EA Forums - Banner

Replies

  • lissarv68
    5588 posts Member
    edited July 2013
    Just to make sure the facts are right....

    Note the bold and in red part. This was done with AUTHORIZATION from the Australian government.

    And note the other bold and in red part, it was hardly an accident when there were unauthorized vessels in a live fire zone. What would be worst? Dropping the bombs on the unauthorized civilians or dropping them in the reef? Again with authorization from the Australian government.

    Nothing to discuss.

    Those people should not have been there.
    July 22, 2013
    Australians Question U.S. Reassurance After Navy Jettisons Bombs on Great Barrier Reef
    By MATT SIEGEL
    SYDNEY, Australia — The emergency release of four bombs into the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park by the United States Navy has angered some Australians, despite assurances on Monday that the unexploded ordnance posed no threat to the World Heritage-listed site’s delicate ecosystem.

    Two AV-8B Harrier jets launched from the aircraft carrier Bonhomme Richard were meant to drop the unarmed bombs on an island near the reef as part of a live-fire exercise last week, but were forced to release them at sea to avoid damaging several unauthorized vessels that had entered the area, according to the Navy.

    The episode occurred July 16 off the coast of the Australian state of Queensland as part of a biennial joint training exercise called Talisman Saber, which involves about 28,000 Australian and American military personnel.

    The decision to jettison the bombs was made with the authorization of the Australian Defense Force, a United States Navy spokesman, Cmdr. William Marks, told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. He said the chosen location, about 62 miles off Australia’s northeastern coast, had been selected to minimize damage to the reef.

    “The approved area where they could do some of this live training with these 500-pound bombs, it was not safe to drop the bombs. There were civilian boats right below them,” he was quoted as saying.

    “Their priority was to get to a place which would take the least impact. We believe we did drop in between 50 and 60 meters of water in a place where it is not a hazard to shipping and not a hazard to navigation.”

    But assurances from both countries’ armed forces appear to have done little to placate those angered by the incident, which include Senator Larissa Waters of the Australian Greens Party.

    “Is this how we look after our World Heritage area now?” she said to the ABC. “Letting a foreign power drop bombs on it?”

    The health of the Great Barrier Reef, which stretches for about 1,800 miles and is often referred to as the world’s largest living organism, has become a major concern in recent years as scientists have warned that climate change and population pressures pose threats to its long-term survival.

    In May, Unesco warned that the reef could be placed on its list of endangered World Heritage sites unless action were taken to protect it from further erosion.

    The extent of damage to the reef or other marine life from the incident remained unclear on Monday. A spokesman for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority told the Australian Associated Press that it would assist the military in locating the bombs and ensuring that they were safely recovered.

    But that is not enough for environmental activists like Graeme Dunstan, who called the incident proof that the military was either unwilling or unable to protect the environment.

    “How can they protect the environment and bomb the reef at the same time? Get real,” Mr. Dunstan told The Associated Press.

    This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

    Correction: July 22, 2013

    Because of an editing error, an earlier version of this article reported the wrong date for when the bombs were dropped by the United States Navy. It was July 16, not June 16.
  • dalecastongu
    224 posts Member
    edited July 2013
    My that struck a nerve.
  • mwdalton
    11548 posts Member
    edited July 2013
    That's so not cool. 'Minimise damage'? How about not doing it in the first place? :roll:

    And, just to be clear, I'm just as annoyed at the Australian Government.

    The Reef so doesn't need that :evil:
  • shaygitz
    1009 posts Member
    edited July 2013
    So I'm reading the news today and I read that today the US navy in all it's brilliance accidentally dropped a bomb on the Great Barrier Reef. Comments anyone?

    Yes. It wasn't today
  • mwdalton
    11548 posts Member
    edited July 2013
    shaygitz wrote:
    So I'm reading the news today and I read that today the US navy in all it's brilliance accidentally dropped a bomb on the Great Barrier Reef. Comments anyone?

    Yes. It wasn't today

    Lol, begone with your 'facts' :wink::lol:

    (just joking)
  • SoundpackStud
    417 posts
    edited July 2013
    Another point: unarmed bombs

    People complaining should talk to the families of the civilians who were in the drop zone to find out if they would have preferred the jets to drop the "bombs" onto their family members. Then, put themselves in their place. I can't imagine there's anyone who would give up someone's life in place of this decision... :?
  • dalecastongu
    224 posts Member
    edited July 2013
    Sorry my bad last week. Sorry read the story today.
  • dalecastongu
    224 posts Member
    edited July 2013
    Another point: unarmed bombs

    People complaining should talk to the families of the civilians who were in the drop zone to find out if they would have preferred the jets to drop the "bombs" onto their family members. Then, put themselves in their place. I can't imagine there's anyone who would give up someone's life in place of this decision... :?


    Still does irreparable damage to an already at risk ecosystem. But hey who cares right.
  • SoundpackStud
    417 posts
    edited July 2013
    Another point: unarmed bombs

    People complaining should talk to the families of the civilians who were in the drop zone to find out if they would have preferred the jets to drop the "bombs" onto their family members. Then, put themselves in their place. I can't imagine there's anyone who would give up someone's life in place of this decision... :?


    Still does irreparable damage to an already at risk ecosystem. But hey who cares right.

    Not sure "irreparable" is the right word... it'll grow back in time (yes, a very, VERY long time), but still.

