Discuss the Supreme Court's ruling on Navy sonar use

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling will allow the Navy to use high-powered sonar off the SoCal coast, despite protests from environmentalists who say the sonar harms whales and other marine mammals.

The Times' David Savage reports:

Chief Justice John G. Roberts said the Navy needs to train its crews to detect enemy submarines, and it cannot be forced to turn off its sonar when whales are spotted nearby. "The public interest in conducting training exercises with active sonar under realistic conditions plainly outweighs" the concerns voiced by environmentalists, he said for a 5-4 majority.

Do you agree with the Supreme Court ruling?  Do the Navy's needs trump the potential effects on marine life?  Weigh in here.

Photo: Dennis Fujimoto/AP

Comments

[Mark W.]

The ruling is ridiculous , they are training not in a real interaction. What a surprise 5 to 4, I wonder who were the five judges (I bet I can tell you). These idiots never look at the big picture!!!!!!!

[kurt]

This ruling is a sickening and ignorant. The Court has consistently divided 5-4 on any matter of significance. The Court's inability to win over the minority is an indication of how out of touch the conservatives on the Court have become.

[Whale Hatter]

FOR ALL YOU PEOPLE THAT ARE SAYING THAT WE SHOULD STOP THE NAVY FROM USING SONAR. PACK YOUR BAGS NOW, BECAUSE YOU WILL BE LIVING WITH THE FISHES WHEN WE GET HIT FROM A TERRIOST ATTACK.

WAKE UP PEOPLE!!! IRAQ AND THE MIDDLE EAST IS NOT OUR ONLY THREAT.

[TLmule]

First the Navy needs to do their EIS - just like any other federal project that may impact our environment. Second, I don't trust the environmentalists. Each side has an agenda - and will publish propaganda to get their way. The attitude of human supremacy needs to change - we do need to look at how our actions are affecting our planet. Humans have impacted our environment for tens of thousands of years. We have brains and can invent technology that is more benign. We can develop solar power, we COULD develop less invasive sonar techniques as well.

[hw]

II strongly disagree with the ruling,.
This is just about the training!!! Why could the training not wait until in an area where there are no whales around or the whales have gone?
Do not confuse this with a security issue! Its like saying, we have to test bombs in a testing range when there is at that time a group of bison or other animals in the area. We can surely minimize injuries to fellow creatures!

[Richard Speel]

It just goes to show that the Supreme Court is a Pro War Court and what you sow, so shall ye reap...

The Defense Dept. used to be called the War Dept., which is what it really is...

We spend a bulk of our taxes on war related work...Too bad...

[Barry Connolly]

AN UNBELIEVABLE DECISION. What kind of management is it that continuously puts the "needs" of the military before the natural and authentic world. This is a disgraceful decision handed down by an old world elite caught up in delusional idealogical empire maintenance. Get real will you! Al Queda doesn't use bloody submarines but wildlife need the seas.

[Van P]

Absolutely I agree with the ruling! Since when did it even become a question whether or not we should stop protecting our shores to save the whales?? All you who would compromise our security to POSSIBLY save a few whales might think about how much you would enjoy the whales after a significant military attack on our country! Oh, probably then you would say the military should have done more to protect us. It's fortunate that there are some on the Supreme Court that still have some sense.

And since when did we become so worried about a few whales when we kill without remorse millions of unborn humans?

[gp]

It is hard to believe that all the might of the United States' Navy science cannot come up with an effective, safe way to detect our enemies' presence. Is it difficult and expensive? I'm sure. Is it possible? Probably. You know why it's not done? Same reason SUVs are on the road, same reason people still hunt, same reason people don't slow down for a duck crossing the road. We, the "greatest" beings on Earth, we, the human race, simply do not care for anyone or anything but ourselves. Pure and simple.

[Tom]

What??? "...dismantle the Navy and honor the whales." That's loony. How can I take seriously anyone advocating the dismantling of the Navy. Obviously, anyone advocating this kind of thinking is not familiar with living under the discord an oppressive regime produces and knows not the value of having a military, which defends even people who have loony, even silly ideas.

[jmillion]

That's just awful, arrogant... B.S.

[John Glover]

C'mon people, lets say that the Navy harms a few whales a year in order to maintain our national security. Really, how often do you see an endangered whale beached off the coast of SoCal anyways? Why on earth would you want to dismantle the Navy? (previous comment). And for the person using the position that everything is interconnected and what not.....DUH!
"And the planet will swat us off its face like a irritating gnat one day in return. Wake up!" I dont know how familiar you are with the earths history but we (all animals included) have been swatted off before, long before sonar and human caused pollution. If you dont like our military, MOVE to a place that is protected by the environmentalist and whales! All you people should be thanking our military for protecting us now and for future engagements. I bet the same people that are complaining about this are also double income no children families and driving an oversized SUV!!!!!!

[Sam Sharp]

I'm appalled that we continue to destroy the oceans. I hope BHO brings a little sanity to the supreme court when he chooses new judges. This right wing fundamentalist crap will ruin the earth if we let it and I'd say we are well on the way. So instead of slaughtering the whales with harpoons we can now do it with extreme sound while saying that we need protection from terrorists in their submarines. Yeh, and I'll bet they are going to bring their aircraft carriers to our shores next. We need common sense, which I think will only come through genetic engineering in the future, if we have a future.

[Alex]

That's just plain selfish! One day we'll regret that decision. Hope it's not too late then. Revert the decision!!! Save the whales!

