# Vieques protesters, meet the law of unintended consequences **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 28, 2003, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vieques-protesters-meet-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/191444 "2003-07-28T15:26:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vieques-protesters-meet-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/191444/21 "2003-07-29T17:59:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jodi \* > \*\* > If the Navy can’t use the base for its intended use, why on earth would they keep it open? To me, it’s like telling a guy he can’t sell hotdogs on the street because he doesn’t have a business license, and then wondering whether he’s “punishing” you by closing his cart. \*\* It’s more like the guy is selling hotdogs and occasionally turning around and pissing on the street. You tell the guy to stop pissing on the street so he moves his hotdog cart to someplace so desperate for hotdogs that they don’t mind the pissing so much. Oh and **Brutus** there is that Cuba place and we did have to invade Greneda for some reason in the 80’s. I’m not saying the base in PR is really really needed but the area is ‘hot’ so to speak. ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Beaker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/46a35a/32.png) [@Grim\_Beaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Beaker)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vieques-protesters-meet-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/191444/22 "2003-07-29T18:41:45Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s more like the guy is selling hotdogs and occasionally turning around and pissing on the street. You tell the guy to stop pissing on the street so he moves his hotdog cart to someplace so desperate for hotdogs that they don’t mind the pissing so much. That change to the analogy is pretty poor **Zebra**. The main purpose of the base is to facilitate live fire exercises. The main purpose of the hotdog vendor is not pissing in the street. Equating the two makes no sense whatsoever. If you forbid the hotdog vendor from pissing (the main purpose apparently according to you) he can still sell hotdogs. If you forbid live fire exercises (the main purpose for the base) the base can still do… umm… what? A better change to the analogy would be something along the lines of “The unavoidable hotdog scraps accumulated by the hotdog vendor attracts rats. We dislike rats so we’re going to protest the hotdog vendor selling here. Hey! The hotdog vendor left! Where’s our hotdogs!?” ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vieques-protesters-meet-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/191444/23 "2003-07-29T18:44:23Z")
ZOE, I don’t feel it is incumbent upon me to provide a cite for the self-evident. The primary purpose of the base was for the live-fire exercises. Do you disagree with this? Do you believe the base’s primary purpose was something else? Because I’d gladly take correction on that point if I’m wrong, but I’m fairly certain I’m not. If you remove the primary purpose for a base/ business/ enterprise to exist, then chances are – surprise! – the base/ business/ enterprise will close. _Because the reason to have it doesn’t exist anymore._ This is not an axiom needing citation; it is, as someone else already pointed out, common sense. > [@](#): > > I absolutely cannot imagine the people you mentioned intentionally and knowingly promoting anything that would wipe out the economy. In the immortal words of Calvin: “Believe it, lady.” I don’t know if it was intentional, but it sure as heck was knowingly. (A) The base exists to support live-fire exercises. (B) If we force the end of the live-fire exercises, chances are good the base will close. How could they possibly have been unaware of that? If we accept (A), then (B) flows naturally from it. It is worth pointing out that some Puerto Ricans (perhaps most of the protesters) were fully aware that they’d probably lose the base if they stopped the live-fire exercises, and they were willing to live with that. As is their choice – It’s the cost-benefit analysis of environment-versus-economy I already mentioned. It also appears probable that the people now lamenting the closing of the base were _not_ the ones protesting, but rather the ones arguing that the live-fire exercises were okay, precisely because they kept the base open. Do you see what I’m saying? ---
**Author:** ![whatami](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/85f322/32.png) [@whatami](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whatami)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vieques-protesters-meet-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/191444/24 "2003-07-29T22:02:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zebra \* > \*\* > Oh and **Brutus** there is that Cuba place and we did have to invade Greneda for some reason in the 80’s. I’m not saying the base in PR is really really needed but the area is ‘hot’ so to speak. \*\* Yes, becuase Cuba is so far from Florida that we need to have another base to be able to defend ourselves from. I think (though I concede we’ll never be sure nowadays) that the time of worrying about invasion _from_ Cuba or the invasion _of_ Cuba is long gone. Grenada was merely an extension of the cold war and the soldiers were lifted from the carrier Guam, and (I think) Independence. I don’t believe the base on PR had much to do with that. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vieques-protesters-meet-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/191444/25 "2003-07-29T23:34:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zebra \* > \*\*…Oh and **Brutus** there is that Cuba place and we did have to invade Greneda for some reason in the 80’s. I’m not saying the base in PR is really really needed but the area is ‘hot’ so to speak. \*\* Are you kidding or are you high? The Caribbean is ‘hot’ as in ‘temperature’ only. There are no wars waiting to break out; Cuba is not a military threat to us, thanks to the incompetent socialist paradise killing any chance of a economy there. A couple of MiG-17’s and the odd MiG-29 that they manage to get airborne can be safely dealt with from Florida, wouldn’t you think? ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vieques-protesters-meet-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/191444/26 "2003-07-30T02:00:25Z")
Yes that was kidding. Look, there is no political course that makes everyone happy. I think we all can understand why people did not like the constant bombing. So you stop the bombing and lose the base. The people who worked at the base are not happy. The real question is will the military give up the property and allow new economic development? Senator Imhofe (R OK) from the article seemed to want to punish the PRs for wanting to stop the target practice. > [@](#): > > “Those that don’t want that to happen say well, ‘Let’s just give back to the Puerto Rican politicians,’ and reward them with an asset that’s worth $1.7 billion for kicking us off that range **that has cost American lives.** That’s just not going to happen,” Inhofe said. Bolding mine. That is a pretty bold claim though. Has someone in the Navy died because they didn’t get to use the range? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vieques-protesters-meet-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/191444/27 "2003-07-30T04:44:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zebra \* > \*\*The people who worked at the base are not happy. \*\* Not just the people who worked at the base. Actually, I’m betting most of those were Navy personnel, who would just be reassigned elsewhere. No, the people who are really upset are all the local businesses that serviced those Navy personell: restaurants, bars, grocery stores, porno shops, etc, etc, etc. Closing the base means the loss of thousands of customers, and no amount of “new economic development” on the property is going to change that. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vieques-protesters-meet-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/191444/28 "2003-07-30T05:23:13Z")
> [@](#): > > Has someone in the Navy died because they didn’t get to use the range? Well, not that I have a specific cite, but if you recall how things were some long time ago, when navies _didn’t_ practice their gunnery… Ships died, and their crews with them if they couldn’t shoot straight. Ditto with bomber crews that don’t get a chance to stay current with the arcane art of dropping military munitions on pople who shot back: You fight like you practice, and if you don’t practice, you get rusty fast. Rusty piolets die, and they drop bombs on people they didn’t meant to hit. But actually, I suspect that the lives referred to were more likely those of EOD people cleaning up after the practice sessions. And UXO (duds, to most of you) are a _damned_ good reason to not allow civilian access to the island for a good long time. UXO can still be lethally explosive decades, even a century+ after the fact. [Cite](http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/cepa/pubs/apr01/story6.htm). That’s a hundred and thirty+ years later! [Cite #2](http://www.nynjtc.org/issues/2002/skexsum.html). [Another island](http://www.state.ma.us/dep/bwsc/files/RandR/NLI/nliuxo.htm) that served as a target range. In fact, it seems that there’s [a lot](http://www.usa-environmental.com/projlist.htm) of planned UXO cleanup activity scheduled for vieques. NOT the sort of thing a responsible agency turns over to civil redevelopment until it’s _damned_ sure it’s all claned up. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vieques-protesters-meet-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/191444/29 "2003-07-30T05:24:46Z")
Would you believe I actually previewed that post? Time to go to bed. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Fern\_Forest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/71c47a/32.png) [@Fern\_Forest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fern_Forest)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vieques-protesters-meet-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/191444/30 "2003-07-30T06:51:32Z")
[Kaho’olawe](http://www.efdpac.navfac.navy.mil/news/kaho/intro.htm#_Toc423746765) was also used by the Navy to practice live target bombing. They estimated the clean up to cost some $280 million and take 7 years. I imagine the only reason they put so much work and effort into it is the Navy has a huge presence in Hawaii, Hawaii is a state with powerful representation in Washington with Dan Inoye. Puerto Rico has none of those. ---
**Author:** ![whatami](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/85f322/32.png) [@whatami](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whatami)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vieques-protesters-meet-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/191444/31 "2003-07-30T16:24:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > **Not just the people who worked at the base. Actually, I’m betting most of those were Navy personnel, who would just be reassigned elsewhere.** No, the people who are really upset are all the local businesses that serviced those Navy personell: restaurants, bars, grocery stores, porno shops, etc, etc, etc. Closing the base means the loss of thousands of customers, and no amount of “new economic development” on the property is going to change that. (bolding mine) I actually wonder if this is true. One of my friend’s parents work down in the Bahamas at some kind of US base. Apparently many of the workers down there are civilians employed by a logistics compnany who has a contract with the US Gov’t. I’m not saying that’s the case here, just wondering if it’s possible. In any case, it most definetly affects the various businesses down there who work to support the base and workers on the base. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vieques-protesters-meet-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/191444.md?page=1)