Royal Canadian Navy doesn't need new ships

[Smallc]

taking money marked for military equipment would give a better return in an economic boost and jobs by putting it toward healthcare and educational development...

Unless of course you happen to be one of the countries whose citizens have benefitted from humanitarian assistance provided by the Canadian Forces. I agree with you in principle though.

[Tilter]

The government is about to embark on a huge ship building exercise to re-equip the Royal Canadian Navy. There is no question the navy needs new ships, but current events indicate that building new ones is uneeded and far more expensive than purchasing existing warships from other nations. The British navy is in the process of downsizing, and while I'll be the first to admit we screwed up in buying the submarines from the brits they have some very nice surface ships. More importantly, the United States Navy is very likely to soon undergo a massive and immediate downsizing. Entire aircraft carrier battlegroups will need to be mothballed and all their crews furloughed, or laid off.

The requirement under the recently passed debt ceiling raise is that a super committee of six democrats and six republicans agree on how to find trillions in deficit reduction by thanksgiving. Since all six Republican members have vowed to oppose even one cent of new taxes it's unlikely a deal will be reached and passed by congress. When the committee fails, half a trillion in military spending will have to be cut. That means lots of ships, planes and military vehicles will be on the market at cut rate prices. Now the inclination will be for the Americans to mothball their older units first, but if there is the possibility of selling some that could be reconsidered. And really, so many ships will have to be scrapped that there are bound to be a lot of excellent quality, fairly new ships we can buy for the RCN. We could pick up a lot of army gear while we're at it, including trucks and personnel carriers, for far less than buying them new.

Yeah--- we could buy used Brit ships and get almost as good a deal as we got on those super submarines.

Ahhhh------ has anyone heard of our sub force lately ?????????

Of course, if we got the used ships from the Royal Navy it could provide a bonanza in marine repair work that could last years

Edited August 19, 2011 by Tilter

[bush_cheney2004]

States are fully sovereign in internal waters: they can regulate activities and enforce their laws therein, and foreign states and ships enjoy no maritime rights under international law.

Wrong....go back and read the convention, to which Canada is a party. The fact that Canada can't/won't enforce such claims is secondary.

[wyly]

Much shorter to take the NWP and Davis Strait.

about 800K as well there would be speed restrictions going through a 1,500km narrow channel, time is money in logistics the northern route would be cheaper and safer...

The US doesn't share a border with any of those countries.

so why aren't those nasty russians and resource stealing chinese plundering their weaker neighbours??? ...you have no answer...

Regimes change. So do priorities.

any settlements will be unaffected

Of course they do. Look at a map. See Alaska.

If we don't need a military to secure our own borders, what do we need one for?

bingo! other than for smugglers we don't...

[Bonam]

Again, why not build a fleet of Imperial Star Destroyers? By your logic, we’d be infusing tons of money into the Canadian economy……

Sounds good to me.

[wyly]

Unless of course you happen to be one of the countries whose citizens have benefitted from humanitarian assistance provided by the Canadian Forces. I agree with you in principle though.

sure enough but we could and have done that without carriers and fleet of super planes

[Wilber]

about 800K as well there would be speed restrictions going through a 1,500km narrow channel, time is money in logistics the northern route would be cheaper and safer...

800 km equals about 500 miles. The average large ship burns about one USG of fuel oil every 50 feet. 500 miles equals 2,640,000 feet divided by 50 equals 52,800 gallons of fuel oil or 7523 tons. Aside from the cost, I don't know how many additional tons of pollutants and CO2 going into the atmosphere but it would be a lot.

so why aren't those nasty russians and resource stealing chinese plundering their weaker neighbours??? ...you have no answer...

You have either a very short or very selective memory. See Russian Empire. See Soviet Union. See Tibet. See Sino Indian War. etc. Russia and China both have on going territorial disputes with several of their neighbours, any of which could become violent.

any settlements will be unaffected

Who will enforce them. Don't say the UN. Both China and Russia have veto powers on the Security Council. We do not. History is littered with broken treaties. None of them were broken by the weak.

bingo! other than for smugglers we don't...

