Results 1 to 87 of 87

Thread: Arctic Soveriegnty

  1. #1

    Default Arctic Soveriegnty

    Whether it is man made or cycles of the Earth, Canada needs to have a strong Arctic agenda. Unfortunately other projects take precedence. The Arctic will be probably completely free of ice in 75-100 yrs. Greenland will literally be Greenland.

    Planet Earth is entering its summer season, much like the year has a summer. We need to assert out role in the Arctic or Canadas' role in World Affairs will decline dramatically in the next several centuries. The Arctic is a tremendous asset to exert our influence in the New World. Now is the time to act.

    Its tough to think in such time frames as it will not affect us personally, but this thing is just beginning. Image what the year 12,456 wil be like?

  2. #2
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    So...uhh...what do you propose?
    Strathcona City Separatist

  3. #3

    Default

    We need to go in there and show force and lay claim.

    Unfortunately it will most likely be a joint effort with the USA, as Russia will also be looking to stake claim, along with any other Arctic country.
    youtube.com/BrothersGrim
    facebook.com/BrothersGrimMusic

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Komrade View Post
    We need to go in there and show force and lay claim.

    Unfortunately it will most likely be a joint effort with the USA, as Russia will also be looking to stake claim, along with any other Arctic country.
    Don't disagree but the emphasis should be on the lay claim not the show force.

    If we simply re instituted many of the programs that ran up into the 80s we would be in great shape.

    Give the airforce the resources to properly patrol and operate in the North, the bases are there, just moth balled.

    Give the Navy and Coast Guard the same

    Improve funding and recruitment to the Northern Rangers and re establish a select few of the Land Bases that could also double as research stations re: Climate and Northern issues.

    This would also improve regualr law enforcement and search/rescue capabilites.

    Stuff we never should have stopped doing and needs to be done by people not satellites and cameras.

    Tom

  5. #5

    Default

    Deep sea port in Inuvik is a must.

  6. #6

    Default

    wow thats hilarious, i meant Iqualiut.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Komrade View Post
    We need to go in there and show force and lay claim.

    Unfortunately it will most likely be a joint effort with the USA, as Russia will also be looking to stake claim, along with any other Arctic country.
    I certainly agree that we need to show some force up there.

    But working with the US? I think that's unlikely, given that our dispute with them I believe is based on the Russo-British Treaty of 1825 (which is open to interpretation as to whether it includes the Beaufort Sea), instead of being based on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, upon which most other disputed Arctic claims are based, but that is yet to be ratified by the US since the process stalled under Obama. Also, UNCLOS is less open to interpretation, and more open to scientific demonstrations of geological facts). Id est, the United States is biased against us, and our only means of retribution is a centuries-old bilateral treaty between two other nations. The US is probably going to be our hardest Arctic foe to challenge. Heck, they've already started leasing land in the disputed area.



    I agree with rime ice that we need a deep-sea port up in the North, whether it's in Iqaluit, Cambridge Bay, or if we really wanted to show some international ballsyness, even way up in Alert. But more importantly in the short term, we need an effective Artic fleet, including icebreakers. China has now acquired stronger Arctic icebreaking capabilities than us (and please kindly note that China has no Arctic ice of its own to break…it's coming for our ice). We have to occupy the Northwest Passage to show that it's our Internal Waters, otherwise countries like China are going to claim that it's an international seaway.

    And we've got to stop dilly-dallying and come to an agreement with the Kingdom of Denmark over Hans Island, even if it means splitting it down the middle. Just do it.

    As for the continental shelf claims, hopefully Russia's data will support our claims and not theirs. And I hope for goodness' sake, Canada gets some data for itself before our 2013 deadline comes around. Bah!
    Last edited by ut_libet; 15-07-2010 at 12:58 PM.
    Ut libet.

  8. #8
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    772

    Default

    As someone who travels to the arctic on a regular basis, I would have to agree with Tom.

    One area I feel needs to be urgently addressed is the aging transportation infrastructure. While I really enjoy watching and indeed admire the people involved "Ice pilots" on TV , We have to realize that much of the current airfreight is delivered by elderly equipment. It is not sustainable for much longer and There really is no effective new replacement that is economical . Things are expensive enough as it is. Even the mainline jet combi freight 737s have been flying north since my childhood.

    The barges for marine freight are getting older and increasingly unreliable. People were waiting for development that never happened , whether it be High Arctic LNG, Mackenzie gas , Beaufort Oil , Tourism etc. They have been getting by on band aid solutions , when new infrastructure is required.

    I was sixteen when I testified before the Berger inquiry. I am fifty now and still there is no pipeline or even more so the needed infrastructure that was expected to be delivered with it.

    While the average Edmontonian would not wait that long for infrastructure Improvements ,in LRT , Airports etc . Canadian Residents on the font line of arctic sovereignty are still waiting for basic deep water ports , utility developments and improved runways. If you support these improvements , It will go long way to aiding our position in the arctic.

    I support deep sea port in Tuktoyaktuk as it would be a good start .

  9. #9

    Default

    Sorry, Tom, I seemed to have missed your post when I was writing mine above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Komrade View Post
    We need to go in there and show force and lay claim.

    Unfortunately it will most likely be a joint effort with the USA, as Russia will also be looking to stake claim, along with any other Arctic country.
    Don't disagree but the emphasis should be on the lay claim not the show force.

    If we simply re instituted many of the programs that ran up into the 80s we would be in great shape.

    Give the airforce the resources to properly patrol and operate in the North, the bases are there, just moth balled.

    Give the Navy and Coast Guard the same

    Improve funding and recruitment to the Northern Rangers and re establish a select few of the Land Bases that could also double as research stations re: Climate and Northern issues.

    This would also improve regualr law enforcement and search/rescue capabilites.

    Stuff we never should have stopped doing and needs to be done by people not satellites and cameras.
    Well, while you state support for laying claim over showing force, all of the ideas you suggested sound more like a show of force (air force, navy, rangers, etc.) instead of making claims. Given that you support claims over force, might I enquire as to what you think we ought do on the claims side of things?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hull534 View Post
    I support deep sea port in Tuktoyaktuk as it would be a good start .
    Do you suggest that because you're hoping that the Mackenzie Pipeline will be built soon, or is your suggestion based on logistical reasons irrespective of the pipeline/related-infrastructure? (And if it's not too nosy of me, why, at 16, did you testify before the Berger Inquiry?) Don't get me wrong; I think the pipeline ought to have been built long ago…it's just that they sure seem to be taking their sweet time at getting around to it.
    Ut libet.

  10. #10
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    772

    Default

    Ut Libet

    I think that we have probably missed the window on the gas pipeline based on present gas supply / shale gas etc. This could last for a generation or two

    My point was that Northern Development has always been waiting of for the mega project to justify infrastructure. For instance , I believe that putting in a Mackenzie highway makes sense regardless of a pipeline as it would be be a main transport as supply infrastructure to Mackenzie (sahtu) communities and serve ultimately , i would hope as a road from Alberta to a port in Tuktoyaktuk our third coast.

    As to the Berger inquiry, It was open to the wide cross section of the community and I took the opportunity to say my piece.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ut_libet View Post
    Sorry, Tom, I seemed to have missed your post when I was writing mine above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Komrade View Post
    We need to go in there and show force and lay claim.

    Unfortunately it will most likely be a joint effort with the USA, as Russia will also be looking to stake claim, along with any other Arctic country.
    Don't disagree but the emphasis should be on the lay claim not the show force.

    If we simply re instituted many of the programs that ran up into the 80s we would be in great shape.

    Give the airforce the resources to properly patrol and operate in the North, the bases are there, just moth balled.

    Give the Navy and Coast Guard the same

    Improve funding and recruitment to the Northern Rangers and re establish a select few of the Land Bases that could also double as research stations re: Climate and Northern issues.

    This would also improve regualr law enforcement and search/rescue capabilites.

