Canada's north

[Topaz]

Remember that speak that PM made about buying 3 ship to monitor our north? Well, he cancelled them! WHY?? Anyone know? Was it that the ships would bring jobs to the Maritimes and we all know how the PM feels about the Martimes province. So does this means the PM is going to close his eyes to the north and let othr countries especially the US have their way? A better question is, does Harper REALLY want to stay PM???

[M.Dancer]

Remember that speak that PM made about buying 3 ship to monitor our north? Well, he cancelled them! WHY?? Anyone know? Was it that the ships would bring jobs to the Maritimes and we all know how the PM feels about the Martimes province. So does this means the PM is going to close his eyes to the north and let othr countries especially the US have their way? A better question is, does Harper REALLY want to stay PM???

Is it really so difficult to post a link to what you start threads about. You know, just once would be nice.

[Borg]

Is it really so difficult to post a link to what you start threads about. You know, just once would be nice.

If true it is a shame.

Perhaps a link?

Certainly I have not heard this on the news.

Borg

[M.Dancer]

If true it is a shame.

Perhaps a link?

Certainly I have not heard this on the news.

Borg

Thing is, I could give at least 3 good reasons for cancelling the Ice breakers

1) Cost

2) Slushbreakers

3) Other

But without a link I would be only guessing

[Michael Bluth]

But without a link I would be only guessing

Couldn't find a story about it on the CTV, CBC, Globe and Mail or Toronto Star web sites.

Methinks one of those organizations would have reported this 'story' by now.

[Fortunata]

Maybe it's one of those planned "leaks" by Steve to gauge reaction. Or maybe it's one of those cases that in order to find out, one has to file under access to information and wait a year to get the information. Or maybe it's a figment of someone's imagination. I can't fathom why the ships would be cancelled if Steve thinks the arctic is so important to protect our sovereignty .. or some big oil company's pocketbook.

Edited December 3, 2007 by Fortunata

[Lazarus]

This is what he is referring to:

Tories plan to bolster Arctic defence

Thursday, December 22, 2005

Harper also said Canada would spend $2 billion over eight or nine years for new military icebreakers and a deep water docking facility in Iqaluit.

The then opposition neo-Tories under Harper were taking the Liberal Government of Paul Martin to task over Northern Sovereignty, vowing that when they come to power, they would strengthen Canadians ability to patrol and protect its Northern territory.

Once in power, they started to change their tune:

Defence minister reconsiders icebreakers

Friday, June 16, 2006

Canada's minister of defence is waffling on an election promise to buy three icebreakers to strengthen Arctic sovereignty.

Gordon O'Connor said Thursday he's not ready to make that commitment yet and has asked his department to consider other options, as well.

"Essentially what we want to do in the North is we want to be able to touch every speck of land and every drop of water in the North, even if there is ice there," said O'Connor. "I've asked the military to come up with various options."

During the federal election campaign, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said if his party was elected it would buy three new naval icebreakers.

Those 3 heavy and armed naval icebreakers have been downgraded to 6 to 8 light patrol vessel capable of only operating in the far north during the summer months and only in light ice packs.

Canada to guard North with smaller boats

July 9, 2007

ESQUIMALT. B.C. (CP) - Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he's modified an election promise to use big ice breakers to protect Canada's sovereignty in the North with a new plan to employ smaller, but more versatile, ships.

Ottawa will invest in new patrol ships and a deepwater port to stake out Canada's territorial claims on all three coasts, Harper said Monday while standing on the jetty at Canada's Pacific Naval headquarters at CFB Esquimalt.

Harper said six to eight new patrol ships will be designed and built in Canada to guard its coastal waters, including the Northwest Passage. The cost is estimated at $7 billion over 25 years.

Not sure of the design yet, but odds are they will a somewhat beefed up version of the current Kingston class coastal defense vessels that are manned by the Naval Reserves.

It should be noted that the Canadian Navy has not operated ice-breakers in 50 year, the last naval ice-breaker was the HMCS Labrador, who was actually turned over to the Coast Guard. However, the Canadian Navy did have one light ice-break capable ship, one of the old Porte Class Gate Vessels was for a short time operated by the Coast Guard and beefed up for ice-breaking duties on the Great Lakes. This ship was returned to the navy and was operated by the Naval Reserves well into the late 80's when she was replaced by the then new Kingston class patrol vessels.

As much as many of us do not want to admit it, but Canada's hold on its northern territory and its potential vast wealth is on very shaky grounds. All ready nations such as Russia, the US, and Denmark have been staking out claims in what we see as our territory. For some strange reason the Americans seem to think that once their Alaskan border with the Yukon hits the coast, it veers off at a 45 degree angle east, even though it runs straight up and down on the map, go figure.

