America bombs Great Barrier Reef

[Painted skin]

I'd bet my paycheck they didn't just drop them at random.

And I hope you don't think this is the first or last time ordnance has been dropped into the ocean, or land for that matter, to just lose the weight.

Absolutely I know it's not the first time they have unload, but come on do you really think it's in our best interest that they playing war games and flying around and over a protected area also knowing the reef region is struggling.. The globe is fairly big place sure there are other better places to play there games or testing.

 

[Jeff000]

Absolutely I know it's not the first time they have unload, but come on do you really think it's in our best interest that they playing war games and flying around and over a protected area also knowing the reef region is struggling.. The globe is fairly big place sure there are other better places to play there games or testing.

They fly over populated areas too. Air liners fly over protected areas too.

I'm not sure you realize how large the protected area is. It's a significant detour to go around.

 

[Painted skin]

They fly over populated areas too. Air liners fly over protected areas too.

I'm not sure you realize how large the protected area is. It's a significant detour to go around.

Ok were getting off track when you're bringing in airliners into the picture same thing as saying ships cruise around there. Accident do happen, but when you're testing bombs and such the risk is higher for accident. "It's a significant detour to go around" really? should not be our problem... Play in the middle of the pacific if all I care.

 

[Khemul]

... but when you're testing bombs and such the risk is higher for accident.

They weren't testing bombs. Two of the objects weren't even bombs to begin with.

 

[Painted skin]

They weren't testing bombs. Two of the objects weren't even bombs to begin with.

Where did you get that info? What were they then? I'm going base on the news article and the info jeff brought up.

Bombs or not what alludes me is that they had destination after the testing range or what ever to land. So why couldn't they land with it and avoid running out fuel..?

 

[Khemul]

Where did you get that info? What were they then? I'm going base on the news article and the info jeff brought up.

Bombs or not what alludes me is that they had destination after the testing range or what ever to land. So why couldn't they land with it and avoid running out fuel..?

Two inert objects, which would be bomb casings filled with concrete in order to look and feel like bombs weight-wise. So only two objects had the potential to even be armed and truly be called bombs.

They had fuel to get to the bombing range, drop the objects/bombs and then return. They couldn't drop the objects/bombs due to safety concerns at the range, so they turned back. Since they didn't plan on returning with the objects/bombs, this changed the fuel range of the jets so that they no longer had enough fuel to make it back (since they never planned to return with them to begin with). So they did the sensible thing, they found a safe location out in the middle of nowhere and dropped the weight.


The only other options would have been to drop them on a range that wasn't clear of hazards (want any hints on what 'hazards' are?) or to crash the jets into the ocean. They picked the smart option of dropping them in the middle of nowhere, where no damage could be done. And they get criticized for it. Funny how the world works.

 

[Painted skin]

Two inert objects, which would be bomb casings filled with concrete in order to look and feel like bombs weight-wise. So only two objects had the potential to even be armed and truly be called bombs.

They had fuel to get to the bombing range, drop the objects/bombs and then return. They couldn't drop the objects/bombs due to safety concerns at the range, so they turned back. Since they didn't plan on returning with the objects/bombs, this changed the fuel range of the jets so that they no longer had enough fuel to make it back (since they never planned to return with them to begin with). So they did the sensible thing, they found a safe location out in the middle of nowhere and dropped the weight.


The only other options would have been to drop them on a range that wasn't clear of hazards (want any hints on what 'hazards' are?) or to crash the jets into the ocean. They picked the smart option of dropping them in the middle of nowhere, where no damage could be done. And they get criticized for it. Funny how the world works.

Ok that makes sense. If that was the case then I would say it's fortunate, what about the next time. This would be good opportunity to rethinking their flying plan and testing around that area...


The truth is out there. Politician are always honest and give us the truth ( ya, right).

 

[pjwperth]

Typical why try and justify what has been done. Who cares if its a detour, just don't use that area.

As one of the comments on youtube said if that was an Australian jet that did this over American land or sea there would have been a mass uproar by the American public.

As for news channels creating stories for better ratings I'm sure if you watch an Amercian channel it will say they did nothing wrong it was in an open area and no damage, and an Australian channel will say the opposite. It happens all the time in war time cover pieces they only show you what they want you to see, think and/or know.

quoted:"I doubt they would have done a tremendous amount of damage, even if the bombs were armed and did hit the reef directly.

There just isn't anything to be concerned about here at all. A small shipwreck would be a bigger cause of concern then four bombs."