    Stuff we never should have stopped doing and needs to be done by people not satellites and cameras.
    Well, while you state support for laying claim over showing force, all of the ideas you suggested sound more like a show of force (air force, navy, rangers, etc.) instead of making claims. Given that you support claims over force, might I enquire as to what you think we ought do on the claims side of things?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hull534 View Post
    I support deep sea port in Tuktoyaktuk as it would be a good start .
    Do you suggest that because you're hoping that the Mackenzie Pipeline will be built soon, or is your suggestion based on logistical reasons irrespective of the pipeline/related-infrastructure? (And if it's not too nosy of me, why, at 16, did you testify before the Berger Inquiry?) Don't get me wrong; I think the pipeline ought to have been built long ago…it's just that they sure seem to be taking their sweet time at getting around to it.
    I think you are misunderstanding the primary roles of "Canada's" Military.

    Our military is charged with Coastal Patrol which includes search and rescue, fisheries monitoring, law enforcement, environmental monitoring as well as military duties such as submarine patrols etc.

    As such I see equipping them properly and safely to do their job. The bases already in place as I said could be doing double duty as both operational bases and research centres. The Northern Rangers, an all volunteer part time force, made up to the largest extent of the native people of the north need to be a larger force and better equipped.

    Hope that helps you understand my position.

    If I was pro force I would be talking additional fighter bases, submarine bases, armed Ice Breakers and things like that.

    Tom

  12. #12

    Default

    If we were really serious about claiming a stronger foothold in the North, we would aquire nuclear powered submarines, which are the key military technology that can operate in this region for sustained periods. Canada's submarines are really only used to test anti-sumbarine warfare as opposed to being elements of power projection.

    In writting that, nuclear powered submarines would require an enourmous investment, not just in the boats themselves, but also the nuclear infrastructure to maintain them.

  13. #13

    Default

    Depends on what you are trying to do Moa.

    Sweden and several other countries achieve the same presence with Diesel Electrics.

    The goal is to patrol, research and be visible...that don't take a nuke.

    Tom

  14. #14
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,225

    Default

    From what I gather, the countries with the most capable diesels are Japan and Australia. I have read on some of the military affairs websites, the Aussies operate their diesels on 40 to 60 day patrols similar to what the Yanks do with their nukes. Despite their power plants, the limiting factor for nukes is still the amount of consumables they can carry. I imagine crew morale and efficiency may also suffer as the duration of a patrol increases.

    A nuclear power plant offers higher sustained transit speeds as well as virtually unlimited endurance at those speeds and greater range as well. Given the cost of buying and operating nuclear subs, we may be able to achieve similar coverage with more diesels.
    Last edited by norwoodguy; 16-07-2010 at 01:30 AM. Reason: Clarification
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  15. #15
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    772

    Default

    While Submarines are a very expensive option and one that would be years in the delivery if at all possible . Their benefit and presence in the north both would be dubious and costly to support.

    I would reccomend a simpler and quicker plan.

    Purchase a fleet of viking twin otter aircraft with the maritime patrol package and base these in a few of the main arctic communities year round. There is no question about their operability in that environment and they are relatively cheap. They can operate from any strip in the north, They are a highly visible presence , they can closely approach and record any type of marine craft. They can also be used to greatly improve search and rescue in the north. By basing on the ground in the north it will also increase the government military presence and thus strengthen any Sovereignty claim.. This would not be the case with any Halifax based marine options. Remember , Until they finish Nanisivik , there are no deep water ports in our Arctic.

    I would also encourage looking into adapting the current North Warning System , Which all have coastal locations to include monitoring sonar arrays for submarine detection , I think that this could be accomplished "relatively " easily again this would boost presence in the north.

    If we strengthen rather than neglect what we have in place already , we will accomplish our ownership goals and have a solid foundation to build upon.

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by norwoodguy View Post
    From what I gather, the countries with the most capable diesels are Japan and Australia. I have read on some of the military affairs websites, the Aussies operate their diesels on 40 to 60 day patrols similar to what the Yanks do with their nukes. Despite their power plants, the limiting factor for nukes is still the amount of consumables they can carry. I imagine crew morale and efficiency may also suffer as the duration of a patrol increases.

    A nuclear power plant offers higher sustained transit speeds as well as virtually unlimited endurance at those speeds and greater range as well. Given the cost of buying and operating nuclear subs, we may be able to achieve similar coverage with more diesels.
    Naval experts, correct me if I'm wrong: First off, I think the *major* difference is that the nuclear subs can explore for six months underwater, whereas diesel-electrics means combustion means spending as much of their 40 to 60 days of range above water getting air for the generators than below water exploring the seabed.
    Ut libet.

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hull534 View Post
    [a fleet of viking twin otter aircraft … can] closely approach and record any type of marine craft.
    Given that the future of the Arctic lies underwater, it's significant to note that the Otters couldn't spot-detect submersible marine vessels. This is significant given recent military activity in the North: Ice Exercise 2009 with the USS Annapolis and the USS Helena, or Ice Exercise 2007 with HMS Tireless and the USS Alexandria. All four of those vessels are submarines. Nuclear submarines, I might add.

    —Edit—
    I feel as though I should also mention that Russia's controversial flag-planting with Арктика-2007 was done using submersible vessels, too, albeit with surface support-craft.
    Last edited by ut_libet; 16-07-2010 at 10:22 AM.
    Ut libet.

  18. #18

    Default

    ^that is my understanding as well, diesels are good in shallow costal areas, but aren't that well suited to long patrols, open ocean, or under very thick ice. That's where nuclear is in a class of its own.

    As to using otters or similar, I think its more for show than go, the nuke submarines aren't seriously at threat from these aircraft (not to mention that ucav's are eventually going to replace these survellance and anti-sub roles as well). Nothing can match a modern nuclear powered killer sub - just look at the Falklands war where the Argentinains had to send the entire fleet back to base when one of the UK subs torpedoed the flagship (the Belgrano).

    The only thing that can effectivley fight a nuclear sub today, is another nuclear sub, unless Canada buys them one day, we will never have real control of Arctic waters.

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    The only thing that can effectivley fight a nuclear sub today, is another nuclear sub, unless Canada buys them one day, we will never have real control of Arctic waters.
    Well, given how much of the British Navy's submarine fleet is now nuclear, maybe one day Canada will have a nuclear sub.

    *crosses fingers*
    Ut libet.

  20. #20

    Default

    ^the new class they are building looks good, I think it may be politically impossible to ever buy another British sub though (even though it was as much Canada's screw up to leave the subs mothballed for too long due to dithering). It would be great if we could somehow convince the Americans to build some for us. There might be some amazing technology contracts as well for our industry.

  21. #21
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    772

    Default

    Wow ! I guess my view on the Arctic is distinctly from a presence" on the surface" where the people are and the resources will be extracted from.

    I have difficulty with all this mega expensive underwater, showmanship. I would not want to be part of it.

    I earnestly would like to build our Canadian arctic presence to a level it deserves. To dedicate massive southern based resources to underwater adventurism seems wasteful.

    Now , a Northwest Passage Fibre optic cable between Europe and Asia ( and consequently serving the north ) may be an underwater venture to sign up for . Negotiating that route at the international table could be used to solidify our underwater claim.

    I still believe that a marine patrol twin otter dropping sonar arrays ,aided by shore sonar stations would be effective in spotting underwater traffic if required . After all this is more a game of tag than attack. I f we are preparing for a war , we probably will get it.

    As we sit today in Alberta. The sovereignty was asserted in this territory by a Dominion government flying the flag by the NWMP . It was a small but functional force. This was in the face to a country to the south of us who at the time was experienced in battle and expansion minded. I believe we should stay the course and continue to protect our territory , by presence, flag and tenacity as well as developed relationships with the aboriginal people in the territory. It is a formula which works.

  22. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hull534 View Post
    Wow ! I guess my view on the Arctic is distinctly from a presence" on the surface" where the people are and the resources will be extracted from.
    If its just about "show" then sure, that's fine, although no point in your otters, they can't do anything against a deep running sub. The real "ownership" of the Arctic though is below the waters, if we can't contest that, then we can't enforce anything in those future shipping lanes when push comes to shove because our boats will not be able to travel into areas Russia claims if they put a couple of subs in there.

    There has already been some suggestion that if Canada is unable to control submarine access, it by default, does not control the waters, and they are international (or another countries).
    Last edited by moahunter; 16-07-2010 at 11:07 AM.

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hull534 View Post
    While Submarines are a very expensive option and one that would be years in the delivery if at all possible . Their benefit and presence in the north both would be dubious and costly to support.

    I would reccomend a simpler and quicker plan.

    Purchase a fleet of viking twin otter aircraft with the maritime patrol package and base these in a few of the main arctic communities year round. There is no question about their operability in that environment and they are relatively cheap. They can operate from any strip in the north, They are a highly visible presence , they can closely approach and record any type of marine craft. They can also be used to greatly improve search and rescue in the north. By basing on the ground in the north it will also increase the government military presence and thus strengthen any Sovereignty claim.. This would not be the case with any Halifax based marine options. Remember , Until they finish Nanisivik , there are no deep water ports in our Arctic.

    I would also encourage looking into adapting the current North Warning System , Which all have coastal locations to include monitoring sonar arrays for submarine detection , I think that this could be accomplished "relatively " easily again this would boost presence in the north.

    If we strengthen rather than neglect what we have in place already , we will accomplish our ownership goals and have a solid foundation to build upon.
    Hull don't get overwhelmed

    You note i said in my last comments of giving the Military the tools to do the job.

    The Aurora and Arcturus Patrol aircraft have more than once caught and electronically destroyed US nuke subs...even in their own waters, while still carrying out regular maritime patrol, fisheries and search and rescue operations.

    They need updated and some new aircraft to make more and longer patrols possible.

    Your fleet of Twotters is also not only a great deterrent, given the modern shallow water ASW technology and the new lightweight weapons systems, but also add to medivac, search and rescue, fisheries and law enforcement capabilities...multi taking on a budget if you will.

    Yes the Super Powers have nuclear subs....we don't need them, we need to do things that not only enforce our existing border lines by being active but also add important services to our Northern peoples.

    It is possible and not overwhelming financially.

    Tom

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ut_libet View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    The only thing that can effectivley fight a nuclear sub today, is another nuclear sub, unless Canada buys them one day, we will never have real control of Arctic waters.
    Well, given how much of the British Navy's submarine fleet is now nuclear, maybe one day Canada will have a nuclear sub.

    *crosses fingers*
    If you're thinking Canada might purchase one or more, remember the last time we bought some of Britian's junk?
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  25. #25

    Default

    ^I think there are some false of econoimes with the diesel electrics, not to mention those old ones. Canada is currently planning on spending about $35 billion over the coming years to refit the navy. I think if say, $10 billion of that was invested in 3 nuclear powered killer submarines, we would have instant credibility in the arctic, and actually be able to patrol / enforce our waters for the first time since the age of nuclear powered submarines.

    If we could get over those second hand subs, the British Astute Class would probably be more than what we require, the British are going with 4 initially, which will be expanded for a few more:

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

    As unlike the US, the British are not contesting the Arctic, they might be willing to expand the production for us.
    Last edited by moahunter; 16-07-2010 at 11:47 AM.

  26. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by quiksilver View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ut_libet View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    The only thing that can effectivley fight a nuclear sub today, is another nuclear sub, unless Canada buys them one day, we will never have real control of Arctic waters.
    Well, given how much of the British Navy's submarine fleet is now nuclear, maybe one day Canada will have a nuclear sub.

    *crosses fingers*
    If you're thinking Canada might purchase one or more, remember the last time we bought some of Britian's junk?
    quiksilver, please see:
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    it was as much Canada's screw up to leave the subs mothballed for too long due to dithering


    Quote Originally Posted by Hull534 View Post
    Wow ! I guess my view on the Arctic is distinctly from a presence" on the surface" where the people are and the resources will be extracted from.
    This whole article is based on the premise that Arctic water is worth protecting. We already have firmly-established claims on all our land (barring, perhaps, Hans Island). Regardless of how important land is compared to sea, no amount of Arctic posturing by ANY nation is going to result in any differences to land claims (again, besides Hans Island, only up to 0,25 sq. mi. is disputed).

    Anyways, the reason that all the Arctic nations have been getting their panties in a knot is because the Arctic ice is melting… as in, all of us are expecting there to be trillions of dollars in extractable resources currently impeded/inhibited by the ice. As in, the open water will allow for extended drilling, dredging, etc.…
    Ut libet.

  27. #27
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    772

    Default

    If we are mostly concerned by the arctic water rather than the land issues,Perhaps the first best thing to do would be to map it. We do not have good state of the art navigational charts of the region as evidenced last summer of the community supply ship running aground. Before we go running nuclear subs in the region ,we should know where all the rocks are, presently we don't . Over the decades of navigation, we only know for sure where some rocks are not and these routes are the most traveled. I trust that subs would be wanting to break new ground. ( Perhaps Literally !)

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hull534 View Post
    Before we go running nuclear subs in the region ,we should know where all the rocks are, presently we don't .
    I dunno. I think one of the best things about acquiring nuclear subs is that we could use them to do all the mapping; in precise detail, and comparatively quickly. I think the chances of a sub hitting stationary rock is a threat far-surpassed by, let's say, an Otter hitting a flock of Canada Geese. It's a risk that's there, but it's an acceptably low risk given the mission.
    Ut libet.

  29. #29
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    1,036

    Default

    There is always hydrogen subs.....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212_submarine

  30. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ut_libet View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hull534 View Post
    Before we go running nuclear subs in the region ,we should know where all the rocks are, presently we don't .
    I dunno. I think one of the best things about acquiring nuclear subs is that we could use them to do all the mapping; in precise detail, and comparatively quickly. I think the chances of a sub hitting stationary rock is a threat far-surpassed by, let's say, an Otter hitting a flock of Canada Geese. It's a risk that's there, but it's an acceptably low risk given the mission.
    There are multiple ways to do the mapping...

    By air, by surface ships, thermal imaging, satellite etc.etc.


    Considering the multi tasking possible and the additional benefits vs lower expenses (initial and operating) an arctic aircraft fleet are by far the better bargain and the risk factor is ridiculously low.

    If we must move to a submarine it should not be military, it should be a smaller (possibly nuclear) research vessel with support ships specific to the job.

    We have more coast line that almost any other country but have done little to no undersea research....imagine the treasurers to be found (of all kinds)

    Tom

  31. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Your fleet of Twotters is also not only a great deterrent, given the modern shallow water ASW technology and the new lightweight weapons systems, but also add to medivac, search and rescue, fisheries and law enforcement capabilities...multi taking on a budget if you will.
    I've been trying to find some details on ASW for the last hour, but my search capabilities are leaving much to be desired. For instance, can present-day ASW technology even detect a submarine 2km below the surface? Or 3km, for that matter?

    Given how much of our claims lie in Baffin Bay (2+ km deep) and Canada Basin (4 km deep), I think my opinion regarding TwOtters would be highly affected if I knew that they could be equipped with aerial-ASW technology that is effective at that depth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Yes the Super Powers have nuclear subs....we don't need them, we need to do things that not only enforce our existing border lines by being active but also add important services to our Northern peoples.
    Well, while I agree that we need to reinforce our services to the North, I really don't think that our existing (land) border lines need to be reinforced. Nobody is contesting any of our land borders, except as I mentioned above, Hans Island (and only a quarter square mile is to be gained or lost there).
    Ut libet.

  32. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ut_libet View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hull534 View Post
    Before we go running nuclear subs in the region ,we should know where all the rocks are, presently we don't .
    I dunno. I think one of the best things about acquiring nuclear subs is that we could use them to do all the mapping; in precise detail, and comparatively quickly. I think the chances of a sub hitting stationary rock is a threat far-surpassed by, let's say, an Otter hitting a flock of Canada Geese. It's a risk that's there, but it's an acceptably low risk given the mission.
    There are multiple ways to do the mapping...

    By air, by surface ships, thermal imaging, satellite etc.etc.


    Considering the multi tasking possible and the additional benefits vs lower expenses (initial and operating) an arctic aircraft fleet are by far the better bargain and the risk factor is ridiculously low.

    If we must move to a submarine it should not be military, it should be a smaller (possibly nuclear) research vessel with support ships specific to the job.

    We have more coast line that almost any other country but have done little to no undersea research....imagine the treasurers to be found (of all kinds)
    Well, if we're going to be talking about multi-tasking, we should certainly mention the Federal Government's mandate to do Geo-mapping for Energy and Minerals (GEM). I think your solution of non-military submersible research vessels (e.g. bathyscaphes) is the solution at its very minimum, given that the Federal Government is charged with the task of mapping energy and minerals (and of course bathymetry).

    But, it would be my own personal view (and to an extent a cost-effective measure) that we could acquire military submarines whose duty for their first few years of service would be to collect mineral and bathymetric data from the seabed. I think that that way we can improve our navy and gather mineral / metric data with the same dollars.
    Ut libet.

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ut_libet View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Your fleet of Twotters is also not only a great deterrent, given the modern shallow water ASW technology and the new lightweight weapons systems, but also add to medivac, search and rescue, fisheries and law enforcement capabilities...multi taking on a budget if you will.
    I've been trying to find some details on ASW for the last hour, but my search capabilities are leaving much to be desired. For instance, can present-day ASW technology even detect a submarine 2km below the surface? Or 3km, for that matter?

    Given how much of our claims lie in Baffin Bay (2+ km deep) and Canada Basin (4 km deep), I think my opinion regarding TwOtters would be highly affected if I knew that they could be equipped with aerial-ASW technology that is effective at that depth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Yes the Super Powers have nuclear subs....we don't need them, we need to do things that not only enforce our existing border lines by being active but also add important services to our Northern peoples.
    Well, while I agree that we need to reinforce our services to the North, I really don't think that our existing (land) border lines need to be reinforced. Nobody is contesting any of our land borders, except as I mentioned above, Hans Island (and only a quarter square mile is to be gained or lost there).
    I get most of my military info hard copy so I don't have links...that said the current Aurora/Artcturus has, can and does detect at all levels (details remain secret even the US don't know) and can destroy to the same level but it has been proven in various active war games. We just need more and and current updates for the job. While doing its other duties.

    The Twotter would be close in system and do all the other important jobs such as SAR, etc.

    The land bases are more than projecting claim or enforcing them, they are the bases SAR and other capabilities would also operate from as well as research etc.

    They have been needing reactivated for decades! We have reduced our presence so much that we are now seeing the results. So for more than the claims issues and sovereignty stands we need to in the arctic for all the other reasons I have mentioned and the current claims issues.

    We never should have pulled out or reduced what we were doing in the first place.

    Tom

  34. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wrecker View Post
    There is always hydrogen subs.....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212_submarine
    a.k.a. diesel-electric…
    Ut libet.

  35. #35

    Default

    ^there was hope that fuel cells would match nuclear, but it hasn't transpired.

    I don't doubt Canada claims it can detect nuclear submarines and defeat them at all depths (I wouldn't expect otherwise), but the reality I believe is different, the occasional hit in a war game isn't the same as being able to patrol vast distances for long periods, and to passively detect, track, seek and destroy enemies, which is the capability a nuclear submarine would provide.

    Canada seriously looked at nuclear submarines in the past. If we are serious about Arctic sovereignty, this is necessary. Otherwise, we are just seeding the waters to the U.S. and Russia.

  36. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    I get most of my military info hard copy so I don't have links...that said the current Aurora/Artcturus has, can and does detect at all levels (details remain secret even the US don't know) and can destroy to the same level but it has been proven in various active war games. We just need more and and current updates for the job. While doing its other duties.
    Can I presume that your military info is reliable (do you work with gov't/military or something)? If aerial detection at 4km depth is actually feasible, then I suppose TwOtters could be a reasonable solution for the short term.

    But if we're going to be claiming the Arctic for ourselves, we still would need some sort of bathyscaphes to do mineral exploration to see what it is we're actually claiming to be ours.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    The Twotter would be close in system and do all the other important jobs such as SAR, etc.

    The land bases are more than projecting claim or enforcing them, they are the bases SAR and other capabilities would also operate from as well as research etc.

    They have been needing reactivated for decades! We have reduced our presence so much that we are now seeing the results. So for more than the claims issues and sovereignty stands we need to in the arctic for all the other reasons I have mentioned and the current claims issues.

    We never should have pulled out or reduced what we were doing in the first place.
    I couldn't agree more, that we should have stayed in the Arctic. And don't get me going on replacing manned CF-105s with BOMARCs. But I'd like to clarify: do you refer to SAR as Search-and-Rescue, or as Synthetic Aperture Radar?

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^there was hope that fuel cells would match nuclear, but it hasn't transpired.
    Definitely. The article says that that sub can't go more than three weeks without surfacing. And as is stated above, nuclear can go for six months. Three weeks, compared to six months.

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Otherwise, we are just seeding the waters to the U.S. and Russia.
    Do you perhaps mean 'ceding', or am I just misunderstanding what you're saying?
    Last edited by ut_libet; 16-07-2010 at 01:38 PM.
    Ut libet.

  37. #37

    Default

    ^yeah ceding

  38. #38
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    772

    Default

    A question further all about these submarines , If we found an nuclear submarine in our waters that presumably was from some unknown country . Would we want to destroy it in our waters ? sounds like we would create ourselves a hell of a mess and if not instantly then a huge liability going forward , not a lot to protect after that.

    Sovereignty is almost intrinsically related to flying the flag , staking a claim so to speak. How does secretly and unidentified skulking around in the depths support this?

    If by some odd chance we should go and build up this way , I do have a suggestion for the names of the first two submarines based upon an arctic heritage and certainly an underwater component and as sound planning , How about The HMCS Erebus and The HMCS Terror ?

  39. #39

    Default

    "Can I presume that your military info is reliable (do you work with gov't/military or something)? If aerial detection at 4km depth is actually feasible, then I suppose TwOtters could be a reasonable solution for the short term."

    Not with the gov't but an avid reader of all things military and don't like to do my reading on the internet. My background is also related and have extensive contacts through out.

    BTW...you guys do realize that there are no current Combat submarines that can actually operate below about 1.5km? Doesn't matter how deep it is if the overall capability is limited.

    "But if we're going to be claiming the Arctic for ourselves, we still would need some sort of bathyscaphes to do mineral exploration to see what it is we're actually claiming to be ours."

    I agree and we have some of the best undersea tech in the world right on the West Coast...shame we don't use it but hey they are doing well selling it around the world.

    A research capability makes sense for the long term and applies to all our coasts, the benefits will go far beyond just borders.

    "I couldn't agree more, that we should have stayed in the Arctic. And don't get me going on replacing manned CF-105s with BOMARCs. But I'd like to clarify: do you refer to SAR as Search-and-Rescue, or as Synthetic Aperture Radar?"

    Staying in the Arctic is also about much more than borders...there is so much we don't know and so much we could do that its now catch up time.

    I was referring to Search and Rescue.

    "A question further all about these submarines , If we found an nuclear submarine in our waters that presumably was from some unknown country . Would we want to destroy it in our waters ? sounds like we would create ourselves a hell of a mess and if not instantly then a huge liability going forward , not a lot to protect after that."

    Unless it as a terrorist or combat situation where there was no other choice just detecting and making their presence public achieves the goal...we coulda got ya if we wanted to...thats the test, same happens regularly in the air around our continent.

    Key is detecting.

    "Sovereignty is almost intrinsically related to flying the flag , staking a claim so to speak."

    Exactly, but taking care of ALL Canadians is also a duty and understanding our lands is also very important...even if it just to conserve them for the future generations.

    "How does secretly and unidentified skulking around in the depths support this?"

    It doesn't...that is for active combat or interdiction.

