Re: Pentagon mulling 'stealth sharks' to patrol the seas

March 2, 2006

This could be a false story meant to mislead the press and whoever else might be concerned. Some research may well be done, but sharks, though they do have many capabilities would be less effective at what they Navy needs than drones. Newer generations of drones would be better able to detect subs but more importantly, huge numbers of them could be built and if some were lost, it wouldn't be a problem. Virtually all the sensory abilities of a shark can be reproduce electronically as well.

There is also the matter that sharks will have to eat. That means they will have to be taken "off duty" so that they can eat. A drone wouldn't have this problem. It would just go until its batteries ran out and then it could either just sink or return to get a recharge. On the other hand, they could always have a drone attach to the ship in question, much like a lamprey. That would solve the continued navigation problem and the propeller could even be allowed to work in reverse, turning the motor to keep the electronics powered. Odds are the ship would never know it was there, if it were small enough not to affect handling and quiet enough not to be heard. For that matter, such a drone could even have a small explosive charge built into it. That might not sink the ship, but it would damage it and cause it to have to return for repairs. Then again, a larger version designed as a ship-killer could also be built.

But I don't think this project will go very far. It will be far too expensive and controversial compared to benefits it might generate. The Navy has tried using dolphins for various tasks with some success, but the results were less than hoped for. They have also used small whales for special tasks, like finding sea bed mines, lost bombs and such. That has worked better since the whale only has to find a non-living thing and drop a mark near it.

March 2, 2006

No, a perfect way to drive any foe near insain. Having them concerned over normal and regular things at sea. I'ts perfect..environmental1st2003 <no_reply > wrote: My feeling is that this is absurd and environmentally unfriendly. Aside from the fact that these sharks will have their brains messed with, you will have enemy submarines all over the world torpedoing and destroying all kinds of sharks because they "might" pose a spying problem. I suppose when they run out of sharks they will use whales, and after whales, swordifsh, and after swordifsh...(etc.).... Tom Administrator I'm from this planet, the rest of you are not.Please go back to Mars or

Venushttp://www.simplecomplexities.org/community/__________________________________________________

March 2, 2006

Fifty-sixty years ago they were putting electrode is the brains of cats,

dogs, bulls, monkeys and just about every other animal you can think of

trying to control them...

Forty years ago there was work at a number of Universities too control

epileptic seizers by implanting electrodes in peoples brains... I've met

some of the people that worked on the project...

About the same time DARPA (the people that invented the Internet) and the

US Navy were training dolphin and seals for military uses... some

reasonable, others not... I worked for DARPA back twenty years a ago so I

know the mind set of the people there... (Many Aspies are " worker

bees " there as long as you can stay out of management it can be a

good place to work)

When the general public learned about these things they wanted to burn

the people doing the work at the stake...

I can see the logic in moving to sharks they aren't as likable and cuddly

as dolphin and seals... and the don't need to come up for air...

Bio-mech devices do have advantages over fully mechanical robots... but

they won't use natural sharks if the work is successful... they will

breed/engineer a specialized variant of shark for the job...

Ender

At 03:21 PM 3/2/2006, you wrote:

My feeling is that this is

absurd and environmentally unfriendly.

Aside from the fact that these sharks will have their brains messed

with, you will have enemy submarines all over the world torpedoing

and destroying all kinds of sharks because they " might " pose a

spying problem.

I suppose when they run out of sharks they will use whales, and

after whales, swordifsh, and after swordifsh...(etc.)....

Tom

Administrator

http://news./s/afp/20060301/od_afp/sciencemilitaryoffbeat_06

0301191421;_ylt=AhfUzN9h9GrvZb2AmenVGcOs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3NW1oMDRpBHN

lYwM3NTc-

Pentagon mulling 'stealth sharks' to patrol the seas: New Scientist

Wed Mar 1, 2:14 PM ET

PARIS (AFP) - The Pentagon is reportedly funding

research into

neural implants with the ultimate hope of turning sharks

into " stealth spies " capable of gliding undetected through the

ocean.

According to the British weekly New Scientist, the research builds

on experimental work to control animals by implanting tiny

electrodes in their brain, which are then stimulated to induce a

behavioral response.

" The Pentagon hopes to exploit sharks' natural ability to glide

quietly through the water, sense delicate electrical gradients and

follow chemical trails, " says the report, carried in next Saturday's

New Scientist.