And why would that be? Could it be our fortunate geography? Our close historical, cultural, political and military ties with the worlds two most powerful nations over the past two centuries? Without military alliances such as NORAD or ability to even monitor what goes on off our shores would be severely limited, let alone our ability to actually do something about them.

Or could it be Canada's magical immunity to the ills that afflict the rest of the world because of our innate goodness. That must be the answer.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Wilber

[William Ashley]

Wrong....go back and read the convention, to which Canada is a party. The fact that Canada can't/won't enforce such claims is secondary.

You are wrong. You can't send ships through peoples homes.

Also the ice could be considered "a ship" in addition to "land".

There is a 200 NM limit for economic activities.

THE ICE IN THE NORTH IS NOT A INTERNATIONAL WATERWAY, IT IS ICE? The status of that area at the time of the contract and time before it as its traditional use and habititation is all that is relevant.

You just think you can apply the law then and ignore the "context" of the law when it is was made.

You are wrong.

Show me in context how the waterways that are not icefree are international "waterways" you are absurd. IT ISN'T water.

You don't have permission to drive an icebreaker or boat through someones home.

There is no way in hell you can find anything in your treaties that says you can break up ice in Canada's domestic jurisidiction. It is environmentally destructive and damaging to local populations.

Ice is a landsurface NOT sea. That area was not navigable at the time of the treaty therefor its status would not be termed a straight at the time for its purpose.. you are wrong because of context of the binding of the treaty being applicable to time context.

Nothing in this Part affects:

(a) any areas of internal waters within a strait, except where the establishment of a straight baseline in accordance with the method set forth in article 7 has the effect of enclosing as internal waters areas which had not previously been considered as such; (As ice it was enclosed - sea ice forms from the ocean to the land), also the baseline is applicable geologically

( the legal status of the waters beyond the territorial seas of States bordering straits as exclusive economic zones or high seas; or *They are

© the legal regime in straits in which passage is regulated in whole or in part by long-standing international conventions in force specifically relating to such straits.Canada has always had permission and the RCMP was responsible for use of the sea ice such as the German Expedition

Article 36. High seas routes or routes through exclusive economic zones through straits used for international navigation

This Part does not apply to a strait used for international navigation if there exists through the strait a route through the high seas or through an exclusive economic zone of similar convenience with respect to navigational and hydrographical characteristics; in such routes, the other relevant Parts of this Convention, including the provisions regarding the freedoms of navigation and overflight, apply.

http://uwaterloo.academia.edu/RobertWPark/Papers/92699/A_Hans_Kruger_Arctic_Expedition_Cache_on_Axel_Heiberg_Island_Nunavut

There have also been migrations across the straight.. such as from Canada to the Polar Inuit in Greenland. It was traversable surface topography, and enclosed.

More or less it may to some extent be "inuit" land.

Also the US has stated jurisdiction exists on ice...

united-states-v-escamilla

see

International Law and Sea-Ice Jurisdiction in the Arctic Ocean (Based on U. S. v. Escamilla)

F. M. Auburn

page 552-554

Canada was supravires over the ice. The precedent exists in US caselaw.

In that basis the ice "was" considered a ship by Canada (as well to some extent the US). Essentially what occured was an extradition based on the ice being deemed a ship more or less but it was a Canadian ship but since the event involved US citizens Canada did not have as great an interst in the case as per rules of extradition or other state trial in the Hague convention. Since there was no Canadian Captain and the ship was flying the US flag but wasn't registered in the US or Canada, but was within Canadian de facto jurisdiction - if it was not there would have been no defacto problem as to involve both countries, the US clearly recognize a Canadian/British claim to some extent. It also would have been North West Territories and Hudson Bay Company Ship.. so the Hudson Bay Company owned "the ship" http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/PreConfederation/hbc_charter_1670.html