    My 2 bits

    Tom

  40. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hull534 View Post
    A question further all about these submarines , If we found an nuclear submarine in our waters that presumably was from some unknown country . Would we want to destroy it in our waters ? sounds like we would create ourselves a hell of a mess and if not instantly then a huge liability going forward , not a lot to protect after that.
    I'm no historian, but I think history would disagree with you.

    Several times has the Canadian Arctic been subject to the presence of foreign forces. I mean, as recently as February 2009, Russian Tupolev bombers encroached on Canadian airspace and had to be diverted by Canadian CF-18s. The Cold War's been over for two decades, but we still face pressure from our Second-World "friends." (I'd hate to think what China's cooking up).

    Just because bombers contain nuclear warheads doesn't mean that when we divert them we leave "a hell of a mess."

    Likewise, just because we could discover nuclear submarines and divert them doesn't mean we'd leave "a hell of a mess."

    Basically, what Tom said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Unless it as a terrorist or combat situation where there was no other choice just detecting and making their presence public achieves the goal...we coulda got ya if we wanted to...thats the test, same happens regularly in the air around our continent.

    Key is detecting.
    Country-to-country engagements are still based on centuries-old traditions regarding the "rules" of War.

    cf. Cuban Missile Crisis, and why it was so risky for the US to blockade Cuba.
    cf. recent Israeli Gaza Flotilla Raid, and why law scholars (including those at U of A) say Israel could rightfully have sunk every last vessel with civilians on board



    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    BTW...you guys do realize that there are no current Combat submarines that can actually operate below about 1.5km? Doesn't matter how deep it is if the overall capability is limited.
    Very true. But the technology exists to go to 4km. I honestly wouldn't put it past the Chinese to develop a 2+ km hunter submarine, if they aren't doing so already.

    But, I guess what you've brought up suggests that, in the short term, we can emphasise multi-use tools like Otters for the detection of foreign military.
    Last edited by ut_libet; 16-07-2010 at 03:26 PM.
    Ut libet.

  41. #41

    Default

    "Very true. But the technology exists to go to 4km. I honestly wouldn't put it past the Chinese to develop a 2+ km hunter submarine, if they aren't doing so already."

    The technology exists...for research vehicles to several times that depth, small cramped with limited loads and only 2-4 personnel.

    Combat submarines are dozens of times larger and as you scale up the technological difficulty in building them becomes dramatic...now add the up to several hundred personnel, equipment etc and for the moment I believe you will find a technological impossibility.

    The deepest diving Combat submarines I believe are currently still the Russian (Soviet) subs. They could make about 1500 feet. To do it all the assembly welding was done in a huge vacuum chamber to avoid weld contamination and the metal forming and forging processes were as complex.

    The USA's Electric Boat company still builds in open atmosphere to my knowledge and thats one of the reasons the US boats could not go as deep.

    When you double the depth to 3000 feet the pressure load actually cubes as I recall...there is a materials and technology leap required to make that jump as I see it for a combat boat.

    "But, I guess what you've brought up suggests that, in the short term, we can emphasise multi-use tools like Otters for the detection of foreign military."

    Don't forget the Aurora/Arturus its a big part of the equation with its superior range, detection and other capabilities, plus its ability to multi task as well.

    We need to look beyond just the border/claims squabble and at what we really need to be doing in the Arctic.

    Tom

  42. #42
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,225

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    I don't doubt Canada claims it can detect nuclear submarines and defeat them at all depths (I wouldn't expect otherwise), but the reality I believe is different, the occasional hit in a war game isn't the same as being able to patrol vast distances for long periods, and to passively detect, track, seek and destroy enemies, which is the capability a nuclear submarine would provide.

    Canada seriously looked at nuclear submarines in the past. If we are serious about Arctic sovereignty, this is necessary. Otherwise, we are just seeding the waters to the U.S. and Russia.
    The reality is that the Americans have considered the Arctic to be their "lake" from a subsurface operational point of view and have operated in those waters for a very long time. During the Cold War, the Soviets parked their SSBNs under the ice pack as well along with their SSN escorts.

    Undersea warfare being what it is, it requires an awful lot of resources to deny let alone control such a vast area of water. Subs are a useful surveillance platform but their greatest usefulness is against other submarines. Broad Area Maritime Surveillance is probably best conducted with long duration airborne platforms (including lighter than air vehicles) and undersea listening sensors (like SOSUS in the Atlantic).

    I am for having a Canadian submarine presence in the Arctic but at best it is a symbolic one as much as anything else although a necessary one in my opinion. I don't think we need to spend tons of money on it though.
    Last edited by norwoodguy; 16-07-2010 at 04:52 PM.
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  43. #43

    Default

    "(including lighter than air vehicles)"

    Interesting thought...and one that has bounced around everywhere for a long time.
    What may make it more practical are the recent developments in Calgary with the Boeing Prototype program underway there.

    Weather is still the largest significant problem with LTA, one that unless there is sufficient peed and range can be deadly. But the idea itself is fine and proven, it also lends well to other uses such as SAR, fisheries and law enforcement as well as research.

    " (like SOSUS in the Atlantic)"

    And Pacific from stuff I have recently read and could be implemented with undersea research happening at the same time...good thought.

    Considering the expense and limited use I would disagree on a military submarine presence though.

    Tom

  44. #44

    Default

    Canada should definitely start getting lawyers that are experts in Marine Law.
    Get our territorial and international waters defined before the NW Passage is completely ice free.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  45. #45
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,225

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Canada should definitely start getting lawyers that are experts in Marine Law.
    Get our territorial and international waters defined before the NW Passage is completely ice free.
    I'm afraid there might not be much we can do about navigation through our Arctic waters. The UN charter on the Law of the Sea has a Freedom of Navigation Clause. See this ARTICLE.

    "What is of political importance, particularly from a Canadian perspective, is the Freedom of Navigation clause which states that “the world community’s interest in the freedom of navigation will be facilitated by the important compromises on the status of the exclusive economic zone, by the régime of innocent passage through the territorial sea, by the régime of transit passage through straits used for international navigation and by the régime archipelagic sea-lahttp://www.digitaljournal.com/article/265204nes passage.

    Cutting through the jargon, this means that in straights or waterways of widespread, international use, the straight or waterway must remain open for widespread, international use (as with the Panama or Suez Canal)."


    Aside from the various canals, a significant precedent already exists in geographic areas such as the Strait of Malacca in Indonesia through which a significant portion of the world's cargo traffic flows. The US has long considered it a right to use the Northwest Passage for navigation. In 1969, the American oil tanker Manhattan made its way through the passage amidst some controversy.
    Last edited by norwoodguy; 17-07-2010 at 10:23 PM. Reason: typo
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  46. #46
    In Guantanamo (Banned)
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,064

    Default

    Meaningless sovereignty over unusable land. Who cares.

  47. #47

    Default

    ^some thought that way after Russia swooped in and took the Sakhalin islands in the last days of WWII - nobody feels that way now (contain a big chunk of Russia's oil wealth, a commodity resource poor Japan does not have).

    Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and economic liberalization, Sakhalin has experienced an oil boom with extensive petroleum exploration and mining by most large oil multinational corporations. The oil and natural gas reserves contain an estimated 14 billion barrels (2.2 km³) of oil and 96 trillion cubic feet (2,700 km³) of gas and are being developed under production-sharing agreement contracts involving international oil companies like ExxonMobil and Shell.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakhalin

  48. #48
    In Guantanamo (Banned)
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,064

    Default

    ^Sakhalin had been Russian before 1905, and was shared in between.

    Also, Sakhalin is at least accessible by sea.

    Ellesmere island? Come on now.

  49. #49

    Default

    ^it is still disputed, hundreds of thousands of Japanese were eventually removed from the island following the occupation at the end WWII. My point is that in the future, disputes over Arctic sea rights will be every bit as important, the Sakhalin islands are the number one spot for international investment into Russia today. In a similar way, arctic waters are projected to be the number 1 new resource for oil in the future, not to mention the importance of future shipping lanes if the earth is warming.

