subs are located.

But don't take my word or the reporters word for it. The decision is here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/07/15/1...

For those wondering,yes, this is the latest development in the string of cases described in War of the Whales. The APA sounds kind of boring if you read the Wikipedia summary. But when you consider cases like this or what to do with DoC and ICANN it is actually pretty interesting, especially for technology or science questions.

The HN submitter definitely got too excited when they paraphrased the article title.

I submitted it and I'm certain I used the original title:

  The Sea Will Get a Lot Quieter Without the Navy’s Whale-Killing Sonar

You did. We changed it in an attempt to be less baity than Wired's title (in accordance with the HN guidelines). Looks like we made it inaccurate in the process. Sorry!

I've changed it again and if someone wants to suggest a more accurate and neutral title we can change it a third time.

Don't forget that the 9th circuit is so far left it's either foul or halfway up the stands on any given decision and gets overruled at appeal very frequently. It's very possible that the next appeal will change things.

There is no justification for using a device that endangers animal life during times of peace.

Right, because you really want to use your equipment for the first time when you're in a fight. Why would you want to see if it's in good repair, train your crews with it, find the limitations, or even see if the stuff works at all before the shooting starts?! </s>

There definitely are justifications. Maybe not sufficient to justify the damage done, but it's not like the Navy is just screwing with whales for grins.

You can minimize the use of the equipment to tests that ensure its operational, made on dry land or with precautions preventing the sound to disturb marine life. Training can happen on simulators.

I didn't make any comment on the validity of the decision, just that the 9th tends to err much farther left than the other circuits and appeals of its decisions are much more frequently successful.

Right, because protecting marine life is such a commie thing...

Okay, but you'll have to be willing to give up the following: agriculture, power generation (both fossil and renewable), housing, clothing, and shelter.

Almost all industrial scale processes, including building your house, endanger animal life in one way or another, whether it's particulate creation from fossil fuels, migrating birds in wind turbines, or simple destruction of habitat.

A better argument, to me, would be that dolphins and whales exhibit intelligence on par with the great apes. Dolphins have the largest number of neurons in the neocortex of any mammal, communicate with one another, transmit culture from generation to generation, and work in tandem with humans even in the wild.

There's at least a decent argument to be made that they may be sentient. Given that possibility, we would be not only cruel to damage these animals, but perhaps would also deprive ourselves of an invaluable resource in understanding the roots of consciousness.

Apples to oranges. The processes you mentioned actively produce an end product. Sonar, at best, produces intelligence during wartime and at worst, kills intelligent marine life during peacetime.

Kills endangered species, sentient or not, that are strictly protected by law. Like Eubalaena japonica, with a world population estimated between 23 and 40 animals.

Anybody caught just willfully harassing a whale would face a hefty fine or even jail time. To kill entire herds of several species of dolphins and whales is, understandably, a much worst offence. The question to be answered here is: Can the army be allowed to just ignore the current law in peace time, arguing that laws are annoying for them?

The problem was that they were breaking the law for no reason, not if this whales can use facebook or not.

The end products of a powerful navy are openness of the sea for commerce, protection of international peace, and national security.

Intelligence, when gathered in accordance with the law, is an invaluable resource in producing those end products.

Security may be something that many in the United States take for granted, but it is one of the basic requirements of human beings, perhaps even prior to food, water, and shelter on the hierarchy of needs.

Only as long as it's in the best interest of that powerful navy.

Do you have another solution to achieve these goals? One that doesn't involve the interests of a nation?

What goals? The "openness of the sea for commerce, protection of international peace"?

It's about a nation's interests. We shouldn't pretend that, if those interests are better served by closing down the sea for commerce and waging war, the navy would do anything else. The navy is a tool of power and suppression of its enemies.

> There is no justification for using a device that endangers animal life during times of peace.

If you want those times of peace to last, or if you just want to ensure peace on your terms after war, you need to practise for war.

I guess we can only mow our lawns or harvest grain during wartime, by that logic?

Right. After all, neat lawns are vital to a war effort (???).

I think the GP's point was that 99% of human activity either endangers or actively destroys wildlife by at least one definition.

True, but some of that activity, if suspended, would drive mankind extinct. That certainly would not happen with ceasing to use these sonars.

communica—BLUURRRRGGGGHHHH AAAARRROOOOOO WAA WAA WAA—oh, sorry, pardon the interruption.

With this Wired finally earns itself a position in the "Dead to me" section of my /etc/hosts file. There isn't anything of value there, so I'll make sure they don't earn a click from me again.

This would have no impact on other countries like Russia and China, which use similar technologies.

Or consider if one of those creatures hears the noise while diving deep. If it gets spooked and comes to the surface too fast, it will get the bends.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but i thought deep diving mammals couldn't get the bends on breath-hold because they haven't breathed compressed gas. Sure, high energy sound can damaging, but scare whales bent? please.

I don't think that matters. As the whale dives, their lungs get squished together, so the air inside them is at a higher pressure, just as it would be if you breathed from a pressure regulator. The noise pollution -> decompression sickness theory is apparently an established thing: http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/saltwater-science/do_wha...

One of the linked sites goes deep on some old tests. I couldn't find any recordings of the subwoofer tones they used though. http://staff.washington.edu/dushaw/heard/index.shtml

What is it with this "ad blockers are bad" thing?

So wired just won a spot in my blockfile (hosts file). When platforms get their sht together again and make sure, ad networks won't infect my machine with malware I might switch back to not using an ad blocker. Till then - who tries to force me get's killed from this machine.

What '"ad blockers are bad" thing'? I use an adblocker (actually more than that...) and can read the article perfectly fine. Maybe it's JavaScript?

It is JS. Wired displays some text if you use an ad blocker, but does so via JS. (With the effect that NoScript users can read articles fine, but can not watch video...)

> but can not watch video

No autoplay video counts as a plus in my book :D

What is it with "paying to read" is a bad thing? They have to run a business. Perhaps sites should offer the article add free for a small price? We could use a better model for the internet.

I recommend a talk from EFF's Cooper Quintin about Privacy Badger; he demonstrates all the third parties involved in many situations:

https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/ending-online-...

Even if you agree with the business model, it's a grim subject---a large part of the objection is in _how_ it is done, be it tracking or underhanded baiting tactics.

I didn't say it wasn't. I was proposing that we devise another solution whereby people can opt out of tracking/ads by paying to read.

I would be willing to pay for content (and often times I am doing exactly that).

I am not willing to have an attack vector open for any media outlet to infect me via their revenue generating ads.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com