Keeping the blogosphere posted on the goings on of the world of submarines since late 2004... and mocking and belittling general foolishness wherever it may be found. Idaho's first and foremost submarine blog. (If you don't like something on this blog, please E-mail me; don't call me at home.)

Friday, October 05, 2007

Anti-Submarine Protesters Can Be Funny

The visit of USS Springfield (SSN 761) to Halifax is causing the ever-vigilant Canadian anti-war protesters to get some press coverage:
"Is this really what we want our harbour to be used for?" Tamara Lorincz of the Halifax Peace Coalition said Tuesday.
"There’s risks to the citizens of Halifax, there’s risks to the navy personnel and it’s expensive. We shouldn’t be spending our precious tax dollars on welcoming effectively nuclear weapons from other countries into our harbour. We shouldn’t be part of this."...
..."Why are they here?" Ms. Lorincz said. "Are they making their way to the Middle East, to the Gulf? You’re hearing the war drums beating for Iran."...
...Halifax and Esquimalt, B.C., are bound by international agreements to accept nuclear-powered warships belonging to some of Canada’s closest allies, including the United States, Britain and France. Nanoose, B.C., is the only other Canadian port where they can tie up.
Historically, Halifax played host to about six nuclear-powered vessels a year, Sub-Lt. Blondin said Tuesday.
"There’s been quite a reduction over the years," he said.
As the article mentions, U.S. subs visit Halifax and Victoria, B.C., fairly frequently; it's a good way to get a "foreign" port call when you're out doing ops during the Inter-Deployment Training Cycle (or whatever they're calling the time between deployments now). One of the things that make the visits interesting is the presence of the charmingly determined yet completely misinformed Canadian anti-nuclear activists. I never pulled into Halifax, but I did pull into Victoria a couple of times, and we were always met by the Raging Grannies, who sang funny songs. Like most hopelessly earnest protesters, they think they're making a statement, but they don't ever get anything actually changed (except they make life a little more difficult for people providing security at various places). They're kind of like the anti-war people in Congress here in the U.S.

Speaking of ineffective protesters, check out this anti-submarine protester in Scotland who had to get rescued by the very people he was protesting about:
The man, who was wearing a wetsuit, was one of four Scandinavian activists who tried to swim into the base. Three were stopped before they got inside the boundary.
A further four members of their group tried to enter the base by walking along the shoreline. They were arrested by armed military police as they entered its grounds.
The rescue was only launched after the other activists reported their missing colleague.
A spokesman for the MoD said: "Earlier this morning a group of swimmers were spotted and removed from the water outside Coulport naval base by police launch.
"In a separate incident, a concerned protester phoned into Coulport inquiring as to the whereabouts of another protester who was also believed to be in the water.
"An RAF search and rescue operation was conducted and he was found, removed from the water and taken to hospital for treatment for possible post- immersion shock.
"This individual is now in the custody of police."
I'm sure he'll try to claim that the warmongers tortured him while he was in custody. Interestingly, the article goes on to say that his compatriots mentioned that he'd gotten a long way into the base; it also said they hadn't spoken to him yet. It doesn't say how they knew how far he'd gotten without having spoken to him.


Blogger E.P. said...

I really like the "fact" that I was stationed for years on what she describes as "effectively nuclear weapons." There should be some basic requirement to demonstrate knowledge before belonging to a protest group. If she's the 'spokesperson' is she the most educated member of the group, or just the most eloqent? Or maybe the jounalist was trying to make a point about the caliber of the protests?

10/05/2007 12:11 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

e.p., I would be more likely to believe that the journalist is equally clueless.

10/08/2007 5:56 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pulled into Halifax in 1995. Saw some anti-nuke protestors and they were pretty clueless. Wanted to know if I was aware that over 90% of the nuclear plants in America were being operated in a "critical" condition. I just smiled and kept on moving. I wonder if the same cluebags then are the ones protesting the war now. Don't know if this was connected, but I remember being topside as we were tying up at Clearwater and this guy in a Ministry of Defence (or whatever the hell they call it) boat is along side with this guy in the back in full anti-c's scooping up water samples right next to the hull. Didn't have the heart to tell him the discharge was on the other side.

P.S. Anybody know if the "Liquor Dome" is still open. I need to check their Lost & Found for a couple million brain cells I left there one night.

10/09/2007 3:09 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wrote the paper on this one. She was one clueless twit. I hope the paper published my letter but Idoubt it.

10/09/2007 9:48 PM


Post a Comment

<< Home