    August 1945, according to Yalta Conference agreements, the Soviet Union took over the control of Sakhalin. The Soviet Union attack on South Sakhalin was part of the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation and started on 11 August 1945, four days before the Surrender of Japan and after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The 56th Rifle Corps consisting of the 79th Rifle Division, the 2nd Rifle Brigade, the 5th Rifle Brigade and the 214 Armored Brigade attacked the Japanese 88th Division. Although the Red Army outnumbered the Japanese by a factor of three, they were unable to advance due to strong Japanese resistance. Japan had a strong presence here, and developed much infrastructure.

    It was not until the 113th Rifle Brigade and the 365th Independent Naval Infantry Rifle Battalion from Sovetskaya Gavan landed at Tōro (塔路?), a seashore village of western Sakhalin on 16 August, that the Soviets broke the Japanese defence line. Japanese resistance grew weaker after this landing. Actual fighting, mostly petty skirmishes, continued until 21 August. From 22 August to 23 August, most of the remaining Japanese units announced a truce. The Soviets completed the conquest of Sakhalin on 25 August 1945 by occupying the capital, Toyohara. Japanese sources claim that 20,000 civilians were killed during the invasion[citation needed].

    Out of some 448,000 Japanese residents of South Sakhalin that lived there in 1944, a significant number were evacuated to Japan during the last days of the war, but the remaining 300,000 or so stayed behind for several more years.[11] While the predominant majority of Sakhalin Japanese were eventually evacuated to Japan in 1946–1950, tens of thousands of Sakhalin Koreans (and a number of their Japanese spouses) remained in the Soviet Union.

    No final peace treaty has been signed and the status of four neighboring islands remains disputed. Japan renounced its claims of sovereignty over southern Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands in the Treaty of San Francisco (1951), but claims that four islands currently administered by Russia were not subject to this renunciation. Japan has granted mutual exchange visas for Japanese and Ainu families divided by the change in status. Recently, economic and political cooperation has gradually improved between the two nations despite disagreements.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakhalin

    I'd rather Canada maintain some regulations and rules over as much of the Arctic as possible (not to mention future royalties), while our environmental record may not be stellar, the record of the Russians, if they claim most of the waters, is abysmal.
    Last edited by moahunter; 20-07-2010 at 09:44 AM. Reason: missed a "not"

  50. #50
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    1,036

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by abaka View Post
    Meaningless sovereignty over unusable land. Who cares.
    That is what the Russians must have thought when they sold the Americans Alaska.

  51. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by norwoodguy View Post
    Cutting through the jargon, this means that in straights or waterways of widespread, international use, the straight or waterway must remain open for widespread, international use (as with the Panama or Suez Canal)."
    Well, the Panama and Suez Canals generate billions of dollars for Panama and Egypt. If we maintain sovereignty over the Arctic, might we be able to do the same…?

    I'll note that Euro-to-East-Asian and Euro-to-American flights already supplement NavCanada with millions of dollars in transit fees, because we control so much of the Arctic and Atlantic.
    Ut libet.

  52. #52
    In Guantanamo (Banned)
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,064

    Default

    Look, if you claim sovereignty, you have to defend it. With subs, shipping, surface stations, the works.

    All fine if the defence perimeter is south of the North-West passage.

    But the islands to the north.... who cares? Scared of the damn Russians (or Americans) getting them? Let them. Let them spend the money defending barely accessible arctic tundra or worse.

    it's not as though anything in Canada will change, outside a few people's standard nightmares.

    PS. I've met (Russian) people whose relatives did part of the kicking-out in Sakhalin after 1945. And my wife's Japanese. No, Sakhalin's not disputed (unlike the Kurile islands), except by blowhard Japanese rightwingers who want to proclaim the emperor's divinity.

    PPS. And, by the way, the renewed Canadian sovereignty push just means that Harper and his fellow liars know what their supporters won't admit: the climate's warming, the ice is melting, the bad guys are looking to grab. Well, let them grab.
    Last edited by abaka; 20-07-2010 at 02:26 PM.

  53. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by abaka View Post
    But the islands to the north.... who cares? Scared of the damn Russians (or Americans) getting them? Let them. Let them spend the money defending barely accessible arctic tundra or worse.
    What I'm hearing from you is, "Oh, that land is barely accessible, and consists of tundra."

    You sound like the Russians of 1859-1867.
    Ut libet.

  54. #54
    In Guantanamo (Banned)
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,064

    Default

    ^Damn right. And, let's face it, with the average neo-Canadian's inability to pay taxes, that land will remain gravel as long as it's so-called Canadian.

  55. #55
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,225

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by abaka View Post
    Look, if you claim sovereignty, you have to defend it. With subs, shipping, surface stations, the works.

    All fine if the defence perimeter is south of the North-West passage.
    Canada already has a permanent military base on the north eastern tip of Ellesmere Island, CFS Alert.
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  56. #56

    Default

    It's not just the deep waters, the Continental Shelf needs to be defined.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  57. #57

    Cool

    It’s just a matter of time until we loose “control” (hahaha) to a big chunk of 'our' arctic. (Just note in today's story below that is says “recently”. Pretty much says it all. )

    Also note that when I copied the text, the font came up as Georgia.


    Vessels from Russia’s northern fleet part of effort to establish Arctic base

    excerpt:
    "Six vessels from Russia’s Northern Fleet recently set sail for the New Siberian Islands on Saturday to establish a permanent Arctic base there, according to RIA Novosti. The flotilla, which will be escorted by several nuclear icebreakers, is comprised of the amphibious landing ships St George and Kondopoga, the anti-submarine warfare ship Admiral Levchenko, the tanker Sergey Osipov, and two smaller support vessels.”…

    "The permanent base in the New Siberian Islands is part of Moscow’s plan to establish a network of bases to support the Northern Sea Route and defend Russia’s interests in the Arctic.”

    http://ottawacitizen.com/news/nation...sh-arctic-base



    Here's the original source per the article above (click on it at your own risk)

    http://en.ria.ru/russia/20140907/192...aval-Base.html

  58. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ut_libet View Post
    Sorry, Tom, I seemed to have missed your post when I was writing mine above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Komrade View Post
    We need to go in there and show force and lay claim.

    Unfortunately it will most likely be a joint effort with the USA, as Russia will also be looking to stake claim, along with any other Arctic country.
    Don't disagree but the emphasis should be on the lay claim not the show force.

    If we simply re instituted many of the programs that ran up into the 80s we would be in great shape.

    Give the airforce the resources to properly patrol and operate in the North, the bases are there, just moth balled.

    Give the Navy and Coast Guard the same

    Improve funding and recruitment to the Northern Rangers and re establish a select few of the Land Bases that could also double as research stations re: Climate and Northern issues.

    This would also improve regualr law enforcement and search/rescue capabilites.

    Stuff we never should have stopped doing and needs to be done by people not satellites and cameras.
    Well, while you state support for laying claim over showing force, all of the ideas you suggested sound more like a show of force (air force, navy, rangers, etc.) instead of making claims. Given that you support claims over force, might I enquire as to what you think we ought do on the claims side of things?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hull534 View Post
    I support deep sea port in Tuktoyaktuk as it would be a good start .
    Do you suggest that because you're hoping that the Mackenzie Pipeline will be built soon, or is your suggestion based on logistical reasons irrespective of the pipeline/related-infrastructure? (And if it's not too nosy of me, why, at 16, did you testify before the Berger Inquiry?) Don't get me wrong; I think the pipeline ought to have been built long ago…it's just that they sure seem to be taking their sweet time at getting around to it.
    I think you are misunderstanding the primary roles of "Canada's" Military.

    Our military is charged with Coastal Patrol which includes search and rescue, fisheries monitoring, law enforcement, environmental monitoring as well as military duties such as submarine patrols etc.

    As such I see equipping them properly and safely to do their job. The bases already in place as I said could be doing double duty as both operational bases and research centres. The Northern Rangers, an all volunteer part time force, made up to the largest extent of the native people of the north need to be a larger force and better equipped.

    Hope that helps you understand my position.

