Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Marine Mammals Used To Fight Terrorism

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the jones-the-enhanced-dolphin dept.

The Military 131

pinkstuff writes "The Navy unveiled its terror-fighting marine mammals at a two-day homeland security and disaster preparedness exercise in California this week. From the article: 'A Navy seal — actually a sea lion — took less than a minute to find a fake mine under a pier near San Francisco's AT&T Park. A dolphin quickly located a terrorist lurking in the black water before another sea lion, using a device carried in its mouth, cuffed the pretend saboteur's ankle so authorities could reel him in.' Queue the 'frickin lasers' jokes."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

But (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32265462)

Can Islamists even swim?

Marine Life Kicks Ass (4, Informative)

eagee (1308589) | more than 4 years ago | (#32265490)

*This* is why we environmentalists want to protect marine life. It kicks ass.

Re:Marine Life Kicks Ass (4, Funny)

durrr (1316311) | more than 4 years ago | (#32265546)

We need a new enviromental protection agency to protect us from the enviroment.

Re:Marine Life Kicks Ass (2, Insightful)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266000)

No, we need an Environmental Protection Agency that actually protects the environment instead of business interests. Non-mandatory pollution reduction programs instead of regulations - who knew only 2 businesses in the country would sign up for them and reduce pollution on their own without being legally obligated to do so?

Re:Marine Life Kicks Ass (4, Insightful)

Barrinmw (1791848) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266278)

You took something moderately funny and ruined it. You sir, are a fail.

Re:Marine Life Kicks Ass (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32266308)

Whoosh

Re:Marine Life Kicks Ass (2, Insightful)

Paranatural (661514) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266524)

No, we need an Environmental Protection Agency that actually protects the environment instead of business interests. Non-mandatory pollution reduction programs instead of regulations - who knew only 2 businesses in the country would sign up for them and reduce pollution on their own without being legally obligated to do so?

People with functioning brains?

Re:Marine Life Kicks Ass (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266620)

Maybe we ought to put some of them in charge, just to switch things up a bit.

Re:Marine Life Kicks Ass (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 4 years ago | (#32267524)

Are you a communist or something? ;)

Re:Marine Life Kicks Ass (4, Funny)

christianT (604736) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266650)

Wow! From zero to crazed activist in three posts. I think this is a new record!

Re:Marine Life Kicks Ass (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32266894)

Someone who wants the EPA to actually protect the environment must be a "crazed activist". What does that make people who want businesses to regulate their own pollution output and think that they actually will? Oh I know - "cock eyed optimists" or even "ignoramuses". Or how about just plain "greedy and stupid"? If that is how you think, please include me in your "crazed activists" group.

Re:Marine Life Kicks Ass (2, Interesting)

CoryD (1813510) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268340)

Someone who believes that pollution reduction should be mandatory is a crazed activist? I think I'll side with the "crazed activist" who never stated what kind of programs he had in mind. Rather than you being my other option, the overly dramatic nut job that thinks the pretty sunsets over industry cities are just enhanced scenery. I'm mean, if we're throwing around blind accusations, that IS accurate no?

Re:Marine Life Kicks Ass (1)

thijsh (910751) | more than 4 years ago | (#32265780)

Anything that kicks extreme ass or is really cute and fluffy has a tremendous wallet-opening magic power. This is why environmentalists want to protect any creature that possesses these magical properties. It's a shame most people know the unicorn is already extinct otherwise they could make a fortune of mythical proportions.

Re:Marine Life Kicks Ass (1)

chameleon3 (801105) | more than 4 years ago | (#32265784)

Indeed. And good luck protesting funding for dolphins in counter-terrorism, PETA. Better just stick with mice in cancer studies.

God I wish that had made sense.

Re:Marine Life Kicks Ass (1)

The Hatchet (1766306) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266052)

Aquaman?

Be carefull (3, Funny)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32265536)

You could be training them or more sinister proposes...heh, yeah that was bad. And by bad I mean AWESOME.
This is a great movie:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069946/ [imdb.com]

Re:Be carefull (1)

Devout_IPUite (1284636) | more than 4 years ago | (#32265848)

Did you mean to type porposes?

Re:Be carefull[sic] (1)

FlyByPC (841016) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266020)

No, he meant to type porpoises [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Be carefull[sic] (1)

dogmatixpsych (786818) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266440)

Which is exactly why it was bad. :)

Re:Be carefull (2, Funny)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266998)

Yes, he did it on porpoise.

