U.S. Coast Guard cannons sink tsunami ship after 4 hours

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

  • 1

    some14some

    A job well done (!) btw, was it done for free or Japan agreed to 'bill me later?'

  • 3

    Cricky

    Covered by the training budget I would guess, no one wanted it and don't get to use that cannon enough. Aaahhh scuttle yonder eye sore, I think is the official order in such situations.

  • 1

    Mirai Hayashi

    what a waste...this is such a wasteful society..doesn't work...throw it away. A few years old...throw it away. Not stylish?...throw it away....seems like the solution for everything

  • -12

    kurisupisu

    Hmmm, this sounds a tad too convenient. Why is a ship with fuel oil being sunk without being emptied? What were the levels of radioactive contamination found on the ship?

    Easier and cheaper just to scuttle it and who gives a damn about the environment eh?

  • 1

    almostshat

    What a blast!

  • 0

    6wings

    Seems like a good call. If it was doomed to be scrapped anyway then one would assume that it would have had relatively little fuel. It does seem like a waste of all that steel though.

  • 0

    YongYang

    Would have been a good focal point for explanation / education of tsunami and made money as an exhibition in a museum somewhere.

  • 1

    GW

    Scuttled, as I mentioned on the other thread, very likely the only sensible thing to do for these drifters, kind of a best ot the worst solutions.

  • -5

    gaijinTechie

    Bernice C was unable to tow it to port, I don't see what other choises were there. It is a danger to sea traffic and much greater enviromental hazard if it ran aground. After the fuel dissipates, some shells and corals will call it home, no doubt. All man-made is not pure poison to the environment, y'know.

    Now we'll just wait that the owner comes claiming he was in a sento all this time, never knowing the ship he's been looking all this time was found and demands a billion billion USD in compensation "for the damages to the beautiful ship and loss of future revenue and because he's feeling really bad about all this". Or something.

  • -7

    ExportExpert

    Coast guard should have towed it to shore, but being they wanted to play with their guns they sunk it. No problems about the pollution this thing will create on the bottom of the ocean so long as they get to shoot guns at something.

  • 10

    Nicky Washida

    I have to admit, I do have an image of the crew on the coastguard ship jumping up and down and asking "Can we shoot it Captain??! Can we??!! Can we??! Pleeeease!!!!"

  • 0

    Wolfpack

    Whey scuttle it? Just tow it to port and put it up for sale. Someone could use it for something.

  • 1

    Badge213

    Whey scuttle it? Just tow it to port and put it up for sale. Someone could use it for something.

    You must of missed the part in the article where they tried that but were unsuccessful.

  • 5

    notasap

    Boy, some of the comments are as if the person did not read the story and just wanted to hit the US Coast Guard. The did the right thing, 200 miles off and the only company that wanted it could not secure it to tow it back to port. It was going to be scrap anyway. Now it will be a home to some fish. I'm sure the Coast Guard guys had fun shooting it.

  • 3

    Apsara

    what a waste...this is such a wasteful society..doesn't work...throw it away. A few years old...throw it away. Not stylish?...throw it away....seems like the solution for everything

    Assuming you're talking about Japan, did this really need to be turned into an excuse for Japan bashing? All ships have to be scrapped after they've been in service for a certain length of time, it's a safety issue. And it was due to be scrapped, which means all reusable materials would have been recycled if the tsunami hadn't interfered.

  • 6

    Thunderbird

    The picture is very sad.

  • -5

    tairitsuiken

    And the US do the thing they do best - use the guns. Theirs must be the only ships with a freakin' cannon aboard, no?

  • 2

    irishosaru

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17630153

    Read the BBC article on this - has a lot more detail, including:

    The Ryou-Un Maru, a shrimping boat, has been traced to the Japanese island of Hokkaido. Alaskan Senator Mark Begich suggested that the boat's owner had been identified, but the owner did not want the vessel back.

    And:

    The coast guard earlier said they would hold off scuttling the Ryou-Un Maru after a Canadian fishing boat claimed salvage rights. But a Canadian official later said that the Bernice C was unable to tow the 200ft (61m) Japanese "ghost ship".