    And I'm not saying it was a "good idea." I'm just saying that, if those were the only 2 choices (for whatever reason), then they picked the less of 2 evils
  • amuck10
    506 posts
    edited July 2013
    Unarmed 400-500 lbs bombs dropped in 50-60 meters of water really would cause very little damage. Might have a little surface damage to the coral directly under it but that's about it. An unarmed 400-500 lbs bomb dropped on a boat would go right through it and still hit bottom. The best of a list of bad choices. Better than two overweight/out of fuel aircraft ditching into the reef and leaking all sorts of nasty chems.

    Remember... Once upon a time a plane with a nuke on board crashed into the adirondack mountains and only damaged a few trees.
  • toddpygensky
    583 posts
    edited July 2013
    amuck10 wrote:
    Unarmed 400-500 lbs bombs dropped in 50-60 meters of water really would cause very little damage. Might have a little surface damage to the coral directly under it but that's about it. An unarmed 400-500 lbs bomb dropped on a boat would go right through it and still hit bottom. The best of a list of bad choices. Better than two overweight/out of fuel aircraft ditching into the reef and leaking all sorts of nasty chems.

    Remember... Once upon a time a plane with a nuke on board crashed into the adirondack mountains and only damaged a few trees.

    I agree, it was unlikely to cause much damage and could have been far worse.

    That doesnt absolve everyone though, I think Australians need to point the finger at their government as much as the USA in the poor judgment of conducting these exercises so close to such a vulnerable ecosystem.

    The article (perhaps I missed it) should also make it clearer that these bombs were unarmed, I bet alot of people who read this just assumed the bombs detonated as well.

    Edit - also, isnt it regular practice for the military to conduct sweeps of the area to make sure there are no people or vessels anywhere near BEFORE the exercise is given the go ahead?
  • TwiztidThorn
    2686 posts
    edited July 2013
    So I'm reading the news today and I read that today the US navy in all it's brilliance accidentally dropped a bomb on the Great Barrier Reef. Comments anyone?
    I get the feeling that you just wanted to stir up some drama.
  • Holli537
    186 posts Member
    edited July 2013
    Our government is 🎃🎃🎃🎃.
  • shaygitz
    1009 posts Member
    edited July 2013
    Holli537 wrote:
    Our government is 🎃🎃🎃🎃.

    You don't say where you're from, but it really doesn't matter-- your statement would be accurate regardless. Definitely un-PC, but accurate.
  • toddpygensky
    583 posts
    edited July 2013
    Oh yeah, no doubt we're scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to most politicians.

    But hey, if Australia had a habit of allowing US citizens to immigrate there, I might have to consider it. ;)
  • Holli537
    186 posts Member
    edited July 2013
    shaygitz wrote:
    Holli537 wrote:
    Our government is 🎃🎃🎃🎃.

    You don't say where you're from, but it really doesn't matter-- your statement would be accurate regardless. Definitely un-PC, but accurate.

    I live in Wisconsin, U.S.*
  • simpsons7795
    817 posts Member
    edited July 2013
    The lyrics to Megadeth's Hanger 18 song comes to mind:

    "The military Intelligence
    Two words combined that can't make sense"
  • lissarv68
    5588 posts Member
    edited July 2013
    My that struck a nerve.

    Yes, it did strike a nerve because I don't like when people try to start things without having their facts straight.

    It was not an epic fail, it was not an accident. Militaries have to train. This a planned, joint exercise between two militaries. Those civilians had no business being in a live fire zone. The countries did nothing wrong in choosing to not kill the civilians. I will always go with the option of destroying a non-human thing over taking out lives.

    Sorry.

    Bottom line is the jets did not have the fuel to go back to the base with the bombs still on board. They would have crashed, again taking lives.

    If anybody is at fault it is the civilians who had no business being in the live fire zone.

    Politics have no business on this forum and it always results in a flame war.
  • lissarv68
    5588 posts Member
    edited July 2013
    amuck10 wrote:
    Unarmed 400-500 lbs bombs dropped in 50-60 meters of water really would cause very little damage. Might have a little surface damage to the coral directly under it but that's about it. An unarmed 400-500 lbs bomb dropped on a boat would go right through it and still hit bottom. The best of a list of bad choices. Better than two overweight/out of fuel aircraft ditching into the reef and leaking all sorts of nasty chems.

    Remember... Once upon a time a plane with a nuke on board crashed into the adirondack mountains and only damaged a few trees.

    I agree, it was unlikely to cause much damage and could have been far worse.

    That doesnt absolve everyone though, I think Australians need to point the finger at their government as much as the USA in the poor judgment of conducting these exercises so close to such a vulnerable ecosystem.

    The article (perhaps I missed it) should also make it clearer that these bombs were unarmed, I bet alot of people who read this just assumed the bombs detonated as well.

    Edit - also, isnt it regular practice for the military to conduct sweeps of the area to make sure there are no people or vessels anywhere near BEFORE the exercise is given the go ahead?

    They did and they do.

    Not only that, the second civilians are discovered in unauthorized areas they start trying to alert them to clear the area. The fact that they wound up having to ditch the bombs would indicate that the civilians did not listen to them.

    Just be happy they chose this route instead of dropping the bombs onto the civilians.

    Australia gave this area where they wanted to conduct the exercise. If the reef is that valuable then why did they not choose a different area? Why would they choose a place so close where there was potential for damage?
  • Skyrim-mrp
    3684 posts
    edited July 2013
    mwdalton wrote:
    That's so not cool. 'Minimise damage'? How about not doing it in the first place? :roll:

    And, just to be clear, I'm just as annoyed at the Australian Government.

    The Reef so doesn't need that :evil:
    🎃🎃🎃🎃 that needs preserving as it is. Has its cause alot of damage to the reef?
This discussion has been closed.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!