US drops bombs on Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP-Excite

CANBERRA, Australia (AP) - Two U.S. fighter jets have dropped four unarmed bombs in Australia's Great Barrier Reef Marine Park when a training exercise went wrong.

The two AV-8B Harrier jets launched from aircraft carrier USS Bonhomme Richard each jettisoned an inert bomb and an unarmed explosive bomb in the World Heritage-listed marine park off the coast of Queensland state on Tuesday, the U.S. 7th Fleet said in a statement on Saturday.

The four bombs were dropped in more than 50 meters (164 feet) of water away from coral to minimize possible damage to the reef, the statement said. None exploded.

The jets from the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit had intended to drop the ordnances on the Townshend Island bombing range but aborted the mission when controllers reported the area was not clear of hazards.

FULL story at link.


Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20130721/DA7LJO381.html

[petronius]

1. If the bomb range was "not clear of hazards", does that mean hazards to the jets

(birds? weather? other planes?) or hazards to people working on the ground at the range?

And I'm assuming they dropped them in this relatively shallow area to be able to retrieve them sort of easily?

[Posteritatis]

3. I parsed that as a general "things we don't want to drop stuff on"

If there were actually people on the range while aircraft were doing practice runs that'd be a breathtaking enough screwup that that would be the story rather than jettisoning the bombs.

The article suggests the focus was on not hitting the reef when they jettisoned them, so I imagine easy recovery would be more of a bonus (particularly for the actual explosive bombs; the inert ones are basically small aerodynamic rocks).

[Kennah]

2. Because we aren't destroying the environment fast enough. Good grief.

[groundloop]

4. They were unarmed, dropped in over 160 feet of water

The unarmed bombs were jettisoned to avoid a hazard at the training grounds. Also, the pilots dropped them away from any coral to minimize potential environmental damage.

edit to add from the story:

The jets from the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit had intended to drop the ordnances on the Townshend Island bombing range but aborted the mission when controllers reported the area was not clear of hazards.

The pilots conducted the emergency jettison because they were low on fuel and could not land with their bomb load, the navy said.



Personally, to me that sounds like either AP or the story's author is being overly sensational.

[Historic NY]

7. Unarmed bombs don't blow up either...

from the amount of stories written about the same thing one would have thought the atomic bomb was dropped....must be a slow news day.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. I don't think they've done any environmental damage...

The bombs were unarmed and dropped in a deep channel, not on the Reef itself, which makes up only about 7% of the area of the Marine Park. What has in the past caused massive environmental damage is ships in the area, the worst being in 2010 when a Chinese cargo ship went way off course, grounded on the Reef, and caused a huge oil spill which caused permanent damage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Great_Barrier_Reef_oil_spill

I was pretty shocked to find out it's not mandatory for ships travelling there to have a pilot on board. I was on an American cruise ship in April, which did have a pilot when we went through there and the Whitsundays, but that must have been because the cruise company was doing the right thing, and I doubt many cargo ships would do the same thing...

btw, last thing I heard about this was that the US military and the ADF are working on retrieving the bombs...

[bahrbearian]

15. Besides the Wasted fuel, the cost of production, the cost of transportation. ..

and the other waste that is involved its OK because its for defense . I'm sure the rest of the world wants our military shit every where and anywhere. But no one wants to defend Nature. Sure there was no harm done except....

[Violet_Crumble]

28. I think the poster I was replying to was talking about the Great Barrier Reef...

And from what I've read, there's been no environmental damage done there. As for wasting fuel, transport and production, when it comes to joint training exercises, I suspect they've happened for a long time, and while if I had my way, military spending would be slashed, it's just a fact of life that they happen between allies, and as long as the Americans go home afterwards and don't stay here permanently, I'm not too bothered by it.

Matilda brought up a good question, though. Why did they pick that particular part of the world to play soldiers in, considering the sensitivity of the Reef and the area around it?

[bahrbearian]

30. Your right its all ok because no American Laws were broken. Besides what can Gaia do to us anyway.

I'm all good with it because it helps fight Terrorism. Why don't we conduct those operations in Antarctica, nothing would happen there. Its all OK right? Come on Mother Nature take your best shot.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. I'm pretty positive no Australian laws were broken either...