  • 1

    GW

    Folks,

    Some here have forgotten something, NO PORT is going to want to deal with a J-wreck due to potential radiation, now dont get started on me! It DOESNT MATTER if there isnt any, common sense wud NEVER wash with this stuff.

    So scuttle is the best of the worst, & more will be scuttled if found

  • 2

    Liberty Joe Lowe

    It is a good idea to sink Apart from the initial small amount of pollution from fuel tanks, sunk vessels and underwater structures actually attract marine life which can live there.

  • 2

    Cletus

    tairitsuiken

    And the US do the thing they do best - use the guns. Theirs must be the only ships with a freakin' cannon aboard, no?

    Actually no, even your Japanese coast guard vessels have similar armaments. Its common not just a US thing.

    The decision to sink it was probably the best course of action, do it out to sea before it becomes a risk to other ships or wrecks on a beach somewhere.

  • -2

    Christopher Blackwell

    Have to wonder how much money could have been made scrapping it? That is a lot of freaking mental. One could have attached a few radio beacons to it so ships would have known where it was while towing it. We have known about this vessel for over a month now.

  • -11

    Marion Wm Steele

    Sinking it is STUPID! This is and was a good boat and a group asked to have it, but as usual, stupidity rules................

  • 2

    kaminarioyaji

    A bit of a sad and undignified end to its remarkable story.

  • 2

    Cletus

    Marion Wm Steele

    Sinking it is STUPID! This is and was a good boat and a group asked to have it, but as usual, stupidity rules................

    Did you actually read the article? The ship was going to be scrapped before it was swept away. It obviously isnt a good boat as you claim otherwise why would the owners have wanted it scrapped before the tsunami?

  • -3

    kurisupisu

    The price of ship scrap metal?

    http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2010-04/08/content_9703387.htm

    Sounds like there is profit in it!

    The ship was sunk for the reason that it was contaminated-taking the wreck to port where it would be a health hazard was something the US didn't want....

  • -21

    YuriOtani

    Wonder why they did not put a boarding party on it? Perhaps they could of gotten it underway. Not knowing the condition makes it hard. Once they got someone on board it should of been easy to tow. I think the US government sunk it out of meanness.

  • 5

    willynilly

    I think the US government sunk it out of meanness

    I think the Japanese govt didn't sink it out of meanness!

  • 0

    Badge213

    Some of you obviously did not read the entire article. The US was allowing a Canadian firm to take over the ship, in fact they paused any plans of sinking the ship in hopes that that crew can tow the ship away, the firm attempted to but were unsuccessful.

  • 0

    oikawa

    If they don't know how much fuel there was on board, did they check to see if there were any bodies on board? Last week they commented that they couldn't see anyone on deck so they must have been considering the possibility.

  • 0

    cactusJack

    The US Coast Guard has got a pair.

  • 1

    Okinawamike

    I think the US government sunk it out of meanness

    Why do you think this? You really think a boat that had been sitting around waiting to be scrapped still had the keys in it and could fire up by changing the battery?

    What was Japan's input to the problem?

  • 4

    Cletus

    YuriOtani

    Wonder why they did not put a boarding party on it? Perhaps they could of gotten it underway. Not knowing the condition makes it hard. Once they got someone on board it should of been easy to tow.

    Mmm lets see this is a hard one. A ship that has been floating around at sea for over a year with no one on board. A ship that was destined for scrapping before the tsunami. Hmm fair chance there would be no keys, batteries if there wouldnt work, probably no fuel or water contamination. Not forgetting the unknown dangerous factors, now would you jump on board Yuri. Risk your life for a few dollars?

    I think the US government sunk it out of meanness.

    Of course they did, they sunk it because it was a Japanese ship. The Japanese owners didnt want it, it was a risk to other ships so they sunk it. If they where being mean they would then charge the owners for the cost of the cannon rounds used to sink it.

  • -6

    kwatt

    Before sinking the vessel, fuel should have taken out of it. They had enough time to do it. It is going to be a pollution. They always love destroying something with cannons instantly. They maybe did not want to think about water pollution.