(Actually, what he typed was wrong in either case: "proposes", as in, "He proposes to his girlfriend tonight.").

Dophins trained to kill (5, Interesting)

Quato (132194) | more than 4 years ago | (#32265564)

It's the Iranian Kamakaze Dolphins you have to worry about!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/670551.stm [bbc.co.uk]

They gave up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32265714)

marine mammals used to fight terrorism

Sadly, they've moved on to more interesting projects.

*CUE* the 'frickin laser' jokes (3, Informative)

kg8484 (1755554) | more than 4 years ago | (#32265568)

Cue as in the stage signal. Not the waiting line (or data structure named after it). Otherwise, does anyone else get reminded of Jones from Johnny Mnemonic when they read these articles?

Re:*CUE* the 'frickin laser' jokes (2, Funny)

nemasu (1766860) | more than 4 years ago | (#32265650)

#include #include void main() { std::queue Q; Q.push_back("Need more frickin' sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their frickin' heads!"); Q.push_back("mutated sea bass?"); Q.push_back("Well, it's a start"); return; }

Re:*CUE* the 'frickin laser' jokes (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#32265748)

< Try selecting "Code" formatting for your post next time >

Good point though.

Re:*CUE* the 'frickin laser' jokes (1)

nemasu (1766860) | more than 4 years ago | (#32265760)

Ah, didn't know about that, thanks.

Re:*CUE* the 'frickin laser' jokes (1)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 4 years ago | (#32267054)

I'd like to file a bug report:
$ gcc -o frickinLaser.exe frickinLaser.cppfrickinLaser.cpp:1:9: error: #include expects "FILENAME" or frickinLaser.cpp:2:9: error: #include expects "FILENAME" or frickinLaser.cpp:3: error: '::main' must return 'int' frickinLaser.cpp: In function 'int main()': frickinLaser.cpp:5: error: 'queue' is not a member of 'std' frickinLaser.cpp:5: error: expected `;' before 'Q' frickinLaser.cpp:6: error: 'Q' was not declared in this scope frickinLaser.cpp:9: error: return-statement with no value, in function returning 'int' $

Re:*CUE* the 'frickin laser' jokes (2, Insightful)

riverat1 (1048260) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266860)

If enough of the 'frickin laser' jokes were made you would have a queue of them.

Re:*CUE* the 'frickin laser' jokes (1)

warGod3 (198094) | more than 4 years ago | (#32267082)

Damn... and here I thought he was referring to a pool cue.

This is not new (4, Informative)

bigredradio (631970) | more than 4 years ago | (#32265584)

Actually the Navy has been doing this for years. Harbor patrol using seals and dolphins has been around for a while. When I was in the Navy in 93' I wrote an article about it (Yep there are journalists in the military). I was unable to run the story though because they were afraid people might jump to conclusions and think they were strapping bombs to marine animals. The facilities for training the marine animals in San Diego ranked right up with SeaWorld (if not better).

Re:This is not new (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 4 years ago | (#32265766)

I think the Navy was doing this stuff back in Vietnam. I watched a documentary where they regretted not using killer whales in the Hanoi harbor to exploit the Vietnamese cultural fear of large fish.

Re:This is not new (2, Insightful)

TheLink (130905) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266518)

> They regretted not using killer whales in the Hanoi harbor to exploit the Vietnamese cultural fear of large fish.

Cultural fear of large fish? I'm not Vietnamese and I think I'd have a better chance against an attacking great white shark than a killer whale.

Or at least a quicker death. See what killer whales get up to with their prey: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xk0fc_FzUs [youtube.com]

Sharks (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32265586)

with freaking laserbeams!

Re:Sharks (2, Funny)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 4 years ago | (#32265634)

Surely you mean dolphins with frick'n lasers?

Re:Sharks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32265672)

No way, the dolphins have sonar weapons to fight off the giant squid.

Re:Sharks (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266300)

Apparently it's sharks with frick'n lasers, and dolphins with frick'n handcuffs.

Who knew?

By the way, it might seems like sharks + lasers is scarier than dolphins + handcuffs, but just wait until they decide that cuffing random swimmers is hilarious.

Re:Sharks (2, Funny)

Gravitron 5000 (1621683) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266558)

By the way, it might seems like sharks + lasers is scarier than dolphins + handcuffs, but just wait until they decide that cuffing random swimmers is hilarious.

... or one dolphin that is into bondage slips through the screening.