And I'm also pretty sure these sorts of joint exercises were going on long before terrorism became such a trendy excuse to bomb other countries...

The Reef wasn't damaged, so claiming there was environmental damage is a bit sensationalistic, imo...

[bahrbearian]

35. So If you speak for all Austrialia and are OK with it then I'll shut up.

[Violet_Crumble]

36. I don't recall saying I spoke for anyone but myself....

That I'm Australian is irrelevant to anything apart from me taking an interest in stories at DU about where I live.

Was there anything in the post yr replying to that indicated I was speaking on behalf of Australia, or that you think is incorrect?

[bahrbearian]

39. I'm sorry your right , I'm just concerned that people shrug off such incidences as Oops

but if a Fishing boat or freighter does this , do you still say Oops. Because I've been on boats that were seized and we the crew were arrested and went to trial and fined for a 100 gallon fuel spill. How would react to fishing vessels dumping fuel there.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. Well, I am wondering now why they had to play their war games in that location...

When there's so much space inland, why there when there's even a slight risk of doing irreversible damage to the Great Barrier Reef?

Nah, when that Chinese cargo ship went off course a few years ago and scraped along the reef for kilometres before grounding and spilling oil all over the place, that's not an Oops moment. That's a Throw The Book At The Bastards moment. Which is what happened, but unfortunately the fines and punishments for causing so much damage was the equivalent of a slap on the wrist, which is why I support it being mandatory for any ships in that area to have a pilot on board and those that cause any damage or do anything with the potential to damage be given far greater punishment than a piddly fine of a few thousand dollars....

[bahrbearian]

16. No harm done we'll fix it later, after we fix the Valdez's or the Gulf of Mexico

We can't shit anywhere we want and say Opps.

[defacto7]

37. Are they just empty cannisters then?

No fuel, no oil or chemical residue, no electronic equipment that can degrade and pollute? Just empty cans?

Why did they need to drop them at all? Can they not bring them back to base or do another run?

[Violet_Crumble]

38. The articles I've read said they were unarmed bombs...

I suspect if they're left there, they could leak yucky stuff into the water, but the first thing I read about it last night said they were working on retrieving them....

I'm not sure about why they had to drop them before landing. I know they were running out of fuel, but I don't know what the bombs had to do with that...

[Lordquinton]

74. Weight and fuel calculations

They have exactily enough fuel to do the mission and come home, which factors in a few hundred less pounds of bomb. That's my guess, at least.

[Posteritatis]

59. Practice bombs are basically aerodynamic anvils.

No equipment or electronics or anything inside them; just shaped lumps of metal, or sometimes concrete, that more or less recreate the flight characteristics of actual bombs. They're dangerous if you should unexpectedly find yourself underneath one, but that really is the absolute limit of the risk involved.

What they do have is weight, which can be a safety concern for an aircraft while landing.

[99th_Monkey]

5. Well, what were those damn reefs doing under our bombs anyway? Damn Aussies oughta know better. eom

[MotherPetrie]

6. Goddamnfucking criminals.

[Dreamer Tatum]

14. Can you cite the law violated? nt

[MotherPetrie]

17. My law.

[Dreamer Tatum]

19. Then by all means, prosecute.

Where will you hold them for trial?

Can I be on the jury?

[MotherPetrie]

20. :::: backing slowly away ::::

[LanternWaste]

97. It may become obvious that there are many posters who interpret visceral reactions as a truth

It may become obvious that there are many posters who interpret visceral reactions as a truth... 'Literalist's for lack of a better word. And yes, backing away is a rather good idea.

[bahrbearian]

21. Nature has other plans for YOU and she has already chosen a jury

[Dreamer Tatum]

22. I have the same reverence for "Mother Nature" that many have for "God"

Come and get me, Mom. Do your worst.

[bahrbearian]

25. Your Reverence for Mother Nature is just a Shrug of your shoulders, and come get me Mom ?

[Jamastiene]

64. I stand well away from people with that attitude when it is lightning

or we are under a tornado watch...and the rest of the time, if I can help it.

