Navy May Use Mine-Detecting Dolphins In the Straight of Hormuz 204
New submitter cervesaebraciator writes "The Atlantic Wire reports that the Navy has a tested solution to the possible mining of the Strait of Hormuz. The Navy has 80 dolphins in San Diego Bay trained to use their own sonar to detect mines. When they find the mines, the dolphins drop an acoustic transponder nearby, so that human divers might return to defuse it. Retired Adm. Tim Keating cannot say, however, whether the dolphins will be used in the Straight."
The Obama administration has reportedly warned Iran that closing the Strait would provoke an American response.
Re:Dolphins ... right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Potential problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
How about a novel solution? (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, for the Americans to but the hell out of other countries business and look at their own issues instead.
Stop waging war on the peoples of this planet (those that have oil at least) and you might find your place in the world moves up from itinerant and hated troublemaker to respected citizen.
Hard I know aftrer so many decades of poking your nose it's not welcome... but hell, give it a try.
Dear America (Score:1, Insightful)
Nobody voted you the worlds police, and we're tired of your warmongering and sticking your nose where it doesnt belong. F*ckoff and die plx or vote for Ron Paul, kthx
Gracefully yours,
A peaceful citizen of a country you probably couldn't point to on a map.
Re:How about a novel solution? (Score:5, Insightful)
and if sprinkling fairy dust on rainbows begets unicorns and world peace, everyone could live in love and harmony!
However, we live in the real world. The big dogs on the block always push little ones around. Been like that since the first homo erectus climbed down from the trees. You think the any of the previous powers were "respected citizens" that "minded their own business"? How about the British empire? Soviet? Chinese? French? (yes the French were actually a major power as recently as the 19th century)
As far as US goes, it's actually quite benign in comparison to every other dominant power that came before it. What do you think the (insert empire name) would've done in (insert troublespot name)?
But anyhow it looks like all you USA haters will be getting your wish soon. America is declining fast, and the next big dog seems to be lining up to take its place already. You probably know who that is.
But be careful what you wish for.
I'll sign the above without being AC (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't say that I oppose all USA military operations: I actually think that what they did (and led other nations to do) in Libya was pretty great. I bet we're going to see a lot more problems in that area (Be it terrorism, hanging on the edge of another civil war or just another dictator grabbing the power after a while) but it was still a joint operation by the international community, intended to help people who wanted to overthrow a dictator.
That said... It's hard to deny that a lot of the problems in the area are also more or less directly caused by the USA. It's a very militaristic nation, with a very large and loud minority(?) of islamophobes and every few years it demonstrates that it still reserves itself the right to attack any nation there for whatever reason it wants to, whether or not they have the support of the international community and whether or not those reasons even make sense.
Whenever any dictator faces an uprising or any terrorist organization faces opposition from the locals, the first thing they say "Those are just agents of USA messing around" and the problem is... that doesn't sound as far-fetched as it should. USA foreign policy has been very effective in painting the nation as an evil empire against which the Arabs should unite. I'm not saying that there wouldn't be terrorist nutjobs if not for USA but I am saying that they have more support and credibility due to actions by USA. As far as I'm aware, the main platform of Ahmadinejad is rallying against USA: He gains support during conflicts like these and loses it when people direct their attention to internal affairs.
Re:I doubt it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'll sign the above without being AC (Score:5, Insightful)
Its very simple really: when trying to determine WHY the US has taken military action of some sort - look to see which US Corporations will benefit the most and you have found the *real* reason the US is dropping bombs. Oh, there are some exceptions - at the micro level (killing Bin Laden for instance was a political coups for the sitting President), but on the macro level, it is always economics I think.
Not that this marks it as different from just about any other country, but the US is the one country in the world that is more or less *always* at war somewhere. If they don't get drawn into one, they start it.
I am sure there will be some conflict with Iran, its just too perfect for the military industrial complex in the US. The US isn't in any other war at the moment, and a new war with a new opponent is a great way to ensure a lot of US corporations make big bank - at the expense of all those honest US soldiers who have to conduct it mind you.
I have BTW massive respect for the US military and its heroic members (despite a few exceptions), but they don't make the policy, they just have to carry it out.
Re:Sharks instead? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because they actually are funny, unlike most of the new crap.
I just love the quote: (Score:4, Insightful)
The Obama administration has reportedly warned Iran that closing the Straight would provoke an American response.
I love how it's only the US that can be 'provoked'.
Remember, folks, Iran's apparently nuclear weapon program, while not illegal in any sense, 'provokes' the US. Countries have a perfect right to develop nukes if they want, and cut off inspections that they are only working towards nuclear power, and all it does is get them kicked out of the nuclear weapon's treaty, which means many countries won't sell uranium to them. That's it. It doesn't give anyone the right to attack them, or be 'provoked' into a war with them.
I think people have somehow gotten confused since the Iraq war and think developing nukes are 'illegal', but Iraq signed a surrender in war saying they wouldn't develop nukes, so, if they actually had been doing so, it would be a violation of the surrender and the war would be back on. Iran is not anywhere near the same situation.
However, threatening to bomb Iran in violation of international law is illegal. I don't mean actually bombing Iran, although that's also illegal...just threatening to attack countries over internal matters is actually illegal. As is planning to do so. It's a crime against peace. Somehow, that doesn't count as 'provoking'.
But, if Iran does what is mostly within international law, closing of its own waterways to transit passage of countries threatening it, that is also 'provoking'. Countries are supposed to allow passage of ships through their waters as long as they don't stop, but they can stop that when, for example, people keep threatening to attack them. (And they can certainly keep out warships of countries that keep threatening them!)
To summarize: Iran doing things we don't like that are possibly falling short of their treaty obligations, but are not in any way 'illegal', that's 'provoking' us. The US committing the outright war crime of planning and threatening to bomb them to change their internal behavior, why, it's crazy to think Iran might not like that.
Re:Dolphins ... right. (Score:3, Insightful)