Jeez .. you youngsters (2, Informative)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 4 years ago | (#32265628)

The Day of the Dolphin [wikipedia.org] Now git off my lawn or patch of seaweed or what ever is appropriate for you to git off

Re:Jeez .. you youngsters (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266242)

I'll take care of your dolphin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_man_from_atlantis

finally following through on this suggestion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32265648)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE9neghRfEs at 5:05 was thinking ahead.

This was predicted in Red Alert (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32265656)

It is also a good counter to the Soviet Squids.
Do not forget the Chronosphere and Weather Control Station

A tense situation (3, Funny)

djconrad (1413667) | more than 4 years ago | (#32265702)

Marine mammals used to fight terrorism? Why did they stop?

Re:A tense situation (1)

raind (174356) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266236)

Send in the Killer Whale....

They don't do it any more? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32265772)

So what made the marine mammals stop fighting terrorism? Did bin Laden give them an offer they couldn't refuse?

locating terrorist (4, Funny)

bagofbeans (567926) | more than 4 years ago | (#32265858)

A dolphin quickly located a terrorist

Shouldn't TSA be given this detection technology to, ya know, help 'em out a little?

Re:locating terrorist (5, Funny)

Barrinmw (1791848) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266302)

"Sir, will you please jump in this large tank of water so that the dolphin can scan you."

Re:locating terrorist (2, Insightful)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266410)

Hey, at other places people pay a lot of money to swim with dolphins.

Re:locating terrorist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32266828)

No, thats all that i need is a horny dolphin, trying to hump my leg in the airport security section...

Re:locating terrorist (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 4 years ago | (#32267566)

A dolphin quickly located a terrorist

Shouldn't TSA be given this detection technology to, ya know, help 'em out a little?

Well, TSA agents do have near-dolphin intelligence, but their senses aren't as well developed. I don't think they can pull it off.

Queue (3, Funny)

mcsqueak (1043736) | more than 4 years ago | (#32265860)

I love it when my 'frickin lasers' jokes are in nice, orderly lines... ;)

Re:Queue (1)

Anomalyst (742352) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266492)

I love it when my 'frickin lasers' jokes are in nice, orderly lines

Sorted by length, arpeture and frequency of their frikin (pun intended).

Re:Queue (1)

MarbleMunkey (1495379) | more than 4 years ago | (#32267682)

I love it when my 'frickin lasers' jokes are in nice, orderly lines

Sorted by length, arpeture and frequency of their frikin (pun intended).

pun intended ... but not included. /Fail

Re:Queue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32268290)

I love it when my 'frickin lasers' jokes are in nice, orderly lines

Sorted by length, arpeture and frequency of their frikin (pun intended).

pun intended ... but not included. /Fail

orly?

Cute application, but why? (5, Informative)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32265884)

This is a truly novel approach, but what kind of sophisticated aqua-terrorists are we genuinely preparing to encounter?

9/11 was civilian aircraft, Oklahoma City was a Rider truck, and the attack on the USS Cole was a rubber raft [wikipedia.org] .

Color me stupid, but it seems that stealthy and/or sophisticated attacks are absolutely not the point of terrorism. They don't seem to be trying to show that they are worthy James Bond villains, but rather that an attack could materialize out of the simplest and most common things.

But nice job with the seals and dolphins. Good luck with the sharks and the lasers.

Re:Cute application, but why? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32266004)

Since when does Oklahoma City count as a terrorist attack? McVeigh was a white American and that makes bomber/tax protester/survivalist/separatist not a terrorist.

Newsweek said so: http://www.newsweek.com/id/233949 [newsweek.com]

Re:Cute application, but why? (1)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266160)

So only furriners can be terrorists? That doesn't make sense. What about an American citizen that joins an Al-Qaeda group and blows something up in the US? Are they not a terrorist while the Sudanese guy next to them is?

Re:Cute application, but why? (1)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266320)

Didn't you get the memo?
Terrorists always have to be Muslims and wear a turban. It's part of the union regulations.

Re:Cute application, but why? (2, Funny)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 4 years ago | (#32267764)

Yep, it sure is in the union regulations. I have the regulation manual right here and on page 29 titled section 219- paragraph A- subsection S, it says that in order for a child apprentice to become a legitimate terrorist, it has to take the diaper off their ass and put it on their head. When the diaper is full of shit again, it gets called a turban and they are bona fide terrorists subject to wages of scale until they die.

Re:Cute application, but why? (1)

Issarlk (1429361) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266400)

That's why some senator tried to pass a law that removes american citizenship from terrorists.