[Violet_Crumble]

32. I think the only law that matters in that part of the world is Australian law...

Yr law and US law doesn't carry any weight here

[Ash_F]

42. Which is why the US government uses your land for training like you were pets?

Kinda seems like they carry a lot of weight, actually. You might want to stand up for yourselves sometime.

[Violet_Crumble]

48. Does that mean we're also the pets of China and New Zealand?

Because they've also participated in joint military training with the ADF. This is from 2007

First Sino-Australian military exercises to be in Sydney

SYDNEY: Two Chinese warships arrived in Sydney Friday ahead of the first joint military exercises between Australia and the Asian nation, with officials saying more operations were planned.

Australian defence minister Brendan Nelson said next week's joint exercises involving the Australian, Chinese and New Zealand navies signalled closer military cooperation between Beijing and Canberra.

"At this stage I would expect that primarily we would be looking at naval exercises but we will also be having discussions between our air force and obviously our army," Nelson told reporters.

"Some of those discussions have already commenced," he added as he welcomed the guided-missile destroyer Haebin and supply ship Hongzehu into Sydney Harbour.

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2007-09-28/news/27675430_1_joint-exercises-military-exercises-naval-exercises

[Ash_F]

69. Hey, it's your reef.

I guess it's not our business what you let us do to it.

[Ash_F]

76. PS - I haven't read about Aussie bombers over Yellowstone

Just saying...

[hack89]

84. How about Aussie bombers over Nevada desert?

the RAAF is an frequent participant in the Red Flag exercises at Nellis AFB.

http://www.nellis.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123292894

[Ash_F]

93. I think my Yellowstone hypothetical is more apt

...if we are talking about fragile national treasures, but thanks for the link. I tend to agree with our Aussie friend here that the two militaries would do better to act out their violent power fantasies closer to the continental interior than right over the reefs.

[hack89]

94. That is where the Australians chose to build their bombing ranges

I was involved in two Tandem Thrusts - a lot of effort goes into environmental protection. The only exceptions were safety issues that can endanger human life.

[Violet_Crumble]

95. I had to google Tandem Thrust to see what it was...

That's what these exercises were called before they changed the name to whatever it is now, and they were originally done off the coast of California before they moved them here.

I'm not sure why the bombing ranges are where they are, but these exercises have been going on every two years for a long time and this is the first time something like this has happened, and seeing as how there's no restriction on planes flying over the marine park, it doesn't look as though anyone thought there was a risk of anything falling from the sky. In this case the outcome could have been far worse than two bomb casings full of concrete and two unarmed bombs falling into deep water away from the coral and causing no damage. If the jets hadn't gotten rid of them they could have crashed, either on their own or onto the aircraft carrier they had to land on, and I'm suspecting wreckage and jet fuel would definitely cause major damage to the coral, and that's not even taking into account the lives that would have been put at risk if that had happened...

Anyway, the latest I read was that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Authority would like the bombs removed and they don't really care who does it. The Americans have already said they'll take care of it if they're asked to, so it looks like everyone's cooperating...

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/great-barrier-reef-marine-park-authority-boss-wants-us-bombs-removed/story-fnihsrf2-1226683360288

[treestar]

62. I think it's an alliance

Between two sovereign nations.

[hack89]

85. Australian officers hold high commands in US military commands

The best example is Maj. Gen. Richard M. Burr of the Australian Army is the Deputy Commanding General (Operations) for the United States Army, Pacific (USARPAC). USARPAC is the US Army's top command in the entire Pacific theater.

http://www.usarpac.army.mil/dcgBurr.asp

The RAAF trains every year in Nevada. There is an Australian frigate that is a member of a US carrier strike group stationed in Japan.

They are not pets. They are equal partners.

[MotherPetrie]

50. Jesus fucking Christ I'm pissed because the U.S. military was criminally negligent and trashed an

Ecological treasure. SO sorry I dared to express my anger without clearing it with you first.

