Northwest Passage

[james rahn]

So in other words, instead of having too many frigates as you originally said, you now suggest we don't have enough, and with that I agree.

Dang...You tricked me!

Actually, with the 8 A/OPVs in the water, I think a half dozen frigates would be enough.

Not to change the subject or anything, but my biggest concern with reducing the number of frigates or destroyers would be the loss of an area air defence capability, which is something I think a warship venturing off to the Persian Gulf should have. But I think that's a capability only the remaining three Iroqouis' have on board.

Edited January 17, 2008 by james rahn

[AngusThermopyle]

But I think that's a capability only the remaining three Iroqouis' have on board.

You are correct.

[bush_cheney2004]

...But a little known fact about the passage of the Manhatten was that a patrol of Arctic Rangers went out onto the ice in front of the vessel and parked themselves there for two days. The Manhatten didn't resume it's transit until the patrol moved out of the way on their own initiative....

Interesting...how did the Arctic Rangers do against US submarine transits?

[M.Dancer]

Interesting...how did the Arctic Rangers do against US submarine transits?

Ever heard of the Harpoon?

[james rahn]

Interesting...how did the Arctic Rangers do against US submarine transits?

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" lol

As long as they stay under the ice, there isn't really a problem.

US subs aren't a threat to Canadian Sovereignty any more than the NORAD agreement is. The United States is still a strategic military ally. Besides, it's easy to say the Rangers can't do anything about submarines, but it's not like the Canadian Navy would do anything about it either. When it comes to submarines the issue becomes one of strategic importance. US subs should be up there in the event Russian or Chinese subs might be there too.

There is a written cooperative agreement between the Canadian and US Coast Guards that allows the two agencies to work together, while also specifically stating that such cooperation not be construed as having anything to do with issues of sovereignty. Apparently there is also a similar agreement in principle between Canada and the United States with regard to US submarines that says their simple presence in the arctic doesn't negate any claim Canada might make under international law.

I know the Canadian government is looking at placing an array of SOSUS sensors on the Arctic seabed (I think in Lancaster Sound somewhere), but unless the technology has improved exponentially in recent years, it would be a waste of money. Even if relatively soft first year ice (predominant in the sound) covers the surface, the sensors become very sensitive to something called ice scouring, and can't effectively detect a submarine passing over top. So even if the sensors did pick something up, another nation (Russia, China, US) could simply deny the whole thing because the technology isn't 100% accurate.

If the US should ever say to Canada, "We will not accept your claim to the waters of the Arctic Archipelago unless Canada also has nuclear submarines", then they are effectively saying to the world that they will not respect a nation's sovereignty unless that nation has some type of nuclear capability, even a passive one. THAT is something I'm sure both the Iranian and North Korean governments would love to hear the US Administration come out with, so I don't think the Americans will ever bring nuclear submarines into the equation when it comes to the Arctic.

Also under international law (Fisheries Case, 1951) a nation only has to take reasonable measures to claim sovereignty over disputed waters. There is no requirement for nuclear submarines.

Canada does however, have a secret training camp specifically for it's arctic anti-submarine forces, shown here on an interdiction exercise.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/i...ges%5Chono2.gif

Edited January 18, 2008 by james rahn

[White Doors]

Personally, I am for more funding for the Navy and the coast guard.

I think the frigates the navy has now are adequate with the refits recently announced. We need to replace the destroyers with new ones and add a couple of more and we need the amphibious ships they have been calling for. The equivelant of the marine aircraft/helicopter carriers. A squadron of vertical lift off F35's to complement them and we are golden.

And new resupply ships. I personally think the navy should be in line for the most DND funding of the three branches for the next few years.

[M.Dancer]

Personally, I am for more funding for the Navy and the coast guard.

I think the frigates the navy has now are adequate with the refits recently announced. We need to replace the destroyers with new ones and add a couple of more and we need the amphibious ships they have been calling for. The equivelant of the marine aircraft/helicopter carriers. A squadron of vertical lift off F35's to complement them and we are golden.

And new resupply ships. I personally think the navy should be in line for the most DND funding of the three branches for the next few years.

I guess I have to ask why we need an amphibious capability? It's not like we have a doctrine of gunboat diplomacy to pursue nor do we have marines (of the royal kind). Personally I don't think we need trop carriers or amphibious assault carriers....but a good argument could convince me.

[james rahn]

Personally, I am for more funding for the Navy and the coast guard.

I know I said a few posts back that sovereignty is the responsibility of DND and the RCMP, but I think they should give the coast guard some sort of ex-officio status. Sidearms and personal protective armour for boarding parties. You never know what type of situation a vessel might run into, and they should have a least a basic self-defence capability.

[Moonlight Graham]

Fact is - develop it / defend it / or lose it.

By owning it, doesn't Canada have the right to do absolutely nothing at all with it in terms of development?

[james rahn]

By owning it, doesn't Canada have the right to do absolutely nothing at all with it in terms of development?

You know that should be true, but I'm not sure that it is. The US has done a lot to develop the Canadian Arctic. Motivated out of self-interest of course, but still....

[jbg]

By owning it, doesn't Canada have the right to do absolutely nothing at all with it in terms of development?

Yes. But where ownership is disputed development is a strong indicia of ownership.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Disputed ownership? Really, is that a fact. Is the Empire of America saying that it disputes Canadian ownership of the lands and waters that has been printed in every atlas around the world for the last century? Is that what I am hearing here?