Re:Cute application, but why? (0, Troll)

boxwood (1742976) | more than 4 years ago | (#32267934)

That was so they could torture them and it would all be nice and quasi-legal while torturing an american citizen would be just plain illegal.

Re:Cute application, but why? (1)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266296)

Perhaps you're intending the conflict to reflect your point, but in the case that you're not:

bomber/tax protester/survivalist/separatist == terrorist

There has never been a difference, and there isn't one now just because we've gone about replacing all our fear-speak with 'terrorism' rather than 'communism'. The Boston Tea Party patriots were terrorists, too. They were on 'our side', but still they attacked a civilian target and tried to frame it on the Native Americans, all towards their political agenda.

Re:Cute application, but why? (1)

AndersOSU (873247) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266920)

Civilian-ish. The East India Company wasn't exactly a hallmark of free enterprise.

As for being terrorism ... no one died, so if it's terrorism its a particularly weak soup variety. I'd call it a lawless protest or a mob action.

But then on the other hand, the guy who thinks Tim McVeigh wasn't a terrorist is an idiot.

Re:Cute application, but why? (1)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32267222)

As for being terrorism ... no one died, so if it's terrorism its a particularly weak soup variety. I'd call it a lawless protest or a mob action.

I wasn't aware that we had accurate historical records of the event. Can we be certain that no one was killed? It seems somewhat unlikely, unless there were just so many in the mob that the ship security elected not to resist.

Even so, I'm not sure it matters. See the case in Atlanta of the autistic child accused of making terroristic threats via stick figure drawing.

Re:Cute application, but why? (2, Insightful)

riverat1 (1048260) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266936)

One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter. It all depends on your POV.

Re:Cute application, but why? (1)

orgelspieler (865795) | more than 4 years ago | (#32267380)

I've wondered about this saying. It only makes sense in the context of McVeigh, Embassy bombings ('83 or '98), IRA, Contras, that sort of thing. The difference is those people were fighting something that existed where they actually lived. The 9/11 attack was carried out thousands of miles away. No freedom fighting there. Just exporting violence. I'm not saying McVeigh or the mujaheddin were freedom fighters. Just that they saw themselves as such. Remember, the US backed a lot of these groups when it was in our "best interest."

I just don't know how the 9/11 guys could see themselves as freedom fighters. I don't think they did. I think they saw themselves as holy warriors, instead. Maybe a global freedom from American imperialism? But that's stretching it, if you're attacking on our home turf.

Re:Cute application, but why? (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#32267882)

Some are oppression fighters (fighting for oppression), the rest see the US as occupying their home and strike at US anywhere. Bin Laden is a little bit of both, he became offended when the Saudi leadership invited the US in during the first gulf war and he also wishes to impose a global Caliphate where a select group of islamic clerics impose anything they say as absolute law and all non-muslims are exterminated.

Re:Cute application, but why? (1)

boxwood (1742976) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268078)

yes they definitely say themselves as fighting for freedom from American imperialism. Most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, as is Osama bin Laden. We don't know exactly what the terrorists themselves were think seeing as how they're all dead, but bin Laden has said many times he want the US out of the Middle East in general and Saudi Arabia specifically.

And didn't Sun Tzu once say you should strike your enemy at its heart, not at its arms? The heart of America is its economy, and many companies were headquartered in the WTC. And of course he wanted the US to go crazy so hitting civilians is a good way to do that. Attacking the USS Cole got some reaction, but just a few cruise missiles fired at a couple places. And its harder to attack a warship than it is to attack civilians.

It worked out really well for him. The US went insane and killed bin Laden's #2 enemy, Saddam Hussein. When your biggest enemy spends hundreds of billions of dollars to kill your second biggest enemy... I don't think even bin Laden dreamed things would work out so well.

Re:Cute application, but why? (1)

Infiniti2000 (1720222) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266306)

Newsweek said so...

Holy shit, that makes it true, then!

Re:Cute application, but why? (2, Insightful)

Infiniti2000 (1720222) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266288)

This is a truly novel approach, but what kind of sophisticated aqua-terrorists are we genuinely preparing to encounter?

Prior to 9/11, people like you would ask the same questions about civilian aircraft. Maybe you should pull your head out of your ass and look towards all avenues of terrorism.

Re:Cute application, but why? (2, Interesting)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266368)

My head is in the fresh, clean air, thank you.

I am looking at all avenues of terrorism, which only include things that would terrorize us, and not every conceivable thing the US Government would like to spend tax money on.

Rationalize for me how the plot of your typical action movie would generate fear in the general public. Please.

