# Arctic vulnerable to terrorists



## McG (2 Oct 2004)

*Arctic vulnerable to terrorists
Enormous size, easy access make Canada's North a soft target, forum hears*
____________________
NATHAN VANDERKLIPPE
Can West News Service
YELLOWKNIFE, N.W.T

As resource development sweeps across Canada's North, new fears are emerging that terrorists could see the Arctic as the soft underbelly of the continent.

Especially worrisome are new pushes for northern oil and gas, which could give the Arctic a strategic importance it has not seen since the end of the Cold War.

â Å“As the circumpolar countries raise the profile of the Arctic... (it) then becomes a new target for international terrorism,â ? Norm Couturier, the commander of Canadian Forces Northern Area,
told policy makers at the Northern Research Forum on Saturday

More than 150 people from the circumpolar world gathered in Yellowknife this week to discuss northern issues, including Arctic security.   â Å“Due to its enormous size and its easier access, (the Arctic) could become a soft target and a real challenge to the circumpolar security forces,â ? said Couturier.

Already, the growing Northwest Territories diamond trade has brought organized criminal elements to the North. Northern ports have also been used for illegal immigration and transportation of contraband, especially drugs.   Now the fear is that as security holes are dosed in southern borders, terrorist groups could look to the North to gain access to the continent, especially as global warming makes the Arctic a more accessible place.

Because the Canadian military has no dedicated satellite surveillance of the Arctic â â€ although such a project is planned â â€œ and a limited budget and presence in the North, it can be difficult to monitor activity across the vast area north of 60, which constitutes 40 per cent of the Canadian landmass.

Instead, it relies for surveillance on Canada groups of primarily aboriginal hunters trained to patrol near their communities on snowmobiles and boats and report unusual sightings to the northern military headquarters in Yellowknife.

But Icelandic president Olafur Ragnar Grimsson urged restraint, calling on the circumpolar world to be aware of security issues without allowing those concerns to interfere with the general freedom of northern lifestyles. The terrorist risk in the North is comparatively low, he said.   â Å“If we in the North lose ourselves in this discussion about terrorism, I think we will be misled,â ? he said.

â Å“First of all, the terrorists want to kill / a lot of people at the same timeâ â€and the North is so sparsely populated. Secondly, we don't have the symbols of global power or influence or financial might that it pays to attack.â ?   And the military threats to the North are negligible compared to sovereignty concerns, as Canada disputes ownership of Arctic territory with Denmark, Russia and the U.S., said Rob Huebert, the associate director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies.

Even so, the perception of vulnerability to terror has begun to worry some northerners. The Canadian military and NORAD continue to run 47 short- and long-range radar stations across the North, some located very close to traditional communities like the Northwest Territory town of Tuktoyaktuk
There, people have mounting concerns that the installations built for their protection could actually bring their demise.
â Å“If terrorists decide to invade our country, those DEW line sites are going to be the first to be hit,â ? said Frank Pokiak, a representative from Tuktoyaktuk at the research forum. 'There's one right in Tukâ â€they could wipe out the whole community?â ?


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Oct 2004)

> â Å“First of all, the terrorists want to kill / a lot of people at the same timeâ â€and the North is so sparsely populated. Secondly, we don't have the symbols of global power or influence or financial might that it pays to attack.â ?  And the military threats to the North are negligible compared to sovereignty concerns, as Canada disputes ownership of Arctic territory with Denmark, Russia and the U.S., said Rob Huebert, the associate director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies.



Sounds like the Icelander is a Canadian at heart.  "I'm all right Jack".

The immediate concern is not that the North and its inhabitants are at risk of attack but that it represents an open door to the South and in particular the US.

Charter from Godthab in Greenland to Cape Dyer on Baffin, join tourists, charter from Cape Dyer to Iqualuit, Air Canada from Iqaluit to Regina, rent car, drive down to the border, drive across the open fields.  Pick your spot.

The PMs problems will happen in the future when the Danes start drilling for oil in OUR arctic after the ice melts enough for them to come back.  They have been away for 700 years, ever since the ice moved in and the Alaskans chased them out of the Canadian north.


----------



## pbi (3 Oct 2004)

> First of all, the terrorists want to kill / a lot of people at the same timeâ â€and the North is so sparsely populated. Secondly, we don't have the symbols of global power or influence or financial might that it pays to attack.â ?   And the military threats to the North are negligible compared to sovereignty concerns, as Canada disputes ownership of Arctic territory with Denmark, Russia and the U.S., said Rob Huebert, the associate director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies.



This is probably true. "Terrorism" needs lots of people to "terrify" or it doesn't achieve much. As far as using the North to transit, I think you will find that terrorists are much happier in crowds of people where they are less likely to be singled out. Our long, relatively uncontrolled coastline is IMHO a much more likely entry route.



> Even so, the perception of vulnerability to terror has begun to worry some northerners. The Canadian military and NORAD continue to run 47 short- and long-range radar stations across the North, some located very close to traditional communities like the Northwest Territory town of Tuktoyaktuk
> There, people have mounting concerns that the installations built for their protection could actually bring their demise.
> â Å“If terrorists decide to invade our country, those DEW line sites are going to be the first to be hit,â ? said Frank Pokiak, a representative from Tuktoyaktuk at the research forum. 'There's one right in Tukâ â€they could wipe out the whole community?â ?



What? Come again? Why the heck would they even bother with a wasted target like a radar site?The impact of this would be pretty limited beyond the immediate locality, and NORAD's command centre. It would be fairly low-impact terrorist act.   And anyway, disabling a radar station hardly requires a catastrophic explosion that wipes out nearby communities. Radar systems are pretty fragile and rely on electricity to be of any use. They can be taken out of action with small arms fire or a toolbox.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Oct 2004)

I'm not too sure about your comments on Radar sites, having grown up on one as a kid.   They have backup generators and redundant systems to stay in operation.   Like good infanteers, the different sites also have interlocking arcs.

One other point is they most likely would have to deal with Mother Nature.  She is a very harsh mistress, especially in the High Arctic. 

GW


----------



## pbi (4 Oct 2004)

Yes George-your are probably right. My point really was that this nightmare scenario is a bit silly. The effort required to achieve anything with much terror value would probably far outweigh the return. I agree that we need better sovereignty in our North, but I suggest that it may actually be for the purpose of"defense against friends" who question our territorial claims. Cheers.


----------



## Gunnar (5 Oct 2004)

So, this terrorist blows up something in the arctic, where nobody lives....nobody remembers the middle eastern guy who took the bush plane up to the community of 200 people, where nobody is curious about strangers from other countries who try to avoid people and ask a lot of strange questions....

Yes, the north is undefended, but it's a pretty trivial security gap.


----------



## NMPeters (5 Oct 2004)

I may be completely wrong here, but weren't the DEW line sites decommissioned about 10 years ago? And if that's the case, wouldn't it be a moot point to consider an attack on something that we don't use?


----------



## T.I.M. (5 Oct 2004)

NMPeters said:
			
		

> I may be completely wrong here, but weren't the DEW line sites decommissioned about 10 years ago? And if that's the case, wouldn't it be a moot point to consider an attack on something that we don't use?



Some DEW line sites were decomissioned, some were upgraded to NWS (North Warning System).  NWS sites are automated and remotely monitoted, but there are still 47 of them active running from Alaska, across the Canadian Arctic, and down to Labrador.


----------



## rw4th (6 Oct 2004)

> "If terrorists decide to invade our country ... "


That comment pretty much says it all when it comes to the knowledge of the person making these comments. Since when do terrorist â Å“invadeâ ? anything? If they put together a large enough force for an invasion, they wouldn't be terrorists anymore; they'd just be â Å“the enemyâ ?.

I do however think that the smuggling/criminal threat is a credible one.


----------



## NMPeters (7 Oct 2004)

I stand corrected on the DEW lines. Thanks for educating me as to what actually happened to them. Cheers!


----------



## Sheerin (13 Oct 2004)

They could always gain access to Canada through the north and then get a commerical flight out of Yellowknife or Whitehorse, then fly the plane down to Toronto and crash it into one of the many buildings there.  
I have a feeling that security up there isn't as good as it might be at Pearson.


----------



## T.I.M. (13 Oct 2004)

I haven't noticed any substantial differences between airport security in Yellowknife or Toronto.  Or Edmonton or Winnipeg for that matter.  Actually its a quiet airport without too many regular passengers and the pre-boarding lounge is a big glass fishbowl, so there's no pressure for security to rush people through to keep up with the panic and more opportunity for to observe waiting passengers for suspicious behavior.


----------



## Danjanou (13 Oct 2004)

I wonder if Frank's comments there are more directed along the lines of we need another excuse to get the big bad eco unfiendly military out of our community rant.