Really you don't think four bombs would do anything, why not offer up your backyard for the next bomb test then.This is what I mean just ignorance on behalf of the world blinkers on if it doesn't happen to me dirrectly I don't really care. It should be something to be concerned about as the reef is home to thousands and thousands of diverse marine life that multiply to give us the fish and corals that we want for our tanks, that use up nutrients in the water so we can swim and protect the Australian coastline from erosion by waves and tides, also is a big econmical tourist attraction that keeps people employed and off the dole.

 

[Painted skin]

Typical why try and justify what has been done. Who cares if its a detour, just don't use that area.

As one of the comments on youtube said if that was an Australian jet that did this over American land or sea there would have been a mass uproar by the American public.

As for news channels creating stories for better ratings I'm sure if you watch an Amercian channel it will say they did nothing wrong it was in an open area and no damage, and an Australian channel will say the opposite. It happens all the time in war time cover pieces they only show you what they want you to see, think and/or know.

quoted:"I doubt they would have done a tremendous amount of damage, even if the bombs were armed and did hit the reef directly.

There just isn't anything to be concerned about here at all. A small shipwreck would be a bigger cause of concern then four bombs."

Really you don't think four bombs would do anything, why not offer up your backyard for the next bomb test then.This is what I mean just ignorance on behalf of the world blinkers on if it doesn't happen to me dirrectly I don't really care. It should be something to be concerned about as the reef is home to thousands and thousands of diverse marine life that multiply to give us the fish and corals that we want for our tanks, that use up nutrients in the water so we can swim and protect the Australian coastline from erosion by waves and tides, also is a big econmical tourist attraction that keeps people employed and off the dole.

+1

Well said. Said it better than I can.

 

[pjwperth]

Thank you. I hope I didn't offend anyone but that is what I think.

 

[Jeff000]

Ok that makes sense. If that was the case then I would say it's fortunate, what about the next time. This would be good opportunity to rethinking their flying plan and testing around that area...

There are only so many places where it is safe to do this testing. They can not really rethink their flying plan. What's worse a couple square meters of damage or an extra 40k lbs of fuel burned in a year?

The truth is that this is a pretty rare occurrence, and probably still the best choice. And trying to mitigate every possible issue is an impossible task.

Really you don't think four bombs would do anything, why not offer up your backyard for the next bomb test then.This is what I mean just ignorance on behalf of the world blinkers on if it doesn't happen to me dirrectly I don't really care. It should be something to be concerned about as the reef is home to thousands and thousands of diverse marine life that multiply to give us the fish and corals that we want for our tanks, that use up nutrients in the water so we can swim and protect the Australian coastline from erosion by waves and tides, also is a big econmical tourist attraction that keeps people employed and off the dole.

A small ship wreck can effect 100's of miles of coast line and a massive foot print under water too.

Those 4 bombs would probably destroy a city block worth under water if placed right. But that spot would start "healing" almost instantly after the explosions. The ship wreck can have effects that last weeks or months.

Or the governing body could stop the mining and dredging of protected area and save huge amounts of the reef on a daily basis.

I am not really saying one thing is better than the other, but I am saying that turning a blind eye to one issue and overreacting to another is not a proper way to go about it either.

 

[Painted skin]

There are only so many places where it is safe to do this testing. They can not really rethink their flying plan. What's worse a couple square meters of damage or an extra 40k lbs of fuel burned in a year?

The truth is that this is a pretty rare occurrence, and probably still the best choice. And trying to mitigate every possible issue is an impossible task.




A small ship wreck can effect 100's of miles of coast line and a massive foot print under water too.

Those 4 bombs would probably destroy a city block worth under water if placed right. But that spot would start "healing" almost instantly after the explosions. The ship wreck can have effects that last weeks or months.

Or the governing body could stop the mining and dredging of protected area and save huge amounts of the reef on a daily basis.

I am not really saying one thing is better than the other, but I am saying that turning a blind eye to one issue and overreacting to another is not a proper way to go about it either.

Ok you're still trying to justify it. With other possibilities that could be worst, why not just bring in Nuclear explosion while you're at it for example.. And do you really think one of those bombs would only do a couple of meter damage?? Get real!

"What's worse a couple square meters of damage or an extra 40k lbs of fuel burned in a year? " Answer: I would choose neither as compromise , just don't use that area period.

 

[Jeff000]

Ok you're still trying to justify it. With other possibilities that could be worst, why not just bring in Nuclear explosion while you're at it for example.. And do you really think one of those bombs would only do a couple of meter damage?? Get real!

"What's worse a couple square meters of damage or an extra 40k lbs of fuel burned in a year? " Answer: I would choose neither as compromise , just don't use that area period.

I'm not intentionally trying to justify it, just saying that this is a huge overreaction for a really minor highly unlikely incident.

