Canada's sovereignty over the Arctic


EastSideScotian
#1
Now Iam not sure if this was a Topic Already, i did a search and came up with nothing.

Harpers Government, has a plan to start to protect Canadas Interest in the Arctic, which is part of Canada.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/natio...ic-mackay.html
In this link it talks about the melting Ice flows, which would allow other countrys to start useing the NORTHWEST PASSAGE, as a shipping route, which would definatly impede on our Sovereignty.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/New_Cana...Arctic_Passage
Harper wants to arm the Northwest passage with 3 armed ice breakers, I also saw on CBC national last night that he wants to set up an artic warfare training camp and a base with air and Navl and Ground capabilitys.

I feel this is one of the best deals to come out of this Government, noone else before this Government has really done anything to whatch our north and our Interest.

What do you guys feel about this, I feel its a step in the right Directiona nd a good use for our Military, and a good way to protect our Interests.

Also like to point out Harper is Standing up for Canada Against the US who dont regonize the waters as Canadas.
 
Kreskin
#2
Considering it will probably become a shipping lane for oil barons in a few decades, we better have a strong presence up there.
 
EastSideScotian
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin

Considering it will probably become a shipping lane for oil barons in a few decades, we better have a strong presence up there.

Your right, I mean what if a ship enters the waters carrying Oil, and it its an Ice Burg, or runs aground on shallow water. Oil could go evrywhere, who will it effect? Canada, in large ways. It will also cause run off to the rest of the world, I big enough spill would create polution for evry ocean givent he currents in the north travel evrywhere. Most importantly is the Poeple int he north it will effect theirs lives, and it will cause troubble with our water resources, things Canada can not have troubble with.
 
Gonzo
#4
I would rather we not plan for a shipping lane in the artic and protect it from climate change. The americans dont acknowledge our claim to the north because they know it's going to melt and become a shipping lane (on the other hand, they dont acknowledge climate change when it comes to ratifying Kyoto).
 
Der Fuhrer
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Gonzo

I would rather we not plan for a shipping lane in the artic and protect it from climate change. The americans dont acknowledge our claim to the north because they know it's going to melt and become a shipping lane (on the other hand, they dont acknowledge climate change when it comes to ratifying Kyoto).

Oh right! The US is just a nation of psychics which is why they have never recognised our claim to the Arctic waters! They just waved a map of the Arctic in the air, closed their eyes and said 'in 100 years Canada's Northwest Passage will be free of ice so we should never recognise their claim to that territory!' Riiiiiigggghhhhhhtttttt. Whatever you are smoking, I want some.
 
Blackleaf
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by EastSideScotian

Now Iam not sure if this was a Topic Already, i did a search and came up with nothing.

Harpers Government, has a plan to start to protect Canadas Interest in the Arctic, which is part of Canada.

No, it isn't. Not all of it. Do the parts of Greenland, Norway, Finland and the United States that are in the Arctic belong to Canada?
 
I think not
#7
As usual Canadians are focusing their attention where it doesn't belong. The EU and Eastern Asian countries like Japan and China have much more to gain by the Northwest Passage (now referred to as Canadian Internal Waters) than the US ever could. The US doesn't need the Northwest passage to transport goods to Asia or Europe. Europe and Asia however need it badly.

Nobody recognizes Canadas claim to these waters, the fiercest opponents have been none other than the EU and Japan, not the US. But the EU and Japan don't make headlines in Canada.

If you want to claim that area as Canadian, you had better start patrolling it, build up your military for heavens sake and protect what you feel is rightfully yours. And stop whining, nobody pays attention to whiners.
 
gc
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

As usual Canadians are focusing their attention where it doesn't belong. The EU and Eastern Asian countries like Japan and China have much more to gain by the Northwest Passage (now referred to as Canadian Internal Waters) than the US ever could. The US doesn't need the Northwest passage to transport goods to Asia or Europe. Europe and Asia however need it badly.

