Ocean warriors unveil new high-speed ship against Japan whalers
Source: Yahoo News
Bought at a cost of 8.3 million euros($9.3 million) funded by public lotteries in Britain, The Netherlands and Sweden, Sea Shepherd Global is counting on the vessel in its upcoming battle to save the whales in the icy waters of the Southern Ocean.
But it also has a secret weapon -- on the bridge a red cannon can eject a powerful plume of water to obstruct the views of the whalers, or block them from boarding.
Now this warrior of the oceans, with its four engines can reach speeds of 55 kilometres an hour, around 25 knots, compared to its ocean enemies which only reach up to 20 knots.
Despite a global moratorium imposed in 1986, Japan has continued to hunt whales using a loophole in the ban, but makes no secret the giant mammals end up on dinner plates.
Read more: https://www.yahoo.com/news/ocean-warriors-unveil-high-speed-ship-against-japan-041051728.html
There's 5 good pictures of it at the link ABOVE, including one of its red cannon and another of its pirate flag. Just click on the photo (at the link ABOVE), and it will enlarge and a left and right arrow appears on the left and right sides of the picture. Click on the right arrow to see the next picture, etc.
https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/hWHgxn475qUEDFpQQbSVvQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTAyNDtoPTY4Mg--/
leftyladyfrommo
(18,869 posts)Every time they go to sea my heart goes with them.
rwsanders
(2,606 posts)Igel
(35,320 posts)make the law, we do that, too.
Except there are bodies that make, interpret, and enforce the law. Just not to our liking.
It's an old argument, but only weaseled away from, never refuted: This is vigilantism, You're either good with vigilantism or you're not. If you are, you're in the same camp as those who held neck-tie parties and their southern counterpart named after good Judge Lynch. "Dammit, if they won't enforce the laws as I interpret them, I'll take the law in my own hands." Word is that in Alabama they're putting up a monument to at least the black victims of that form of justice (eventually, perhaps, all the victims of that particular practice will be considered equally wronged, instead of just a select number.)
If you don't throw your lot in with vigilantes, you're stuck with the rest of us, trying to get laws changed to make their interpretations and enforcement agree with our morality, whatever others think, and upset that not everybody falls in line with what we think of as virtuous and just. On the other hand, they're also trying to keep their morals as law, so it's really just a question of whose morality will be imposed on everybody else--minus the idea of a deity for some people, but only for some. Or we can all find a compromise that leaves nobody happy, and with those with authoritarian tendencies and traits deeply frustrated that the world is not ordered according to their personal deity, however eternal, short-lived or even dead that law-giving deity may be.
rwsanders
(2,606 posts)I wish I had time to tear apart all of your pseudo-intellectualism.
If there wasn't a higher law than those of man, even if you want to just call it higher moral law, then you are essentially saying the U.S. should not exist because we were a British colony and our separation was illegal. Sorry, just a simple fact.
You are also ignoring the fact that our system in the US is designed to incorporate a certain level of civil disobedience which is how cases end up in court and unconstitutional laws are negated.
Comparing those trying to enforce agreed upon international law when nation states are backing away from this responsibility due to their entanglements and corporate influence is idiotic.
So I have groups to compare you to, you are the ones who would have left blacks in slavery, women without the vote, society segregated, etc.
So I really don't have time for you, so ramble away in my absence since you'll be on full ignore.
Equinox Moon
(6,344 posts)Ligyron
(7,633 posts)sakabatou
(42,158 posts)hermetic
(8,310 posts)And that's a fine looking vessel. They fight a battle I fully support.
Number9Dream
(1,562 posts)"The ICJ's 16-judge panel ruled 12 votes to four in favour of Australia's argument that Japan's whaling program was not in fact designed and carried out for scientific purposes."
"The court ruled that Japan must revoke current whaling permits and refrain from issuing any more."
If Australia is reluctant to track down these lawbreakers, then good for Sea Shepherd.