EricHugo at EricHugo at
Tue Nov 30 08:12:36 EST 1999

I had not read this thread until this morning, having saved it for what has 
become an almost "novel-istic" foray of banter and enlightening discussion.  
I do have a question that has occurred to me, perhaps from stepping back from 
the more involved day-to-day postings. Notwithstanding the other complex 
issues that must be addressed, but in terms of the bombing in Vieques and 

Why coral reefs at all?

If a military decides for any reason at all (however senseless and with 
whatever locale, human, and other aspects that may be forthcoming), are there 
not shallow areas less threatened, less biodiverse, and less ecologically 
invasive than the actual coral reefs?  A sandy area a few km's away?  Is 
there something special about bombing a reef? I doubt that invertebrates are 
being used as animal test subjects for projectile impact studies 
later....after all, the US military uses higher primates from even more 
threatened habitats for that end!  Seemingly, the use of areas of low 
biodiversity nearby would also still passively protect fisheries and other 
useries by proximity alone.

And "Wendy Jo":  It was Einstein who quoted,

"I don't know how World War 3 will be fought, but I do know how World War 4 
will be fought...with sticks and stones."  

If you like that, you should read his other thoughts on peace, disarmament, 
and the general state of man.  The US military and out world should engage 
such ideas, as well.

Eric Borneman

The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
sponsors coral-list and the Coral Health and Monitoring Program
(CHAMP,  Please visit the Web site
for instructions on subscribing and unsubscribing to coral-list.

More information about the Coral-list-old mailing list