  • -7

    YuriOtani

    Cletus, life is a risk. The bigger the reward the bigger the risks. That is how life operates, being 100 percent safe means being a 100 percent loser. It floated for a year, not bad for a ship about to be scrapped. Of course the owner could of said that to save face.

  • 1

    SimondB

    Regarding the ship this statement really puzzeled me....

    "Aviation authorities are also advising pilots to steer clear of the area"

    How low do pilots fly in this region where they need to be carefull of unexpected ships at sea?

    "Captain we have an unidentified object 12 miles ahead" "OK #2, can you raise our flight level to 40 meters above sea level? Let's take no risks. We have 225 passengers on board"

    Hopefully there will be little poluttion and maybe the wreck will in time form a reef for marine life to thrive in.

  • -1

    nisegaijin

    lol, quite a way to spend tax payer's dollars, but what the hell... Boys had some fun with target practice... all good.

  • 0

    MustardKing

    The boat has been adrift since before the meltdown, so no, there is little risk of radiation.

    I don't have a problem with sinking it so much as I do with the childish way it was done. It should have been boarded, checked, fuel drained, cleared then scuttled from there, perhaps with explosives planted on board.

    Having a private fishing boat checking it out is simply not good enough. Plus, they may have been able to tow it with more time, but there are details I don't have.

    What I am thinking is: Big boys with big toys. And that it is why it played out like it did.

  • 6

    USNinJapan2

    Obviously most people don't realize what ships are legally able to pump and dump at sea. If they did they'd know that the amount of potential contaminants/pollutants on board this small craft isbeyond insignificant.

  • 0

    gyouza

    Aviation authorities are also advising pilots to steer clear of the area.

    Hah??

    ANyway, with USNinJapan2 on this. The fuel tanks may have been close to empty anyway, and given the size of the ship itself, hardly likely to cause a major hazard. Feel sorry for the marine life that will be its new neighbours though!

  • 0

    Disillusioned

    I think sinking it was the best option, but sinking it without checking to see how much fuel was on it or even to check it for radiation was a bit reckless. However, I'm sure the Coast Guard enjoyed letting off a few rounds of their cannon.

  • -5

    MustardKing

    the amount of potential contaminants/pollutants on board this small craft isbeyond insignificant.

    The Coast Guard knows because they gazed at it through binoculars? Boarding and making sure sounds like simple common sense protocol to me.

    And just because something is legal does not make something right or best policy. Legal is more like a bare minimum, not a high mark to shoot for.

  • -1

    delrennich

    Not the smartest, nor most environmental way, to deal with this problem.

  • -4

    gogogo

    He said he didn’t know who owned the Ryou-Un Maru.

    Japan owned it, they should have returned it.

  • 1

    NetNinja

    Ah just like the good ol days!!

  • 7

    Cletus

    All these posters that are complaining about the US coast guard sinking this ship let me ask you this. Why are you made at the US for taking this action? Lets look at this a different way, this is a Japanese flagged, owned and registered vessel its presence has been know about for some time. Yet what has the Japanese owners or Coast Guard done about it? Nothing. They were more than happy to let it drift on, on its way to where ever it would end up and become someone else's problem. The owners said they didnt want it back, so they did nothing about it, imagine just dumping your car on the expressway and refusing to come and collect it. Then people get upset when someone removes it.

    Yes they sank it, it was going to be scrapped anyway so chances are it had minimal fuel on board anyway. Even with a full tank of fuel that would amount to 7500 lts of fuel. Now lets put that into perspective, recently it was reported that TEPCO lost 12 tons of highly radioactive materials into the sea. Thats more than 12 times the amount of fuel (if the tanks where full) and many posters said phhw this is nothing its a small amount.... Ships sink often the world over most carrying more dangerous loads than this wheres the outcry. Come on people its Japanese rubbish floating to another country and your annoyed they sunk it because the Japanese are to lazy to clean up their own mess.

  • -6

    jigjapan

    Did the US ask permission to Japanese government to cannon the ship? As what Canada said, the ship is a sentimental symbol of Japan`s monster tsunami.

