Founder of Sea Shepherd Arrested in Germany

[Sam.I.Am]

Eh? The blog posts I quoted from do not come from Sea Shepherd.

No. Just Sea Shepherd supporters. Same playbook, different team.

 

[Magenta]

No. Just Sea Shepherd supporters. Same playbook, different team.

These are Sea Shepherd supporters?

Some people pick sides in the struggle between Japan's Institute of Cetacean Research and the Sea Sheperd Conservation Society. Don't be that guy, because the actual politics of either side of their issues have absolutely nothing to do with our interest in their disputes here at ID.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

These are Sea Shepherd supporters?

I don't buy the PR and lip service. When they characterized SS as defeating a "Major Naval Force" they clearly have picked a side... or they are completely ignorant on the matter and shouldn't be used as a source for such things. Take your pick. Biased or ignorant.

 

[Magenta]

Take your pick.

No thanks.

 

[Noztradamus]

Some of you might find this interesting. It's a series of posts about Sea Shepherd on a blog called Information Dissemination (described as "The Intersection of Maritime Strategy and Strategic Communications"). These quotes give some indication of the focus of the posts:

the Sea Sheperds have demonstrated, albeit clumsily, the requisite tools for a successful IW campaign against a major naval power at sea:

The posts are tagged "hippies" and "irregular warfare" - not a juxtaposition you see very often...

And you could make the same claim for the National Volunteer Coastguard of Somalia

 

[Magenta]

And you could make the same claim for the National Volunteer Coastguard of Somalia

Well, not the hippie part...

 

[smartcooky]

The idea of Sea Shepherd ever going "toe-to-toe with the Japanese Navy" in the Southern Ocean is a fantasy.

Not to mention that should that fantasy ever come to pass, then the Japanese Navy would likely also find itself toe-to-toe with the Royal Australian Navy!

 

[Sam.I.Am]

No thanks.

I'll take that as both then.

 

[theprestige]

No thanks.

Why not? The blog you cited notes approvingly that Sea Shepherd has demonstrated the capability of waging war against a major naval power.

You yourself have said that this is a fantasy.

It doesn't seem to me there's a lot of options besides the blogger being biased in favor of SS, or the blogger being ignorant of Sea Shepherd/major naval powers/naval warfare.

So why did you cite the blog, anyway? What was it, in your citation, that you thought was notable or interesting? How did it inform your views of Sea Shepherd and their conflict? In what way did you hope it would inform the views of the other participants of the thread?

You must have thought there was something interesting or important about the blogger's analysis, otherwise you wouldn't have shared it with us. But all I can see is a blogger who is both ignorant and biased in favor of SS. What am I missing? What do you see in that analysis that the rest of us don't?

 

[smartcooky]

Much as I support Sea Shepherd for what they are doing in trying to protect whales from the slaughter, even I recognise that it would be a "no contest" if it came to a "real" war.

The Japanese navy could simply torpedo their ships and put them on the bottom of the Southern Ocean, and that would be that.

 

[Magenta]

Why not? The blog you cited notes approvingly that Sea Shepherd has demonstrated the capability of waging war against a major naval power.

You yourself have said that this is a fantasy.

It doesn't seem to me there's a lot of options besides the blogger being biased in favor of SS, or the blogger being ignorant of Sea Shepherd/major naval powers/naval warfare.

So why did you cite the blog, anyway? What was it, in your citation, that you thought was notable or interesting? How did it inform your views of Sea Shepherd and their conflict? In what way did you hope it would inform the views of the other participants of the thread?

You must have thought there was something interesting or important about the blogger's analysis, otherwise you wouldn't have shared it with us. But all I can see is a blogger who is both ignorant and biased in favor of SS. What am I missing? What do you see in that analysis that the rest of us don't?

The idea of viewing the Sea Shepherd versus whalers saga as a case study of irregular warfare seems a novel concept and something I thought those who've watched Whale Wars might engage with. Also the idea of a "maritime shadow zone" (introduced by another blogger on the site) where maritime security authorities lack the capacity, authority or will to directly intervene is not something I had encountered in discussions about the whaling dispute. It might be useful in thinking about over-fishing on the high seas or poaching in the EEZs of countries that lack the means of enforcement. So, I found the posts interesting and thought others might too.

Re bias, Rawley is clearly sympathetic to the anti-whaling cause but also aware of Sea Shepherd's shortcomings. As for being ignorant of the topic he is addressing, this brief bio would suggest otherwise:

Chris Rawley is a civilian counter-terrorism planner at US Special Operations Command’s Interagency Task Force. He is also a surface warfare officer in the United States Navy Reserve, having served in Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, the Persian Gulf, and Western Pacific. He writes on irregular warfare issues at the maritime strategy blog, Information Dissemination.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

If he's got a SWO pin then he should know that the SS haven't met up with a major naval force. He is exaggerating in order to make SS appear better or more effective than what it is. This is a tactic straight out of the SS playbook. Every engagement is a victory for them no matter the reality. The whalers finish their season and go home, it's because of the SS actions and nothing else. The whalers don't reach their artificially high quotas. it's because of the SS actions and not because they have a full hold. And so on and so on.

Just recently in the news there was an article about how the Oregon Fish and Game Dept. brands Sea Lions to identify troublemakers. The SS claimed that they saw a Sea Lion just after branding die and sink. They even cited the brand ID#. Within a few days that same Sea Lion was spotted basking on a pier, with the same ID#. The SS didn't change their tune, instead they tried to claim that the OF&WD branded another Sea Lion with the same number to deflect their criticisms instead of realizing that Sea Lions can dive for 10 minutes and swim hundreds of yards in that time period.

 

[NoahFence]

Much as I support Sea Shepherd for what they are doing in trying to protect whales from the slaughter, even I recognise that it would be a "no contest" if it came to a "real" war.

The Japanese navy could simply torpedo their ships and put them on the bottom of the Southern Ocean, and that would be that.

This.
To term the whaling fleet as a 'navy' is absurd at best...
I don't even think the security ship was a navy ship

 

[Checkmite]

It is rather absurd to speculate or make claims about Sea Shepherd's ability to engage in "warfare" with a "major naval power" that everyone knows won't be employing any actual naval weapons against them.