" By remotely guiding the sharks' movements they hope to transform

the animals into stealth spies, perhaps capable of following vessels

without being spotted. "

The unusual project is being funded by the Pentagon's Defense

Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which pioneered the

Internet as a platform for robust communications.

Scientists involved in the scheme presented their work last week at

a meeting on Ocean Sciences in Honolulu, Hawaii, according to the

report.

A team at Boston University have implanted electrodes into the brain

of a spiny dogfish in a shallow tank.

The implants, controlled by a small radio transmitter, stimulate

either the right or left side of a brain area dedicated to smell,

causing the fish to flick around in that direction in response to

the signal.

The next step will be to take this device outside the laboratory.

Blue sharks implanted with the gadget are to be released off the

coast of Florida.

As radio signals will not penetrate the sea, communications with the

fish will be made through US Navy acoustic towers capable of sending

sonar signals to a shark up to 300 kilometers (187 miles) away.

Other DARPA-funded researchers are working on using implants to

record brain activity in sharks in order to understand which neurons

are fired by scents, electrical or magnetic fields.

These signals help the fish to navigate and offer the reward of

food, and could thus in theory be manipulated for surveillance

work.

New Scientist says the DARPA work is controversial, but also points

out that work with animal implants also has a potential benefit for

medicine.

Understanding more about the brain's electrical signals could one

day result in implants to control a prosthetic limb to overcome

paralysis.

FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship,

support and acceptance. Everyone is valued.

Don't forget, there are links to other FAM sites on the Links page in the

folder marked " Other FAM Sites. "

March 2, 2006

" I can see the logic in moving to sharks they aren't as likable and

cuddly as dolphin and seals... and the don't need to come up for

air... Bio-mech devices do have advantages over fully mechanical

robots... but they won't use natural sharks if the work is

successful... they will breed/engineer a specialized variant of

shark for the job...

Ender "

It won't matter what they breed or don't breed. The enemy will kill

all the sharks it sees. No enemy is going to sit there in their

submarines and say " Hmmm, now is that sonar echo a nurse shark, a

tiger shark or is it a great white? Because if it's a nurse shark we

can kill it, but if it's a great white, we can't? "

One can correctly argue that it would be impossible for the enemy to

kill all the sharks there are, but more will be killed than if

sharks were never used for this purpose in the first place.

It was stupid for this story even to get leaked because now the

enemy knows what to look for. Before this story came out, all the

enemy could do was suspect that the US might be up to this sort of

thing.

Tom

Administrator

March 2, 2006

Actually biologicals are vastly superior to mechanicals in terms of

durability and power issues. They can refuel and repair themselves

in the field without being serviced. Powering and maintaining a

locomotion system is a major problem using machines (motors and

batteries) but sharks solved those problem several hundred million

years ago... If a cost effective targeting interface can be worked

out the use of a biological as the motive platform for sensor

systems. Interfacing wetware to hardware and software is one of the

more exciting areas of research currently underway.

Sharks are stealthy by nature as are dolphins (they coat submarines

with artificial dolphin skin to make them more stealthy) The thing

if you're not using active sonar (ships and sub only go active when

they don't care if the bad guys know where they are) something as

small as a shark would be undetectable. They don't produce

mechanical sounds or cavatate (which are very easy hear on passive sonar).

I guess that the " ...community based on respect, friendship, support

and acceptance. Everyone is valued. " Is only true if you agree with

the views of the powers that be... Any time I say something you guys

take issue with it...

Ender

March 2, 2006

> Ender: "I guess that the "...community based on respect, friendship, support and acceptance. Everyone is valued." Is only true if you agree with the views of the powers that be... Any time I say something you guys take issue with it..."Boy, Ender, I couldn't agree with you more!Just yesterday I wrote a long detailed response directed to "the powers that be" as the most bigoted people I have ever known. Bigotry: Intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.I deleted it unsent knowing that I would again be invited to leave the group.I haven't been posting for exactly this reason: "Any time I say something you guys take issue with it..."I have been treated here like a child who doesn't know anything, so I have come to care less and less about participating. Rainbow

March 3, 2006

If it matters, I consider the purposes of humans every bit as

legitimate as the purposes of sharks, silkworms, corn-plants, etc.