There are a couple other issues. Be back with more info in a few

Its been British/Canadian since 1670

And whereas the said undertakers for theire further encouragement in the said designe have humbly besought us to Incorporate them and grant unto them and theire successors the sole Trade and Commerce of all those Seas Streightes Bayes Rivers Lakes Creekes and Soundes in whatsoever Latitude they shall bee that lye within the the entrance of the Streightes commonly called Hudsons Streightes together with all the Landes Countryes and Territoryes upon the Coastes and Confynes of the Seas Streightes Bayes Lakes Rivers Creekes and Soundes aforesaid which are not now actually possessed by any of our Subjectes or by the Subjectes of any other Christian Prince or State

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0007006

On 19 November 1869 the company signed and sealed the deed of transfer surrendering its chartered territory to the Crown and the governments of Great Britain and Canada set the date of transfer for 1 December 1869.

TREATY OF PARIS ARTICLE 2

Article 2:

And that all disputes which might arise in future on the subject of the boundaries of the said United States may be prevented, it is hereby agreed and declared, that the following are and shall be their boundaries, viz.; from the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, viz., that nagle which is formed by a line drawn due north from the source of St. Croix River to the highlands; along the said highlands which divide those rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence, from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, to the northwesternmost head of Connecticut River; thence down along the middle of that river to the forty-fifth degree of north latitude; from thence by a line due west on said latitude until it strikes the river Iroquois or Cataraquy; thence along the middle of said river into Lake Ontario; through the middle of said lake until it strikes the communication by water between that lake and Lake Erie; thence along the middle of said communication into Lake Erie, through the middle of said lake until it arrives at the water communication between that lake and Lake Huron; thence along the middle of said water communication into Lake Huron, thence through the middle of said lake to the water communication between that lake and Lake Superior; thence through Lake Superior northward of the Isles Royal and Phelipeaux to the Long Lake; thence through the middle of said Long Lake and the water communication between it and the Lake of the Woods, to the said Lake of the Woods; thence through the said lake to the most northwesternmost point thereof, and from thence on a due west course to the river Mississippi; thence by a line to be drawn along the middle of the said river Mississippi until it shall intersect the northernmost part of the thirty-first degree of north latitude, South, by a line to be drawn due east from the determination of the line last mentioned in the latitude of thirty-one degrees of the equator, to the middle of the river Apalachicola or Catahouche; thence along the middle thereof to its junction with the Flint River, thence straight to the head of Saint Mary's River; and thence down along the middle of Saint Mary's River to the Atlantic Ocean; east, by a line to be drawn along the middle of the river Saint Croix, from its mouth in the Bay of Fundy to its source, and from its source directly north to the aforesaid highlands which divide the rivers that fall into the Atlantic Ocean from those which fall into the river Saint Lawrence; comprehending all islands within twenty leagues of any part of the shores of the United States, and lying between lines to be drawn due east from the points where the aforesaid boundaries between Nova Scotia on the one part and East Florida on the other shall, respectively, touch the Bay of Fundy and the Atlantic Ocean, excepting such islands as now are or heretofore have been within the limits of the said province of Nova Scotia.

Yeah thats right the US doesn't include alaska, and we can use the mississipi.

BUT Americans CAN FISH but not dry.

It is agreed that the people of the United States shall continue to enjoy unmolested the right to take fish of every kind on the Grand Bank and on all the other banks of Newfoundland, also in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence and at all other places in the sea, where the inhabitants of both countries used at any time heretofore to fish. And also that the inhabitants of the United States shall have liberty to take fish of every kind on such part of the coast of Newfoundland as British fishermen shall use, (but not to dry or cure the same on that island) and also on the coasts, bays and creeks of all other of his Brittanic Majesty's dominions in America; and that the American fishermen shall have liberty to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands, and Labrador, so long as the same shall remain unsettled, but so soon as the same or either of them shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such settlement without a previous agreement for that purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground.

