Article quote: "Australian Sen. Larissa Waters, the influential Greens
party's spokeswoman on the Great Barrier Reef, described the dumping of
bombs in such an environmentally sensitive area as "outrageous" and said
it should not be allowed. "Have we gone completely mad?" she told ABC.
"Is this how we look after our World Heritage area now? Letting a foreign
power drop bombs on it?"As Paul Harvey would say, and now for
the rest of the story.....Article quote: "The pilots conducted
the emergency jettison because they were LOW ON FUEL and could not land with
their bomb load, the Navy said."Typical liberal...once again,
putting 'things' and lower life forms ahead of human life.Gee, and here I thought only conservatives were the meanies....
It could have been worse and one or both planes crash into the barrier reef
destroying it, but with cool heads and common sense thought processes the dummy
steal casing were dropped far away from the reef. No harm, no foul, no hazardous
chemicals or explosions involved and no damage to the reef.Now whats
the beef? Practice bombs don't have explosives in them and at
best an impact smoke signal any ship along the reef would have stocked on their
I understand the concern.For me the question is who was responsible for clearing
the original target site? The lack of availability of the original target area
was the direct cause of the need to drop the practice bombs somewhere else. The
location of the secondary site sounds like it was the decision of Australia and
not just the U.S. So, was not clearing the original target area the fault of
the U.S., Australia, or someone else?
Obviously, the Crews had 4 excellent choices.1. Proceed with the training
run and drop the bombs where they were supposed to and perhaps sink a couple of
civilians that were where they weren’t supposed to be. That would keep the
reef safe and beautiful.2. Head away from land and the reef and ditch in
the middle of the ocean and hope no deep sea creatures are harmed but save the
reef. Maybe the pilots could safely eject.3. Attempted to land at the base
with overloaded wings and destroyed a couple of high cost aircraft, perhaps
kills the pilots but keep the reef safe.4. Do what they did. Protect human
life, keep the reef safe, keep the aircraft safe, do minimal damage to the
environment and provide more reef building material.Of course there is the
5th option of airmailing Sen. Waters a few hefty lawn ornaments. That would
keep the civilians safe, the reef safe, the pilots and planes safe and of course
Typical type remark usually made by dedicated environmentalists everywhere.
Because of focused vision, they are unable to foresee the unintended
consequences of not taking the action they did. If the pilots had not jettisoned
the bombs then the plane and crew could have crashed and done a lot more damage
to the ocean's environment.
Sometimes, I believe that career environmentalists simply leave their brains
behind when they decide to speak. The bombs didn't explode and are highly
unlikely to cause any damage whatsoever. In fact the bombs will provide
substrate for marine animals to attach to and will likely create little
mini-reefs of their own. It is the same reason that surplus ships are often sunk
offshore in sandy bottoms. But, as Rahm Emanuel says, "Don't Let a
Crisis Go to Waste" even if it is perceived more than real. I actually have
environmentalist sympathies of my own. But the movement itself loses credibility
when idiots express outrage over absolutely nothing.
2 years ago, after diving on the great barrier reef, I expressed to my friends,
"That reef's da bomb!"Little did I know.....