[M.Dancer]

Disputed ownership? Really, is that a fact. Is the Empire of America saying that it disputes Canadian ownership of the lands and waters that has been printed in every atlas around the world for the last century? Is that what I am hearing here?

I can't say you have seen many international atlases that point out the strait is ours, I haven't seen any in Canada that say that.....but there aren't many nations that recognise our claim.

Edited January 23, 2008 by M.Dancer

[Jerry J. Fortin]

So you agree that the North West Passage which is fully surrounded by Canadian land is not by definition part of our territorial waters. I can only guess your position of the 200 mile limit.

If there was ever any reason for me to quantify why I am an Alberta separatist, this whole topic cleaned up any reason why I would want to be a Canadian. If you don't have the guts to stand up for what is yours, don't even bother to discuss it, just give it away.

[M.Dancer]

So you agree that the North West Passage which is fully surrounded by Canadian land is not by definition part of our territorial waters.

No but I disagree that the US is the only nation that disputes our claim. I also dispute that there are atlases in other countries that show it as canada's.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Water isn't shown as owned by anyone. The fact that this little passage is I don't know how many hundreds of miles long and it bisects our country separating the northern islands from the southern mainland indicates to me that it qualifies as "territorial waters"

But aside from that, whether it is merely the US or if it is others as well making this claim, it doesn't really matter since you would rather not defend it as our own anyway. The motto for my province is Strong and Free, that is even part of the national anthem of this country, and yet this country is anything but.

[M.Dancer]

Disputed ownership? Really, is that a fact. Is the Empire of America saying that it disputes Canadian ownership of the lands and waters that has been printed in every atlas around the world for the last century? Is that what I am hearing here?

Water isn't shown as owned by anyone.

Clang Clang Clang

We have a winner!

[Jerry J. Fortin]

So in your mind there is no such thing as territorial water. China could just sail into Pearl Harbour without permission, and Russia could just park between Manhatten and the mainland and no problem?

[M.Dancer]

So in your mind there is no such thing as territorial water. China could just sail into Pearl Harbour without permission, and Russia could just park between Manhatten and the mainland and no problem?

In my mind I'm pretty sure I haven't suggested anything like that. In your mind, do you often ascribe positions to people thay haven't made?

I'm sure it's easier that way....

[Jerry J. Fortin]

So you think that the passage is Canadian waters by definition?

[M.Dancer]

So you think that the passage is Canadian waters by definition?

Not being an expert in international maritime law I don't know. But I do know that it is disputed and disputed with very strong and sound arguments on both sides.

The one point in the following article which may be of interest is tha Canada has not introduced any legislation claiming the waterway.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/334471/The-North...y-Floating-Away

[james rahn]

So you agree that the North West Passage which is fully surrounded by Canadian land is not by definition part of our territorial waters. I can only guess your position of the 200 mile limit.

If there was ever any reason for me to quantify why I am an Alberta separatist, this whole topic cleaned up any reason why I would want to be a Canadian. If you don't have the guts to stand up for what is yours, don't even bother to discuss it, just give it away.

The problem is that the Northwest Passage is not completely surrounded by Canadian Land.

Both ends of the passage lead to open sea.

Similarly, neither is the province of Alberta completely surrounded by Canadian land, bordering on the United States to the south.

If you don't agree that Alberta should be a part of Canada (which maps and atlases show as being fully Canadian territory), how can you claim to defend the Northwest Passage as Canadian?

If Alberta ever does separate from Canada, it will become part of the US alot sooner than the Northwest Passage will. Economically Alberta won't have any other alternative than complete economic if not political union.

Edited January 24, 2008 by james rahn

[Peter F]

The one point in the following article which may be of interest is tha Canada has not introduced any legislation claiming the waterway.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/334471/The-North...y-Floating-Away

But, via the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, Canada indirectly claims jurisdiction. Vessels cannot enter the various 'Safety Zones' without permission - or, more exactly, Canada claims the right to deny transit to whoever doesn't conform to the provisions of the Act.

AWPPAct

See Shipping Safety Control Zones Order of the Act, particularly the Map at the bottom of that page.

[james rahn]

But, via the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, Canada indirectly claims jurisdiction. Vessels cannot enter the various 'Safety Zones' without permission - or, more exactly, Canada claims the right to deny transit to whoever doesn't conform to the provisions of the Act.

AWPPAct

See Shipping Safety Control Zones Order of the Act, particularly the Map at the bottom of that page.

The problem is that the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea supercedes the Arctic Waters Poluution Prevention Act. As such, the AWPPA is not automatically void, but becomes challengeable in an international court. An international court can rule it illegal under the UN Convention.

Edited January 24, 2008 by james rahn

[Peter F]

The problem is that the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea supercedes the Arctic Waters Poluution Prevention Act. As such, the AWPPA is not automatically void, but becomes challengeable in an international court. An international court can rule it illegal under the UN Convention.

I understand your point. I was addressing M.Dancer's point that ''Canada has not introduced any legislation claiming the waterway.''

The Arctic Waters Polution Prevention Act in no way 'claims' the NWP as Canadian - but it doe's claim jurisdiction over the waters.

Of course, the NWP is an international waterway. We only claim the conditions that vessels may transit it.

In effect we claim control of the passage.