Quantcast

Comments about ‘US drops unarmed bombs on Great Barrier Reef’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, July 21 2013 5:45 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
A Guy With A Brain
Enid, OK

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....

My2Cents
Taylorsville, UT

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 boats.

Not Molly
Belgrade , ME

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?

shadow01
,

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 Australia Safe.

Arizona Border Dude
NACO, AZ

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.

BYUtah Fan
Herriman, UT

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.

J-TX
Allen, TX

2 years ago, after diving on the great barrier reef, I expressed to my friends, "That reef's da bomb!"

Little did I know.....

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments