Japanese ship rams whaling protest ship, sinks the bow

[Mayhem]

Due to protest ships "commiting acts of terrorism" on whaling ships, the japanese have sent 2 guard ships along with the whaling vessel to protect it from the protestors.
The protestors ship Ady Gil, according to the japanese government, fired projectiles, commited acts of terrorism, and threw hooks at the propellors of the whaling ship attempting to entangle the propellors. If the propellers had been entangled ripped off, the ship would have sunk and potentially kill all the whalers in the antarctic waters. Because of this, one of the guard ships rammed the protest ship which sunk its bow, however no one was hurt and the rest of the ship is still afloat.
Last I heard help is on the way.

Serves those ****ers right I say! Potentially killing humans to save animals? Arseholes, now we know Japan is willing to take military action to get their whales, not good for the countries these greenpeace ******s are tied to.

Thoughts? Are you pro human, or pro whale?

Anyway, I'm trying  to get more information on matter.

EDIT: got the actual story at http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/3209484/Secret-ship-confronts-whalers

 

[gamerwiz09]

Wow. 2 threads about saving retarded animals in 2 days!

As far as science and I am concerned, whale = food. And no more than that. They should have fed the damn protesters to the whales.

 

[havoc]

Were they piolot whales 

Im with the "japs" on this one.

 

[Trooper5445]

Screw whales.

 

[Mayhem]

Not pilot whales, they're dolphins aren't they?
The whale species they're hunting are more than sustainable at their quota, but of course they're doing lots off the books too.

Apparently the japanese vessel was damaged too. I'm waiting for the late night news for more info, as it doesn't seem to to be on the net just yet.

 

[Devercia]

Wait a minute. An entangled propeller is fatal to buoyancy?

 

[Sushiman70]

Apparently so. Anyway, the news we got here said that the Japanese ship had hit the hippies, shearing the hippie ship in half.

 

[FrisianDude]

While I value human life above that of a dolphin, I'm not sure if the Japanese should hunt whales. Isn't whale meat a delicacy in Japan?

 

[Henderson]

Links to news sites?

 

[Moss]

If the propellers had been entangled ripped off, the ship would have sunk and potentially kill all the whalers in the antarctic waters.

lolwut?
That's not how physics or ships work.

And last I checked terrorism isn't throwing stink bombs, shooting paint ball guns and getting in peoples way.

The Japanese are overblowing the situation and the amount of disruption greenpeace and sea shepherd actually cause. I guess it draws attention away from the fact that their illegally whaling for meat by exploiting a loop hole in a an international agreement they're a signatory to.

Just for the record I've got nothing against sustainable harvesting of whales (although the methods used are often significantly less than humane), I'm just not a big fan of bull****.

 

[Mayhem]

I know it sounds retarded that removing a propellor could sink a whaling ship, but that's what the news said, which would probably be what the japanese said.
And the Japanese ALWAYS blow it out of proportion, you have to be extremely careful when speaking to them, you definitely can't speak straight up to them. They have an extremely obscure sense of honour, making buisiness with them really hard.

 

[thesneakster]

Well, what the japs are doing is practically the sustainable harvesting of whales. a few hundred of 10's of 1000's of the particular type of whale isn't going to do much.

 

[Mage246]

If the ship actually had sunk, the protesters (not to mention the other Japanese ships) would have been bound by naval custom to pick them up anyway, and a ship that size doesn't sink fast enough to prevent evacuation. Though, as others have pointed out, it really wouldn't sink from losing the propeller. If that was the case, then it would start sinking whenever the engine turns off :/.

 

[thesneakster]

I'd also like to point out that the "japanese ship ramming to protect itself from sinking" seems like bull**** anyway. Looks more like the anti whaling boat ****ed up. Afterall, they went into the path of the much larger Japanese boat. (some reports say the anit whalers were towing a rope infront of the japanese boat, just to tangle and stop their movement, not to cause sinking)

 

[Mage246]

If a boat is in your path, you just steer out of the way. If they hit them, it's likely because they wanted to.

 

[Mayhem]

the anti-whalers weren't trying to sink the boat, just sabotage it. So I guess the jap ship is sturdy enough to take a knock, but apparently a hole where the propellor is would sink it, sounds bull**** but whatever.

 

[Mage246]

Propellers on a boat aren't mounted on the hull. The engine is, but the propeller is only attached to the engine (and thus only by extension the rest of the ship). If the propeller gets ripped off, the boat is fine, unless by some freakish accident the engine gets ripped out with it, thus creating a hole. Which would be pretty hard to do, since the connection from propeller to engine is much weaker than that of engine to hull.

 

[Elenmmare]

Well, what the japs are doing is practically the sustainable harvesting of whales. a few hundred of 10's of 1000's of the particular type of whale isn't going to do much.

Um, no. The population of Antarctic whales is less than 10 percent of what is was before whaling. How in the crikey **** is that 'sustainable'?***

If the ship actually had sunk, the protesters (not to mention the other Japanese ships) would have been bound by naval custom to pick them up anyway, and a ship that size doesn't sink fast enough to prevent evacuation. Though, as others have pointed out, it really wouldn't sink from losing the propeller. If that was the case, then it would start sinking whenever the engine turns off :/.

We're making assumptions, for all we know the propellers could have been directly attached to the hull, and tearing them off could have breached it. Weak theory, but no less confirmed than others nonetheless.

While I value human life above that of a dolphin, I'm not sure if the Japanese should hunt whales. Isn't whale meat a delicacy in Japan?

How's this: They signed an agreement to stop whaling, and they didn't.

Were they piolot whales 

Im with the "japs" on this one.

Because crippling the ecosystems of Earth's largest organ is fun! I won't waste my breath talking about 'rights' because I know you don't care about it. Instead I'll speak in your language: with whales gone, the ecosystem is tipped out of balance. No worries, the ecosystem can adapt, right? Right. It can adapt. Only, this process takes thousands of years in which time your mighty 'japs' et al are starving to death.

Screw whales.

Screw you. No wait, I can't. Because I live in a society that has mutually agreed, via laws, to not kill/rape eachother. Sort of like what we all (Japan, Norway included) did when we made the International Whaling Committee.

Wow. 2 threads about saving retarded animals in 2 days!
As far as science and I am concerned, whale = food. And no more than that. They should have fed the damn protesters to the whales.

Now you're not even trying to cover up your hypocritical attempt at appearing tough. You act as if you have a might-is-right approach to this all; if the Japanese can sink them, then the protesters were too weak. And yet, when the protesters exert their might, they become bad guys. And why? Because they understand the fragility of an ecosystem that sustains a ridiculous amount of humans.

So I guess in a way, Earthsea is more environmentally cruel than the whalers; they want to preserve the oceans so as to exploit them for centuries to come. The Japanese will see the oceans desolate within a few years.

Differing viewpoints, and clearly differing levels of education.
Tl;dr, killing whales =/= food. Killing whales = famine on a global level.

*** Pilot whales are registered as "low risk". These whalers aren't going to wipe them out. But they're for all intents and purposes breaking international law; they're whaling, and whaling is illegal.

 

[gamerwiz09]

Don't try and argue against the fact that scientifically, the purpose of every other ****ing living thing on this planet is to be used by us to obtain energy, or in other words, BE EATEN. A fact that is only further supported by the concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest, which basically sum up how nature works.

We evolve, adapt, and thus survive. We eat whale for food, because as a living thing, we require energy. If whale becomes endangered as a result it's only because we're better and they failed to somehow adapt to the situation. I'm just getting sick of all this animal rights bull**** so I might as well just end it using scientific fact backed by nature.

It's kinda funny how destruction in nature is always blamed on man. Now, it might make some sense when you bring in things like buildings, roads, etc. that we construct. But when it comes to how we use other animals and plants to obtain food, I fail to see how it's any different then any other scenario where an animal increases in population or evolves some new feature, and then uses that to destroy another species.

 

[Elenmmare]

Don't try and argue against the fact that scientifically, the purpose of every other ****ing living thing on this planet is to be used by us to obtain energy, or in other words, BE EATEN. A fact that is only further supported by the concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest, which basically sum up how nature works.

We evolve, adapt, and thus survive. We eat whale for food, because as a living thing, we require energy. If whale becomes endangered as a result it's only because we're better and they failed to somehow adapt to the situation. I'm just getting sick of all this animal rights bull**** so I might as well just end it using scientific fact backed by nature.

It's kinda funny how destruction in nature is always blamed on man. Now, it might make some sense when you bring in things like buildings, roads, etc. that we construct. But when it comes to how we use other animals and plants to obtain food, I fail to see how it's any different then any other scenario where an animal increases in population or evolves some new feature, and then uses that to destroy another species.

You're not listening. Forget that I think your morals are ****, only a moron believes that you can eat your way around the Earth without repercussions. You see, the world is made of what we call ecosystems. And these all depend on a cycle of animals. Think of it as a very complex chain. Each animal is the link. When you take out enough of the links, the ecosystem is crippled. No ecosystem, none of those lovely twinkies. To quote you, nothing to BE EATEN.

A fact that is only further supported by the concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest, which basically sum up how nature works.

Bull****, you're basically daring the Earth to declare war on humanity - a full out war is the only way to compare the sheer drive of a world market - which I'm afraid won't happen. Maybe it has something to do with every other living thing not being such a gluttonous bag.

We evolve, adapt, and thus survive. We eat whale for food, because as a living thing, we require energy.

Let me correct you. We find whales, we figure out how to hunt them, our families are fed. Two hundred years later, there are a thousand of us. We figure out how to hunt them, the oceans run empty, our families starve "because as a living thing, we require energy."

It's kinda funny how destruction in nature is always blamed on man.

I know, what assumptions! People directly tie the hunting of animals by humans to the destruction of animals by humans!

I fail to see how it's any different then any other scenario where an animal increases in population or evolves some new feature, and then uses that to destroy another species.

I'll try again. We live on Earth. As you've stated before, we require energy. We get that energy from living things, from the Earth's ecosystems. By overfishing, overwhaling, we are destroying some of those crucial ecosystems. That's not called human evolution. It's called human extinction.