Head in ass, indeed.

Re:Cute application, but why? (1)

Issarlk (1429361) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266426)

Ultimately, that means looking toward everybody. Maybe the UK is actually on the right track to fight terrorism with it's attempted implementation of 1984.

Re:Cute application, but why? (3, Informative)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266428)

IIRC, the Mumbai bombings were executed by terrorist operatives who swam to shore from dinghies in scuba gear in order to enter the country illegally. But yes, it does just sound like an excuse for sharks with lasers.

Re:Cute application, but why? (3, Informative)

nohelix (1244378) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266472)

This is a truly novel approach, but what kind of sophisticated aqua-terrorists are we genuinely preparing to encounter?

This is not a novel approach.
Both the US and Russian governments have been training and using marine mammals [wikipedia.org] (wikipedia) as well as other animals [wikipedia.org] (wikipedia) to help with military tasks. Dolphins and sea lines have been in training and use in the Gulf Wars. Perhaps the funniest example of military animals is the dogs that the failed Russian anti-tank dogs [wikipedia.org] (wikipeida) that due to their training attacked Russian instead of enemy tanks. Its worth noting that this was again unsuccessfully attempted by Iraqi insurgents in 2005.

Re:Cute application, but why? (1)

Beyond_GoodandEvil (769135) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266808)

Perhaps the funniest example of military animals is the dogs that the failed Russian anti-tank dogs [wikipedia.org] (wikipeida) that due to their training attacked Russian instead of enemy tanks. Its worth noting that this was again unsuccessfully attempted by Iraqi insurgents in 2005.
Man, you think you get bad press for child soldiers, just wait until the public finds out about your kamikaze dogs. Might as well hang yourself, and spare the world another nuremberg style trial.

Re:Cute application, but why? (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#32267986)

It is even funnier when you understand that like pigs, dogs are considered an unclean animal by most Muslims. Any Iraqi killed by "friendly fire" in such an attack would be damned.

Re:Cute application, but why? (1)

ErkDemon (1202789) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268046)

Well, they're certainly "unclean" after they've exploded.

Re:Cute application, but why? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266804)

If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

There are really two sides to this, one somewhat hopeless, one somewhat cynical. The cynical one is that defense procurement is subject to substantial regulatory capture, and is thus driven more than one would like by what defense contractors can produce, rather than what is needed.

The somewhat hopeless one is ultimately more problematic. Because we are a high-tech, highly integrated society, with a fairly high cost-of-living, we have a comparative advantage in high-tech wizbangs, and a comparative disadvantage in, say, nihilistic but plucky 18 year olds with primitive explosives. If we cannot find viable ways to make our high-tech wizbangs into sufficiently potent force multipliers, we will have serious issues. The supply of disaffected third-worlders is basically inexhaustible. If there isn't a high-tech solution to that, we have a problem. Therefor, we operate under the assumption that there must be one.

Re:Cute application, but why? (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 4 years ago | (#32267120)

Color me stupid, but it seems that stealthy and/or sophisticated attacks are absolutely not the point of terrorism.

"Terrorism" is the magic word that makes the red tape disappear from your budget request.

Re:Cute application, but why? (1)

SkOink (212592) | more than 4 years ago | (#32267230)

It's actually not a new program - the Navy's had marine mammal units for many years now. Long before "terrorism" was ever a buzzword. Of particular interest is the Mark-6 unit (MK-6 MMS) which is an antipersonnel unit. It makes a lot of sense if you think about it - a suicide diver with the right explosives could probably take out a small naval vessel. A ship's sonar probably can't distinguish a diver from any other underwater mammal. And even if it could, bullets are ineffective in the water. It's a significant vulnerability if you think about it.

Re:Cute application, but why? (1)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32267322)

It makes a lot of sense if you think about it - a suicide diver with the right explosives could probably take out a small naval vessel. A ship's sonar probably can't distinguish a diver from any other underwater mammal. And even if it could, bullets are ineffective in the water. It's a significant vulnerability if you think about it.

I don't think you can use the phrase 'a lot of sense' in this application:

1) If it were viable, it would be being practiced, particularly by our own side. There's probably something more to it that complicates the approach or somehow makes it non-workable. Otherwise we would have heard about it happening by now, to someone - even if only to or by Somali Pirates.

2) Even if such a defense were necessary, there's no accommodating these creatures in our present infrastructure. Perhaps in our own ports, but many of the ship-at-rest issues we've had have been in hostile waters.

3) Depth charges...