E.g., knowing how humans' behaviors have altered silkworms' behaviors

(and physiology) hasn't stopped me from wearing silk when I can.

Yours for better letters,

Kate Gladstone

Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest

handwritingrepair@...

http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair

325 South Manning Boulevard

Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA

telephone 518/482-6763

AND REMEMBER ...

you can order books through my site!

(Amazon.com link -

I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold)

March 3, 2006

I personally am not taking issue with you. I just disagree with the

idea of using animals in such a fashion. Animals are living thinking

beings. I respect them. All of them.

Yes, I eat them, and that's bad, but in recent yegars I have stopped

being a glutton like I used to and tried to reduce the amount of meat

in my diet. Perhaps some day I will quit entirely.

You have the right to say whatever is on your mind.

I respect you.

Tom

Administrator

Is only true if you agree with the views of the powers that be... Any

time I say something you guys take issue with it...

Ender

March 3, 2006

I am sorry to hear that Rainbow.

But let's get a few things straight. As an admin, I have the

responsibility of making sure that no one in this forum promotes

anything illegal.

I know that the anti-pot posts threw you off, but as I said, I cannot

endorse something that is illegal under US Federal Law nationwide

even if your state makes it legal.

So if you state your side of the case, I am OBLIGATED to state mine.

YOU put me in that position, not me.

The fact that you can't accept that I abide by Federal Law even

though YOU don't is BIGOTED in my opinion, but I am good enough to

let you have your say even though YOUR criminal behavior under US

Federal Law is something you could be thrown in jail for.

I also get annoyed with your continually blasting of Bush & Co. but

getting upset that others defend him. Should we allow your comments

and no others?

You have comments to make to the powers that be, send them and I will

respond. You will not be banned.

Tom

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/06/scotus.medical.marijuana/

Supreme Court allows prosecution of medical marijuana

By Bill Mears

CNN Washington Bureau

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 Posted: 7:36 AM EDT (1136 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled doctors

can be blocked from prescribing marijuana for patients suffering from

pain caused by cancer or other serious illnesses.

In a 6-3 vote, the justices ruled the Bush administration can block

the backyard cultivation of pot for personal use, because such use

has broader social and financial implications.

" Congress' power to regulate purely activities that are part of an

economic 'class of activities' that have a substantial effect on

interstate commerce is firmly established, " Justice s

wrote for the majority.

Justices Day O'Connor, Rehnquist and Clarence

dissented. The case took an unusually long time to be resolved, with

oral arguments held in November.

The decision means that federal anti-drug laws trump state laws that

allow the use of medical marijuana, said CNN senior legal analyst

Toobin. Ten states have such laws.

" If medical marijuana advocates want to get their views successfully

presented, they have to go to Congress; they can't go to the states,

because it's really the federal government that's in charge here, "

Toobin said.

At issue was the power of federal government to override state laws

on use of " patient pot. "

The Controlled Substances Act prevents the cultivation and possession

of marijuana, even by people who claim personal " medicinal " use. The

government argues its overall anti-drug campaign would be undermined

by even limited patient exceptions.

The Drug Enforcement Agency began raids in 2001 against patients

using the drug and their caregivers in California, one of 11 states

that legalized the use of marijuana for patients under a doctor's

care. Among those arrested was Angel Raich, who has brain cancer, and

Diane Monson, who grew cannabis in her garden to help alleviate

chronic back pain.

A federal appeals court concluded use of medical marijuana was non-

commercial, and therefore not subject to congressional oversight

of " economic enterprise. "

But lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department argued to the Supreme

Court that homegrown marijuana represented interstate commerce,

because the garden patch weed would affect " overall production " of

the weed, much of it imported across American borders by well-

financed, often violent drug gangs.

Lawyers for the patient countered with the claim that the marijuana

was neither bought nor sold. After California's referendum passed in

1996, " cannabis clubs " sprung up across the state to provide

marijuana to patients. They were eventually shut down by the state's

attorney general.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that anyone distributing medical

marijuana could be prosecuted, despite claims their activity was

a " medical activity. "

The current case considered by the justices dealt with the broader

issue of whether marijuana users could be subject to prosecution.

Along with California, nine states have passed laws permitting

marijuana use by patients with a doctor's approval: Alaska, Colorado,

Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington.

Arizona also has a similar law, but no formal program in place to

administer prescription pot.

California's Compassionate Use Act permits patients with a doctor's

approval to grow, smoke or acquire the drug for " medical needs. "

Users include television host Montel , who uses it to ease

pain from multiple sclerosis.

Anti-drug activists say Monday's ruling could encourage abuse of

drugs deemed by the government to be narcotics.

" It's a handful of people who want to see not just marijuana, but all

drugs legalized, " said Calvina Fay of the Drug Free America

Foundation.

In its hard-line stance in opposition to medical marijuana, the

federal government invoked a larger issue. " The trafficking of drugs

finances the work of terror, sustaining terrorists, " said President

Bush in December 2001. Tough enforcement, the government told the

justices, " is central to combating illegal drug possession. "

Marijuana users, in their defense, argued, " Since September 11, 2001,

Defendants [DEA] have terrorized more than 35 Californians because of

medical cannabis. " In that state, the issue has become a hot

political issue this election year.

The case is v. Raich, case no. 03-1454.

I have been treated here like a child who doesn't know anything, so I

have come to care less and less about participating.

Rainbow

March 3, 2006

In the state of California it is voted as legalized for medical purposes. States rights... If no other treatment is available to someone suffering and you still disagree with it. Start a communist dictatorship or some other centralist anti-choice (anti-common logic & anti-common sense) government where the voters don't really matter. Someone in extreme pain denied medicines where

pharmaceuticals have failed who is also law abiding should not suffer the law of something that was not voted upon by the people. The federal law is canceled out by the voters of California when it comes to states rights and medical purposes. There need to be additional control measures and it likely when the pharm industry gets a hold of it the feds will just like the tax dollars it cannot get from it now. Does anyone here

actually disagree with medical usage by authorized doctors for legitimate purposes? environmental1st2003 <no_reply > wrote: I am sorry to hear that Rainbow. But let's get a few things straight. As an admin, I have the responsibility of making sure that no one in this forum promotes anything illegal. I know that the anti-pot posts threw you off, but as I said, I cannot endorse something that is illegal under US Federal Law nationwide even if your state makes it legal. So if you state your side of the case, I am OBLIGATED to state mine. YOU put me in that position, not me.The fact that you can't accept that I abide by Federal Law even though YOU don't is BIGOTED in my opinion, but I am good enough to

let you have your say even though YOUR criminal behavior under US Federal Law is something you could be thrown in jail for.I also get annoyed with your continually blasting of Bush & Co. but getting upset that others defend him. Should we allow your comments and no others?You have comments to make to the powers that be, send them and I will respond. You will not be banned.Tomhttp://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/06/scotus.medical.marijuana/Supreme Court allows prosecution of medical marijuanaBy Bill MearsCNN Washington BureauTuesday, June 7, 2005 Posted: 7:36 AM EDT (1136 GMT) WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled doctors can be blocked from prescribing marijuana for patients suffering from pain caused by cancer or other serious illnesses.In a 6-3 vote, the justices ruled the Bush

administration can block the backyard cultivation of pot for personal use, because such use has broader social and financial implications."Congress' power to regulate purely activities that are part of an economic 'class of activities' that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established," Justice s wrote for the majority.Justices Day O'Connor, Rehnquist and Clarence dissented. The case took an unusually long time to be resolved, with oral arguments held in November.The decision means that federal anti-drug laws trump state laws that allow the use of medical marijuana, said CNN senior legal analyst Toobin. Ten states have such laws."If medical marijuana advocates want to get their views successfully presented, they have to go to Congress; they can't go to the states, because it's really the federal government that's in charge here,"

Toobin said.At issue was the power of federal government to override state laws on use of "patient pot."The Controlled Substances Act prevents the cultivation and possession of marijuana, even by people who claim personal "medicinal" use. The government argues its overall anti-drug campaign would be undermined by even limited patient exceptions.The Drug Enforcement Agency began raids in 2001 against patients using the drug and their caregivers in California, one of 11 states that legalized the use of marijuana for patients under a doctor's care. Among those arrested was Angel Raich, who has brain cancer, and Diane Monson, who grew cannabis in her garden to help alleviate chronic back pain.A federal appeals court concluded use of medical marijuana was non-commercial, and therefore not subject to congressional oversight of "economic enterprise."But lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department argued to