[Violet_Crumble]

51. I hate to break into the outrage with facts, but the bombs weren't dropped on the Reef...

They dropped them in a deep channel in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, and the Reef makes up only about 7% of that area. So throwing around words like 'trashed' and 'criminally negligent' do come across as just a little bit hyperbolic. For something to be criminally negligent, it has to be an actual crime, and while ships scraping the Reef and spilling oil are definitely crimes, an emergency jettison of unarmed bombs that don't hit the Reef isn't a crime. At least not under Australian law, which I gather is an entirely different thing than Your Law

[Posteritatis]

83. And at least two of the 'bombs' were basically concrete blocks. (nt)

[treestar]

63. So had it been some other military

the same reaction would have occurred?

[wordpix]

61. There's the law of respect of nature: "the Earth does not belong to man - man belongs to the Earth"

attributed to Chief Seattle, 1854, but with controversy

[bahrbearian]

18. The Laws against Nature.

Man will eventually have to pay for that. even though YOU DON"T CARE

[penultimate]

57. Dropping a few empty shells into the ocean has a very small effect on anything

I suspect your daily activities probably have a greater effect than this. What kind of device are you using to connect to the internet right now? Where was it manufactured? What kind of pollution did that create? How about transporting the device to you? Who assembled the device and in what kind of conditions did they work in? How many resources were used to create the telecommunications infrastructure that you're using to send your messages? How many mountain tops were blown off so they could mine the copper needed for wires, or toxic chemicals were produced while making the the jackets and cores in fiber cabling? How many miles of ground were torn up to lay such cables? How much electricity was generated just to support the network devices and support systems needed to run these systems? How many communication towers were constructed in pristine remote locations so that you could get voice/data coverage?

I gotta say, you connecting to the internet probably has Gaia more pissed off than these empty shells.

[loli phabay]

65. oh oh, i cut down three trees yesterday in my yard, cut four acres of grass

Disturbed some rocks out of the ground, im pretty sure they are crimes against mother nature in your book should i be expecting some punishment from an earth god thing or does the sky god guy deal with it.

[bahrbearian]

70. Oh what a Stud, you put me to shame, except for the 40 acres that I'm now cutting baling and bucking

But you know what I'm not going to dump my shit in the Ocean and go Opps.

[loli phabay]

73. well i have had a shit in the sea as well so now mother earth is really pissed.

[bahrbearian]

75. You have had a shit in the Sea? Whats that suppose to mean? You went swimming and pooped pants?

[ConcernedCanuk]

77. skinny-dipping! - no problem

.
.
.



CC

[bahrbearian]

78. So you pooped skinny dipping and your OK with that, did you take a sip?

Mother Natures not pissed at you she is Laughing her ass off. There goes another creation of "Yewah"

[ConcernedCanuk]

91. I was in a river - it went downstream . . .

.
.
.

yup I'm OK with that - woulda never made it up the hill to my compost toilet (I was camping way in the bush) - - -

It's not a habit of mine, but when ya gotta go, YA GOTTA GO!!

No chance for a sip - fast running river it was . .

CC

[wordpix]

99. well I think the Flying Spaghetti Monster has something to say about it

First of all, since Pastafarians dress in full pirate regalia, they are pissed about Pooping Skinny Dipper when they're out pirating at sea, if that's where they are.

Second, the number of pirates has been decreasing since 1800 and it's clear this is due to global warming, which pooping in the river-to-sea exacerbates.

This River Pooper had better watch out ---if he does it again, the Noodly Appendage will come down and strike him and he will have to explain it all to the Kansas City School Board.

[bahrbearian]

79. Hey I'm sorry about the reply It's was for the Sea Pooper above us.

[wordpix]

98. lol, that's too much

[loli phabay]

80. used the heads

[2Design]

9. omg - what a disaster - the military industrial complex is horrid

[onenote]

67. There has been a disaster at the GBF in recent years

but it wasn't caused by (or materially contributed to) by the discarding of four unarmed and/or inert bombs in a deep channel some distance from the coral reef.
The disaster that has hit the GBF was caused by overfishing, and pollution, and climate change,to name just a few things.