As noted I really don't see this as a weak spot for the reasons noted. Hard to get in and stay unseen up there while trekking south to the targets. Why not just jump on a plane with forged documents, destroy them enroute and claim refugee status with a fake name at Pearson. Hey the nice Canadian taxpayers will even give you a nice welfare cheque to live on while you sit around and wait for the go order from Osama.


----------



## AlphaCharlie (13 Oct 2004)

I can see the headlines now...

"And today in Canada's North, suicide bombers struck again. Casualties included a polar bear and an ATV. No other injuries reported."


Hahaha I crack myself up.


----------



## Bert (13 Oct 2004)

Security at northern airports is a theoretical concern.   Its not just the security
of the passengers or the airfield, but the use of the maintenance and cargo
infrastructure, and the knowledge/training of airport security, airport staff, and employees
of airside companies.   Lots of holes.   

Terrorist attacks at northern locations is unlikely as many posters have described.
Covert terrorist attacks using northern facilities to attack locations elsewhere
is substancially more possible (covertly, as opposed to an overt hijacking for
example).   

However, Canada with NORAD has a pretty good radar net, response
protocols, and communications that would make the success of northern 
based terrorist launches very risky.   Any devices used in the attacks would 
have to travel north and escape detection, be assembled locally without
knowledgable notice, escape detection into the medium of the attack, and 
for the medium of the attack to strike the target or produce the results.   

Its more risk I think to use northern facilites, but the holes are there.


----------



## Arctic Acorn (15 Oct 2004)

Bert said:
			
		

> Security at northern airports is a theoretical concern.   Its not just the security
> of the passengers or the airfield, but the use of the maintenance and cargo
> infrastructure, and the knowledge/training of airport security, airport staff, and employees
> of airside companies.   Lots of holes....Its more risk I think to use northern facilites, but the holes are there.



I'm sorry Bert, I don't buy that. Have you ever been a northern airport? One of the most important tools a terrorist has is anonymity, and you won't get that up there. A new face there sticks out like a sore thumb. Say a guy steals a plane from a northern community airstrip...where would he go? the furthest south he would be able to go is Edmonton, and even then he'd be out of fuel. Also, flying an aircraft in the north is difficult, and even experienced bish pilots have problems occasionally with the weather here. A terrosist with a few months of flight school would be more likely to crash at the end of the runway. Additionally, the argument that rural air facilities are an easier vector for terrorists holds no water either. If a terrorist can slip through a modern, major air terminal with a box cutter, why would they bother with a rural airport?   T.I.M., can you back me up on this? 

In spite of what the media would have us all believe, there are not armies of terrosists lined up to martyr themselves for the cause. They're a finite resource, and historically they go for big ticket targets. Embassies, hotels, symbolic buildings. It's easy enough to access those targets from down south, as opposed to going way the hell up there and then going back down again.

Lets keep in mind that western media, mostly the US-based ones such as CNN (but Canadian media outlets are guilty of this too) sell papers by scaring the shit out of people. As a society, we can't get enough of it. The media corporations have made a lot of money by telling us that terrorists are hiding behind every corner, and infiltrating from every possible nook and cranny. Lets not get sucked into that mentality. 

 :dontpanic:


----------



## T.I.M. (15 Oct 2004)

Well, I don't really want to get sucked into a debate on the details of northern security issues, but there aren't any benefits for terrorists operating from small northern fields that can't be had by operating at any airfield in some small _southern_ community.  And there are a _lot_ more difficulties.


----------



## Bert (16 Oct 2004)

Arctic Acorn
Yes, I've been to many northern airports and major centres like Whitehorse, Inuvik, Yellowknife,
Rankin Inlet, Iqaluit, and Kuujjuak.  I've spent 7 years of my life (living and working) in 
the North working with telecommunications and networks as a civy and still go back today. 
I've seen so many airports, blizzards, Twin Otters, and shipped tons of equipment and parts 
all across the North.  I've worked on airport ramps as well.

Its true anonymity is difficult in northern communities.  Yet the amount of transient travel
(researchers, social/government, tourists) is quite high in more major centres.  Granted
little places like Grise Fiord, Resolute, or Trout Lake see less travel.  

My post refers to inherenet security holes in the northern airport infrastrastructure but I'm not
suggesting terrorists would or could use it for very practical reasons.  Nevertheless, large security 
holes in northern airports do exist to those that know how to use them and thats a 
theoretical concern.


----------