It just seems to me that we're off in la-la-land here. Perhaps there is more information here that isn't being presented.

Re:Cute application, but why? (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 4 years ago | (#32267378)

rather that an attack could materialize out of the simplest and most common things.

Exactly. That's why I've put money down on a Trebuchet attack.

Re:Cute application, but why? (1)

dnahelicase (1594971) | more than 4 years ago | (#32267812)

Actually you don't know about the aqua-terrorists because we've always been adequately protected by our marine protectors. Terrorists only make headlines when the security measures fail and it becomes a public incident.

The reason they reveal this to the world now is because BP has been used in a dastardly plot to kill our marine-mammal-soldiers. This oil slick will not only provide cover, but the "dead-zone" created by the spill/microbes/plumes will provide the perfect opportunity for them to swim right up to our beaches in FL, AL, MS, and TX.

You haven't heard of them yet, but soon you will see that we will invade/save the country/people/militant group that did this to us, killed our fishes, and put our oil in jeopardy!

They Used To Fight Terrorism? (1)

sabinelr (1061112) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266106)

Marine mammals used to fight terrorism. Now they don't any more, huh. What, the younger generation has gone over to the dark side, or have they just zoned out and now spend their time surfing the web???

Re:They Used To Fight Terrorism? (1)

Anomalyst (742352) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266580)

They looked into the frikin laser with their remaining eye and are now on permanent military disability, supported by your tax dollars. This is turning out to be more costly than anticipated as the sheets on the bed need to be changed after every rehydration and the fish smell is incredibly difficult to remove completely.

Minor problem (1)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266270)

(shark instanceof Mammal) == false

Not new (1)

Barrinmw (1791848) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266322)

Well, I was in the navy and it was a semi-regular occurrence of seeing them use Sea Lions for mine detection. So this has been around for years. My guess is this is the first non-military use of them.

Nothing really new here. (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266432)

It's worth pointing out that, despite the anti-terrorism/Homeland Security spin currently in fashion, the Navy has been working on using marine mammals for underwater security since at least the 1960's, with preliminary work going back into the 50's.
 
The general idea is that it's rough and dangerous to send people into the water, E.G. to inspect the hull of a submarine moored in the 50 degree water of the Hood Canal, so it's better to use animals evolved to survive in that environment. Trained animals can also provide 24/7 coverage with greater detail over a larger area than humans can.

Re:Nothing really new here. (1)

ArcCoyote (634356) | more than 4 years ago | (#32267632)

Not to mention the dolphins and sea lions likely consider the training exercises to be a hell of a lot of fun. It's a game to them. What a job.

They used to? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32266464)

When did they stop?

Why would marine life attack the US government? (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32266516)

Did they develop drysuits or missiles or what? ;)

cue not queue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32266654)

When used that way, it's "cue" not "queue." Malapropisms are interesting from a demographic standpoint. I bet other, correct, uses of "queue" more often get spelled as cue by non-technical people, and correct uses of "cue" get morphed into "queue" by techies.

A Little RA2 if you please :-) (1)

sir lox elroy (735636) | more than 4 years ago | (#32267078)

Ah reminds me of Red Alert 2

mIRC even has a built in script for it! (3, Funny)

AVryhof (142320) | more than 4 years ago | (#32267266)

/me Slaps Terrorists around with a Fish

In Soviet Russia... (1)

t_ban (875088) | more than 4 years ago | (#32267756)

The environment protects you!

That explains it... (1)

radish (98371) | more than 4 years ago | (#32267916)

Marine Mammals *used* to fight terrorism, but now all they do is swim around and eat fish and stuff! Explains the increase in attacks.

Wait! Have you ever done this before? (1)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268080)

Has the fish?!?

Its not just about terrorism (1)

BaShildy (120045) | more than 4 years ago | (#32268150)

The US Navy Marine Mammal Program has been in place for fifty years now and predates the "war on terrorism." It used to be heavily classified but its a lot more open than it used to be. The short summary of its mission:
1) The Navy claims they have never used the program in an attack mission, but does admit they have been used in combat zones.
2) The Navy recognizes the animals use in Mine Detection, object/personnel recovery, and enemy detection
3) While originally a large array of animals were used, due to efficiency the only known mammals in-use are Bottlenose Dolphins and California Sea Lions. Since each of these creatures don't get too much larger than 500 lbs, they are easily deployable from San Diego to wherever they are needed. Earlier posts about using Orcas or larger creatures would most likely be more hassle than they are worth.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?