if that was a concern wouldn’t firing at the ship introduce leaks?
p.s. btw i copied the text and it tagged the ‘Read more’ link automatically. never noticed this before, kind of cool.
This concern is discussed in some stories, like the CBS one I linked to earlier. The NOAA and EPA say the fuel will evaporate in open water.
and it is nothing compared to pollution from the US that the rest of the world has to deal with.
My first thought was that it would make sense to sink it in shallower waters and create an artificial reef. Those things work wonders for the marine ecosystem.
I must say I’m a bit concerned. I’m going on an Alaska cruise in a couple of months (out of Seattle) and will be sailing right through that area. At first I was glad they decided to sink it since it means our cruise ship probably won’t collide with it and sink.
But then I thought “What if the radioactivity turns it into a giant Transformer and it re-emerges from the depths as an enormous nuclear robot?” It’ll be pissed that someone shot holes in it and come looking for revenge. It might not be able to tell a cruise ship from a Coast Guard ship (or it might not care). It could break our ship in half or zap us with its laser eyes before heading for the Canadian coast.
If that happens I’ll keep my phone handy and try to post some pictures as we’re going down.
One of them’s an environmental problem, the other one’s a disaster of almost unimaginable proportions in which entire towns were wiped off the map, thousands of livelihoods destroyed, and 20,000 people died or missing. If you can’t find any compassion, at least have a sense of proportion.
That should be the video the Coast Guard released. I was amused by how they fired on the ship, which caught fire. So naturally they sail over and put a water hose on the fire.
Yeah, that confused me. Why did they do that? They want the thing to burn right?
Practice, perchance? When else are they going to have the opportunity to practice on a real ship?
Rob says they are trying to add water to flood it. He also said they should have been much closer when shooting it if their gunnery was so suckass.:smack:
Who’s Rob?
Husband=)
That’s not a disaster, that’s just a problem we’ll have to deal with, and it’s one that I think most people would agree is a great one to have, compared with the problem of thousands of deaths, a nuclear disaster, and unimaginable damage to land and livelihoods.
Cripes.
This ABC story includes more video.
In looking at that and the youtube video linked up thread, I was wondering about what appear to be “misses.” At first I thought maybe the coast guard was really rusty, or practicing warning shots, but I’m starting to think they may be using some kind of a “skip shot.” In the ABC story (at about the 38s mark) it looks like something is being “skipped” across the water specifically to hit the side of the ship near the water line.
Am I crazy?
Skip shots have been around since the first days of Naval Canons. The English Navy were considered particularly adept at this. It allows you to get near or under the waterline with your shot and means you don’t have to break a ship apart or burn it to sink it
So, when it caught on fire, maybe they really didn’t mean it?
I wonder if the captain was secretly making the ‘k-Bloooooommmmmnnnnggg’ sound.
“B-10!?”
“You sank my japanese ghost ship!”
Laura Petrie: Oooh Roooooob!
I’ll tell you one thing, I don’t have occasional episodes where I imagine the earth is shaking and worry that I will be crushed to death by a reef of debris.
I was expecting something like this.
SiXSwordS
plus the dddddddddaaaaaaa machine gun sounds also:D