I'm a scuba diver and I've seen photos and videos comparing the same locations on the GBF ten years ago and today and its heartbreaking. And no "bombs" were dropped anywhere near these locations.

Hypberbolic headines tend to produce threads that create more heat than light.

[Kablooie]

10. Why the hell do we have fighter jets in Australia!?

America is like a malignant cancer that is consuming the whole world.

[Violet_Crumble]

11. There's some joint training exercise going on up there at the moment...

The jets came off a US aircraft carrier....

[bahrbearian]

23. And we need this WHY?

[hack89]

49. The Australians want a strong military alliance with America. nt

[Matilda]

26. I wonder who's bright idea it was to have training exercises near the Reef.

Big country - was there nowhere else?

[Violet_Crumble]

34. Yeah, that's a good question...

Considering the vast areas of next to nothing that they'd have to play in if they went inland, this does appear to be a really bad choice of location

[hack89]

54. The Australians built their military training ranges in that area

this is a joint US - Australian exercise that uses Australian military training areas.

[ConcernedCanuk]

12. Silly question - why did they even drop them then??

.
.
.

If they were not armed or dangerous

Take them back to base?

Enlighten me.

This part of the article I do NOT believe:

"The pilots conducted the emergency jettison because they were low on fuel and could not land with their bomb load, the navy said."

As if - - -

"Training Exercise" ???

FAIL!!!

CC

[daleo]

13. Those seem like reasonable questions

[bahrbearian]

24. They are say that the Planes Couldn't land with the Munitions, the planes are over 50 years old.

So I guess now the answer is to build newer more expensive ones

[OnlinePoker]

29. Harriers are not 50 years old.

Depending on the manufacturing date, they could be 10-32 years old (first produced in 1981 with final production in 2003).

[bahrbearian]

33. I'm sorry I made a mistake , I thought they were A-6 Intruders, from another article I read.

So I guess its ok for plane to take off with ordinance that it can't return with is ok. Because the plane is newer?

[Confusious]

43. Why?

If if they were unarmed, there is always the chance that enough of a shock could set them off. Landing on a carrier, or any landing, is a pretty big shock. Either that, or they rip out of the wing mounts on landing ( The wing mounts aren't designed to have a bomb in them during landing) and skitter along the carrier, like this video shows.

Besides which, there is also a maximum weight limit for a landing. The landing on a carrier really smashes the landing gear, and any extra weight could cause problems.

[ConcernedCanuk]

47. That makes a lot of sense . .

.
.
.

Explains a lot about the ME.

Once the planes with ARMED bombs are in the air,

They gotta drop them on SOMEBODY ????

Oh yeah, weddings, schools,

Canucks in training . . .

And so on.

CC

[DallasNE]

27. Why Would They Be Low On Fuel

That makes no sense. The jets had to turn back because the bombing range was not secure which should mean that they had more than enough fuel. Now I understand them not wanting to land a jet with a bomb load on an aircraft carrier. Also, why would they send those jets up without knowing that their destination was secure so the mission could be accomplished. Looks like multiple screw-up's here and not just minor ones either.

[Confusious]

44. The Harrier only has a range of 300nmi

It's a short range attack fighter, and they could probably burn through their fuel supply in a couple of hours or so. If the range wasn't ready, they would have to circle, burning up more fuel.

Have you driven a car all day? I've driven across the US, and at 60+ miles an hour, I can burn through a tank of gas in 4 hours. A Jet is a lot worse.

Why would they send them up? Hypothetical, when they sent them up, the range was clear. A plane in front of them made a mess of things, and they had a hard time getting it clear.

I find it hard to believe that just two planes would be doing the exercise. More likely the whole squadron was involved.

[NickB79]

68. Harriers are gas hogs

Their ability to take off and land vertically through use of a nozzle system means they burn fuel faster than any other comparable jet fighter. AFAIK, they don't have afterburners to kick on for long distance flying.

[JoeyT]

41. I'm not defending it,

but the only reason I could think of for a combination of "low on fuel" and "could not land with their bomb load" would be weight.

Even a few hundred pounds would dramatically decrease fuel efficiency in a jet.