These 'dead bombs' wouldn't hit the ocean floor with much velocity (maybe 80mph? it's a hella complicated formula in which I would have to guess a lot anyways). Due to their shape I would expect them to hit nose first, so if they just hit and smash, they would each cause maybe a sq meter of damage, maybe 2 if they hit and then fell over.

Landing somewhere that deep with no actual reef, I would say the only casualties would be anything unlucky enough to be right there when the impact happened.

 

[Painted skin]

Like I said it's fortunate that they were " dead bomb" if fact that's the truth. I don't think the military has the environment as their first priority in mind. They are in the business of destruction and killing when needed.

It's ignorance line of thinking like that the earth will heal regardless of our action(s)is why we are in bad situation with the environment today. The reef among other areas of the world is in jeopardy as we speak. We do not need any more damage to those areas.

To this day they conducting drills around the world, but do they have do it around or near the reef? If you not justifying it isn't there other less threaten areas of the world to play their GI Joe games?

 

[Jeff000]

Like I said it's fortunate that they were " dead bomb" if fact that's the truth. I don't think the military has the environment as their first priority in mind. They are in the business of destruction and killing when needed.

It's ignorance line of thinking like that the earth will heal regardless of our action(s)is why we are in bad situation with the environment today. The reef among other areas of the world is in jeopardy as we speak. We do not need any more damage to those areas.

To this day they conducting drills around the world, but do they have do it around or near the reef? If you not justifying it isn't there other less threaten areas of the world to play their GI Joe games?

Bombs don't go off unless they want them to go off now days. Two were live ordinances that were just not armed.


I agree that we need to stop doing the damage that we can. But we also have to admit that climate change will happen if we are around or not.

 

[ingtar_shinowa]

I've seen LIVE bombs while diving in Barbados, St Thomas, and other tropical locals. This is such a lame article. Those bombs were covered in coral and the only thing that worried me was the fact that the dive guide was banging on them with his knife.

Skin those 'bombs' were reusable props because it costs too much to drop live ordinance.

 

[Painted skin]

Bombs don't go off unless they want them to go off now days. Two were live ordinances that were just not armed.


I agree that we need to stop doing the damage that we can. But we also have to admit that climate change will happen if we are around or not.

Oh really? I guess I must of missed the meaning of armed and unarmed and the push button to release bomb on jets. :uhoh3:

As for climate change why do you think we are in that situation? Are you saying us human had nothing to do that causing great amount of damage nor we can make a difference to reduce the speed up the process? Wake up.
You're completely missing the point. So at this point the only thing I'm going agree to is to disagree.

 

[pjwperth]

Quote:There are only so many places where it is safe to do this testing. They can not really rethink their flying plan. What's worse a couple square meters of damage or an extra 40k lbs of fuel burned in a year?

Why do they need to test anyway?

Quote:The truth is that this is a pretty rare occurrence, and probably still the best choice. And trying to mitigate every possible issue is an impossible task.

The best choice is not to do it rare occurence or not. If the army wants to destroy stuff and it only effects 1 maybe 2 square metres then offer up your backyard not ours.

quote:but I am saying that turning a blind eye to one issue and overreacting to another is not a proper way to go about it either.

I'm not justifing any proposal for destroying one of natures greatest creations. I also hate deforrestation of the amazon as well.

 

[mgraf]

Some people justify themselves by setting aside small areas of what is left of something and calling it "protected". Fact is, we are all just justifying what we do to this planet. As long as money fuels man, Earth will come at a distant second. People are just clinging to the scraps of what is left from the destruction created by us all. Man has started a cycle on this planet that a few more pieces, or a few less pieces of steel dropped from the sky will not make much difference in the long run.

 

[Khemul]

Really you don't think four bombs would do anything, why not offer up your backyard for the next bomb test then.This is what I mean just ignorance on behalf of the world blinkers on if it doesn't happen to me dirrectly I don't really care. It should be something to be concerned about as the reef is home to thousands and thousands of diverse marine life that multiply to give us the fish and corals that we want for our tanks, that use up nutrients in the water so we can swim and protect the Australian coastline from erosion by waves and tides, also is a big econmical tourist attraction that keeps people employed and off the dole.

I didn't say they wouldn't do anything. I said they wouldn't a tremendous amount of damage. :facepalm:

People hear the word "bomb" and their ignorance instantly jumps to images of vast devastation and destruction. It just wouldn't be like that. A 1000 lb bomb blowing on or near the water's surface? An extremely strong storm would have a bigger effect on the reef, and those happen on a regular basis. A shipwreck would have a bigger effect, because it might actually hit something of value.

But these weren't even active bombs. They were solid chunks of debris that fell no where near the reef. There really is nothing to be outraged about.