  • 3

    NetNinja

    We don't need to. It's in our waters. Remember your jurisdiction.

  • -2

    tairitsuiken

    @Cletus,

    Alright, I did not know many coast guards had cannons.

    A bit surprising the owner (be it a person or the J-gov) can just say: "We don't want anything to do with this boat". Someone must be responsible for this piece of junk...

  • 0

    Maurice Wright

    What ever happened to letting the boys go out in the field and shoot something for fun and practice? If it was up for scrap, most chances are that the very tiny amount of fuel left would not be as hazardous as say an oil rig loosing product. And I read the article and it says that a company did try to claim it for their own, and the US Coast Guard let them try to take it, but in the end, they found they could not. So how is this bad? It will rust and breakdown over the next few centuries to its basic elements to be refined in later years by whatever species tends to be here then to be used for something useful. I am glad that the US Coast Guard got some live training in for once ;)

  • 0

    Cletus

    tairitsuiken

    A bit surprising the owner (be it a person or the J-gov) can just say: "We don't want anything to do with this boat". Someone must be responsible for this piece of junk...

    As reported when the boat was first identified "The owner of a fishing boat in Japan that drifted across the Pacific after getting washed away from its moorings by last year's huge tsunami does not want it back, a Japanese official said on Tuesday. The owner told us it is not needed anymore," said the spokesman."

    So he doesnt want it so someone else is left to clean up the mess. His boat, send him a bill for the ammunition and time used to clean up after him.

  • 0

    stipend

    It's been reported the BerniceC assessed the ship and chose not to salvage her because of a ruptured fuel tank on the inside the vessel. $10,000 in fuel to get out there and back btw. Before heading out the Bernice C's captain spoke of the significance the Ryou-Un Maru likening her resiliance to that of the Japanese people. Heart of oak. He'd have found her a home in either a west coast maritime museum or a pretty park with cherry blossoms and a plaque -if at all possible. But not to fret, probably we'll see more like her in days to come.

    http://www.theprovince.com/news/Canadian+vessel+makes+last+minute+salvage+claim+Japanese+ghost+ship/6417212/story.html

  • -2

    Eric Kalmus

    The Coast Guard used it for training purposes. They attacked it like it was an invading Navy. I read that they dont get this type of training often.

  • 0

    WilliB

    I dont understand the reason for the fireworks. Couldn´t they have entered it, opened the bilge valves and let it sink? And pump out the diesel fuel whle they are at it?

    Also I don´t understand how diesel fuel can "evaporate in water" as the article states. "Dissolve" maybe, but evaporate??

  • -3

    cleo

    I dont understand the reason for the fireworks. Couldn´t they have entered it, opened the bilge valves and let it sink? And pump out the diesel fuel whle they are at it?

    To a man with a hammer, every problem is a nail; to a man with a Coast Guard cannon, every drifting ship is target practice. Taking out the fuel and opening the bilge valves, eliminating the chance of big bangs and a spectacular fire, is way less fun.

  • 8

    USNinJapan2

    This boat was a derelict adrift in international waters heading for US territorial waters. Had the USCG boarded it toconduct any kind of inspection it would have become responsible for anything they found. Doing anything else with this vessel, like tow it to Japan, Alaska, etc. or defuel it or remove anything found onboard costs money the USCG doesn't have and isn't responsible for funding. As some have already pointed out, the Japanese owners of the vessel nor the GOJ have done anything about this derelict piece of Japanese property in the last year. The USCG most likely cosulted with JCG and they probably concurred that sinking it (at the smallest cost) before it became a worse problem was best. And for those of you concerned about the environment, 2000 gallons of DFM (worst case) will dissipate fast and will never reach the surface from a depth of 1000+ feet and is literally a drop in the ocean when compared to the amount of garbage, fuel, oil, grey water, etc. that is dumped in the open ocean on a daily basis by ships and aircraft around the world. If that reality still upsets you, I suggest you go make a donation to the US Coast Guard so they have a budget deep enough to fund policing other nations' garbage in a more eco-friendly way. Bottomline, the US/USCG dealt with the problem in contrast to the GOJ/JCG; if you have a problem it should be with the Japanese owners and by extension the Japanese government for taking timely and responsible action.

  • -6

    MustardKing

    it was going to be scrapped anyway so chances are it had minimal fuel on board anyway.

    Chances? See, that right there is my problem! I see no reason to play the odds. Inspect, then sink. What is unreasonable about that?

    cleo's post and the top half of WilliB's for me thank you.

  • 0

    Noripinhead

    When is the footage of this going to appear on YouTube? "One photon torpedo outta do it."

  • 3

    Cletus

    MustardKing

    Chances? See, that right there is my problem! I see no reason to play the odds. Inspect, then sink. What is unreasonable about that? cleo's post and the top half of WilliB's for me thank you

    As l said earlier, assuming the tanks where full!!! Unlikely on a boat to be scrapped. The amount of fuel is less than 1/12th the amount radioactively contaminated water that leaked from Fukushima this week. You seem more upset about some fuel that may or may not have been on a boat than a highly radioactive substance that actually did leak.

    Oh and would you volunteer to board a rust derelict piece of junk to check or open valves which mind you are located at the very bottom of the vessel. I know l wouldnt risk it.

  • -1

    Hôjô Sôun

    I have to admit, I do have an image of the crew on the coastguard ship jumping up and down and asking "Can we shoot it Captain??! Can we??!! Can we??! Pleeeease!!!!"

    Nicky, that's funny. I bet there was some WW2 jokes cracked as well.

  • 2

    smithinjapan

    I find it interesting that some posters take this sinking as though it were a personal insult, and are angry at the US coast guard for sinking it after it could not be towed. It's a shame it wasn't scrapped as was planned before the tsunami set it off to sea, but there you have it.

  • 3

    USNinJapan2

    Cleo

    I dont understand the reason for the fireworks. Couldn´t they have entered it, opened the bilge valves and let it sink? And pump out the diesel fuel whle they are at it?

    Entering a derelict like this puts Coast Guad crewmembers' lives in danger, unneccesarily. You may be picturing something like pulling the plug in your bathtub, but merely opening up bilge valves won't automatically sink a vessel. Sea going vessels are built to stay afloat despite flooding, and ships' bilge systems aren't designed to flood a vessel to sink it. As for pumping out any fuel found on board, that would have taken a tanker vessel to be called out to the derelict to accept the fuel as CG cutters don't have extra tanks on board to store/transport fuel that isn't for the cutter's engines. Fuel coming off a derelict like this would be considered contaminated and unfit for immediate use; it would have to be taken back to shore, offloaded, transported to and reprocessed at a refinery before it can be reused. Needless to say, all at a considerable cost.

  • 1

    Noripinhead

    It sank in 9000 feet of water, according to the BBC. Maybe they can ask James Cameron to go down and take a closer look. He's good at that.

  • 1

    BurakuminDes

    Reminds me of what the Royal Australian Navy and Air Force did to a North Korean cargo freighter (ie Heroin trafficking ship) a few years ago. Torpedoed it off the East Coast of Australia and finished the job off with fighter jets. I think it is now used as a dive site.

  • 0

    Eautaceux Janais

    Hats off to the Coasties for job well done! But I wonder if the North Korean missile would have done a better job (LOL!)

  • 0

    Joseph Garrett Baxter

    It was best to sink it I believe. The boat is not worth rehabilitation and is just scrap. They should have tested for radiation and checked on the fuel levels of possible. There was no rush to do what they did even though it was the right thing to do. Past is past and should be forgotten as long as the lessons are learned.

  • -5

    MustardKing

    As l said earlier, assuming the tanks where full!!!

    I assume nothing.

  • -5

    MustardKing

    Hats off to the Coasties for job well done!

    Right. It only took them four hours and God knows how many shots. I wonder what that cost the U.S. taxpayer?

    When the boat left the area, the Coast Guard began to fire, first with 25 mm shells, then a few hours later with ammunition twice that size.

    Big boys, big toys. Your money.

  • 1

    Chop Chop

    It took 4 hrs to sink the ship! I have read this news on other site earlier the Ryou-Un Maru hadn’t sunk 2 hours after fired with Cannon. About two hours later, the vessel hadn't sunk and the cutter resumed shelling to the ship. Finally the ship was sunk after 4 hrs. Japanese car Companies said Japanese cars never broken down on the road. Now Japanese ship can not sink easily in the sea. That ship survives Tsunami, Typhoon and then Cannon fire still won't go down straightaway. It took 4 hrs to sink by high explosive ammunition fired from Cannon. I hope some crew members will upload video on Youtube soon. That ship builder should be proud of the

  • 1

    Eautaceux Janais

    Right. It only took them four hours and God knows how many shots. I wonder what that cost the U.S. taxpayer?

    It would certainly cost less than the cost of an extensive environmental cleanup because this ghost ship got in the way of maritime traffic, causing a supertanker/cruise ship/fishing vessel to run aground and start leaking fuel into Alaskan waters. In which case, certain people (perhaps like you) may probably blame the USCG for not doing anything to keep this hulk away from maritime routes. And oh, it took 4 hrs for the vessel to finally sink, not 4 hours of firing rounds. Just sayin'

  • -4

    MustardKing

    Now Japanese ship can not sink easily in the sea....That ship builder should be proud

    Chop Chop, perhaps instead the gunner should be ashamed? Don't assume that was four hours of hits. It seems more likely there were more misses than a game of Battleship! Not saying its easy to hit a ship like that, but gee. There must be a cheaper more controlled way huh?

    In which case, certain people (perhaps like you)

    Assumptions certainly are a popular past-time here, I tell ya. But if you bothered to look, you would see I have several posts here, and some of them CLEARLY stated I took no special issue with sinking the ship. I just thought it would be best not to ASSUME it was clear of potential pollutants, and sink it in a more controlled manner.

    It would also have been nice to tow it, and I am sure the Coast Guard could have managed where a private fishing ship could not, but oh well.

  • 1

    YongYang

    A boat that was going to tow her back to port if possible put a couple of guys on, they said a fuel tank had ruptured and fuel was awash inside so they withdrew. Still, would have been a great centre piece for a museum somewhere.

  • 7

    USNinJapan2

    MustardKing

    Chop Chop, perhaps instead the gunner should be ashamed? Don't assume that was four hours of hits. It seems more likely there were more misses than a game of Battleship! Not saying its easy to hit a ship like that, but gee. There must be a cheaper more controlled way huh?

    You obviously don't know the first thing about naval gunfire since you seem to think that it's easy to sink a vessel, any vessel, using a 25mm chain gun, or even a gun with a caliber twice that size. To sink a vessel fast or efficiently you have to breach its hull below the waterline. To do that with gunfire you have to be shooting pretty large caliber rounds in a parabolic arc from a distance, something the Coast Guard does not and cannot do with the small caliber guns they have on their cutters. That's not their mission after all. They're not the Navy and don't have deadly artillery on board like the 5-inch Mk45 guns found on Navy cruisers and destroyers. Sea going ships, even a small fishing vessel like this one, are built tough and will not sink easily. I personally witnessed a ship I used to serve on take a beating and refuse to go down. She was selected to be sunk as target practice and made into an artificial reef off of Hawaii. For four days she was slammed by naval gunfire and when that didn't work was targeted by anti-ship missiles. Despite having her compartments opened and made susceptible to flooding, she wouldn't sink. Finally it took an EOD team setting charges below decks for her to sink. As for cheaper ways to sink this fishing boat, probably not. Explosives/charges that would be required to sink a vessel like this cost quite a bit of money and you'd have to get the experts out there to do it, which also costs money. The CG has live fire training requirements, annually, quarterly, etc. and I'm sure the crew of this particular cutter were able to knock out their quals/requirements with this gun shoot, saving the CG some money with the targets and range time they wouldn't need later on. First checking whether there was fuel or other HAZMAT on board could have been an option, but like I posted earlier, it's not worth the risk to the boarding team and there's little they could have done anyway had they found some on board.

