Despite many years of its existence, there continues to be much opposition to the Navy's marine mammal program, called NMMP. It is now mainly based in San Diego, and uses dolphins and other mammals for military purposes. The dolphins are trained to locate and mark floating sea mines; locate and mark mines on the ocean floor; or ones that are buried; and to determine safe paths for troops coming ashore. The dolphins also stand guard to protect harbors and ships against unauthorized swimmers. When an enemy is detected, the dolphin allegedly bumps an object connected to a buoy into the enemy's air supply. The buoy then rises to the surface, alerting the Navy of the enemy's presence .
NMMP dolphin teams have been used in combat zones in both the Vietnam and Iraq wars. Dolphins were deployed to the Persian Gulf in 2003, and the Navy claims they aided in detecting more than 100 underwater mines and booby traps. There are ongoing hearings on the subject, where opponents strongly air their views. The most controversial part of the program was called "Swimmer Notification," whereby dolphins allegedly were trained to drown people, but that was not effective. Also small CO2 cartridges were connected to a big hypodermic needle, and placed on the dolphin's fiberglass nosecone.
The dolphins are trained in San Diego Bay, and small boats transport the dolphins from their pens to where they are trained. From its beginning in the 1960's, the program has been very controversial, and strongly objected to by animal rights organizations. The Navy, however, contends they only use positive reinforcement, and follow regulations of the Marine Mammal Protection, and the Animal Welfare Act. Opponents also object to the stress caused the mammals, especially when confined, and object to the muzzles used which prevent the dolphins hunting for food. Opponents feel that this food deprivation gives the handlers control of the mammals, while the Navy states it is so they do not swallow objects which might harm them.
The program was classified in 1967, and since has been re-classified, but opponents feel that not enough about the program has been de-classified, especially to do with dolphin training. The Navy has acknowledged that besides the bottlenose dolphin, the following mammals have been used in the program, either for study or for projects: beluga; common dolphin; false killer whale; killer whale; Pacific white-sided dolphin; pilot whale; Risso's dolphin; rough-toothed dolphin; California sea lion; common seal; elephant seal, fur seals. gray seal, Stellar's sea lion; and sharks. Today the Navy mainly uses bottlenose dolphins and California sea lions.
The Navy assembles the mammals into teams which are marked in military terms as MK's. The dolphins are in three military classifications, MK 4, MK7, and MK8. The dolphin uses its echolocation sonar ability upon a cue from the handler, and communicates in a particular way to the handler when an object is found. (Echolocation is a skill dolphins create through listening to echoes of sounds they make, which allows them to determine the size and location of objects}. If the object is a mine, the dolphin marks the location by releasing a buoy. The ships avoid the area of the mines, or the mines are disarmed by navy divers.
Bryan Johnson of KOMO=TV recently wrote of members of the Greater Bainbridge Senior Center in Washington knitting sweaters for dolphins who are going to be used by the U.S. Navy on patrols for Homeland Security. One of the women even bought regulation Navy buttons for adorning the sweaters. This knitting project is gaining popularity across the country.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Military discount
Military discount
As you read this, there are American soldiers overseas right now who are wishing that they were safe and sound in their own homes. There are families surviving without their loved ones because they are deployed for an extended amount of time. Life isn’t easy for those families right now. Finances may be suffering to certain extents. Sure, the military gives a paycheck and helps out, but sometimes, there are struggles that go beyond that assistance.
Many companies recognize the dedication and sacrifices of those military personnel and their families. They have started to offer a military discount for many, many different things. Not only are those generous companies showing support for our military and our country, they are lifting some burdens for those individuals. A military discount can be found on almost anything nowadays – from buying a car to going on a vacation. Simple everyday purchases may also qualify for a military discount – if you are willing to ask. Just like any other form of discounts or specials, if you speak up and inquire about it, they may offer them, just not advertise them. Certain vehicles will offer a military discount or cash incentive to purchase a new vehicle. It may not seem like it is making a huge difference, but offering a $500 downpayment for a vehicle can be helping out a family or individual incredibly.
