We must Protect Freedom and Democracy

[Admiral_N8]

Originally posted by HalJordan4184
actually, the navy regularly goes to australia right now, it's a regular stop for most battle groups.

And we obviously wouldnt if we had this weapon.

Originally posted by Sharkie
If we can't come up with a way to protect the seas without destroying the most valuable ecosystem on our planet, then we have no place being all high and mighty. There are other ways without destroying our world.

I already went over how this wouldnt "destroy our most valuable ecosystem on earth". Come on, lets be realistic and grounded.

I've already gone over how this wouldnt destroy it, and how it would have such a non-impact, that the amount of life compared to the amount of life in the ocean that would be effected is so small it doesnt matter.

Originally posted by Sharkie


As an ocean lover and admirier, I have studied the ocean many times. You are not taking in the complexity of the oceans. A devistating trauma at one area is going to effect another area. They're all connected. As for Australia, they are one of our strongest allies. If they got into trouble, of course we'd go to Australia, and with that evil weapon, we'd do more harm than good, because we'd destroy their natural resources in the process.

Weird, I coulda sworn I was an ocean lover and admirer too. *looks at my name* Admiral N8, hmmmm.

Lol @ "evil weapon".

Terrible weapon, protecting humans.

3 mile radius on less than 500 ships that go almost nowhere is not going to destory all sea life. Come on, seriously. I am glad you like the sea and such, but 3 miles on less than 500, probably even less than 300 ships, is not going to the end of it all.

And when you look at the benefits to HUMAN life and FREEDOM compared to the small cost of fish, its pretty interesting to pick the fish's side

[meteor]

i just watched the episode this week, and it said destruction of ocean life even if the weapon is on standby. it's fictional so we don't know the full scope of it, but destroying a 3 mile radius of ocean life on 300 stationary or moving naval vessels every time the weapon is used or is on standby, would potentially destroy thousands and thousands of square miles of ocean life...that is a total ecological disaster.

the only thing that can be said for it is that it would function as a deterrant like nuclear weapons, where nobody is insane enough to actually use them due to the consequences (so far at least).

[Admiral_N8]

Originally posted by meteor
i just watched the episode this week, and it said destruction of ocean life even if the weapon is on standby. it's fictional so we don't know the full scope of it, but destroying a 3 mile radius of ocean life on 300 stationary or moving naval vessels every time the weapon is used or is on standby, would potentially destroy thousands and thousands of square miles of ocean life...that is a total ecological disaster.

the only thing that can be said for it is that it would function as a deterrant like nuclear weapons, where nobody is insane enough to actually use them due to the consequences (so far at least).

Exactly, I agree with the last paragraph, honestly I didnt even think of that. And I bet Clark didnt either, which is why he shouldnt decide for America

[Sharkie]

Originally posted by Admiral_N8

And we obviously wouldnt if we had this weapon. ]

Oh yes, we should never help out Australia if we had this weapon. Let the fighting Kangaroos take care of themselves. Damn the fact they're our allies and one of the few countries that has fully supported the war in Iraq. Brilliant!

I already went over how this wouldnt "destroy our most valuable ecosystem on earth". Come on, lets be realistic and grounded.

I've already gone over how this wouldnt destroy it, and how it would have such a non-impact, that the amount of life compared to the amount of life in the ocean that would be effected is so small it doesnt matter.

Yes, but you're wrong. I imagine peace time procedures are very different than war time procedures. See below for why you're wrong.

Weird, I coulda sworn I was an ocean lover and admirer too. *looks at my name* Admiral N8, hmmmm.

Lol @ "evil weapon".

Terrible weapon, protecting humans.

3 mile radius on less than 500 ships that go almost nowhere is not going to destory all sea life. Come on, seriously. I am glad you like the sea and such, but 3 miles on less than 500, probably even less than 300 ships, is not going to the end of it all.

And when you look at the benefits to HUMAN life and FREEDOM compared to the small cost of fish, its pretty interesting to pick the fish's side

Here is a list of some places these ships could not/should not go:

Queensland, Australia
Large portions of the mediterrian and surrounding seas
The Channel Islands of the Pacificic
Gray's Reef of Georiga
Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale Sancturary (most of the waters off the coast of Hawaii)
Monterray Bay
The Florida Keys
Heck, keep the ships out of Florida or bye bye manatees.
The Galapagoes off of the South American coast. literally hundreds of other places world wide.

But OH OH OH! Lex lied and covered up what it could do. So if we went within three miles of these places it would be too late to save them! Damn, we just broke international laws. Whoops.

[Kryptonian-Ronin]

Has Admiral N8 served in the military ?

[laurarawlins]

My feelings about this line from Lex

What does Lex know about freedom and democracy? he sounds more like Donald Trump than Adolf Hitler when comes to foreign and immigration policies to me. Lex is a xenophobic sociopath who's on a massive obsessive power trip on control. He lies about the lies he's lies about. Fabricating stories as if he's stringing empty words together. It kinda of reminds me of "you're going to be a great politician Luthor, you're starting to believe your own lies." line in episode Lockdown during season 5. Lionel is the only one who can see right through Lex. He can read him like a magazine. Apparently Lex doesn't use Clark's diplomacy tactics/skills since Lex doesn't have his code of ethics. Clark doesn't have the "Ends justifies the means" mentality that Oliver queen, Lana Lang and Lex Luthor all share. Clark, in contrast, has a very rigid code of ethics. we know this. If you don't know exactly what Clark Kent's moral code is by now, what the hell show have you been watching? Yes he is capable of going too far when he's emotional-anyone is, but when he's thinking rationally, he draws a line in the sand and WILL NOT CROSS IT. Clark will never feel like the ends justify the means. He's not Oliver Queen and He's not Lex Luthor. He's Clark Kent.

[TheSecretVampire]

I just think that Lex was upset that he wasn't invited to that pot roast dinner that Lionel said he was at with Clark.