Disgruntled Star Editor Takes Constructive Revenge
Drop Fees, End Poverty! And Also Do All These Other Things!
Kensington Market's Business, Soon to be Improved
Live Green Toronto's Bright Idea
Stacks of Tracks (in the Stacks)
Yesterday, the first in a series of public meetings with the United States Coast Guard resulted in the suspention of live-fire machine gun drills on the Great Lakes until greater safety and environmental inquiries are made.
The live-fire drills have been operating on all five lakes since January, only recently gaining public attention and inciting outrage in the recreational boating, fishing and cottaging communities. The U.S. Coast Guard, a division of the Department of Homeland Security, says that its law-enforcement vessels need to be updated in order to combat terrorism and threats to American security. Live-fire zones are located at least 5 kilometres away from U.S. and Canadian shorelines, and the Coast Guard promises ample warning to nearby inhabitants.
Because the Coast Guard vessels are non-military, the arming of the patrol boats does not technically violate the 1817 Rush-Bagot Treaty which was meant to limit armaments on the Great Lakes. Canada also operates law enforcement vessels on the Great Lakes in association with the Coast Guard and RCMP, but officers are equipped with sidearms rather than deck-mounted machine guns.
While some have argued that environmental hazards would be negligible, the Globe and Mail reported yesterday that the live-fire training would deposit 3,100 kilograms of lead per year into the Great Lakes. “That's more lead than the entire state of Michigan and all of its industries and pollution sources emit to surface waters every year," says a spokesman for the Michigan Environmental Council.
Mayor David Miller responded, "It is most disturbing that the U.S. is contemplating exercises that will militarize the lakes, cause pollution and environmental degradation, restrict shipping and recreation, and change the peaceful border between Canada and the U.S."
Torontoist to U.S. Coast Guard: Keep your bullets out of our water, thanks.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Ummm...I'm too busy to go look it up myself, but I was under the impression that the Coast Guard WAS a branch of the US Military. Wouldn't that make them Military Vessels by default?
you are correct!
according to the USC (and wikipedia):
"The Coast Guard as established January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times."
in 2005 it was put under the control of Fuhrerland...er...Homeland Security. BUT congress or dubya can at anytime place them under control of the Dept of the Navy.
they are legally considered part of the military and foloow the same rules etc.
While I probably should be more concerned about the pending American invasion, my first response is "Jesus that's a lot of lead!"
PS. If the American's invade, does that mean we get Marlboro Lights, Yuengling and the good Corn Pops here? Cause I would give up our sovereignty for that. We weren't really using it anyway.
text is here: http://www.aandc.org/research/rush-bagot_agreement.html
One will note that the treaty has a 6 month notice period, and so the US' actions are within that aspect. Further, notice that the treaty allows up to an eighteen pounder. The very small machine guns come nowhere close to this, and wouldn't have been counted as serious weapons at the time of the treaty. You need to send a lot of 50 caliber rounds at a sailboat or steamship to stop it, while a few shots through the engine or hull of a typical boat these days is more than enough.
As to the lead... large pellets of lead at the bottom of the lakes isn't much of a threat, especially as compared to aerosolised lead emissions from industrial plants. Trust the lefties and greenies to never have a sense of perspective.
well, no, the US's actions are probably NOT since they already started weeks ago....
and YES of course the Pb as compared to output from factories isn't large, but it's still "littering" as it were. and Pb is very toxic.
personally, i think the Pb is the least of our concerns over this. the US basically said 'btw, we're gonna start doing this, so uh, yeh, thanks for coming out ...'
jackasses...
Wait... There are Corn Pops that are even better?
Basically, there are a bunch of reasons why this action is problematic, but none of them are overwhelming problematic enough to decisively cancel the live-fire drills.
I'd say the principal reason for not doing it is that it serves no useful purpose. To the best of my knowledge no terrorists have been spotted sailing across the Great Lakes.
But 3100kg of lead? How much do those bullets weigh?
They're going to do it anyway; there's no stopping something stamped with Homeland Security.
Here's the TOO MUCH INFO answer:
The gun in the picture looks like an M60(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M60_machine_gun), and they fire 7.62mm bullets(http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/rifle/762mm_ammo.html), which are roughly 171.5 grams.
3100000 grams / 171.5 grams = 18075.8 bullets
An M60 has rate of fire between 100(sustained fire) or 200(rapid fire) or 550(cyclic fire) rounds per minute, depending on what setting it's on.
18075.8 / 200 = 90.38 minutes of total machine gun fire. Per year. Not really all that much.
But still, armed Americans shooting up the lake is enough to make any Canadian a bit nervous.
It also could be a M240G Medium Machine Gun (more likely, since the US military replaced the M60 with this model), but they fire the same bullets and have the same rate of fire, so it's the same equation.
fish don't like bullets...