Navy waters down plans for Arctic patrol ships

Smallc · June 21, 2009

Uh huh, whatever you say....I mean, it doesn't matter if none of the facts fall in your favour.

For example:

Seven of the nine leading export countries are in the G8[14] (Germany, US, Japan, France, Italy, UK, Canada). The UK, the USA, Canada, France, and Germany have nominal per capita GDP over US$40,000 dollars.[15] Five of the seven largest stock exchanges by market value are in G8 countries[16] (US, Japan, UK, France, Canada). The G8 countries represent 7 of the 9 largest economies by nominal GDP[17] (Russia isn't one of the 9 largest economies by nominal GDP but has the 7th largest real GDP; Canada was 8th in 2006 but in 2007 it lost 8th place to Spain, as it did in 2003,[17] prompting the previous government headed by José María Aznar to request Spain's entrance in the G8).
The 2nd and 3rd largest oil producers (USA and Russia) and the country with the 2nd largest reserves (Canada) are in the G8.[18] Seven of the nine largest nuclear energy producers are in the G8[19] (USA, France, Japan, Russia, Germany, Canada, UK). The 7 largest donors to the UN budget are in the G8[20] (US, Japan, Germany, UK, France, Italy, Canada).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G8

Edited June 21, 2009 by Smallc

bush_cheney2004 · June 21, 2009

Uh huh, whatever you say....I mean, it doesn't matter if none of the facts fall in your favour.

The facts are as I stated....Canada is now behind Spain, which is not considered an economic "superpower". And that's OK.

Smallc · June 21, 2009

Yes, and Spain should be counted among the countries that are thought of as economic superpowers...because it is one.

Edited June 21, 2009 by Smallc

bush_cheney2004 · June 21, 2009

Yes, and Spain should be counted among the countries that are thought of as economic superpowers...because it is one.

I'm sure they will appreciate the promotion just to boost Canada's status in the "club". Who can forget the Great Turbot War.

Sabre Rider · June 21, 2009

A great economic superpower that never was? We are an economic superpower.

No, no we are not, a best we are an upper middle economic power.

Smallc · June 21, 2009

Well that's a rather arbitrary line to draw. By most metrics we are in the top tier in the world.

bush_cheney2004 · June 21, 2009

Well that's a rather arbitrary line to draw. By most metrics we are in the top tier in the world.

Really? If you mean per-capita-GDP, then Qatar or Luxembourg is the world's greatest economic superpower.

Oleg Bach · June 22, 2009

Vladimir Putin will love the idea of us weakening our presense in the far north. So will China...seems we actually think that these other powers are not ambitious or aggressive - Maybe we should contract the establishment of patrols in the high arctic out to the private sector...or maybe even hand over the nation to the private sector and get it over with ---- or maybe we already have.

Bonam · June 22, 2009

Smallc, what are you smoking? Do you know what a superpower is? Having a strong and relatively large economy does not a superpower make.

Wikipedia definition:

A superpower is a state with a leading position in the international system and the ability to influence events and its own interests and project power on a worldwide scale to protect those interests; it is traditionally considered to be one step higher than a great power. Alice Lyman Miller (Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School), defines a superpower as "a country that has the capacity to project dominating power and influence anywhere in the world, and sometimes, in more than one region of the globe at a time, and so may plausibly attain the status of global hegemon."[1] It was a term first applied in 1944 to the United States, the Soviet Union, and the British Empire. Following World War II, as the British Empire transformed itself into the Commonwealth and its territories became independent, the Soviet Union and the United States generally came to be regarded as the only two superpowers, and confronted each other in the Cold War.

You can find similar definitions in other places. To be an economic superpower, we would have to be able to influence economic events to our advantage throughout the world, and do so to the exclusion of all other nations being able to exert the same or greater level of influence. This is clearly not the case. The US influences the events, and we simply tag along.

The world can have only a few superpowers at a time, every country in the top half or top 10% or whatever of a GDP list (or whatever you are trying to argue) isn't a superpower. Being a superpower is about the POWER part, not about fitting in the top 20 on some list.

Edited June 22, 2009 by Bonam

Smallc · June 22, 2009

Holy crap. ECONOMIC Superpower. I never once said that we were a superpower. Economic superpower is a very loose phrase...and by many definitions we fit the phrase. We are an economy in the trillion dollar class and we are in the top tier of many economic indicators.

bush_cheney2004 · June 22, 2009

Holy crap. ECONOMIC Superpower. I never once said that we were a superpower. Economic superpower is a very loose phrase...and by many definitions we fit the phrase. We are an economy in the trillion dollar class and we are in the top tier of many economic indicators.

Then why does your government wait for American decisions about automotive manufacturers?

Smallc · June 22, 2009

It's an integrated industry which the US has a larger percentage of.

Bonam · June 22, 2009

How do you not understand the difference between being "in the top tier" of something and being a superpower? Yes, we have a relatively strong and healthy economy. Can we use our economic power to control world events? No we can't. Hence we are not an economic superpower.

bush_cheney2004 · June 22, 2009

It's an integrated industry which the US has a larger percentage of.

Ya think? So when is Canada able to flex its "economic superpower" muscles without such dependencies?

Smallc · June 22, 2009

I'm sure I could find examples (as there are many),....electricity, nuclear, oil,natural resources....but since it is again, a very loose term...It's all really a matter of perspective.

Borg · June 22, 2009

I'm sure I could find examples (as there are many),....electricity, nuclear, oil,natural resources....but since it is again, a very loose term...It's all really a matter of perspective.

A small dent in your entitled armour?

Perhaps your canadian financial super power needs to flex some of that power in Iran to free that canadian of convenience that is now under arrest.

Now, how about those ships, eh?

Borg

Edited June 22, 2009 by Borg

bush_cheney2004 · June 22, 2009

I'm sure I could find examples (as there are many),....electricity, nuclear, oil,natural resources....but since it is again, a very loose term...It's all really a matter of perspective.

It certainly is....your perspective of Canada as a great economic Titan requires a very loose imagination.

I think Spain can make such a claim....about 500 years ago.

Edited June 22, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

Jerry J. Fortin · June 22, 2009

Canada has retired from the field, and no longer seeks power or status in this world. We do what we have to do, no more and no less. We have become lazy and have tarnished the reputation of those who gave their lives for this nation.

the janitor · July 9, 2009

Unfortunately we have a lot of politicians who'd rather blow that money on EI.

EI does more for sovereignty than the military does...they haven't done anything for sovereignty since world war 2.

Who cares whats going on in Afghanistan or who has submarines in the arctic when you're an umemployed janitor from windsor or winnipeg. Besides, america makes some damn good janitor equipment and al Qaeda isn't specifically targetting janitors anyway. More moeney for EI I say!

Fortunata · July 9, 2009

Canada has retired from the field, and no longer seeks power or status in this world. We do what we have to do, no more and no less. We have become lazy and have tarnished the reputation of those who gave their lives for this nation.

I disagree that we do what we have to do - I don't think we even do that anymore. People want to believe that so more won't have to be done. The military needs long term support to rebuild regardless of recessions or politicians.

Jerry J. Fortin · July 9, 2009

I disagree that we do what we have to do - I don't think we even do that anymore. People want to believe that so more won't have to be done. The military needs long term support to rebuild regardless of recessions or politicians.

Canada does what is expected of it at the international level. I do agree we could and should do more, and the question before us is Arctic Patrol ships. In this question I think we can and should do more to protect our sovereignty in the north. The north is a very difficult defense challenge. Those that think otherwise need to do a little research.

Canada has the largest shoreline in the world. You get that by counting the shorelines of all those islands in the Arctic circle that we claim. There is the so-called Northwest Passage, a point of contention with our American and European friends. The there is the little thing called territorial waters which we lay claim to another 200 miles of. Now consider that navigation by either water or land is limited for major portions of the year. In the summer you have muskeg, in the winter ice. You can use the water in the summer and the land in the winter to travel on. Add up all of these little details and then imagine the military requirements of defense and see how complicated things get.

We need literally hundreds of small shoreline bases all over the north, just to occupy and retain sovereignty of those islands and our massive coastline. All those locations need to be linked together somehow. It just gets worse the deeper you get into looking at it.

The only way to defend all of it is with extreme high tech and big balls. All of it has to be paid for with huge sums of money.

To return to the point we need patrol ships AND we need bases for all season, all weather aircraft. No need to mention you need power sources for these bases and food supplies. We are talking nation building sized efforts folks and that effort requires true vision and political will.

Bonam · July 9, 2009

We are talking nation building sized efforts folks and that effort requires true vision and political will.

Which we don't have.

Jerry J. Fortin · July 10, 2009

Which we don't have.

We lack the leadership with those qualities. The nation is capable.

Molly · July 10, 2009

I agree, Jerry. It's 'national railroad' kind of vision/will, but absolutely essential.

The railroad was built in answer to "54'40" or fight". We face a similar challenge now, and must answer it in a similar way.

Jerry J. Fortin · July 10, 2009

I agree, Jerry. It's 'national railroad' kind of vision/will, but absolutely essential.
The railroad was built in answer to "54'40" or fight". We face a similar challenge now, and must answer it in a similar way.

Yes, but this time things are very different. In international terms, things are very different and in domestic terms things are very different. Back then, our name was huge and our economy growing. The threat was from a friend and more perceived and political than real, this time the threat comes from a former enemy and is a very real economic danger. This time the threat is real in political terms as our sovereignty is truly challenged.

To defend the north is a very daunting challenge. We must first occupy and develop the north to provide some kind of economic activity from which to lay sovereign claim to those lands and waters. Once we establish virtual economic colonies there our task will be complete. Please keep in mind that these islands are part of mere "territories" they are not even attached to "provinces" and that in itself poses certain political problems when viewed from the outside of this nation. In my opinion our first move needs to bring those lands totally into confederation as provinces.

What I am saying is that the political foundation needs to be constructed first. Without it, nearly any other effort is pointless. The political foundation is itself a nation building exercise that will have numerous impacts to the issue. It is a necessary first step in a series of steps that need to be taken in the proper order to achieve maximum gain from the effort. In addition is provides a spark of "frontier spirit" to set a tone for the nation.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the entire northern portion of this nation is almost empty of human population, and conditions are extremely challenging for human habitation. This frontier cannot be settled by farmers and shop keepers. This frontier must be developed in a very scientific manner. The basic foundation of human society in the north will not be agriculture but instead energy. All things will revolve around energy. Energy will be required to sustain life. No agricultural efforts can be made without it. Each location will require efforts on the order of self sustained off planet colonies, the only difference being an abundant supply of air and water. Everything else will be just the same as living off planet.

There are those that will say that we can do the job by simply buying military assets and placing the in the north, but that will only create the illusion of sovereignty. Granted that illusions are a political reality and they can serve to accomplish much, but there is no return on the investment of any perceived effort. This effort will be very costly and yet it has the potential to produce great wealth if undertaken seriously. The northern portion of this nation hold enormous mineral wealth, probably far more than the sum total of all mineral wealth ever found iand produced in the southern and habited portion of this nation. That is why the threat is so very real and eminent.

To ignore this issue is to place the entire nation is great danger.