There is doubt you would agree the Lousiana Purchase was illegal (because Napolean was not the legal King - and the land was held by the king as their property), and the Issue with Alaska was an annex - that wasn't remedied until much later when land disputes were clarified with local Eskimo when Alaska changed from a territory to a state (which would have been a breach of the treaty of paris).

TREATY OF PARIS ARTICLE 6

Article 6:

That there shall be no future confiscations made

nor any prosecutions commenced against any person or persons for, or by reason of, the part which he or they may have taken in the present war, and that no person shall on that account suffer any future loss or damage, either in his person, liberty, or property; and that those who may be in confinement on such charges at the time of the ratification of the treaty in America shall be immediately set at liberty, and the prosecutions so commenced be discontinued.

Alaska was Hudson Bay Company land as it was granted in the Hudson Bay charter, which Canada gained ALL TERRITORY in 1869.

Enter the Jay Treaty.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/jaytreaty/text.html

It is agreed that it shall at all times be free to His Majesty's subjects, and to the citizens of the United States, and also to the Indians dwelling on either side of the said boundary line, freely to pass and repass by land or inland navigation, into the respective territories and countries of the two parties, on the continent of America (the country within the limits of the Hudson's Bay Company only excepted.) and to navigate all the lakes, rivers and waters thereof, and freely to carry on trade and commerce with each other. But it is understood that this article does not extend to the admission of vessels of the United States into the seaports, harbours, bays or creeks of His Majesty's said territories; nor into such parts of the rivers in His Majesty's said territories as are between the mouth thereof, and the highest port of entry from the sea, except in small vessels trading bona fide between Montreal and Quebec, under such regulations as shall be established to prevent the possibility of any frauds in this respect. Nor to the admission of British vessels from the sea into the rivers of the United States, beyond the highest ports of entry for foreign vessels from the sea.

The river Mississippi shall, however, according to the treaty of peace, be entirely open to both parties; and it is further agreed, that all the ports and places on its eastern side, to whichsoever of the parties belonging, may freely be resorted to and used by both parties, in as ample a manner as any of the Atlantic ports or places of the United States, or any of the ports or places of His Majesty in Great Britain All goods and merchandize whose importation into His Majesty's said territories in America shall not be entirely prohibited, may freely, for the purposes of commerce, be carried into the same in the manner aforesaid, by the citizens of the United States, and such goods and merchandize shall be subject to no higher or other duties than would be payable by His Majesty's subjects on the importation of the same from Europe into the said territories.

So no it isn't international water, the mississipi is BUT getting into a port can be "secured" except in context of the "rules of entry to port that existed in 1789

US port fees also cannot cost Canadians more than American port fees.

BUT ALASKA IS OWNED BY HUDSON BAY IT HAS FIRST TITLE - which title was transferd to Canada in 1869

ARTICLE IX. Jay Treaty

It is agreed that British subjects who now hold lands in the territories of the United States, and American citizens who now hold lands in the dominions of His Majesty, shall continue to hold them according to the nature and tenure of their respective estates and titles therein

Hudson Bay Held the charter for use of the territories from 1670 to 1869 the Jay treaty was in the 1700's well within the scope of ownership maintenance of the Jay Treaty.

Alaska wasn't Russia's to sell.

The Tsar didn't declare it had the territories until well after british claim was made in 1670

ukase (a proclamation or decree of the tsar) in 1799

the americans recognized British Title to Alaska in the Jay Treaty because the 1670 charter gave those territories by royal grant to Prince Rupert.

Enter the Anglo Russian Convention 1825

Treaty of Saint Petersburg (1825)

THE RUSSIANS and British shall not be troubled or molested, in any part of the Ocean, commonly called the Pacific Ocean,either in navigating the same, in fishing therein, r in landing at such Parts of the Coast as shall not have been already occupied, in order to trade with the Natives, under the restrictions and conditions specified in the following Articles

TO TRADE WITH NATIVES.

So the Americans can't use it without prior permisssion but the Imperial Russians can - but only if they are trading with natives.