A lot of vacation resorts and hotels also offer a military discount, encouraging families to spend more quality time together. Disney offers a military discount for admission tickets, making an expensive vacation quite a bit more affordable. Certain restaurants now offer a military discount as well.
Recently, I heard a family in our church complaining about the fact that our church has been assisting a woman who has three small children and whose husband is serving in Iraq. Yes, he’s getting paid, but since his absence, she’s been forced to lessen her working hours in order to be with her children. She never had to pay for daycare before when she had her husband at home. Suddenly, she’s only working part-time and paying for daycare for 3 children. That is a huge financial burden for her. The church has been trying to assist as much as possible. I took it upon myself to confront this disgruntled family and tell them what I truly thought. After the service was over, I saw the man approach the woman and give her a twenty dollar bill. She hugged him, bringing tears to his eyes. Sure, that was only $20 for him, but could be quite a bit for her. A simply military discount isn’t helping her. Others need to reach out to assist while our family members are serving our country.
If you own a business and don’t currently offer a military discount, consider implementing one. No matter how little the discount is, you just never know how much you could be helping someone out. Plus, supporting your country is never a bad concept.
As you read this, there are American soldiers overseas right now who are wishing that they were safe and sound in their own homes. There are families surviving without their loved ones because they are deployed for an extended amount of time. Life isn’t easy for those families right now. Finances may be suffering to certain extents. Sure, the military gives a paycheck and helps out, but sometimes, there are struggles that go beyond that assistance.
Many companies recognize the dedication and sacrifices of those military personnel and their families. They have started to offer a military discount for many, many different things. Not only are those generous companies showing support for our military and our country, they are lifting some burdens for those individuals. A military discount can be found on almost anything nowadays – from buying a car to going on a vacation. Simple everyday purchases may also qualify for a military discount – if you are willing to ask. Just like any other form of discounts or specials, if you speak up and inquire about it, they may offer them, just not advertise them. Certain vehicles will offer a military discount or cash incentive to purchase a new vehicle. It may not seem like it is making a huge difference, but offering a $500 downpayment for a vehicle can be helping out a family or individual incredibly.
A lot of vacation resorts and hotels also offer a military discount, encouraging families to spend more quality time together. Disney offers a military discount for admission tickets, making an expensive vacation quite a bit more affordable. Certain restaurants now offer a military discount as well.
Recently, I heard a family in our church complaining about the fact that our church has been assisting a woman who has three small children and whose husband is serving in Iraq. Yes, he’s getting paid, but since his absence, she’s been forced to lessen her working hours in order to be with her children. She never had to pay for daycare before when she had her husband at home. Suddenly, she’s only working part-time and paying for daycare for 3 children. That is a huge financial burden for her. The church has been trying to assist as much as possible. I took it upon myself to confront this disgruntled family and tell them what I truly thought. After the service was over, I saw the man approach the woman and give her a twenty dollar bill. She hugged him, bringing tears to his eyes. Sure, that was only $20 for him, but could be quite a bit for her. A simply military discount isn’t helping her. Others need to reach out to assist while our family members are serving our country.
If you own a business and don’t currently offer a military discount, consider implementing one. No matter how little the discount is, you just never know how much you could be helping someone out. Plus, supporting your country is never a bad concept.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Modern Version Of MIlitary Equipments
There seems to be a lot of competition for advanced fighter aircraft in the world, as the military arms business is alive and well. Most modernized nations can attribute a significant part of the GDP to the selling of weapons, aircraft, warships, etc. The Russians are in partnership with a few nations to help with the logistics of building fighter aircraft. The Russians then sell these aircraft to anyone who will buy them. The Chinese are selling long-range guided missiles, capable of delivering nuclear weapons across continents.
In the European Union, they sell the modern Euro Fighters amongst several popular late model aircraft. The USA sells F-15s, F-18s, F-16s and now has a available the JSF stealth fighter, which is available to our close allies. Now comes the question, are nation-states who are serious about military defense buying these new aircraft to appease trading partners and form alliances or are they buying them because they are the best available piece of hardware?