  • 2

    lostrune2

    The Coast Guard deemed the effect of oil leak to be acceptably small since it's a relatively small ship, and some of the oil had already been leaked away all these months. They contacted the J-government who then contacted the ship owner, who said they don't want it anymore. The revenue for the gov to salvage it probably isn't worth the cost; that's why old ships are sunk all the time.

  • 7

    USNinJapan2

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9190132/Coast-Guard-sinks-tsunami-ghost-ship.html

    They riddled the hull with gunfire, then approached and sprayed fire hoses at the holes to fill the ship with enough water to weight it down enough for sea to pour into the holes and finish the job. That'll take four hours easily.

  • 1

    Educator60

    The article is incorrect. The former owner of the ship lives in Hokkaido. At the time of the tsunami, the ship was awaiting scrapping at the port of Hachinohe, which is in Aomori Prefecture, which is on Honshu, not Hokkaido.

  • -5

    MustardKing

    You obviously don't know the first thing about naval gunfire since you seem to think that it's easy to sink a vessel

    Obviously! Since I clearly posted:

    Not saying its easy to hit a ship like that, but gee. There must be a cheaper more controlled way huh?

    Stopped reading after the bit I quoted. Imagine that!

  • 0

    Madverts

    From someone who does quite a bit of salvage, the first thing to be emptied from any wreck is the fuel, especially at today's prices.

    In fact, it's the best part of salvage, legally taking large amounts of fuel someone else has paid for and using it for your own consumption!

  • 2

    oginome

    Ah just like the good ol days!!

    I don't think so, shooting down a 'ghost' ship that's been drifting for over year and shooting down a ship in warfare are different things. Whatever gets you going I suppose.

  • -4

    YuriOtani

    It was legal salvage, put a crew on the ship and it is yours. All of the good and all of the bad. It is always a chance taking on the unknown, however no guts no glory. I still think the coast guard ship wanted to use it as target practice. Took four hours to sink it. Clearly it was in no danger of sinking.

  • 4

    Triumvere

    This comment section makes me sad.

  • 0

    presto345

    Fantastic. Just dump it in the ocean, the great waste dump for humans and their junk.

  • 0

    Nessie

    This comment section makes me sad.

    But hardly surprising.

  • 0

    Nessie

    The US should not be sinking this ship. Also, they should be sinking it faster. It shows America's profligacy to scrap a perfectly good ship (that no-one wants). It's America's fault that they did not redirect the Pacific current to flow counterclockwise in order prevent the ship from leaving Japanese waters.Typical American imperialistic aggression. It shall not stand.

    We can quibble about the details, but I think we can all agree that the US is at fault.

  • 1

    jamurai

    Telephone conversation:

    US: You wannit? Japan: er, nope. US: Alrighty then.

    Good job, all in all, Japanese government shirking its responsibilities though...no news there.

  • 0

    jamurai

    I bet there is still a fridge full of Asahi Super Dry on it.

  • 1

    Ben Jack

    good equipment that broke down

    Under the definition of oxymoron, it says: "See this".

  • 0

    SuperLib

    Seems like anyone who knows anything about ships is saying this was the best option, whereas people who know nothing about ships are saying it was a bad decision because they don't like the way it sounds.

    Tough call on who to believe.

  • -1

    oberst

    Did you actually read the article? The ship was going to be scrapped before it was swept away. It obviously isnt a good boat as you claim otherwise why would the owners have wanted it scrapped before the tsunami?

    .......................................................

    Not a good boat you say ? It lasted it's journey across the Pacific with no crew. Lot more sea worthy than those cruise ships we read so much lately. AND it took 4 hrs to sink AFTER being shelled !!

  • -4

    Chris Catalano

    it was absolutely a museum piece for the ages. I mean, this was the THE media captured disaster in modern times, and that ship had a story whose meaning could have resounded for many years. Sorry, a blunder, all the way...

  • -5

    Wolfpack

    Whey scuttle it? Just tow it to port and put it up for sale. Someone could use it for something.*

    You must of missed the part in the article where they tried that but were unsuccessful.