[Kate]

I strongly disagree. What is the evidence that using sonar will protect us? Even if it does to some extent function as a warning–– let's think about what is really worth protecting for our children's sakes. What good for humans is a world without the natural resources and the life forms that we all depend on and care about. What will our children's lives be like without food, water, or beauty. They won't be healthy or live long or well (or at all) if the environment is destroyed. We need to preserve other life forms to preserve ourselves.

[Keith]

I see lots of comments about protecting the country, ourselves and our children. No doubt that is extremely important... but consider this, shouldn't protecting our country, ourselves and our children include the environment in which we rely on to survive? Can you guarantee no harm will come to us when the balance of the natural world, which our survival depends upon, is destroyed?

This is not a simple black or white, choose a side type issue. It's balancing all the needs that will keep us and the environment we depend upon protected.

[Think]

There is no room for extremism here. We have two diametrically opposed interests. Anyone who says whales don't matter and we don't need them clearly lack an understanding the world we live in. At the same time the U.S. has a very real interest in maintaining a military presence given the state of the wolrd and threats against the U.S. and our allies. A strong Navy able to protect itself and our shores is clearly a vital interest.

Where is the ballance? IMHO, we know that whales follow certain paths dictated by underwater topography, seasons, currents, and food source. One helpful thing would be for the Navy to base its testing and training operations in areas and at times calculated to do the least amount of potential harm. What reasonable precautions could the Navy take to safely encourage whales not to be in an area where potentially harmul testing and training will take place. Would low level sonar be useful? Now instead of absolutly no or absolutly yes, lets try to come up with ways we can do what we need to do with a miinimum of damage.

[nicholas-andres]

This was a bad decision. Who is threatening us with submarines? Nobody. Who is going to launch an invasion on America with conventional weapons? Nobody. People who say we need sonar testing to protect ourselves from terrorists are really dim-witted: what terrorists have subs?

Yes the navy and anti-sub capabilities are important. But we can work around the whales, it just requires compromise and some sacrifice, but it's a price we should pay to maintain the benefits of having whales in our waters.

[Harry]

NUKE and PAVE!! Think how much cleaner the world would be without all these messy animals.

[Ed]

the left wing tree hugging losers have been fighting for 30 years to undermine everything good in this country in the name of "nature" "the children" " the poor" "the downtrodden" "the trees" "the whales" "the environment" and a hundred other names designed to make us feel bad for something other than the situation at hand.

OUR MILITARY DEFENDS US from our enemies. The enemies we have been fighting against and who hate us for the last 200 years. The enemies who would destroy our way of life and our land and our lives.

BTW.. bailout. GM? great idea. but if only 10% of the people who think its a great idea bought a GM car, there would be no need for a bailout. And if the cars are so bad you cant buy them, then why are we bailing them out? So lets NOT bail em out. Lets let all Union jobs driven away by the Unions go away since thats what the Unions do to business. They drive the work away.

[DH]

These high-powered arrays and other military technology may very well harm our whale population. If environmental concerns were enforced during the development of these weapons, American ingenuity would find a way to both protect our shores and our fellow creatures. Blanket rulings like this without legislation to require more environmental responsibility from the Armed Forces will never advance us as stewards of this planet. The Supreme Court should have allowed the Navy to temporarily continue their defense activities AND required an environmental impact study be done before granting permanent usage. Going forward, new develelopment of weapons and defense should be held to an environmental regulatory standard that protects life.

[NANCY MILLER]

Within fifty years there will probably be no land animals or sea creatures on our earth. Shame on you people who do not realize the value of animal life - it is just as important as human life. Would I save a child or an animal first? Absolutely- with no hesitation - an animal ! ! I cannot imagine a world with no animals. I think humans should die off and let the world start again. Hopefully with a better outcome than we presently have.

[Clifford Hritz]

Hey Jonathan,
By letting/causing yet another species to be wiped-out due to our hunger for war and destruction, we move closer to going extinct ourselves. Good moral call by the 'supreme' morons, once again.

[Randy Patterson]

This is the most disgusting, ignorant, and numb hearted thing I've seen yet. How about we just start using nuclear depth charges while we're at it. Remember being underwater at a public pool and there's some idiot banging on the floor of said pool with a rock? Pretty annoying right? Now just imagine a military version of the biggest concert speakers you've ever heard, blasting away underwater, and we might have some concept of what it's like to dolphins, whales and other marine life who's aural sensitivity far exceeds our own. Futhermore, high-powered sonar is not the only means at our disposal for detecting enemy subs. We have incredible satallites with ground penetrating radar, passive magnetic field sensitive devices, and who knows what else the government hasn't told us about. This is unnecissary, unworthy, and should be illegal. There are hundreds of laws in place for individuals reguarding fishing, supposedly in order to protect the environment. The government and our military should show just as much respect for other (especially endangered) species as they do for US citizens. We are all citizens of Earth. We all need, not to be protected, but Respected. PS: Just speaking for myself, I am not at all afraid of being attacked by an enemy submarine. I am afraid of this attitude toward our environment. Chief Justice Roberts, has lost forever my respect and I cannot believe such a short sighted man is leading the United States Supreme Court.

[FJ]

Another conservative point of view that ignores science. It also reflects an ignorant and lazy mind set, where a modest amount of creativity and effort to protect marine mammals could have insured their health. If the Navy is supposed to be able to locate and hunt down the most silent of todays enemy submarines, it seems to me they ought to be able to determine whether or not there are any animals within range of being harmed. The Pacific is a big ocean, and the added challenge if any of looking out for marine mammals is a small sacrifice to make in order to protect not just our national security, but our responsibilities to respect and preserve the wellbeing of other life here on earth.