Whale Wars

[Staredge]

Yeah, the bottles might be a bad idea. Balloons, now.........

 

[DA Aquamaster]

Its bad enough they are throwing a hard glass object weighing 6-10ozs at the ship and crew but an air mortar launching that same weight would crush a man's skull easily enough. Its one thing to throw crap and run around like eco-nuts and another thing to commit murder.

You need to think outside the box a bit.

First, it would would be a mortar, an indirect fire weapon shot at high angle. With the right amount of drag the terminal velocity is not going to be much higher than the same projectile thrown in a more direct fire manner.

Second, the container does not need to be a glass bottle, it just needs to stand up to the forces of firing and that is very easy to do with a lightweight and non shattering container. Something like a cardboard cup containing a zip lock baggy of buteric acid would work fine - essentially a sabot/container that would protect the baggy during fire, but rupture on impact.

Third, it does not have to be an air cannon either, but it looks less offensive than some of the more practical options. For example I have golf and tennis ball launchers that will work with any rifle equipped with a 22mm NATO grenade lanuching adapter. It just requires a blank cartridge. It would take about 15 minutes to adapt either one to launch the above mentoned carboard/zip lock containers. No one endagered by throwing glass bottles and the ship could stand off about 100 yards and deliver them accurately on deck greatly reducing risk of a collision. Very practical, but it looks just like you are launching a rifle grenade and that would get the pulse up a bit.

Now of course in the interest of fair play, I'd suggest supplying the same thing to the japanese who could fill 'em with red paint and make nice little risng suns all over the Whale Wars vessels. It would be safer than water cannons and a whole lot more fun for all involved.

 

[Staredge]

For that matter, balloons and a big slingshot would give them the distance they need. Seems like the water cannons keep them far enough back that they don't have the arm to reach the deck.

Part of the reason I mentioned mortars is that it is an indirect weapon. Nothing being aimed at the Japanese ship. Seems like a paintball type delivery system would work as well.

 

[PRL]

Celebrity Restaurant Charged With Illegally Serving Whale Meat Sushi - KTLA

Looks like they need to come home, and stink bomb some American eateries.

 

[DennisS]

Looks like one of the trespassers on the whaler is going to be arrested

Japan arrests New Zealand anti-whaling activist for illegally boarding Japanese vessel - South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com

It's all about the publicity

 

[lock_washer]

I think everyone's interest has shifted from "Whaling Wars" to "The Cove"...since the Academy Awards came out.

 

[Tigerman]

I think everyone's interest has shifted from "Whaling Wars" to "The Cove"...since the Academy Awards came out.

Looking at the answers, theres a lawsuit thats drawing a lot of attention atm as well..
(The thing about Holm suing scubaboard)

 

[lock_washer]

Looks like the main issue is the IWC wanting to resume whaling on some species.


Lock Washer

 

[StevenN]

To everyone who says Paul Watson isn't a terrorist because his cause is a good and just one...

I'll remind you that the men who flew commercial airlines into the World Trade Center believed in their cause even more than Mr Watson. Unlike him they embarked on a mission the ensured their own death if it was to have any chance to succeed.

There are millions who agree with their cause.

Same goes for the Crusades. The Anglo Knights invaded land that they had no claim to and killed how many in the name of God. Of course it was okay because their cause was good and just...

Then there was the inquisition, of course their cause was good and just so it was okay for them to brutally torture anyone they pleased.

My point being: How is Paul Watson different for any of these examples? Oh yeah, you agree with him.

I seem to remember when they were called religious zealot (not terrorists) and were considered relatively harmless because their attention was focused elsewhere.

Condoning one act of terrorism simply because you are not the target is stupid and short sighted.

That so many will accept something simply because they don't think it affects them is stupid and short sighted.

If Paul Watson has the right to terrorize the Japanese because he doesn't share their point of view then why not the Religious Terrorists?

Let me guess because Paul Watson hasn't killed anyone yet? By that way of thinking the the 9/11 hijackers were doing nothing wrong until the first death at their hands at which time it was already too late.

If you disagree with whaling then boycott products of Japan and ask other like-minded consumers to do the same thing.

The right to kill only exists when your like is threatened. Until then other means should be employed or you will be a terrorist!

I think Godwin's Law should be ammended to include anyone that compares said subject to 9/11 especially when it includes a straw man argument.

 

[lock_washer]

Maybe I am the only one that thinks this way, but if you start some mass marketing message or campaign...get the scientific community involved, the medical field, researchers, economist, politicians, celebrities, and the United Nations. You can push the message of mercury levels in whale meat and the hazzards of eating it. You be stopping whaling from a economic stand point. Look at this way, there is no market for whale oil anymore. At least they are not killing whales for oils and lubricants.

Lock Washer