No landings of British at Russian Posts, and no Russian Landings at British Posts without permission from the officer in charge

Commencing from the Southern-most Point of the Island called Prince of Wales Island, which Point lies in the parallel of 54 degrees 40 minutes, North Latitude, and between the 131st and 133d Degree of West Longitude (Meridian of Greenwich), the said line shall ascend to the North along the Channel called Portland Channel, as far as the Point of the Continent where it strikes the 56th Degree of North Latitude; from this last mentioned Point the line of demarcation shall follow the summit of the mountains situated parallel to the Coast, as far as the point of intersection of the 141st Degree of West Longitude (of the same Meridian); and, finally, from the said point of intersection, the said Meridian Line of the 141st Degree, in its prolongation as far as the Frozen Ocean, shall form the limit between the Russian and British Possessions on the Continent of America to the North West.

IV. With reference to the line of demarcation laid down in the preceding Article it is understood;

1st. That the island called Prince of Wales Island shall belong wholly to Russia.

2d. That wherever the summit of the mountains which extend in a direction parallel to the Coast, from the 56th degree of north Latitude to the point of intersection of the 141st degree of West Longitude, shall prove to be at the distance of more than ten marine leagues from the Ocean, the limit between the British Possess- ions and the line of Coast which is to belong to Russia, as above-mentioned, shall be formed by a line parallel to the windings of the Coast, and which shall never exceed the distance of ten marine leagues therefrom.

So Russia gained the territory, but the land was owned by Hudson Bay still.

meanwhile the The British/Canadian can go anywhere on the seas

VI. It is understood that the Subjects of his Britannic Majesty, from whatever Quarter they may arrive, whether from the Ocean, or from the interior of the Continent, shall for ever enjoy the right of navigating freely, and without any hindrance whatever, all the rivers and streams which, in their course towards the Pacific Ocean, may cross the line of demarcation upon the line of coast described in Article 3 of the present Convention.

So the Missippi and all rivers going from the Canada US border into the pacific can be freely navigated by the commonwealth countries.

Canada/British/Commonwealth etc.. can use Sitka as long as America can use it because the Russians gave the allowance to use in the Alaska purchase.

The Port of Sitka, or Novo Archangelsk, shall be open to the Commerce and Vessels of British Subjects for the space of ten Years from the date of the exchange of the Ratifications of the present Convention. In the event of an extension of this term of ten years being granted to any other Power, the like extension shall be granted also to Great Britain.

It should be noted that Canada's claims outside Ruperts land are commonwealth claims, while those within Ruperts land are Canadian claims.

http://www.alaskaportreviews.com/Sitka.htm

alsek lake is another wateray usuable

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

HBC only had the North, it required a lease for "South West Alaska which it got in 1839 from Russian America because the water went into the Pacific rather than the Arctic.

Russia never had claim to the Artcic, so it wasn't transfered to the US.. -- more over the northern area was unnavigable.

As you can see the US has no vested interst until 1850... 1850–51 First Grinnell Expedition led by Edwin DeHaven, first American search for the members of Franklin's lost expedition.

Likewise this was not a journey of discovery, it was to claim a monetary reward from the British to help find a lost British Expedition.

IN all this one must recognize it is an inuit claim divested into Canada due to British Claims, which America recognized in The treaty of Paris and the Jay Treaty..

The above mentioned liberty of Commerce shall not apply to the trade in spirituous liquors, in firearms, or other arms, gunpowder or other warlike stores

The US-Russian Treaty on the Alaska purchase states

article 2

only non private individual property - the US recognized the HBC claims which were both leased, and any lands with waters flowing into the artic are HBC property

Now it seems all British Subjects in "Alaska" also gained US citizenship (as well as any other Europeans in Alaska) or rather gained equal status.. but not per say Us citizenship..

However by the VI article it is clear that the treaty is invalid, as it violates a whole lot of treaties.

The treaty is clearly a scam as it is to say it conveys all rights and priveleges yet doesn't seems to convey the duties. Clearly not legal.