    If I was pro force I would be talking additional fighter bases, submarine bases, armed Ice Breakers and things like that.

    Tom
    Gosh, same issues persist for years. How on earth could we pay for this all? Higher taxes maybe? Say, like raising the GST a couple percent? ...but then we couldn't afford the economic sustainability that imports of low margin products like big screen TVs, smart phones, etc. generate for us all. Yes, such products are net exports of significant chunks of our personal wealth, but maybe 0.5% of the purchase prices stay here to do wonders for our economy.


    I'm back. Over 1800 posts here (and I too think a lot more about smartphone issues than sovereignty issues):

    The All Inclusive Smart Phone War - formerly iPhone or Blackberry
    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...=19834&page=19
    Last edited by KC; 10-09-2014 at 02:32 PM.

  59. #59
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    It’s just a matter of time until we loose “control” (hahaha) to a big chunk of 'our' arctic. ...
    Except there is currently no area where Russia or anybody else is disputing Canada's arctic seabed or land claims. The only real dispute in the Canadian arctic is over the status of the waterways which Canada considers internal and pretty much everybody else considers international waters for purposes of shipping.

    I think the idea that there is some big threat to Canadian sovereignty in the arctic is something Harper is obsessed with but doesn't have that much to do with actual Law of the Sea.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  60. #60

    Default

    ^I think the issues surround whether or not Canada will control the northern passage if it ever becomes more viable, and also drilling rights (although an expensive place to drill, especially given all the shale oil all over the place now). Some of the islands in the arctic could have valuable resources as well.

  61. #61

    Default

    I don't think a country that borders the artic can just state they have sovereignty to it.
    Doesn't it have to be mapped, the continental shelf's has to be assets. The continent does not just end on land, it stretches out a long way under water/ice. I thought Canada was actively working on these continental boundaries.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  62. #62
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^I think the issues surround whether or not Canada will control the northern passage if it ever becomes more viable, and also drilling rights (although an expensive place to drill, especially given all the shale oil all over the place now). Some of the islands in the arctic could have valuable resources as well.
    I do not believe there are any major disputes over seabed rights as all the major players have made their claims under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and working through the established process.



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territo..._in_the_Arctic

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  63. #63

    Default

    ^
    Sought by explorers for centuries as a possible trade route, it was first navigated by Roald Amundsen in 1903–1906. Until 2009, the Arctic pack ice prevented regular marine shipping throughout most of the year, but climate change has reduced the pack ice, and this Arctic shrinkage made the waterways more navigable.[6][7][8][9] However, the contested sovereignty claims over the waters may complicate future shipping through the region: The Canadian government considers the Northwestern Passages part of Canadian Internal Waters,[10] but the United States and various European countries maintain they are an international strait and transit passage, allowing free and unencumbered passage.[11][12] If, as has been claimed, parts of the eastern end of the Passage are barely 15 metres (49 ft) deep,[13] the route's viability as a Euro-Asian shipping route is reduced.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage

  64. #64
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^
    Sought by explorers for centuries as a possible trade route, it was first navigated by Roald Amundsen in 1903–1906. Until 2009, the Arctic pack ice prevented regular marine shipping throughout most of the year, but climate change has reduced the pack ice, and this Arctic shrinkage made the waterways more navigable.[6][7][8][9] However, the contested sovereignty claims over the waters may complicate future shipping through the region: The Canadian government considers the Northwestern Passages part of Canadian Internal Waters,[10] but the United States and various European countries maintain they are an international strait and transit passage, allowing free and unencumbered passage.[11][12] If, as has been claimed, parts of the eastern end of the Passage are barely 15 metres (49 ft) deep,[13] the route's viability as a Euro-Asian shipping route is reduced.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage
    And as I said in my own post:

    The only real dispute in the Canadian arctic is over the status of the waterways which Canada considers internal and pretty much everybody else considers international waters for purposes of shipping.
    Note, the dispute is over passage not seabed. It has nothing to do with rights over the islands or over resource exploitation. The islands are all Canada's as is the seabed out 200 miles. The area to the pole is being negotiated but there are no major disputes there.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  65. #65
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,799

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    I do not believe there are any major disputes over seabed rights as all the major players have made their claims under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and working through the established process.



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territo..._in_the_Arctic
    Well actually, isn't there a dispute between the US and Canada over the border in the Beaufort sea?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaufor...Border_dispute

    Not sure if 21,000 square kilometers is considered a "major dispute" or not. I'm sure it'll get figured out amicably at some point.

  66. #66
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,573

    Default

    That one is in interesting especially since there hasn't been any word on the dispute since 2011. In 2010 a wrinkle arose in that with the negotiations over extending rights beyond the 200 mile line Canada would benefit from the U.S. assertion that the boundary is based on the equidistant line.

    http://www.canada.com/technology/Can...672/story.html

    http://byers.typepad.com/.a/6a00e553...80fac94970c-pi

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  67. #67
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,472

    Default

    ^^ If history is any indication, we will lose most or all of it, on both sides of the 200 mile line. We lost land when the 49th parallel replaced the height of land between the Mississippi and Saskatchewan drainages as the southern border, we lost the "northwest angle" after a line was drawn on an inaccurate map, we lost half of the gulf islands when the Haro vs. Rosario strait dispute was resolved, we lost the Alaska panhandle dispute.

  68. #68
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    2,064

    Default

    /\All of which point to the importance of Harper's program of asserting our sovereignty.

  69. #69

    Default

    A deep water port in either Iqualit or Churchill, if you cannot park ships up there we may as well concede the northern part of our country.

  70. #70
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,573

    Default

    Not to but too fine a point on it, but that's a load of [redacted].

    There is no sovereignty dispute over the Canadian Arctic Archipelago land or seabed. We have a dispute over the status of the waterways as to whether they are internal waters (a shaky claim at best) or not. My reading is that it's reasonable they be considered territorial waters:

    "The territorial sea is regarded as the sovereign territory of the state, although foreign ships (both military and civilian) are allowed innocent passage through it; this sovereignty also extends to the airspace over and seabed below."

    Probably what we should be doing, rather than grandstanding, is working on agreements to establish status as an international waterway along the lines of the Danish Straits or the Bosporus. Either way it's important to note this issue does not in any way affect ownership of resources in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago.

    As for the one area where we do have a dispute, in the Beaufort Sea I'm not sure how building deep water ports on the other side of the continent is going to help our case.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  71. #71
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    2,064

    Default

    /\/\Churchill is already a port.
    I remember reading about one of the more interesting ways Canada asserts sovereignty. There is a judge who has been performing marriage ceremonies on remote arctic islands, demonstrating that Canadian law has jurisdiction.
    The details are sketchy as it was quite a while ago that I read about it. I just thought it was a really cool idea.

  72. #72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ralph60 View Post
    /\/\Churchill is already a port.
    I remember reading about one of the more interesting ways Canada asserts sovereignty. There is a judge who has been performing marriage ceremonies on remote arctic islands, demonstrating that Canadian law has jurisdiction.
    The details are sketchy as it was quite a while ago that I read about it. I just thought it was a really cool idea.
    Now if we got up there and cleaned up some of the trash it would be absolute proof that it's ours. No one cleans up trash that isn't in there own backyard.

  73. #73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Now if we got up there and cleaned up some of the trash it would be absolute proof that it's ours. No one cleans up trash that isn't in there own backyard.
    Actually we have done that with most of the refuse from the Second World War, DEW line, Pine tree line and Mid Canada line having been removed in the 80s/90s.

    Our Northern environmental standards are some of the highest as I understand from the folks I know that worked on the reclamation projects.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  74. #74
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,573

    Default

    I'm still unclear on what land up we need to prove is ours? The entire area of the archipelago is part of Canada. The only major dispute seems to be whether the sea lanes are considered internal waters or territorial waters.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  75. #75
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    Well, when even Denmark is posturing, they say things are to be gained.

    I don't get it either.

  76. #76

    Default

    The Swedish Waters article below is quite interesting as it might be an indicator of things to come in the arctic...


