Japan, stop whaling – activists, go back to Friday Harbor

The Nisshin Maru, a Japanese whaling ship, has been stranded for several days off the coast of Antarctica, approximately 60 miles from the world’s largest Adelie penguin colony and could sink, causing an environmental disaster.

New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark appeared angry and deeply concerned about the incident and reported that the Maru had refused offers from both a Greenpeace tugboat and an American icebreaker to be towed out of the area.

The fear of many environmentalists is that the Maru will become trapped in the area by encroaching ice sheets and may begin leaking some of its 1.3 million liters of fuel, which could damage the unique Antarctic habitat.

Unfortunately, some environmentalist groups have also overstepped the bounds of reason and allowed their emotions to get the best of them. The Maru, for example, collided with a ship from the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society based in Friday Harbor, Wash. while it was fishing off Antarctica last week.

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is a more radical branch of Greenpeace and one of the headlines on its Web site reads “How We Destroyed the Nisshin Maru.”

Wasn’t the point to not destroy the ship because of the damage to Adelie penguins?

The bottom line is simple: Commercial whaling is no longer a permissible or ethical activity for human beings.

It has been argued that the Japanese people have a unique history of whaling and not allowing them to hunt and eat whales is patronizing and Western-centric.

America was the world’s greatest whaling nation for nearly a century and we got over it; the Japanese can too.

They can also accept help when it’s offered and let someone tow them away from Antarctica to avoid an environmental catastrophe.

Playing in Russia’s backyard

During the weekend, Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces Commander Col. Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov said if the United States were to deploy its new nuclear missile defense system in eastern Europe, Russia “will be able to target those missile sites.”

So what? Of course the Russians could target the missile defense system if they wanted to launch a nuclear missile strike on the United States (a pleasant thought) but there’s no reason Russia would need to.

The U.S. missile defense system, which is not yet even operational, is only designed to target a small number of missiles, perhaps five or 10 at most. Russia has hundreds (if not more than a thousand) nuclear missiles it could launch at the United States and completely overwhelm the U.S. missile defense system.

My guess is that Russia is afraid the United States might be up to one of its old tricks, forcing Russia to spend money on expensive military technology it if wants to maintain its position as a nuclear superpower.

If the United States increases its ability to shoot down larger numbers of incoming missiles, it could put pressure on Russia to develop better missiles.

In fact, developing a missile that can avoid the U.S. missile defense by zigzagging as it flies is exactly what Russian President Vladimir Putin has suggested Russia will do.

All told, there seems little aside from military action that Russia can do to prevent the deployment of the U.S. missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Both eastern European countries’ presidents have said that they are in favor of the missile defense system because it is designed to protect their countries too.

Nevertheless, Russia remains the enigma. If it were to attack the U.S. missile defense sites in eastern Europe, it’s doubtful the United States would retaliate and risk World War III.

Then again, that’s exactly what President Kennedy said he would do when the USSR put nuclear missiles in Cuba 45 years ago.

Reach columnist Jake Sommer at news@thedaily.washington.edu.