The focus is probably on the U.S. because they have already tried to use the Northwest Passage without Canada's permission. I have never heard of the EU or Asian countries trying to use it, but I could be wrong. So even if the EU or Asia would benefit more, it seems the U.S. is more keen on using it.

Quote:

In 1969, an American tanker, the S.S. Manhattan, made a voyage through the Northwest Passage without asking Canada's permission. It was an attempt to prove the passage was a viable route for shipping oil.

Canada didn't try to stop it, but granted unsolicited permission and provided a Canadian icebreaker to escort the S.S. Manhattan.

In 1970, the ship made another trip through the passage. In the end, Canada imposed environmental regulations on trips through the passage, but the issue of who controlled the waters was not resolved.

In 1985, the U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker Polar Sea transited the passage — without asking the Canadian government for permission. The political fallout over what was considered the most direct challenge to Canada's sovereignty in the Arctic led to the signing of the Arctic Co-operation Agreement in 1988 by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and U.S. President Ronald Reagan. The document states that the U.S. would refrain from sending icebreakers through the Northwest Passage without Canada's consent; in turn, Canada would always give consent. However, the issue of whether the waters were international or internal was again left unresolved.

Link

I suppose the U.S. could use the route to ship oil from Alaska, though I'm not sure how it would help any.
 
LittleRunningGag
Free Thinker
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

If you want to claim that area as Canadian, you had better start patrolling it, build up your military for heavens sake and protect what you feel is rightfully yours. And stop whining, nobody pays attention to whiners.

Yes. This is something Mr. Harper had promised as part of his election platform. One of those illustrious five priorities I believe. Something he really should follow through on.
 
Mogz
Conservative
#10
I myself have been a firm supporter of Harpers Government for reasons such as this. No one, as Scotian pointed out, prior to Harpers Cabinet gave a rats ass about the North. The truth of the matter is that the Arctic is utterly undefended. No, that's not fair, not undefended, more so not defended enough. We do have a SMALL presence in the North, something to the effect of a few thousand Army Rangers and a few air patrols every now and again. I've spent a great deal of time in the Arctic (as recent as March of this year) and I can say firsthand that there is nothing stopping anyone from doing whatever they want up there. Yes the Rangers do some excellent work, patrolling massive patrol routes, but frankly there isn't enough of them to be greatly effective. They do keep an eye on the water ways up there but the sad truth is they can't be everywhere at once. The Canadian Forces do maintain a few outposts in the North, chiefly CFS Alert, CFS Inuvik, CFS Whitehorse, and CFS Yellowknife. There are also three (I think it's three, it could be down to two now however) FARPS (Forward Arming and Refueling Points) up there, maned by a small crew of Canadian Air Force ground support staff (AVN Techs, Radar Techs, etc) that the Air Force can use to stage from. In the grand scheme of things however...it's a drop in the bucket. A few thousand Rangers, four CFS', and three (maybe two) FARPS hardly constitute a Northern presence. The Army tries to get up there as much as it can, however, the training budget is at an all-time low and sadly we cannot afford to fly thousands of men up there to play for a few weeks when we can do it for cheaper in Wainwright, or Shilo, or Meaford, or Gagetown. The one thing the CF DOES have going for it, is that fact that every ground soldier is well versed in Winter Warfare. We give each soldier three cold weather courses; Winter Indoctrination, Winter Warfare, and Artic Warfare. Each one preps the soldier to live and fight in sub-zero conditions for an extended period of time. It's not much, but it's a bonus in our favour if we do ever have to deploy.

What a lot of people fail to realize is that Canada once did have a more effective Northern presence than it does today. Tha presence was in the form of the Canadian Airborne Regiment. The CAR was the foremost unit responsible for operations in the defense of Canada's Arctic. They were always up there, year round, elemenets of the CAR were jumping in to the Arctic to conduct patrols and exercises to augment the Rangers. Sadly, with the disbandment of the CAR In 1994 (following Somalia) we lost that ability, something that was never replaced. Another significant problem is the lack of ice-capable vessels. Currently our Navy can only travel to the Arctic during the summer when the ice is thin. In the winter, it's a no go. In order to provide proper patroling and security of our North, we need the following:
  • At least three ice-capable armed vessels (preferably coast guard) permanently based in the Arctic
  • Expansion of the Canadian Army Rangers manpower
  • A unit (or units) whose first domestic role is the defence of the Arctic (i.e. an Airborne unit)
  • Activation of an Arctic Air Squadron of fighter aircraft (CF-18's) based in Inuvik to patrol the North.
  • A permanent Search and Rescue unit for the Arctic
  • Real-time satellite coverage of the North

Unit at least those items are met, the security of the North is a foregone conclusion.
 
Machjo
#11
Seeing that an offensive force is always at an advantage against a defensive force. An offensive force chooses when, where, how and most importantly, whether, to strike; whereas a defensive force can wait for years before any strike, if any occur.If an offensive force wanted to, it could even just send a patrol through often enough just to rub our whiskers so to speak, whenever we start talking about cutting defense budgets, just to keep our defense budgets up so as to redirect funds from civilian infrastructure building, while their nations is building the economy. Years later, or even decades later, once they finally have a clear advantage economically and miliatrily, they strike.

So why would Canada want to wase mony on defensive spending when offensive is much more efficient. In other words, you stick a satelite in space to watch over the north and that's it. Any foreing ship which enters Canadian waters can then be chased out with a simple radio warning. In most cases, that would more than suffice. As for submarines, if we don't notice them, then who cares. if we catch one, then we tell it to get out. If they refuse to get out, only then do we take waht we deem to be approapriate action at that stage. But seeing that, at that stage, by refusing to get out, they're now making their ship a sitting duck, we know where it is, and can now choose when, how, and whether to strike, we are now on the offensive and so have the advantage. Much less expensive than maintaining CONSTANT watch. We just send the forces out when a clear parasite has entered our waters or airspace.

The russians used a similar technique against the Nazis. Seeing how big their country was, it made more sence to let the Nazis stretch (and thus make vulnerable) their own lines of communicaiton within the USSR rather than have the Russians stretch (and thus make vulnerable) their own lines of communication within their own territory. The Russians used a similar tactic against Napolean too. Both times, the Russians won, because it is indeed an effective tactic for a naiton with a large landmass, and especially for one like Canada with such a small population.

So fallowing the same principle, it would be much more efficient for us militarily to let an intruder in and then launch an offensive strike against it rather than spend so much money all the time guarding all (that's alot) our borders against a threat which may or may not materialise, ever.

Not only does it make sense miltarily, but diplomatically likewise. Diplomatically, this allows Canada to save money on military spending (which has economic benefits too) which not only helps to win the trust of neighbouring countries that Canada is no warmonger, but also allows Canada, in the event that it does need to strike using deadly force, to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the enemy was clearly within Canadian territory. Of course I agree that even then, we should still use the minimum force required, but I'm just saying that if, if, we should ever have to use lethal force (let's say this enemy was hevily armeds, and there was leigitimate reason to believe that they were a lethal threat), we could at lest prove that they had trespassed, which in and of itself indicates possible aggressive intent against Canada.
 
Machjo
#12
"In order to provide proper patroling and security of our North, we need the following:

[*]At least three ice-capable armed vessels (preferably coast guard) permanently based in the Arctic"


Could you explain the reason for this more clearly please?

If your reasons are for military purposes then what would be wrong with a continental missile base capable of launching a missile from anywhere in Canada to anywhere else in Canada, with enough missiles to be able to take out any northern foe? I would assume that while that might be more expensive to set up initially, it would be cheaper to maintain in the long run than having to maintain these vessels constantly getting an arctic beating every winter. After all, once a missile is built, it just sits comfily in a silo for years needing a quick check up now then. That would seem much less expensive in the long run, unless I'm wrong of course, in which you could clear me up on that. What would be the cost difference between the two would be an interesting factfinding mission.

[*]Expansion of the Canadian Army Rangers manpower

Could you explain the reason for this more clearly please? Again,if it's for military purposes, why not just the missiles mentionned above? I would assume that a yearly check up on missiles in a silo would be less expensive in the long run than having to train, equip and maintain a constant force of soldiers running around the arctic looking for enemies. Again, please correct me if I'm wrong?

As for spotting enemies, why not a satellite, which could double for civilian telecommunications purposes likewise, thus killing two birds with one stone economically speaking. Soldiers running around the arctic benefit no one if there is no enemy. A satelite on the other hand can serve civilian purposes too, thus not being a total waste of money in the event of no war.

And if your idea related to law and order, then that would be a police, not military, responsibility anyway, for which police would really be needed only in inhabited areas anyway. And they probably already have officers for such purposes.

[*]A unit (or units) whose first domestic role is the defence of the Arctic (i.e. an Airborne unit)

Again, I assume it's for military purposes. And again, what would be wrong with the missiles mentionned above? And if it's to spot an enemy, satelite technology today can spot a golf ball on eath or read a newspaper over a man's shoulder. So I'm sure a satellite could do the job under most circumstances.

[*]Activation of an Arctic Air Squadron of fighter aircraft (CF-18's) based in Inuvik to patrol the North.

If it's to spot an intruder, a satellite could do that. If it's to escort an intruder out, I'm sure a satellite with ground communications staff fluent in a few major languages could communicate with the ship to or aircraft to guide it out by radio. If it disobeys, or becomes a clear threat in any way, then that's what the missile base would be for, missiles to be guided by satellite.


[*]A permanent Search and Rescue unit for the Arctic

That I can agree with. S&R cannot be fully replaced by telecommunications technology, and human hads are needed there, Not only does it serve a military purpose, but a civilian one as well. So war or not, it's still not going to be a waste of money.


[*]Real-time satellite coverage of the North

I fully agree with this. Absolutely necessary.
 
Machjo
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by EastSideScotian

Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin

Considering it will probably become a shipping lane for oil barons in a few decades, we better have a strong presence up there.

Your right, I mean what if a ship enters the waters carrying Oil, and it its an Ice Burg, or runs aground on shallow water. Oil could go evrywhere, who will it effect? Canada, in large ways. It will also cause run off to the rest of the world, I big enough spill would create polution for evry ocean givent he currents in the north travel evrywhere. Most importantly is the Poeple int he north it will effect theirs lives, and it will cause troubble with our water resources, things Canada can not have troubble with.

I could see two options here. One is to prohibit oil shipping through there. The other would be to permit it, but have ships pay a tax to support an emergency responce team to clean up the mess if something happens.

In a post above, I opposed the armed coastguard icebreakers for military purposes (after all, nothing a missile couldn't handle). But certainly we can't shoot missiles at oil tankers violating Canadian waters. And S&R can't do much about that either. So I'll take back my last comment and say that perhaps two icebreakers could be beneficial. Since we need them anyway, might as well arm them to serve a double purpose (civilian and military). Mogz suggested three, but I say two since we wouldn't need to catch the violating ship right away. Just block the two ends. Once a satellite catches the violating ship, we then just need to track it till it get to one end of the passage, guiding the approapriate patrol ship (be it the western one or the eastern one) towards the target, stop the ship, and then take approapriate measures whatever they may be.
 
Machjo
#14
Sorry, I take back the icebreakers. Why not simply a submarine? I'm sure a submarine, able to avoid resistance from ice by simply going under it, could outpace any ship having to break through ice. One submarine would suffice. Once the intruding oil tanker is spotted by satellite, the submarine receives coordinates, speeds to it, and stops it. A submarine could also serve both civilian policing and military purposes. Thus it could also be fully armed for war, while still doing routine policing and S&R work. Again, war or no war, such a submarine would not be a complete waste of money due to its obvious civilian benefits in this regard for environmental protection.

I don't think we'd need more than one submarine however, seeing that it's purpose woudl be to catch intruders, not aimlessly patrol the waters. That's what the satellites would be for, to guid the sub to the target. As for serious military threats, then that's what ground missile bases would be for.
 
Mogz
Conservative
#15
Machjo, it's quite obvious you don't know a thing about the military. I'm just going to point out the flaws in each of your paragraphs:

Quote:

Seeing that an offensive force is always at an advantage against a defensive force. An offensive force chooses when, where, how and most importantly, whether, to strike; whereas a defensive force can wait for years before any strike, if any occur.If an offensive force wanted to, it could even just send a patrol through often enough just to rub our whiskers so to speak, whenever we start talking about cutting defense budgets, just to keep our defense budgets up so as to redirect funds from civilian infrastructure building, while their nations is building the economy. Years later, or even decades later, once they finally have a clear advantage economically and miliatrily, they strike.

1. The offensive force is NOT always at an advantage. An offensive force does NOT always choose when, where, how, and if they attack. Defensive operations, if done correctly, can actually force an enemy to attack when he doesn't want to, where he doesn't want to, and how he would rather not. Sometimes a proper defensive stance can even force an offensive force to attack. Some great examples:

1. Advantage: The offender has to proceed through land they do not know. They must move slowly less risk ambush. Hence a reduced forward momentum. There are also two types of attacks; Hasty and Deliberate. A deliberate attack is where the attack is planned and launched upon the attackers own accord. A hasty attack occurs when the enemy is suddenly encountered. Most attacks against an entrenched enemy end up as being hasty in that the offender has no way to accurately survey the ground before hand.

2. When: By doing a tactical repositioning of forces, a defended can move to outflank an offensive force, thereby forcing said offender to either A. attack the flanking force B. attack the main defending force.

3. Where: Combat engineers. Two simple words, yet they make a huge difference in defensive battles. They can blow up bridges, demolish roads, flood valleys, fall trees, dig anti-tank ditches, anti-troops ditches, lay mines, build defenses. In essence combat engineers can help a defending force dictate where an offender attacks by limiting his options and funneling him in to pre-designated "kill zones".

4. How: Goes hand in hand with where. If combat engineers destroy the only bridge across a river, the offended is thereby forced to ford the river, hence forcing how he attacks.

5. If: A classic example of forcing an enemy to attack was pulled off by Sir Arthur Wellesley (Lord Wellington) against the French during the Peninsula War at the Battle of Torres Vedras in 1810. He built a massive defensive works to defend Lisbon from the French. He then moved forward to engage Marshal Masséna. He subsequently retreated, burning every field in his path, poisoning every well, and killing any livestock, thus robbing the advancing French Army of food. He reached Torres Vedras and anchored his men behind the walls. Around the French attackers were 40km of barren fields and no food. After two weeks the French were forced to either attack or retreat back in to Spain. The French attacked, and lost, badly. The French marched in to Portugal with 196,000 men, they walked out with 35,000. Another great example of the defender being forced to attack is the Battle of the Bulge, wherein the German Army, short of fuel, was forced to attack the Allies through the Ardennes to gain additional fuel supplies. They lost.

Quote:

So why would Canada want to wase mony on defensive spending when offensive is much more efficient. In other words, you stick a satelite in space to watch over the north and that's it. Any foreing ship which enters Canadian waters can then be chased out with a simple radio warning. In most cases, that would more than suffice. As for submarines, if we don't notice them, then who cares. if we catch one, then we tell it to get out. If they refuse to get out, only then do we take waht we deem to be approapriate action at that stage. But seeing that, at that stage, by refusing to get out, they're now making their ship a sitting duck, we know where it is, and can now choose when, how, and whether to strike, we are now on the offensive and so have the advantage. Much less expensive than maintaining CONSTANT watch. We just send the forces out when a clear parasite has entered our waters or airspace.

I would like for you to explain to me what the difference between defence and offensive spending is. Can you do that?

Quote:

The russians used a similar technique against the Nazis. Seeing how big their country was, it made more sence to let the Nazis stretch (and thus make vulnerable) their own lines of communicaiton within the USSR rather than have the Russians stretch (and thus make vulnerable) their own lines of communication within their own territory. The Russians used a similar tactic against Napolean too. Both times, the Russians won, because it is indeed an effective tactic for a naiton with a large landmass, and especially for one like Canada with such a small population.

In addition to not knowing anything about the military, you also don't know very much about World War II. First off Russia didn't use a technique of any kind, the Blitzkreig forced them to withdraw, losing THOUSANDS of men in the first 24 hours. The German Army pushed them right to the doorsteps of the Kremlin. Then Hitler, ordered his forces to stop, and turn in to the Caucasus, thereby leaving Moscow alone. That respite allowed Russia to reorganize and go on the offensive. The Germans were, in the end, defeated due to two things; strained logistics and manpower. Logistics strained by their lack of motorized transport (they relied heavily on horses). Said logistical strain caused there to be a lack of effective winter equipment, thus causing numerous casualties on the German Army. Lastly and most importantly the Germans lost due to sheer numbers. The Germans put in to Russia some 5 million men, the Russians lost over 9 million killed. Do the math. As for Napoleon, the Russian Winter defeated him, not the Russians.

I would like to point out however that your stance that the Russians "defensive tactics" worked wonders utterly contradicts your earlier statement that the attacker always has the advantage. Retort?

Quote:

So fallowing the same principle, it would be much more efficient for us militarily to let an intruder in and then launch an offensive strike against it rather than spend so much money all the time guarding all (that's alot) our borders against a threat which may or may not materialise, ever.

Are you aware of the term "foothold"? If you let the enemy in, their chance for success triples in the first 24 hours. Look at Operation Overlord (the invasion of Normandy). Everything hinged on the Allies gaining a foothold within 24 hours. They did, and look how that turned out. When the Allies landed in Normandy they put ashore 175,000 men, mostly raw recruits who'd never seen battle. The Germans, had in Normandy alone, over 500,000 men. The Germans were battle hardened, better equipped, and better trained. Yet the Allies defeated the Germans in Normandy, why? Momentum. They crashed the beaches and began pushing in land. The Germans were thrown back in waves, in fact there came a point where the Germans were retreating faster than the Allies could advance, even though the Germans had a 3:1 ratio in manpower and tanks (at the time). It is sheer folly to suggest that our Nation allow the enemy to land on our shores first, then deal with them. A good Army is proactive, not reactive.

Quote:

Not only does it make sense miltarily, but diplomatically likewise. Diplomatically, this allows Canada to save money on military spending (which has economic benefits too) which not only helps to win the trust of neighbouring countries that Canada is no warmonger, but also allows Canada, in the event that it does need to strike using deadly force, to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the enemy was clearly within Canadian territory. Of course I agree that even then, we should still use the minimum force required, but I'm just saying that if, if, we should ever have to use lethal force (let's say this enemy was hevily armeds, and there was leigitimate reason to believe that they were a lethal threat), we could at lest prove that they had trespassed, which in and of itself indicates possible aggressive intent against Canada.

And then there's this doozy. No, it does not make sense, at all, not militarily, not diplomatically. Militarily, it's stupidity. You do not allow an armed force to land on your shore, then deal with them. As for diplomatically, how, pretell, would that save money on military spending? Would we not require a force to deal with said enemy once we LET THEM LAND ON OUR SHORE? Are you suggesting that we maintain a small military and then raise a bigger one when a threat presents itself?
 
Mogz
Conservative
#16
Machjo:

Ice Breakers:

Quote:

Could you explain the reason for this more clearly please?

If your reasons are for military purposes then what would be wrong with a continental missile base capable of launching a missile from anywhere in Canada to anywhere else in Canada, with enough missiles to be able to take out any northern foe? I would assume that while that might be more expensive to set up initially, it would be cheaper to maintain in the long run than having to maintain these vessels constantly getting an arctic beating every winter. After all, once a missile is built, it just sits comfily in a silo for years needing a quick check up now then. That would seem much less expensive in the long run, unless I'm wrong of course, in which you could clear me up on that. What would be the cost difference between the two would be an interesting factfinding mission.

You do realize that missiles aren't perfect. In actual fact they can be very inaccurate at sea. Secondly, your plan to have this magic missile system that can hit anywhere in Canada is not possible. Canada is the second largest Nation on Earth, there is no missile system capable of hitting any spot in our territory without a massive price tag. You think it'd be cheaper in the long run? Are you aware what a missile costs? A Harpoon Anti-ship missile costs $474,609 U.S. EACH. A harpoon cannot do what you ask, so we'd have to go in to the intercontinental ballistic missile market. The U.S. Peacekeeper ICBM has a range of 6,000 miles (so could almost do what you ask), yet has a price tag of $70 million U.S. each. Also factor in that in order to use the missile system, live firings would have to occur to keep our troops skills up. Can you see Canada being able to afford $70 million U.S. per missile? And fire them for training purposes? Our Navy has a hard time firing off Harpoons for training, let alone ICBMs. A missile does not sit in a silo Machjo, they need to be fired. Even U.S. Nuclear ICBMs are tested fired (sans warhead of course) else their crews aren't capable of doing it for real. You're very wrong. I layed out the cost of a missile that could do what you ask. Trust me, ice-capable destroyers are way cheaper and can do things a missile can't; Search and Rescuse, disaster relief, anti-submarine warfare, anti-smuggling operations, etc.

Army Rangers

Quote:

Could you explain the reason for this more clearly please? Again,if it's for military purposes, why not just the missiles mentionned above? I would assume that a yearly check up on missiles in a silo would be less expensive in the long run than having to train, equip and maintain a constant force of soldiers running around the arctic looking for enemies. Again, please correct me if I'm wrong?

As for spotting enemies, why not a satellite, which could double for civilian telecommunications purposes likewise, thus killing two birds with one stone economically speaking. Soldiers running around the arctic benefit no one if there is no enemy. A satelite on the other hand can serve civilian purposes too, thus not being a total waste of money in the event of no war.

And if your idea related to law and order, then that would be a police, not military, responsibility anyway, for which police would really be needed only in inhabited areas anyway. And they probably already have officers for such purposes.

Do you have any idea what the Rangers do? They patrol the arctic, they patrol OUR BORDER a missile cannot do that. Neither can satellite, as satellite cannot be every where. The Rangers do not soley look for enemies, they do Search and Rescue, patrols, anti-grizzly bear defence, and they serve as an active military force in the region. As I said above, a satellite cannot watch the entire arctic Machjo, you've been watching too much 24. I do find it odd how you refer to the Rangers as a waste of money. They're responsible for saving countless lives. I never said the Rangers were there for law and order, that's your own fantasy.

Airborne

Quote:

Again, I assume it's for military purposes. And again, what would be wrong with the missiles mentionned above? And if it's to spot an enemy, satelite technology today can spot a golf ball on eath or read a newspaper over a man's shoulder. So I'm sure a satellite could do the job under most circumstances.

How does a missile knock out an infantry battlion? Do you propose we maintain enough missiles to target every man in an enemy infantry battlion? Some FYI an battlion is around 1000 men. What good is a missile, or even 12 missiles against land forces in a combat team role? As for observation, that's the rangers job. A satellite cannot watch the entire region at the same time.