the Supreme Court that homegrown marijuana represented interstate commerce, because the garden patch weed would affect "overall production" of the weed, much of it imported across American borders by well-financed, often violent drug gangs.Lawyers for the patient countered with the claim that the marijuana was neither bought nor sold. After California's referendum passed in 1996, "cannabis clubs" sprung up across the state to provide marijuana to patients. They were eventually shut down by the state's attorney general.The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that anyone distributing medical marijuana could be prosecuted, despite claims their activity was a "medical activity."The current case considered by the justices dealt with the broader issue of whether marijuana users could be subject to prosecution.Along with California, nine states have passed laws permitting marijuana use by patients with a doctor's

approval: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. Arizona also has a similar law, but no formal program in place to administer prescription pot.California's Compassionate Use Act permits patients with a doctor's approval to grow, smoke or acquire the drug for "medical needs."Users include television host Montel , who uses it to ease pain from multiple sclerosis.Anti-drug activists say Monday's ruling could encourage abuse of drugs deemed by the government to be narcotics."It's a handful of people who want to see not just marijuana, but all drugs legalized," said Calvina Fay of the Drug Free America Foundation.In its hard-line stance in opposition to medical marijuana, the federal government invoked a larger issue. "The trafficking of drugs finances the work of terror, sustaining terrorists," said President Bush in December 2001. Tough enforcement, the

government told the justices, "is central to combating illegal drug possession."Marijuana users, in their defense, argued, "Since September 11, 2001, Defendants [DEA] have terrorized more than 35 Californians because of medical cannabis." In that state, the issue has become a hot political issue this election year.The case is v. Raich, case no. 03-1454.I have been treated here like a child who doesn't know anything, so I have come to care less and less about participating.RainbowI'm from this planet, the rest of you are not.Please go back to Mars or Venushttp://www.simplecomplexities.org/community/__________________________________________________

March 3, 2006

The use of military and police dogs is usually harder on the handlers than on the dogs. A very strong bond between the two develops and it was not uncommon that if a dog were killed in combat that handlers retired from the service on mental disability. I've read some really sad stories from Vietnam about things like that.

The same may apply to police dogs as well. Some police dogs are used to attack suspects to take them down and sometimes the dogs are hurt. Most of the time though the suspect is too afraid of the dog to effectively fight back, but there are exceptions. More of a gray area is when they use dogs as drones by sending them into a building alone to look for the suspects. I don't know the casualty rate there, but it seems that they would use the dog are part of the entry team and not send it in alone. Then again, I think only a few departments do that. The ones around here do not. Several years ago the SWAT team went into a nearby house because the owner came home and walked in on some burglars but got away. They did not use dogs at all.

March 3, 2006

My dad was an MP although he did not work in the K9 corps, but he said

the dogs were well-fed, well-groomed, properly sheltered, given good

and constant medical care, and given lots of attention due to the

constant traing they received. But this opinion is based on my dad's

observations of 50 years ago at his particular camp. I don't know if

anything has changed since then.

I have no problem with military use of dogs for simple police actions

(guarding something or other) and rescue missions (where they sniff

out people in collapsed buildings). I really don't see the necessity

of them for combat missions. Yes, it would scare a foe to have a dog

jump out of a foxhole and attack you, but an alert person ought to

spot an enemy before the enemy spots you.

The only combat mission I can (theoretically) see using a dog for

would be going into tunnels to sniff out people behind trap doors.

Still, I think it's wrong to use animals for combat missions. It's not

their war, it's ours. I would never drive sheep across a mine field. I

don't think it's fair to metaphorically do the same thing with a dog.

I would need to know more about how the police train, shelter, and

care for dogs before I could render and opinion. But I worked at a job

once that had a bomb scare, and they brought in bomb sniffing dogs to

check the place out.

After the search was over, we all got to pet the dogs (you are not

allowed to touch them when they are working) and they were all very

friendly and seemed very happy.

There were also visually impaired people living in my dorm in college

who had seeing eye dogs. They were fun to have around. Especially in

the lunch room. The dogs all sat by one another next to their charges

and waited patiently throughout meals, never begging, probably because

they knew their owners would feed them right afterwards.

Tom

Administrator

What do you think about the military/police use of dogs? (K9 Corps)

March 3, 2006