    No. It just seems like they put it up for sale for like 3 hours and then decided to sink it because there were no takers? I understand that it is a threat to navigation - I was in the Navy and can understand why an unmanned craft is a safety hazard. Just seems like an unnecessary waste based on hasty decision making.

  • 0

    Badge213

    No. It just seems like they put it up for sale for like 3 hours and then decided to sink it because there were no takers?

    It might "seem" like that to you but it wasn't.

  • 1

    whiskeysour

    Nice target practice

  • -6

    BessonovYan

    How many man found death on that ship? They have right for respectable funeral. Also they was not visit the ship and not found official documents on that ship: the logbook and other. That is action are very wild, aggressive.

  • 0

    Weasel

    The military sinking a ghost boat using 25mm or better ammo. Man. Throw in some zombies as crew members for bonus points, and you'll have the making a of a sure fire hit of a video game on the Apple App Store!

  • 1

    Badge213

    How many man found death on that ship? They have right for respectable funeral. Also they was not visit the ship and not found official documents on that ship: the logbook and other. That is action are very wild, aggressive.

    Again a person who DID NOT READ the article.... READ THE ARTICLE. The ship was ready for scrapping BEFORE the Tsunami. A ship ready for scrapping most likely does not have "official documents" o the ship or even a logbook. The ship would be gutted of all useable equipment. The ship was unmanned (as it was being ready to be scraped before the Tsunami and was based in Hokkaido), so the likelihood of it having a crew on board at the time was nil.

  • -2

    BessonovYan

    @adge213Apr. 07, 2012 - 06:56AM JST

    You wrote:

    ready for scrapping

    I read:

    destined for scrapping

    So it different?

    The ship was not checked about man and ecology dangerous material. Also i suppose they not ask to Japan about it.

  • 0

    Nicky Washida

    Wonder why they did not put a boarding party on it? Perhaps they could of gotten it underway. Not knowing the condition makes it hard. Once they got someone on board it should of been easy to tow. I think the US government sunk it out of meanness.

    I thik the US sunk it afetr waiting weeks for the Japanese government and/or owner to do something about it - which they didnt.

    Japan was more than welcome to come get their ship back if they wanted it. Im sure the US and Canada would have been delighted if they had.

  • 0

    PT24881

    Now that the procedure is disclosed -- Missing of even any basic check on the wrecked vessel before shooting it ... Extreme cases : The 5 mln tons of debris could provide potentially handy supply of 'carriers' for terrorists -- releasing from anywhere in the pacific the disguised 'maru named' fishing boats 'mined' with powerful ammunitions/explosives etc. What a dangerous example the USCG demonstrated !

  • 0

    Nessie

    The ship was not checked about man and ecology dangerous material. Also i suppose they not ask to Japan about it.

    How about more reading and less supposing, BessonovYan?

  • 0

    rreed

    The ship could have been scrapped and its metals recycled instead of blasting it from coast guard ships.

    Come to think of it, if the US Coast Guard can't sink an undefended fishing ship after blasting it for hours, how would they fare against a war ship that actually fired back at them?

  • 0

    frontandcentre

    If the ship was at the scrapyard - in Hokkaido (further away from Fukushima Daiichi than Tokyo is, so there is no risk of nuclear contamination at all) - then it probably had only a very small quantity of residual fuel onboard, if any.

    It might've given a few fish a headache when it sunk, but apart from that the environmental impact would have been very limited - otherwise the Americans wouldn't have sunk it. This is only a relatively small fishing vessel and its scrap value would have been quite low.

    Definitely the right thing to do, from a safety perspective. The fact that it took four hours to sink such a small, non-armoured fishing vessel does surprise me, though.

    FnC

Login to leave a comment

OR
Continuing Education: Seminars and Workshops in April

Continuing Education: Seminars and Workshops in April

Temple University, Japan CampusContinuing Education / MBA

Undergraduate: Information session (April 9)

Undergraduate: Information session (April 9)

Temple University, Japan CampusContinuing Education / MBA

Special Offers

グローバルに
活躍したいあなたへ
外資系転職

バイリンガル人材の
ための求人サイト

見てみる

More in National

View all

View all

Japan Investment
Properties

Listings Updated Daily

Search