This is an interesting question as some nations are buying modernized Su-37 aircraft, which by all accounts is much inferior to the JSF aircraft made in the USA. Many countries without significant funds buy the inferior aircraft to save money, yet in reality, they are no match for the JSF. In fact, the stealth aircraft is almost impossible to detect and most likely would have already launched its payload prior to being seen, therefore killing its multiple inferior targets, before they even knew what hit them.
One question which was recently raised by the Online Think Tank is; why would any nation want to buy aircraft that makes them a sitting duck? Is it out of ego, that their military leadership or politicians can say look - we have the most number of fighter aircraft? Is it out of the need to buy weapons to stay on a nation's good list or are they buying the aircraft to defend their people? Only one answer would satisfy a true military strategist, the answer is buy the most advanced aircraft so you can win in battle if that time arises - we chose the JSF. Sincerely, Lance.
In the European Union, they sell the modern Euro Fighters amongst several popular late model aircraft. The USA sells F-15s, F-18s, F-16s and now has a available the JSF stealth fighter, which is available to our close allies. Now comes the question, are nation-states who are serious about military defense buying these new aircraft to appease trading partners and form alliances or are they buying them because they are the best available piece of hardware?
This is an interesting question as some nations are buying modernized Su-37 aircraft, which by all accounts is much inferior to the JSF aircraft made in the USA. Many countries without significant funds buy the inferior aircraft to save money, yet in reality, they are no match for the JSF. In fact, the stealth aircraft is almost impossible to detect and most likely would have already launched its payload prior to being seen, therefore killing its multiple inferior targets, before they even knew what hit them.
One question which was recently raised by the Online Think Tank is; why would any nation want to buy aircraft that makes them a sitting duck? Is it out of ego, that their military leadership or politicians can say look - we have the most number of fighter aircraft? Is it out of the need to buy weapons to stay on a nation's good list or are they buying the aircraft to defend their people? Only one answer would satisfy a true military strategist, the answer is buy the most advanced aircraft so you can win in battle if that time arises - we chose the JSF. Sincerely, Lance.
Military Relations Through Media At War Times
There have been media reports that the military has been talking out of turn, and counter views have also been expressed on the topic by some supposed thinkers. It is not by individual perceptions that policies are made and the subject, in today’s context needs to debated with select examples of the world military media relations kept as a backdrop and the examples of using the various media tools as force multipliers.
Military has opened up to the media only recently. Kargil operation was the first televised war, which brought the conflict to peoples homes. It showed the war zone to the world and changed people’s perception on the pattern of conflict in high altitude areas. It reduced the gap between the military and the civilians and connected people with the lives of soldiers, who carry out their duties even at the peril of their lives. It is in their prompt response at the borders that our countrymen can remain comfortable at their homes. It was a bonding established and a national fervour built which brought about unity in diversity. The up front reportage altered the world opinion in our favour and justified the conflict, making Pakistan the bad guy. All this happened only because the media by India was handled with an aim, a vision and the public, in many ways participated in the conflict.
The negatives, to balance out, have also been true, with at times some media personnel being given preferential treatment by the military and the same media men, when rubbished on an occasion have been nasty in the reporting about the military. Such practices are reasonably common, despite the users in the game being quite aware, and such practices are bound to take place in a democratic system, yet it is important to analyse the reasons for the reporters adopting a sudden change in their outlook. It must be appreciated, after all, they are also individuals and bound to err and swing one way or the other to gauge the mood swing of the readers.
Just prior to Kargil, Kosovo happened, and just a little later the United Nations Force launched an operation in Sierra Leone. A brief mention of the two will facilitate in framing opinions on the media being used as a weapon system. While Kosovo was a ‘War of Will’ at least as projected by the western media, which gave only a one sided picture with Mr Reuben giving his daily briefings; the Sierra Leone intervention, despite the Indian contingent being actually responsible for the success of the mission, was over shadowed by the British media which highlighted the contributions made by the British troops in the success of the operations. However, damage control was carried out by the Indian Foreign Service at a later stage more as a reaction by sending the Indian media to cover the happenings, bringing to focus the Indian Army actions which brought about peace in the Region. More recently, the American coalition war in Iraq was again a reminder that a war can be projected as a justifiable war, if the events are doctored well and projected selectively.