    Russia prepares for ice-cold war with show of military force in the Arctic

    "Vladimir Putin sends troops and jets to oil- and gas-rich region also coveted by Canada, United States, Norway and Denmark"

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-oil-gas-putin


    The 'Russian Submarine' in Swedish Waters Isn't the Only Unwelcome Visitor in the Baltic Sea
    By Elisabeth Braw / October 21, 2014
    excerpt:
    "In 2010, only one Russian military vessel was spotted close to Latvian waters. This year, the figure has already exceeded 40, Latvia’s ministry of defence says. During the same period, the number of Russian military approaches to Latvian airspace resulting in scrambles by Nato’s Baltic air policing mission has skyrocketed from around five to more than 180. Neighbouring Lithuania has already seen 132 scrambles this year, up from four in 2010"...

    http://www.newsweek.com/2014/10/31/d...cs-278694.html

  77. #77
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,573

    Default

    Russia's military buildup and activities is concerning.

    This quote was interesting and I think applies to Harper's arctic push over the last few years as well:

    “The only justification can be the will, yet again, to unite the Russian people in the face of an enemy on the outside who is supposedly trying to take ‘our’ Arctic, despite there being no threat. It’s a drill ground on which Russia can flex its muscles, and more a matter of world politics than economics.”

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  78. #78

    Default

    Harper speaking...
    (maybe I should have posted this in that endless fighter jet debate thread. )


    Russia warns it's coming for the Arctic's oil, including an area Canada claims as its own
    OCTOBER 31, 2014

    http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Ru...082/story.html

  79. #79
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Harper speaking...
    (maybe I should have posted this in that endless fighter jet debate thread. )


    Russia warns it's coming for the Arctic's oil, including an area Canada claims as its own
    OCTOBER 31, 2014

    http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Ru...082/story.html
    The headline and the speech don't agree. Nowhere in the audio does Harper say Russia is trying to claim arctic oil in Canadian claimed territory. He does say Russia has been flying more air military missions over the arctic requiring Canadian response.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  80. #80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Harper speaking...
    (maybe I should have posted this in that endless fighter jet debate thread. )


    Russia warns it's coming for the Arctic's oil, including an area Canada claims as its own
    OCTOBER 31, 2014

    http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Ru...082/story.html
    The headline and the speech don't agree. Nowhere in the audio does Harper say Russia is trying to claim arctic oil in Canadian claimed territory. He does say Russia has been flying more air military missions over the arctic requiring Canadian response.

    Yeah I know, it suckered me in too. No surprise, since the source = Calgary Herald

  81. #81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    The 'Russian Submarine' in Swedish Waters Isn't the Only Unwelcome Visitor in the Baltic Sea
    By Elisabeth Braw / October 21, 2014
    excerpt:
    "In 2010, only one Russian military vessel was spotted close to Latvian waters. This year, the figure has already exceeded 40, Latvia’s ministry of defence says. During the same period, the number of Russian military approaches to Latvian airspace resulting in scrambles by Nato’s Baltic air policing mission has skyrocketed from around five to more than 180. Neighbouring Lithuania has already seen 132 scrambles this year, up from four in 2010"...

    http://www.newsweek.com/2014/10/31/d...cs-278694.html
    I've been following this one a bit. Sweden has traditionally been a "friend" of NATO, but they simply haven't been keeping up their military technology. I wonder if Sweden might be forced to join NATO if this carries on for much longer, they are falling behind, and Russia is making them look stupid. There were also reports Russia "simulated" a nuclear attack on Sweden, and has been flying into their territory pretty much uncontested.

  82. #82
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,573

    Default

    Well then it appears the troublesome arctic claim won't be from Russia but from Denmark. They have just filed claim to the entire Lomonosov Ridge stretching across the pole and almost to Russia. It's an interesting claim and technically, not unreasonable if they can demonstrate the ridge is an extension of their continental shelf. Of course both Canada and Russia have made that assertion as well but both limited their claims to their own side of the pole.

    http://www.economist.com/news/intern...fsrc=rss%7Cint

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  83. #83

    Default

    ^That's an interesting article.

    A couple more articles on it.

    A new cold war: Denmark gets aggressive, stakes huge claim in Race for the Arctic
    Tristin Hopper, December 15, 2014

    excerpt:

    "For years, the Race for the Arctic had promised to be one of the most gentlemanly land grabs in history: Using only science and a whiff of diplomacy, the oil-rich Arctic Ocean could be peacefully divvied up between Russia, Canada, the United States and Europe.

    That is, until the tiny nation of Denmark approached the United Nations on Monday with a staggering claim to nearly one third of the total prize — including the North Pole. ..."


    http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/12...#__federated=1


    source: http://wpmedia.news.nationalpost.com...ctic-claim.jpg

    Denmark makes 'provocative' Arctic claim
    Published: 15 Dec 2014, The Local Europe AB

    excerpt:

    "...Denmark’s claim to the Arctic seabed is the result of 12 years of planning and, according to Politiken, 330 million kroner ($55.2 million) spent on research.

    States are entitled to claim the continental shelf extending to 200 nautical miles from their coast. According to the Foreign Ministry, the new area north of Greenland is the fifth claim Denmark has made for a continental shelf that extends behind the 200 nautical mile mark. The first submission was made in April 2009, with subsequent claims coming in December 2010, June 2012 and November 2013. Those previous claims are currently under consideration, so the Foreign Ministry said “it is therefore difficult to predict” when the new submission will be considered. Politiken reports that the process could take up to 15 years.

    Although both Canada and Russia have also made claims to the area over the years, Lidegaard said that Denmark has had “very good cooperation” with its “Arctic neighbours”.

    “This is not an aggressive action. It is an attempt to honestly and accurately present geological data,” he told Politiken. ..."


    http://um.dk/en/~/media/UM/English-s...nsokkel_uk.jpg

    http://www.thelocal.dk/20141215/denm...e-arctic-claim
    Last edited by KC; 17-12-2014 at 01:31 PM.

  84. #84
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,573

    Default

    It's an interesting claim to say the least. Based on this really large NatGeo map image I think there will be cause to dispute their claim:

    https://natgeoeducationblog.files.wo...-political.jpg

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  85. #85

    Default

    I figure that it's just not all that important to us, or we'd already have a greater presence there.

    [quote]

    China used research mission to test trade route through Canada’s Northwest Passage - The Globe and Mail
    ROBERT FIFE AND STEVEN CHASE, OTTAWA
    SEPTEMBER 10, 2017

    Excerpt:

    "China's official government news agency says Beijing used a scientific icebreaker voyage through Canada's Northwest Passage to test the viability of sailing Chinese cargo ships through the environmentally fragile route that links the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

    Xinhua News Agency, often used to deliver messages on behalf of the Chinese state, lauded the Sept. 6 completion of the first-ever Chinese voyage through the Arctic waterway, saying the Snow Dragon icebreaker "accumulated a wealth of experience for Chinese ships going through the Northwest Passage in the future."

    Beijing's state news agency said the Arctic route through Canadian waters can reduce the delivery time for Chinese cargo ships by 20 per cent. ..."

    "Prof. Huebert, who teaches at the University of Calgary's Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, said he is not convinced the Canadian government is prepared to handle large-scale Chinese shipping through this waterway and to ensure China respects the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act.

    Environmentalists have expressed concern over the risks of increased ship traffic in the pristine Arctic, such as oil spills and sooty emissions.

    "We need to get the Arctic patrol vessels built. We need to get the Coast Guard better funded and we need the facilities for better surveillance and enforcement capability," Prof Huebert said. ..."

    https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/new...service=mobile
    Last edited by KC; 15-09-2017 at 11:04 AM.

  86. #86

    Default

    Why Russia is sending robotic submarines to the Arctic

    http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2017...-to-the-arctic

  87. #87

    Default

    Russia and China vie to beat the US in the trillion-dollar race to control the Arctic
    Clay Dillow | @cwdillow Published 7:33 AM ET Tue, 6 Feb 2018

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/06/russ...ol-arctic.html

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •