On Monday, environmental activists were criticized for throwing noxious liquids at Japanese whalers to protest a hunt in the Southern Ocean. The rash behavior does, however, have a silver lining: according to Paul Watson, a spokesman for the Sea Shepherd conservation society, the irritant chemicals were one hundred percent organic!

"I guess we can call this non-violent chemical warfare," Watson said in a statement from the Sea Shepherd. "We only use organic, non-toxic materials designed to harass and obstruct illegal whaling operations."

My question: why aren’t the radicals using more sophisticated less-lethal weapons?

During a skirmish, the protesters could fire a beam of energy that causes intense pain, launch tear gas canisters, or project devastating sound waves. But would that be in line with their hippie ethos? Probably not. It may even alienate people who would have otherwise supported their efforts, even though lefties deserve to be on the giving rather than receiving side of riot control hardware once in a while.

In by book, the whalers deserved to get zapped for killing animals under the guise of a research mission. Nonetheless, it may be best to let the readers decide.

Should environmental activists use less-lethal weapons on whalers?

Quote: Reuters