The above examples bring to focus one important aspect, and that is, media has to be intelligently applied and it must be situation oriented. It cannot adorn a template which has to dittoed in all situations and the content also has to vary. An over or an under play will neither be good for the public nor for the military. The responses from the military have to be couched and well articulated. A total ban on interaction with the media will give rise to speculation and invariably result in misreporting. An over eager, inadequately thought of hurried response, is again likely to give a negative projection. The bait by the media will always be given with smiling faces approaching the military and wanting to be the first to report an incident and in the bargain getting access to an event. It may also be that the military, at times may feel that some other security agency may take the credit for the task accomplished and therefore prematurely reveal some details to pre-empt the other stake holders, which at times may result in tendering apologies at a later stage.
Such out of turn exposures to the media must be guarded against and that comes with fore thought and practice. Hence, it is important that media education is imparted to the military as a professional subject. It should be taught in schools of instructions right from entrée level and should be practiced over the years. The importance of the information warfare with media as a force multiplier has to be understood and it has to be correctly used as a weapon of decision making, a weapon of success.
Military has opened up to the media only recently. Kargil operation was the first televised war, which brought the conflict to peoples homes. It showed the war zone to the world and changed people’s perception on the pattern of conflict in high altitude areas. It reduced the gap between the military and the civilians and connected people with the lives of soldiers, who carry out their duties even at the peril of their lives. It is in their prompt response at the borders that our countrymen can remain comfortable at their homes. It was a bonding established and a national fervour built which brought about unity in diversity. The up front reportage altered the world opinion in our favour and justified the conflict, making Pakistan the bad guy. All this happened only because the media by India was handled with an aim, a vision and the public, in many ways participated in the conflict.
The negatives, to balance out, have also been true, with at times some media personnel being given preferential treatment by the military and the same media men, when rubbished on an occasion have been nasty in the reporting about the military. Such practices are reasonably common, despite the users in the game being quite aware, and such practices are bound to take place in a democratic system, yet it is important to analyse the reasons for the reporters adopting a sudden change in their outlook. It must be appreciated, after all, they are also individuals and bound to err and swing one way or the other to gauge the mood swing of the readers.
Just prior to Kargil, Kosovo happened, and just a little later the United Nations Force launched an operation in Sierra Leone. A brief mention of the two will facilitate in framing opinions on the media being used as a weapon system. While Kosovo was a ‘War of Will’ at least as projected by the western media, which gave only a one sided picture with Mr Reuben giving his daily briefings; the Sierra Leone intervention, despite the Indian contingent being actually responsible for the success of the mission, was over shadowed by the British media which highlighted the contributions made by the British troops in the success of the operations. However, damage control was carried out by the Indian Foreign Service at a later stage more as a reaction by sending the Indian media to cover the happenings, bringing to focus the Indian Army actions which brought about peace in the Region. More recently, the American coalition war in Iraq was again a reminder that a war can be projected as a justifiable war, if the events are doctored well and projected selectively.
The above examples bring to focus one important aspect, and that is, media has to be intelligently applied and it must be situation oriented. It cannot adorn a template which has to dittoed in all situations and the content also has to vary. An over or an under play will neither be good for the public nor for the military. The responses from the military have to be couched and well articulated. A total ban on interaction with the media will give rise to speculation and invariably result in misreporting. An over eager, inadequately thought of hurried response, is again likely to give a negative projection. The bait by the media will always be given with smiling faces approaching the military and wanting to be the first to report an incident and in the bargain getting access to an event. It may also be that the military, at times may feel that some other security agency may take the credit for the task accomplished and therefore prematurely reveal some details to pre-empt the other stake holders, which at times may result in tendering apologies at a later stage.
Such out of turn exposures to the media must be guarded against and that comes with fore thought and practice. Hence, it is important that media education is imparted to the military as a professional subject. It should be taught in schools of instructions right from entrée level and should be practiced over the years. The importance of the information warfare with media as a force multiplier has to be understood and it has to be correctly used as a weapon of decision making, a weapon of success.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)