I for once would love to see Canada exercise its sovereignty over its northern territories and have the ability to protect them. Not sure if ice-breakers are whats needed, personally I think we need a permanent military presence in the area, including a full fledge Naval base such as HMCS Equimalt and Halifax, along with regular North Army Brigade Group and Air Force bases. I wouldn't mind see a squadron of 5 to 6 attack class subs patrolling our northern waters. Diesel/electric boat would not be very useful during the months of heavy ice and nuclear powered boats are not only politically unacceptable in Canada, they also noisy as hell. Perhaps Canadian fuel cell technology such as Ballards is pioneering could be the answer? Anyways, Canada is facing a "use it or lose it" situation up north, and given the potential wealth up there, we better get off our asses, otherwise nations such as Russia, the US and even little Denmark will get all the spoils.

[ScottSA]

I for once would love to see Canada exercise its sovereignty over its northern territories and have the ability to protect them. Not sure if ice-breakers are whats needed, personally I think we need a permanent military presence in the area, including a full fledge Naval base such as HMCS Equimalt and Halifax, along with regular North Army Brigade Group and Air Force bases. I wouldn't mind see a squadron of 5 to 6 attack class subs patrolling our northern waters. Diesel/electric boat would not be very useful during the months of heavy ice and nuclear powered boats are not only politically unacceptable in Canada, they also noisy as hell. Perhaps Canadian fuel cell technology such as Ballards is pioneering could be the answer? Anyways, Canada is facing a "use it or lose it" situation up north, and given the potential wealth up there, we better get off our asses, otherwise nations such as Russia, the US and even little Denmark will get all the spoils.

The problem is not a lack of firepower in the North, it's a lack of recognition of our claims. Our claim to the "Canadian" arctic rests upon a select and minority interpretation of the Law of the Sea, which tends to be fairly unclear as to exactly what the limits are. a few countries use the 3 mile offshore limit; most use a 12 mile limit; and a few, including Canada, use a 200 mile limit. The US not only doesn't recognize Canada's claims, but hasn't even ratified the treaty.

Besides, realistically, Canada isn't going to fare any better in a hot war over the far North because it has a couple of ice breakers. In fact, the presence of icebreakers is going to do precisely nothing to enforce our claims of sovereignty. A few nukes might, but not a few icebreakers.

[jdobbin]

We don't even have anyone guarding in Churchill.

http://www.thestar.com/Arctic%20In%20Peril/article/277429

CHURCHILL, Man.–In the fall of 1998, a Russian IL-76 flew over the North Pole to the tiny sub-Arctic town of Churchill on the shores of western Hudson Bay.

Mike Lawson, who was on airport duty, remembers it well.

"We don't get big Russian planes like that in Churchill," he says of the Il-76, an unforgettably large cargo plane that is even bigger than the C-130 Hercules used by the Canadian military. "In fact, in the 18 years I've been here, I've seen only one other like it."

Even more unusual was the pilot switching off his landing lights the moment he hit the tarmac – despite blowing snow and marginal visibility.

The crew members were spotted drinking beer at Gypsies, a popular restaurant, at 10 a.m. the next morning, but they didn't stay long. A Bell 206 helicopter landed at Churchill that day, and the Russians drove back to the airport, dropped the plane's cargo doors, loaded the helicopter and took off.

"Just like that," says Lawson. "No one was there to ask questions or inspect documents. It makes you wonder who's guarding our back door."

It turns out Canadian intelligence officials were aware of the flight of the IL-76 and monitored its return to a region of Russia known for organized crime. Whether they let the Russians arrive and depart unfettered for intelligence purposes, or whether they were powerless to intervene, no one will say.

Now, that is one story that makes me wonder what the heck our northern security is like when a Russian aircraft can fly right into Manitoba like that.

[bush_cheney2004]

... I wouldn't mind see a squadron of 5 to 6 attack class subs patrolling our northern waters. Diesel/electric boat would not be very useful during the months of heavy ice and nuclear powered boats are not only politically unacceptable in Canada, they also noisy as hell. Perhaps Canadian fuel cell technology such as Ballards is pioneering could be the answer? ....

Those "noisy as hell" American boats would still come as go as they pleased. Because they can.

[Drea]

"Cuz weer Awmerrickawns! -- thu meenest durtyest rottenest sumbiches yooll evr meet"

Right BC 2004?

Edited December 4, 2007 by Drea

[bush_cheney2004]

"Cuz weer Awmerrickawns! -- thu meenest durtyest rottenest sumbiches yooll evr meet"

Right BC 2004?

:ol:

No silly....because the US actually has the submarines....not speeches and bluster about getting some...someday.

Edited December 4, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[sideshow]

Why does anyone want all that uninhabitable ice anyways? And if its of any value, give the land to some eskimos tribes. Maybe they will know what to do with it since Harper (and 140 years worth of other PMs) doesnt seem to know what to do with it. lol

[Lazarus]

Those "noisy as hell" American boats would still come as go as they pleased. Because they can.

Ask any Sonar man or diesel electric boat crew and they will tell you up front that nuclear subs are bloody noisy, making them easier to track then an electric boats. The term I've heard used to describe them is "Steam Kettle" or "Steam Whistle".

And the reason those American boats can come and go as they please is a: right now, you are not engaged in a naval war with anyone with the capacity of stopping them and b: sadly and disgustingly, Canada's far north naval presence is a shameful joke, at best we can field a couple of unarmed clapped out civilian Coast Guard ice-breakers there. Yes, your American boats can come and go as they please in Canada's arctic waters, but then so can the Russians, the Brits, the French, even the Chinese. So really, you've got nothing to brag about. Now if Canada had five or six hunter-killer class attack subs patrolling the area, you may find your easy entry a tad bit harder.

Sadly, when it comes to Canada's defense and protecting our sovereignty, every political party says it will do something to improve it, spend the money required, get the needed equipment, but when they come to power, they all quickly forget those promises, and water down their actual actions or completely renege on them. Conservative or Liberal, when it comes to the Canadian Armed Force and its ability to do what is demanded of it, the general consensus is fuck 'em till the next election, then make even more empty promises.

Edited December 4, 2007 by Lazarus

[bush_cheney2004]

Why does anyone want all that uninhabitable ice anyways? And if its of any value, give the land to some eskimos tribes. Maybe they will know what to do with it since Harper (and 140 years worth of other PMs) doesnt seem to know what to do with it. lol

I agree.....and to think that some members think Americans know nothing about geography!

Edited December 4, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Lazarus]

I agree.....and to think that some members think Americans know nothing about geography!

Clearly you both have little idea about the mineral, oil and natural gas wealth hiding up there. This could be a good thing actually.

[bush_cheney2004]

Clearly you both have little idea about the mineral, oil and natural gas wealth hiding up there. This could be a good thing actually.

It's not so hidden.....exposed and exported with American capital years ago.

[Lazarus]

The problem is not a lack of firepower in the North, it's a lack of recognition of our claims. Our claim to the "Canadian" arctic rests upon a select and minority interpretation of the Law of the Sea, which tends to be fairly unclear as to exactly what the limits are. a few countries use the 3 mile offshore limit; most use a 12 mile limit; and a few, including Canada, use a 200 mile limit. The US not only doesn't recognize Canada's claims, but hasn't even ratified the treaty.

Besides, realistically, Canada isn't going to fare any better in a hot war over the far North because it has a couple of ice breakers. In fact, the presence of icebreakers is going to do precisely nothing to enforce our claims of sovereignty. A few nukes might, but not a few icebreakers.

You maybe right about the lack of recognition of our claims. However, you have to have the ability and power to back up those claims, otherwise you are ignored. Personally I see the armed naval ice-breakers as just a stop gap measure. What is needed is a 24/7/365 presence in the north, including naval, air and land forces capable of defending our claims when and where needed. Wouldn't hurt to give the Territories Provincial status either.

[bush_cheney2004]

....What is needed is a 24/7/365 presence in the north, including naval, air and land forces capable of defending our claims when and where needed. Wouldn't hurt to give the Territories Provincial status either.

...and another great South Park episode is born!

[Drea]

Aha!

Now we know where you've attained your *ahem* education!

[bush_cheney2004]

Aha!

Now we know where you've attained your *ahem* education!

Maybe....but this American icebreaker won't hurt...the "cover story" is mapping the Arctic "floor":

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070...ce_breaker.html

Seems those 'Merkins are breaking ice at both ends of the planet:

http://www.natice.noaa.gov/icebreakers/index.htm

Edited December 4, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Lazarus]

...and another great South Park episode is born!

Okay, its official, yer a goof troll.....time to ignore ya....cya, wont want to be ya.

[ScottSA]

You maybe right about the lack of recognition of our claims. However, you have to have the ability and power to back up those claims, otherwise you are ignored. Personally I see the armed naval ice-breakers as just a stop gap measure. What is needed is a 24/7/365 presence in the north, including naval, air and land forces capable of defending our claims when and where needed. Wouldn't hurt to give the Territories Provincial status either.

The problem is that even if we flood the arctic with nasty fighting machines, we are not going to pose a significant threat to the US. What are we going to do, sink a US ship and get TO bombed for our pains? Short of reaching military parity with the US, they can do what they want no matter what.

[margrace]

The problem is that even if we flood the arctic with nasty fighting machines, we are not going to pose a significant threat to the US. What are we going to do, sink a US ship and get TO bombed for our pains? Short of reaching military parity with the US, they can do what they want no matter what.

Yes the Americans stand up to their bully titles.

[sideshow]

I stand by my comment. The north is a useless waste of time. Way bigger fish to fry at this point.