I can't imagine why they'd be low on fuel, though. Did they try tapping the gas gauge? Sometimes that helps.

[Confusious]

45. Why?

There's always a chance they could go off, with enough of a shock. Landing on a carrier is about as bad a shock as they come. Either that, or they rip out of the wing mounts on landing (The wing mounts aren't designed to have a bomb in them during landing) and skitter along the carrier, like this video shows.

Besides which, there is also a maximum weight limit for a landing. The landing on a carrier really smashes the landing gear, and any extra weight could cause problems.

[loli phabay]

66. i presume its due to the weight, its better to land light than land heavy.

[blkmusclmachine]

46. Oops.

[Ruby the Liberal]

52. We liberated the Great Barrier Reef?

USA! USA! USA!

[Doctor_J]

87. not yet

We need to give the Pentagon three billion dollars a week for ten years. ONLY THEN will it be liberated.

[Earth_First]

53. Nemo is PISSED!

Not good.

[Eleanors38]

55. Check out: Bomb Wikipedia

Various discussions describe an "inert bomb" (as described on NPR) as being, typically, painted in light blue and stenciled "Inert," with all explosive material removed. Not to be confused with a "concrete" bomb (not described in news reports I have heard) which had some function of breaking through hardened targets without using explosives. No link due to hand-held prob.

Wiki already has an informal discussion about the "Australian" bombing incident.

[byeya]

56. The USA bombed itself 86 times with A-Bombs(above ground testing) so why should anyone think

we wouldn't bomb other countries especially with non explosives.
The Aussies like the USA anyway - polls show - so they won't mind bombs in their park.

[penultimate]

58. First the moon and now this? What's next, are we going to nuke the sun?

[treestar]

60. We will get our asses kicked

in a war with Australia.

Seriously, it sounds like an accident.

[Violet_Crumble]

82. Retaliation for this Yankee imperialist aggression will be brutal!

Australia will respond by dropping not 4, but 10 unarmed bombs on Nevada while aiming at the Grand Canyon next time they're training in the US!

[treestar]

89. If these bombs contain vegemite

The US is doomed, I tell ya!

We may as well put the shrimp on the barbie now and start singing Advance Australia Fair and recognize John Williamson as our lead musician. Come to think of it, Australian Imperialist Aggression could be just what the world needs. G'day Mate!

[Violet_Crumble]

96. Yummy!

Vegemite bombs would be a gift from the heavens! I really don't understand how people don't like it....

Now when it comes to John Williamson, that's a whole different story. You mentioning him brought back bad memories of being stuck in a car with a friend on the way to Queensland and she insisted on playing 'Rip Rip Woodchip' over and over again. I wanted to rip out the car stereo and run the car over it repeatedly so it would stop

[flvegan]

71. Preemptive strike on Shark Week.

Take THAT, Discovery Channel!

[Le Taz Hot]

72. Isn't Australia like one of the last countries

that wasn't pissed at us (for good reason)? Good job, U.S. Military: Accomplishing what our Executive Branch couldn't.

[hughee99]

81. They're really looking hard for those "suspected militants" aren't they. n/t

[oldandhappy]

86. why did the bombs have to be dropped at all??

Why not take the unarmed bombs back with you is target area is not clear?? This is not clear but I sure do think it was ridiculous. We do not need any more harm to our name.

[wordpix]

102. pilots were running low on fuel. Article today says 2000 lb were dropped:-(

http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/u-s-accidentally-drops-2-000-lbs-of-bombs-on-the-great-barrier-reef-20130722?mrefid=skybox

stop the bombing, stop the wars, save the whales, dolphins, fish and planet

[Doctor_J]

88. Cheney said,"They'll welcome us with shrimp on the Barbie"

[NickB79]

90. First we bombed the Moon, now this!

And for reference:

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6712126

[ileus]

92. Protecting the new oil reserves.

[wordpix]

100. there are oil reserves near the Gt Barrier Reef?

[ileus]

101. No just assisting in Freedom like we do in the ME.

http://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/major-oil-discovery-outback-sa-050627675.html