amantha Walsh
Rafael Gonzalez
ENGL 102
March 14, 2018
Pick Your Venom
Option A:
In 2008, the United States Supreme court made a decision concerning whether federal law restricted the ability of the United States Navy's to use sonar waves during training drills with the possibility of harming whales and other marine mammals. During the ruling, the court compared the critical issue of military readiness against the safety of the environment, the majority of the court agreed on the support of national security. Is the Supreme Court decision in Winter v. Natural resources Defense Council (2008), a substantial one?
The use of active sonar by the United States Navy and its impact on marine mammals has been a growing issue in our country. The U.S. Navy began developing Sonar in the 1900s; since then environmentalists such as the Natural Recourse Defense Council have put up a fight in efforts to save marine mammals in the Southern California waters; containing 37 species of marine mammals. Whales began fleeting due to the harm caused by the sonar waves on numerous species of whales. "Noise pollution threatens vulnerable populations, driving them away from areas important to their survival, and at worst injuring or even causing the deaths of some whales and dolphins," said Sarah Dolman, whale and dolphin specialist. Although these deaths of many marine mammals are very relevant to the stability of our ecosystem, it is important to analyze military preparedness. The U.S. has proven its military success, after many successful outcomes of war and the money and effort put into military services. The United States holds military readiness at high standards. Due to the Sonar advances of my countries such as China and Russia, the U.S makes it a priority to be a step ahead to ensure their military preparedness. The U.S. has used active sonar for 40 years, with not one reported death of a marine mammal due to the technology.
Both the environmental and military supporters have valid arguments in the Winter v. Natural resources Defense Council case. Environmentalists in the case supported the lives and well-being of marine mammals. In a scholarly essay done by Lisa Lightbody at Harvard Law School, the author addresses the background history of both Winter and the Natural Resource Defense Council. However, Lightbody goes into more detail when describing the significant harm that marine mammals would due to sonar waves used by the navy. The mass strandings and negative health effects from the navy's technology resulted in the displacing of their natural habitat and altering their behavior, such as "changes in feeding, diving, and social behavior(NRDC)." Whales and other marine mammals are crucial to the success of our ecosystem. Without these species, there will be no animals to maintain the population of the fish in the ocean and the entire food chain could be thrown off, effecting all the marine animals. On the contrary this technological advance gives the United States more power and lead when it comes to its military. The Rear Admiral of the U.S. Navy, Kevin R. Slates, brings light to the facts of using the active sonar technology to provide protection to succeed in combat. The sonar and explosive training prepares sailors in case of naval warfare. Without this technology, naval groups deployed in combat would not have the ability to locate and track an enemy submarine, therefore it is crucial to our national security.
When analyzing the question "Is the Supreme Court decision in Winter v. Natural resources Defense Council (2008), a substantial one?" I find myself siding with the Supreme Court's decision. Although the negative effects on the whales and other marine mammals have become a huge issue to the Natural Resource Defense Council, active sonar has been practiced for many years and according to the National Marine Fisheries Services indicate that no marine mammal will be killed as a result of these exercises, the waves act as temporary exposures leading to brief migration. In addition, the navy has made changes to their training in order to protect the marine animals in the past. When the navy is taking part in naval combat, their biggest threats are enemy submarines. These enemy submarines are very difficult to detect due to their silent operation; the only way to track them is active sonar. The judge, John G. Roberts Jr. gives his closing statement and discusses the conclusion of the case. The court sided with the navy due to the importance of national security. Without the use of active sonar we would not be able to detect any oncoming attacks and therefore be vulnerable in combat. Of course many felt sympathy for the marine mammals, however without concrete evidence of mass death and the navy complying with the NRDC, national security and military preparedness grew to be more crucial and important to our country.
The United States Of America's military is something that many Americans have pride in due to the immense strength it holds; however many other Americans question if it is worth the lives of marine mammals. Through my analysis of the case, I have come to the conclusion that without factual evidence of mass death in marine mammals, the navy should continue its use of active sonar to locate and track enemy submarines in efforts to protect our nation and further strengthen our national security.