Aircraft

Quote:

If it's to spot an intruder, a satellite could do that. If it's to escort an intruder out, I'm sure a satellite with ground communications staff fluent in a few major languages could communicate with the ship to or aircraft to guide it out by radio. If it disobeys, or becomes a clear threat in any way, then that's what the missile base would be for, missiles to be guided by satellite.

Once again, a satellite is not a magic tool, it cannot watch the entire region, even if it is locked in a geosynchronous orbit. As for missiles, you do realize there are different types of missiles right? Air to Air, Air to Surface, Surface to Air and Surface to Surface. There is no magic long-range missile that can attack everything. Therefore, if we used your hairbrained idea, we'd have to have multiple types of missiles (huge cost) and multiple launches stations (huge cost).


You're out of your element machjo.
 
Machjo
#17
Thanks for the info.
 
Machjo
#18
In that case, what about a shared US-Canadian force. This way, both naitons could save money by sharing the same force while still maintianing a large one. Granted, Canadians would ahve fears of this force running around fighting political wars all the time, so I suppose agreeing to rules as to under what circumstances such a force could be used would be a sticky point. Canada would tend to want to limit it to UN operations; the US, to issues of 'national interest'.

On the other hand, seeing that the US really does have its hands full right now in Iraq as well as wirth disaster relief on its own soil, along with record breaking deficit spending, maybe a time would come when the US would in fact not mind to some agreement curbing its adventurism in exchange for a shared military force which could save money for both sides. Who knows, maybe Britain would be interested in this too. This could lead to possibly the world's largest military force at relatively low per capita cost, thus allowing us to patrol the arctic without worrying so much about expenses sinse we wouldn't need to worry so much about having troops in Southern Canada since those in the Northern US would be covering that anyway. We'd also be assured access to British reenforcements in the event of a serious problem.
 
Mogz
Conservative
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo

In that case, what about a shared US-Canadian force. This way, both naitons could save money by sharing the same force while still maintianing a large one. Granted, Canadians would ahve fears of this force running around fighting political wars all the time, so I suppose agreeing to rules as to under what circumstances such a force could be used would be a sticky point. Canada would tend to want to limit it to UN operations; the US, to issues of 'national interest'.

On the other hand, seeing that the US really does have its hands full right now in Iraq as well as wirth disaster relief on its own soil, along with record breaking deficit spending, maybe a time would come when the US would in fact not mind to some agreement curbing its adventurism in exchange for a shared military force which could save money for both sides. Who knows, maybe Britain would be interested in this too. This could lead to possibly the world's largest military force at relatively low per capita cost, thus allowing us to patrol the arctic without worrying so much about expenses sinse we wouldn't need to worry so much about having troops in Southern Canada since those in the Northern US would be covering that anyway. We'd also be assured access to British reenforcements in the event of a serious problem.

Machjo, i'm really not trying to be rude here, but that is a pretty stupid idea. How can two Nations share an Army, or better yet, three? One has to be in overal control, and therefore the instant that happens, it's not longer shared.

One thing about your post does irk me though:

Quote:

Canada would tend to want to limit it to UN operations; the US, to issues of 'national interest'.

You embody the typical international stigma about Canada, assuming all we care about is U.N. missions. The bitter reality Machjo is that Canada is a war fighting Nation, having spent more time at war in the 20th Century than Peacekeeping. Lastly i'd like to draw your attention to Afghanistan, where currently there are over 2,000 Canadian soldiers serving in a combat role. That is very much a mission of "national interest".
 
iARTthere4iam
#20
Well said, Mogz
I think that having ships in the north capable of patrolling all season is extememly important. As an added bonus to maintaing our sovereignity over the region, lots of research could be done here. Getting universities involved might bring on board some needed funds and access to new sensing technology. A northern port should be considered too.
 

Similar Threads

0
Bernier and Arctic Sovereignty
by sanctus | Mar 15th, 2007
0
Bernier and Arctic Sovereignty
by sanctus | Feb 14th, 2007
4
Sovereignty in the Arctic
by peapod | Aug 8th, 2004