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf

Edited August 19, 2011 by William Ashley

[wyly]

800 km equals about 500 miles. The average large ship burns about one USG of fuel oil every 50 feet. 500 miles equals 2,640,000 feet divided by 50 equals 52,800 gallons of fuel oil or 7523 tons. Aside from the cost, I don't know how many additional tons of pollutants and CO2 going into the atmosphere but it would be a lot.

which is all a red herring anyways as the issue is the USA does not recognize our claim to the NWP and canada will do bugger all about it, using the chinese claiming the same right of passage through the NWP as the USA is a scapegoat for weapons we don't need or will have the balls to use is absolute bullshit...

You have either a very short or very selective memory. See Russian Empire. See Soviet Union. See Tibet. See Sino Indian War. etc. Russia and China both have on going territorial disputes with several of their neighbours, any of which could become violent.

my knowledge of history is excellent your's is not otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned any of those they only weaken your argument...china has no significant record of imperialism and neither do the russians, compared to the USA, UK or France they're amatuers....

Who will enforce them. Don't say the UN. Both China and Russia have veto powers on the Security Council. We do not. History is littered with broken treaties. None of them were broken by the weak.

And why would that be? Could it be our fortunate geography? Our close historical, cultural, political and military ties with the worlds two most powerful nations over the past two centuries? Without military alliances such as NORAD or ability to even monitor what goes on off our shores would be severely limited, let alone our ability to actually do something about them.

Or could it be Canada's magical immunity to the ills that afflict the rest of the world because of our innate goodness. That must be the answer.

more historical ignorance...

[Saipan]

The British navy is in the process of downsizing

The last downsizing almost cost them their very existence when Hitler bombed London.

[Wilber]

which is all a red herring anyways as the issue is the USA does not recognize our claim to the NWP and canada will do bugger all about it, using the chinese claiming the same right of passage through the NWP as the USA is a scapegoat for weapons we don't need or will have the balls to use is absolute bullshit...

my knowledge of history is excellent your's is not otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned any of those they only weaken your argument...china has no significant record of imperialism and neither do the russians, compared to the USA, UK or France they're amatuers....

more historical ignorance...

Russia, China good. USA, Britain bad. Got it. Interesting though, the number of ex Warsaw Pact countries who now want to join NATO, don't you think.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Wilber

[wyly]

Russia, China good. USA, Britain bad. Got it. Interesting though, the number of ex Warsaw Pact countries who now want to join NATO, don't you think.

what's interesting is how your weak history knowledge shapes your concept of the world we live in...

[bush_cheney2004]

what's interesting is how your weak history knowledge shapes your concept of the world we live in...

Does that include the history of American under ice submarine transits with total impunity?

[Saipan]

You are wrong. You can't send ships through peoples homes.

In Cnada, where there's no right to property, government can send train even through fully deeded property ON LAND (never mind forozen water) if it chooses to.

Show me in context how the waterways that are not icefree are international "waterways" you are absurd. IT ISN'T water.

It may or may not be International. In case of NWP it's CANADIAN - lock stock and barrel. And Stephen Harper told G.W. Bush so. One reason we'll newer Navy in there.

And yes it IS water. The temperature of it makes no difference whatsoever.

You don't have permission to drive an icebreaker or boat through someones home.

Navigational rules apply. Nothing else. Get your boating licence.

There is no way in hell you can find anything in your treaties that says you can break up ice in Canada's domestic jurisidiction. It is environmentally destructive and damaging to local populations.

It's regular activity on the Great Lakes. AND both ocean coasts.

Ice is a landsurface NOT sea.

I wish. My waterfront property would be huge

[Matt]

Why are some of you complaining? We're investing in our selves. The money we're spending on the ships is going right back to our economy. If we bought other countries ships we would be lossing all potential self investment. This project will be providing jobs for canadians for around 30 years. I don't know but i think that is money well spent.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The RCN needs far more than just ships, it needs port side infrastructure in spades up north.