# U.S. envoy dismisses Harper's Arctic plan



## Conquistador (26 Jan 2006)

Apparently, the US considers it wrong for Canadians to assert our soverignty in the Far North.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/01/26/wilkins-harper060126.html



> U.S. envoy dismisses Harper's Arctic plan
> Last Updated Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:09:54 EST
> CBC News
> 
> ...


----------



## Recce41 (26 Jan 2006)

Conquistador said:
			
		

> Apparently, the US considers it wrong for Canadians to assert our soverignty in the Far North.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/01/26/wilkins-harper060126.html


I say mine it and cut it off. Or we could just not reconize the Mississippi.


----------



## Recce41 (26 Jan 2006)

I hope Harper has a spine. And deploy units more, and take a hard stand.


----------



## karl28 (26 Jan 2006)

Man just when I start to like the US Gov I and reading an article like this sheesh . I hope that Harper will stick with his plan to increase military presence in the North I don't know how you can do it but I think the military ice breaker's would sound like a good start .


----------



## Fraser.g (26 Jan 2006)

We don't recognize Canada's claims to those waters... 


...tough!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Jan 2006)

Quote,
_I say mine it and cut it_
 :rofl: ....oh please....get a grip.

I'm all for more presence in the North also, however lets not get stupid here. All I want is acknowledgement and to inform us of their passages.......

Quote,
_Man just when I start to like the US Gov I and reading an article like this sheesh_

Well I guess you dislike most countries that own ships then.....who do we attack first? :


----------



## Recce41 (26 Jan 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Quote,
> _I say mine it and cut it_
> :rofl: ....oh please....get a grip.
> 
> ...




Bruce
 It's a lil off the wall, joke. So slow down fella.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Jan 2006)

OOP'S.....its hard knowing how you feel about the US.


----------



## Bobbyoreo (26 Jan 2006)

Shit....I just shipped you the mines!!!! Damn it!!!


----------



## Recce41 (26 Jan 2006)

Bobbyoreo said:
			
		

> crap....I just shipped you the mines!!!! Damn it!!!



SSSSSSS, You have to be covert here. :tsktsk: :rofl:


----------



## Bobbyoreo (26 Jan 2006)

Dont worry....the label says gifts for bush!!!! :threat:


----------



## karl28 (26 Jan 2006)

Quote,
*1st part*/Man just when I start to like the US Gov I and reading an article like this sheesh

*this what you said in your reply to my post * 
*2nd/*Well I guess you dislike most countries that own ships then.....who do we attack first? 

    *Bruce* I don't know you that well. I think you miss under stood what I said in my last post the first part was a joke maby I should of put LOL in front of that for that I apologize.   I would like to know where did you get the second part from I never said anything about attacking any one I just wanted Harper to increase military presence as a show of force not a declaration of war. Hope that this helps clear any missunderstanding OK?


----------



## Bobbyoreo (26 Jan 2006)

Look up..it is from a different post!!!


----------



## karl28 (26 Jan 2006)

Oops my bad got you on that one


----------



## Armymatters (26 Jan 2006)

We could lay a naval minefield in the straits to block the Americans from entering the Arctic   The Ottawa Treaty does not prohibit naval mines.


----------



## UberCree (26 Jan 2006)

International shippers (Like Martin) save ~ 8,000 km's of travel by going through the NW passage vs. Panama.  Why on earth would they in any way encourage Canada to protect its own waters there when it can be a free ride.  I say let anyone through, but tax them.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jan 2006)

The Ambassador is correct to say that few nations recognize our claims to the waterways of the high arctic. Of course, since we have had effectively zero presence there, making claims about our territorial waters is simply talking through our hats. What were we doing from the 1950s to the end of the Cold War when Soviet, American, British, French and who knows, Chinese nuclear subs were transiting at will? Should the North West Passage become navigable by ordinary shipping, the situation will likely get worse.

Don't forget the reason the Territorial limit was 3 miles from shore for hundreds of years is because that was the range of a cannon shot. In other words, as far as was possible to effectively control the waters, given the technology of the day. The 200 mile limit reflects the enhanced ability to control the waters, but if we are not out there, guess what, someone else is going to be. And since we effectively relinquished control of our Arctic waters for half a century, it will be a tough fight to get it back. Indeed a similar case can be made regarding all our coastlines, the Navy and Coast Guard have little effective ability to enforce our sovereignty due to lack of equipment and manning.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Jan 2006)

Harper couldn’t have asked for anything better if he had planted this story himself.

Having a dispute with the USA is always popular in Canada.

Our Arctic claims are weak but we really must pursue them.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (26 Jan 2006)

Test number one.

I guess this is as good of a test as any ex specially with the NORAD agreement up for re-signing.  And now they want NORAD to sea-borne as well.  This should be interesting.  Will Harper stick to his guns and to promises he made to Canadians?  Or will he attempt to appease the USA by backing down on Canada's Artic claim.  

Either way this should be a good litmus test to see where and how Harper and his policies will sit with both Canadians and Americans.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Jan 2006)

Prediction: 

Harper will stick to his guns - for the reasons that Edward suggested and also because it serves the US interests.  Not perhaps the interests of the Navy but certainly US commercial interests and the interests of Homeland Security.  The US wanted a perimeter fence so as to prevent the need for a border fence.  Fine.  We're just doing our bit by building a fence around the back 40.

Secondly, shippers would save money if the passage was open.  But the passage isn't open and it is not safe. Ice-breakers wil be required for a significant period to ensure safe passage.  Consider the ice-breakers and the Iqaluit port to be our version of the locks on the Panama Canal.  And do what the Panamanian do.  Charge for the service.  Of course we would have to legislate compliance, ie "you can't come through unless you are escorted by our pollution prevention and safety assistance vessel".

Build the ice-breakers without the deck gun but with a hole in the deck where the deck-gun can be dropped in. The Danes have used this system for their Flex vessels.  Assign it, if necessary to the Coast Guard but with an auxilliary military role, including supplying an operating base for RCMP, DFO and the CF in the same way the Kiwis have designed their Multi-Purpose Vessel.  Keep it in the Navy or Naval Reserve if you want to play hardball.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (26 Jan 2006)

Round one and it looks like the gloves are off already.

OTTAWA (CP) - Stephen Harper used his first news conference as prime minister-designate Thursday to warn the United States to mind its own business when it comes to Canada's Arctic. 

The Conservative leader said he'll stick to his campaign promise to bolster Canada's military presence in the North and build big new military icebreakers. He was responding to comments Wednesday by U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins, who criticized the plans, claiming the Arctic passage as "neutral waters." 

Harper said Canada will do what it wants in its territory. 

"The United States defends its sovereignty; the Canadian government will defend our sovereignty," he said. 

"It is the Canadian people that we get our mandate from, not the ambassador of the United States." 

Harper has promised to mend strained relations with the U.S., while standing firm for Canadian interests. 

Arctic sovereignty has been a sensitive subject for decades, with American submarines and even ships entering northern waters without asking permission. 

It was reported last month that a U.S. submarine travelled secretly through Canadian Arctic waters in November on its way to the North Pole. 

This was taken from the CNEWS website.

Could be an intresting 2-3 yrs if this stuff continues.


----------



## DG-41 (26 Jan 2006)

New arctic tents for everybody!

DG


----------



## 48Highlander (26 Jan 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> We could lay a naval minefield in the straits to block the Americans from entering the Arctic   The Ottawa Treaty does not prohibit naval mines.



WHAT?!?!  That's outrageous!  :threat:  What about all the poor innocent baby seals?  :'(



			
				RecceDG said:
			
		

> New arctic tents for everybody!
> 
> DG



Will they be cadpat, and "modular"?  ;D


Seriously though, the first thing I thought when I saw these articles was "hrm, this is avfully convinient for Harper....".  And I'm not normaly a conspiracy theorist!  Being seen to be "standing up to the Americans" though will deffinitely make Harper more popular, while at the same time raising awareness of and creating support for the arctic-soverignty initiatives.  And it costs him nothing in either political clout or US-Canada relations.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Jan 2006)

Tess:

You suggesting that this is the reverse of Frank McKenna inviting himself over to the State Department to be torn off a strip?

You are devious.


----------



## medicineman (26 Jan 2006)

Anyone remember a book by Richard Rohmer called "Exxoneration"?  This stuff sort of reminds me an awful lot of it.

Kind of a weird twist on the Americans deciding to take over Canadian oil/energy interests, mainly by force.  There was a rather amusing part in it that had Green Berets air assaulting into Pearson Airport or Downsview, can't remember which, and getting their buttocks thrashed.  It's kind of a neat read if you can find a copy of it - it was written during the oil crisis in the 70's.

Oh, yes do we need more presence up North.  Dare I say it, some REAL submarines - ie nuke boats - are about the best bet really, due to the ice.  And we do need surface ships too - if the ice clears up more, someone's gotta get a grip on what could become a potentially serious pollution problem.  And of course, you need boots on the ground, so get your DEET out dudes/etts, you'll need it there in the "summer".    ;D

MM


----------



## Armymatters (26 Jan 2006)

medicineman said:
			
		

> Anyone remember a book by Richard Rohmer called "Exxoneration"?  This stuff sort of reminds me an awful lot of it.
> 
> Kind of a weird twist on the Americans deciding to take over Canadian oil/energy interests, mainly by force.  There was a rather amusing part in it that had Green Berets air assaulting into Pearson Airport or Downsview, can't remember which, and getting their buttocks thrashed.  It's kind of a neat read if you can find a copy of it - it was written during the oil crisis in the 70's.
> 
> ...



I remember reading that book 4 years ago... good book.

Nuclear boats? Too damned expensive. The British Astute class submarine costs around £3.5 billion for 3 ships. The American Virginia class submarines costs around 2.6 billion dollars each. You can get the same capabilites out of a AIP submarine for a lot less. The Type 214 and Type 212 submarines are just as capable, and they are hard buggers to catch acoustically compared to a nuclear sub (nuclear submarines require that their coolant pumps be running at all times, creating noise, while in a AIP submarine, they are virtually silent when they are not moving), and AIP subs, like their diesel-electric parents, have a smaller MAD signature compared to nuclear boats.

Edit: To boil down what I said, scrap the Victoria's and get the German AIP subs instead. We then have the capabilites of the AIP sub right out of the box instead of the proposed cut the Victoria's in half and install a AIP barrel later on.


----------



## TCBF (26 Jan 2006)

Okay class, what do we know about international waterways and right of passage?

This seems to be a Naval Control of ShippinS issue.  Any Naval Reserve swabbies out there who can espouse legally and rationally about this?

The rest of us - in the meantime - can look at a map of the world and look at the straights of Mallaca, The Dardannelles, The Kategut, and then read about what happens when you close the Suez canal.

Lets extend the runway at Iqualuit, solidify the FOB there (again), lay SOSUS lines underneath the NW Passage(s) and tweak our fleet.  Otherwise, relax.

Tom


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Jan 2006)

> Edit: To boil down what I said, scrap the Victoria's and get the German AIP subs instead. We then have the capabilites of the AIP sub right out of the box instead of the proposed cut the Victoria's in half and install a AIP barrel later on.



Thing is:  Is it ever worth learning to do things yourself?  If time allows and technologies are not mature I think there is a place for some government funded experimentation.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Jan 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> .....
> Nuclear boats? Too damned expensive. The British Astute class submarine costs around £3.5 billion for 3 ships. The American Virginia class submarines costs around 2.6 billion dollars each. You can get the same capabilites out of a AIP submarine for a lot less. The Type 214 and Type 212 submarines are just as capable, ......


Not a 'Naval Type', but I'd like to call you on this.

To the best of my knowledge there are no Diesel-Electric Submarines in the world capable of operating for prolonged periods under the Polar Ice.  Nor are there any Diesel-Electric Subs designed to break through the Polar Ice.  I don't think your suggested subs are capable of doing any of the above.


----------



## Armymatters (26 Jan 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Thing is:  Is it ever worth learning to do things yourself?  If time allows and technologies are not mature I think there is a place for some government funded experimentation.



In this case, no. Take the Australians as an example. The Australians decided to replace the Oberon class submarines that were in the fleet. They decided as well to design and build their own submarines, resulting in the Collins class submarines. However, the Australians ran into many snags and problems with the class, to the point where once, in Feb of 2003, during a test dive, seawater flooded into the engine room of one of the submarines, and almost sinking the submarine. In fact, had the flood continued for another 20 seconds, the submarine would have been lost. Other snags revolved around excessive noise, compromising the stealthiness of the submarine (the submarine's were jokingly referred by the press to be like a underwater washing machine : ), and massive glitches in the weapons software suite. In fact, it has been 10 years since the first one was commissioned, and they are STILL debugging the submarines. Futher issues with the Collins class submarines:

Design faults: The metal that had been selected for use in the propeller had not been thoroughly tested and was brittle and inadequate.

Water ingress problems: Initially the Collins Class had water ingress in excess of 300 litres per hour, flooding into the sub. This was eventually corrected to only 3 litres.

Vibration issues: The periscopes of the submarines suffered from vibrations, and as a result, they cannot focus properly on a target. This problem has yet to be resolved.

Also, initially, the submarines commissioned with a malfunctioning computer system. It is suspected that this problem will never be resolved. Costs have also inflated; from around 4 billion dollars Australian to now 6 billion dollars.
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/decline/collins.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s119023.htm
Heck, read the Ministry of Defence report on these subs and see what problems they have:
http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/1999/collins.html

The lesson the ADF learned according to a few people within the ADF is to never design and build their own submarines in Australia again, and to leave submarine building to nations already well experienced with the building of submarines. The Germans are well experienced in designing modern submarines, and it is more economical to purchase off the shelf instead of designing our own submarines, as that will cause a situation where such submarines are 'strategic orphans' within NATO, meaning no one will share in the system upgrade/development costs, and no ally will be able to provide logistical support for the vehicle’s weapons systems in the field. Purchasing off the shelf meaning that someone else will be sharing upgrade/development costs, and they will also be able to provide logistical support in the field if needed.

And George Wallace: The Type 212 submarines can stay submerged for up to 3 weeks without snorkeling, and has a overall endurance of 12 weeks (roughly 3-4 months). That should be plenty of endurance for polar operations. The related Type 214 submarines have the same capabilites, but in a more updated design. What would be needed (in theory) is a ice-strengthened sail and bow planes to help break through the ice. Remember these submarines are German; the Baltic Sea frequently ices up during the winter, and the German subs have to operate in those conditions.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Jan 2006)

Not to nit pick, but I would imagine that a requirement would be to remain On Station (Submerged) for more than four weeks.  I would also not want to really compare the Baltic to the Arctic.


----------



## Armymatters (26 Jan 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Not to nit pick, but I would imagine that a requirement would be to remain On Station (Submerged) for more than four weeks.  I would also not want to really compare the Baltic to the Arctic.


Should not be a problem as currently, thanks to Global Warming, the ice pack is receding, hence the increased interested in using the Arctic as a short cut for shipping goods between Europe and Asia. So occasionally, the subs can probally snorkel in some of the ice-free areas, prolonging the time spent On Station.

Edit: In fact, read a BBC News report on this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4290340.stm
So travelling under the Arctic and being forced to stay under due to ice may be a moot point in the near future.


----------



## Michael OLeary (26 Jan 2006)

So, what exactly would be the under-ice mission(s) for this long-duration (2-4 wk) submerged deisel submarine?  Surely we're not perceiving a military threat from the US nuke boats transversing the passage, which by some estimates may be considered taversable year round on the surface in another decade or so (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/08/29/northwest.passage/).

So, setting aside any open intentions to blindly torpedo large sonar contacts under the ice cap, the submarine becomes a short term listening post. How many would we need for anything close to near continuous picketing? Wouldn't a monitoring task be better served by remote sensors? And perhaps open distribution of all contact data on detected vessels, partly to prove were getting it, partly as a deterrent because others may not want that data in the open. Why not regular ASW exercises on the fringes of the ice cap complementing sensor networks along the passage?

If it's a sovereignty exercise, how exactly does sailing undetected under the ice cap demonstrate that? Doesn't a visible presence (surface, land or air) do a better peacetime job of demonstrating a capability to exercise sovereignty, simply because others can see us doing it? 

Before we start selecting kit based on undefined mission requirements, maybe those missions, based on national policies and defence policies, need to be explored and determined.


----------



## BDG.CalgHighrs (26 Jan 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Okay class, what do we know about international waterways and right of passage?
> 
> This seems to be a Naval Control of ShippinS issue.  Any Naval Reserve swabbies out there who can espouse legally and rationally about this?
> 
> ...



I am not an international law expert by any stretch.

It seams to me that the ICJ (International Court of Justice) upholds Canada's claim based on a few criteria though.

'United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea' says that we can set pollution controls in our territorial waters (potentialy limiting even 'innocent passage' of merchant shipping). It also changes the definition of territorial waters to extending 12 nauticle miles offshore (The USA claims 24 nauticle miles and we might do well to follow suit). Based on Inuit occupancy international law would seam to dictate that the entirity of the NW passage were infact Canadian territorial waters. 

This is all well and good, however with no enforcement mechanism, it is unrealistic.

The way I see it, Canada has more than a few bargaining chips and Harper is a relatively shrewed man. He'll go forward with his plan, and some sort of mutual use agreement will be made under the auspices of pre-existing treaties between Canada and the US.


----------



## Armymatters (26 Jan 2006)

1. Remember the Type 212 and 214 submarines have a max endurance of 12 weeks, or around 3 months. Blocking off one entrance to the NW Passage would be enough, and using a combined sensor strategy (airborne, surface, and submerged), we can watch any ship or submarine that may enter or be in the passage. Airplanes and ships can provide top and surface cover throughout the passage (airborne and surface ships also have the abilities to detect submarines as well in a limited fashion), while submarines can operate as a covert watch post that no one will see or suspect. I am estimating that 3 submarines on the East Coast will be enough; one on station, one in base, preparing to transit to the patrol zone, and one in repair/refit. If we replace our Victoria's on a 1-1 basis (4 submarines), the one based on the West Coast can in transit to or from patrol. That means that in theory, the NW Passage can be patrolled year around by submarines, which will complement the surface and airborne patrols in the region.

2. Being able to watch what is going on is one matter; doing something about it is another. If you can observe whatever enters your territory and do something about it if needed, you have control over that territory. Submarines play into that strategy very well as they can operate as the hidden eyes and ears in the territory that no one will suspect may be lurking nearby. This is different from say a line of listening devices; the submarine in theory can do something about whatever is detected immediately upon detection (most likely, to alert whatever is detected that it is being watched and should leave is either the submarine surfacing nearby or lash that ship with sonar). If you can project power into a territory that you claim, you have sovereignty over that area. Even if it is hidden, you are still exerting power into the area. If you can plunk some men and equipment into the Arctic and keep it there to watch the area, we got de facto sovereignty of the region.


----------



## TCBF (26 Jan 2006)

Is the NW passage not more than 24 NM across at it's narrow point?  I think the para we need is the one dealing with inland waters of archipelagos.

One thing for sure, if we claim to own it, we have to prove - not just talk about it, but prove - that we CAN militarily control it.

Might be too late.

Tom


----------



## Armymatters (26 Jan 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Is the NW passage not more than 24 NM across at it's narrow point?  I think the para we need is the one dealing with inland waters of archipelagos.
> 
> One thing for sure, if we claim to own it, we have to prove - not just talk about it, but prove - that we CAN militarily control it.
> 
> ...



Perhaps send the Coast Guard icebreakers up there with a 25mm gun lashed onto the bow as a temporary Arctic patrol boat?  :  

Better yet: Lash a tank to the deck of an icebreaker. Has been done before in World War II. Read the story of Convoy PQ-17 during World War II when they used tanks lashed on the decks of merchant ships to help defend the covoy.


----------



## TCBF (26 Jan 2006)

"Better yet: Lash a tank to the deck of an icebreaker. Has been done before in World War II."

- I bet it would get some miserable sleeping in the Timberline 4-Man on the back deck of THAT tank.

 ;D

Tom


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jan 2006)

Slight digression back to submarines; buying out of the box only works when the product matches your requirments. Canada's experience with the "Victoria" class submarines is a case in point. For Diesel boats, these are quite a bit larger and more capable than anything the Germans or Swedes produce, since the UK is an ocean going Power and needs to be able to operate all its ships in the Atlantic. In fact, it is often described as a nuclear submarine without the reactor. Since they were designed in the 1980s or so, AIP was not a mature technology and no provisions were made to incorporate it.

By some really wierd coincidence, Canada also requires a Navy capable of operating in the open oceans, so when the British put them on the market, it was the logical way to go. (The fact they had to sit on blocks for several years while the Liberal government hemmed and hawed is outside the scope of this discussion). Australia's submarines and Navy ships operate in a somewhat different environment, both open ocean and littoral environments, but the Australians do not see themselves operating at such great distances as we need to. I am speculating the German and Swedish boats were not close enough to what the Naval staff was really looking for, which gave the politicians a wedge to create a home grown "Collins" class boat. Lack of experience and probably changing requirments during building probably had a lot to do with the difficulties they are having, don't forget a submarine is only slightly less complex than the Space Shuttle.

Back to Canada's Arctic waters, even having a squadron of surveillance aircraft making regular patrols would be an important first step, and *the more capability we put up there, the more options we will have*. Someone can pull up the reference, but back in the 80's a Soviet "Scientific" station was discovered drifting on the pack ice inside our waters. The only thing we could do at the time was to fly a CF-5 or CF -18 (can't remember) to "show the flag". It would have been even better if a transport plane had landed and disgorged some Customs officials and Canadian "Scientists" (hey Boris, we're here to help out with these really interesting radio experiments....) to do a bit of flag waving.


----------



## Armymatters (26 Jan 2006)

a_majoor:
I was told that the reason the Victoria's were purchased was due to a couple of reasons, and they all revolve around price. Purchasing the 4 submarines was considered a 'bargain' by many people in the government to maintain the submarine service in Canada. The reason why Swedish or German submarines were not considered (even though the Germans and the Sweds had submarines with AIP in the same size range as the Victoria's or bigger, i.e. Germany's Type 212, was due to price, although they had similar or superior capabilites. That is what I have been told and what I have read about the reasons behind the Victoria's being purchased.


----------



## TCBF (26 Jan 2006)

"but the Australians do not see themselves operating at such great distances as we need to."

- Correct.  They merely have to remain on station off the coast of Australia and torpedo the Indonesian invasion fleet when it appears.  After they run out of torpedos or Marmite, they beach the boats on the coast, each man grabs an Austen or an Owen, and they disperse into the jungle.  

 ;D

Tom


----------



## Armymatters (27 Jan 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "but the Australians do not see themselves operating at such great distances as we need to."
> 
> - Correct.  They merely have to remain on station off the coast of Australia and torpedo the Indonesian invasion fleet when it appears.  After they run out of torpedos or Marmite, they beach the boats on the coast, each man grabs an Austen or an Owen, and they disperse into the jungle.
> 
> ...



Assuming that their submarines can actually get a lock on Indonesian fleet and not suffer a computer glitch...  ;D
If they do suffer a computer glitch, ram the Indonesian fleet... lol...


----------



## Zartan (27 Jan 2006)

Other points in defending the Arctic within the Conservative Platform included building an "Arctic Training Centre" at Cambridge Bay, and increasing the number of Canadian Rangers. Perhaps not as effective at curtailing international shipping as a nuclear sub, but 9/10, at full speed, a snowmobile will skip over water. Furthermore, we already have a deepwater port at Churchill, though it may need some sprucing up after being left to rust since the '70s.


----------



## TCBF (27 Jan 2006)

" Furthermore, we already have a deepwater port at Churchill, though it may need some sprucing up after being left to rust since the '70s."

- The rail link to Churchill is a US line, IIRC.  The deep water port is a hard sell, as the deep water is covered in deep ice most of the year.  Global warming? Bring it on!  During the short season it is open, a bit of wheat actually moves through there.  Cheaper to rail it to the Twin Cities, then barge it down the Mississippi, I bet.

Tom


----------



## Blakey (27 Jan 2006)

Do we really have anything to worry about?  ;D
http://wdl.lug.ro/funny/lighthouse.wmv
I know its old...but its still funny.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Jan 2006)

> Wouldn't a monitoring task be better served by remote sensors? And perhaps open distribution of all contact data on detected vessels, partly to prove were getting it, partly as a deterrent because others may not want that data in the open.



I think this may be the most effective way of exerting sovereignty  - just remove the cloak from the area and announce to all and sundry what vessels of all nationalities are operating in those waters.  That together with the breakers supplying escort to any surface vessels transiting those waters for safety reasons would go a long way to establishing Canada's claims.  The submarine community seems to value their anonymity and having people write cheques for services goes a long way to deciding whether or not they think you own the area.

By the way, reference the northern deep water port - the Liberals were also planning on sinking some serious coin into a northern port. Their choice was Bathurst Inlet on the mainland just across the Coronation Gulf from Cambridge Bay on Victoria Island.    That stretch of water between the Island and the Mainland is one of the choke-points on the Northwest Passage.


----------



## TCBF (27 Jan 2006)

Hense my post about the SOSUS lines earlier, but, you are an inspiration:  The guvmint should then pay the weather network (Canada's fav pass time - the  weather) to do an arctic weather report ('Every 19 after the hour') that also shows the position of EVERY vessel in the Cdn Arctic Archipelago "And moving through that storm is the SS Van Hieneken - a Dutch cruise ship, the SS Backdoormanis, a Greek bulk carrier, and the USS Nukeyasucker - a ballistic missle submarine..."

 ;D

Am I not a cheap propagandist, or what?

Modest, too.

Tom


----------



## Recce41 (27 Jan 2006)

George
 As Army stated, the new German subs are just as good as the Nukes. I watch a domc about them. The Germans do make good subs. They pay to go through the Suez, why now pay for the NWP? We have to stand firm. They say no one is up there. But there are Alaska that are the same. A friend of mine, is posted to NORAD NorCom. 
REMEMBER TRUE NORTH STRONG and FREE.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jan 2006)

Dave

As you and I both know, there are people up there.  Pond Inlet and a few other communities are at the north end of Baffin Island.  You and I have both done patrols with the Rangers up there.  Miles and miles of rock, tundra, snow and ice and of course caribou.  Great place for Tourists to fish for Arctic Char.   ;D

Open up a few long airstrips and improve the Port facilities and make it a Port of Entry for new immigrants (acclimatization).   ;D  More activity (air and sea) may knock the price of a can of pop down to near a dollar.   ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jan 2006)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> Harper couldn’t have asked for anything better if he had planted this story himself.
> 
> Having a dispute with the USA is always popular in Canada.
> 
> Our Arctic claims are weak but we really must pursue them.



It looks like Harper did plant it and, according to John Ibbitson in today's _Globe and Mail_ for the same reasons Paul Martin slagged the US: to court the favour of the Canadian anti-American fringe, especially the part that equates Harper's Tories with George W. Bush's Republicans.

Here is Ibbitson's piece, reproduced in accordance with the fair dealings provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060127.IBBITSON27/TPStory


> New PM's icy comments over envoy could backfire
> By JOHN IBBITSON
> 
> Friday, January 27, 2006
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Jan 2006)

> At that forum, my colleague Jeffrey Simpson raised the issue of Arctic sovereignty, pointing out that the Conservative campaign platform pledged to defend Canada's claim to all the waters of the Arctic archipelago by increasing our military presence there.


  



> Mr. Wilkins, who has been desperately trying to keep himself out of the news, carefully responded that both sides had agreed to disagree on the issue for decades, and that many countries don't recognize Canada's claim of sovereignty over Arctic waters. But "you know, this is a situation where there's no reason to create a problem that doesn't exist," he said.
> 
> "There's no reason to say there's a problem that's occurring and we've got to do something about it."





> U.S. envoy dismisses Harper's Arctic plan
> Last Updated Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:09:54 EST
> CBC News
> 
> The United States opposes a plan by prime minister-designate Stephen Harper to deploy military icebreakers in the Arctic in order to assert Canadian sovereignty, says the U.S. ambassador to Canada.





> "The United States defends its sovereignty; the Canadian government will defend our sovereignty," he said.
> 
> "It is the Canadian people that we get our mandate from, not the ambassador of the United States."





> Stephen Harper took these innocent words and contorted them into An Incident. To bemused reporters, he declared (without having been asked) that Canada would defend its Arctic interests, no matter what Mr. Wilkins said.



So let me understand this:

Jeffrey Simpson of the Globe and Mail (I have my own biases when thinking of him) asks a question of the Ambassador about Canadian Policy.

The Ambassador responds with a statement about standing US policy and says he doesn't want to see this made into an incident.

CBC picks up the Ambassador's comments with an inflammatory headline and no indication that the matter was raised by a journalist.

Harper moves to squelch incident by a simple statement of Canada's intent.

John Ibbitson of the Globe and Mail accuses Harper of manufacturing an incident.


What exactly are the roles of the Globe's Simpson and Ibbitson and the CBC in all of this?


I was inclined to think that this was manufactured by Harper because it was such a conveniently timed soft ball.  But from where I sit now it seems to me that both Wilkins and Harper were responding to a set up by the "Press" to see where the Canada/US relation stands.

As to the question of Harper bringing it up without being asked - the question was out there because of the CBC's article.  Harper was probably moving to squelch any further speculation.  Whether he was successful was another matter.  But it certainly doesn't seem to me that Harper was the instigator here.


----------



## UberCree (27 Jan 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> " Furthermore, we already have a deepwater port at Churchill, though it may need some sprucing up after being left to rust since the '70s."
> 
> - The rail link to Churchill is a US line, IIRC.  The deep water port is a hard sell, as the deep water is covered in deep ice most of the year.  Global warming? Bring it on!  During the short season it is open, a bit of wheat actually moves through there.  Cheaper to rail it to the Twin Cities, then barge it down the Mississippi, I bet.
> 
> Tom



The Chinese are looking into building a twin track up to Churchill.  

The north could use the economic boost that is one thing for sure.


edited due to my horrific grammar.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Jan 2006)

Further to this discussion there is this article, also from the Globe and Mail today.  It noted that a Russian ice-breaker is supplying cruises through the Northwest Passage at $10,000 per time.  It is not clear at this time whether they are asking permission or whether, like many Russian ice-breakers, it is nuclear powered. 



> Speaking in late 2004, former U.S. ambassador Paul Cellucci hinted the United States may be willing to recognize Canada's claims to the Northwest Passage if it helps U.S. security.
> 
> "We are looking at everything through the terrorism prism," he said. "Our top priority is to stop the terrorists. So perhaps when this is brought to the table again, we may have to take another look."
> 
> ...



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20060127/REALITY27/TPNational


----------



## Glorified Ape (27 Jan 2006)

Gee, I sure am convinced that Harper isn't in the pocket of the Yanks by some tough-talking over a relatively innocuous issue. Good on him for the policy, but I don't think he's fooling anyone with the "raawr, I'm not owned by the US, look at me tell them what's what" bit. 



			
				TCBF said:
			
		

> Is the NW passage not more than 24 NM across at it's narrow point?  I think the para we need is the one dealing with inland waters of archipelagos.
> 
> One thing for sure, if we claim to own it, we have to prove - not just talk about it, but prove - that we CAN militarily control it.
> 
> ...



The waters between islands of archipelagic states like Indonesia are considered internal waters. A 24 NM claim means we can rightfully claim any passage which has a 48NM width (between islands) or less, since each island projects a 24NM boundary. If you look at any scale map of the Arctic Archipelago, you'll see that we can easily cut it off since there's no route one can take which doesn't take them within 24 NM of an island. The gap between Devon and Baffin Islands would be the best bet, but it's well under 48NM wide. 

Big suprise that the US doesn't like our claim - next they'll be telling us that James Bay isn't ours either. Screw 'em. Any half-wit (even south of the 49th) can see that the waters between those islands are ours by virtue of our ownership of the archipelago.


----------



## 48Highlander (27 Jan 2006)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> Big suprise that the US doesn't like our claim - next they'll be telling us that James Bay isn't ours either. Screw 'em. Any half-wit (even south of the 49th) can see that the waters between those islands are ours by virtue of our ownership of the archipelago.



Yes, but it takes a full-wit to realize that we have to be able to ENFORCE our claims, which is why some people are coming up short.

You'll also note that the US is hardly the only country that doesn't reckognize our claims.  In fact, I'm pretty sure we're the only ones who DO reckognize it.  The rest either disagree or haven't even thought about it yet.


----------



## Armymatters (27 Jan 2006)

Recce41 said:
			
		

> George
> As Army stated, the new German subs are just as good as the Nukes. I watch a domc about them. The Germans do make good subs. They pay to go through the Suez, why now pay for the NWP? We have to stand firm. They say no one is up there. But there are Alaska that are the same. A friend of mine, is posted to NORAD NorCom.
> REMEMBER TRUE NORTH STRONG and FREE.



The Germans better make good submarines after how much damage they did to us and the Allies during World War II! 14.5 million gross tonnage of merchant ships alone during the Battle of the Atlantic...


----------



## Bobbyoreo (27 Jan 2006)

"the Chinese are looking into building a twin track up to Churchill.  "


Uhh?? Never heard anything about this and why would the Chinese build anything up there....?

Hope I didnt just walk into a joke!!!


----------



## Armymatters (27 Jan 2006)

Bobbyoreo said:
			
		

> "the Chinese are looking into building a twin track up to Churchill.  "
> 
> 
> Uhh?? Never heard anything about this and why would the Chinese build anything up there....?
> ...



The same reason why the Chinese built a Maglev train in Shanghai connecting the city to the airport... because they can.


----------



## Bobbyoreo (27 Jan 2006)

The same reason why the Chinese built a Maglev train in Shanghai connecting the city to the airport... because they can.



Again....Why would and how could they build in Canada?


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Jan 2006)

If I am not mistaken they are also investing in Alberta tar sands projects, a pipeline to Prince Rupert and upgrading Prince Rupert port facilities.

They are acting like any other conglomerate with capital available to address their needs. They are investing where opportunity presents itself.

Now the fact that they are not like any other conglomerate, acting out of diverse interests, but a government of a nation-state.....now that's another matter.


----------



## Navy_Blue (27 Jan 2006)

I'm not a conservative and I don't agree with all our new PM's views.  If he keeps this up though, I'll have allot more respect for the man.  Bravo Zulue Mr Harper!!!  The North was explored by the Danes but never claimed.  To bad...so sad...sucks to be you   Finders keepers boys If the world map shows our little red line around the north then live with it.  Build the boats and make them buy tickets to pass through the passage; if it saves them money on Panama.  Its about time someone stood up and said whats ours is ours. 

Cheers


----------



## TCBF (27 Jan 2006)

I thought we were a pretty easy bunch here.  You don't have to be Conservative or agree with all of our PM's views.  

But if they believe in Canada, I suspect most people will end up agreeing with a lot of his views.

Let's give it three years.

In the meantime, watch the media fun as they try to say that PM Harper set this up.  Nice try guys.  The media set this up.

Tom


----------



## Glorified Ape (27 Jan 2006)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Yes, but it takes a full-wit to realize that we have to be able to ENFORCE our claims, which is why some people are coming up short.
> 
> You'll also note that the US is hardly the only country that doesn't reckognize our claims.  In fact, I'm pretty sure we're the only ones who DO reckognize it.  The rest either disagree or haven't even thought about it yet.



Are we the only ones? I find it funny that the US expects/wants complacent cooperation with them on everything from waging war and missile defence to drug legislation but won't even recognize our claim to ownership of waters that flow through an archipelago in our territory. 



			
				TCBF said:
			
		

> I thought we were a pretty easy bunch here.  You don't have to be Conservative or agree with all of our PM's views.
> 
> But if they believe in Canada, I suspect most people will end up agreeing with a lot of his views.
> 
> ...



Pfffft - pull your head out, Tom - it's the illuminati and New World Order that set this up. C'mon, everyone and their tinfoil hat knows that.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jan 2006)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> Are we the only ones? I find it funny that the US expects/wants complacent cooperation with them on everything from waging war and missile defence to drug legislation but won't even recognize our claim to ownership of waters that flow through an archipelago in our territory.
> 
> Pfffft - pull your head out, Tom - it's the illuminati and New World Order that set this up. C'mon, everyone and their tinfoil hat knows that.



Since we did nothing to seriously stake our claim for most of our history, and during the last half century sat fat and happy on the southern flank while any power with nuclear submarines (and the occasional ice strengthened oil tanker; Google the "Manhatten") sailed through the NW passage with impunity, by now only the Illuminati and New World Order are the only ones who would give serious credence to our claims.

As for what the US wants, they are looking after their national interests. If our past governments had done so, this thread topic would not even exist. Canada's behavior reminds me of the crowd who live in a housing co-op down the street. There is a large contingent who vote for lavish landscaping and building improvements, but "can't" provide labour or contributions in kind because they are on "disability" or other excuses. We expect to live in a modern industrial state with all the trimmings, but "can't" participate in the defense of these benefits because.....


----------



## TCBF (28 Jan 2006)

"Are we the only ones? I find it funny that the US expects/wants complacent cooperation with them on everything from waging war and missile defence to drug legislation but won't even recognize our claim to ownership of waters that flow through an archipelago in our territory."

- Naw, theys jes bein good ol boys is all.  Why give us more work when we can't do the work we have now?

I always knew that to be a Lieberal, people needed to hold two contradicting concepts in their brains at once:

Concept One:  We don't need to put military forces in our arctic because the Defence of North America agreements mean the US will defend us.  

Concept Two:  The American maps don't show Canada extending over our Arctic Archipelago: look at Google.Earth! Proof that they want our Arctic!

W-E-L-L-L-L.......  which is it?  Do we own and defend it, or do they?  Someboby has to.  Who will it be?

Tom


----------



## Navy_Blue (28 Jan 2006)

The past 50 years we have also been in NORAD and NATO.  Yes we expect that the US will defend us in the event of a challange but we also expect the help of NATO allies as well.  Its part of the deal when you have a group of countries like that.  Now allot of eyes are on us.  We have tons of fresh water, oil and gas and metal resourses.  If we don't stand up fpr our claims now today we wont have them and might not be a country tomorow.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Jan 2006)

Agreed, but lets do it quietly, not herky-jerky with big announcements..yadayada


----------



## tomahawk6 (28 Jan 2006)

Frankly I think the US position is weak and I think Condi will sort it out. US subs traverse the area as part of existing military agreements.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jan 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> *Frankly I think the US position is weak and I think Condi will sort it out*. US subs traverse the area as part of existing military agreements.



Um, I think it is Dr. Rice's job to *strengthen* US positions and claims as Secretary of State, including claims the Arctic waters are international waters. Since she has a few more pressing things to look after right about now, I wouldn't worry too much about it (although I would give an awful lot to sit in on a meeting between Dr Rice and Prime Minister Harper when they do discuss contentious bilateral issues).

Even if everyone starts work today, an effective full time presence in the High Arctic will take a long time to establish. Maybe Prime Minister Harper can discuss this with President Rice in 08.....


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Jan 2006)

I think that this could probably be sorted out quite easily by allowing US subs the same type of passage through Canadian waters that Canada permits to USAF aircraft and the US permits to CF aircraft.  Just so long as the US can be convinced that Canada can indeed keep the area under surveillance, secure the territory and control access.

That seems to be the underlying position of the US when looking at the statements of Cellucci in the past.  There's a deal to be had there.

Also wrt air-breathing subs, perhaps there is a role for them in the North - acting as gate-guards in open waters at the edge of the ice, monitoring and controlling traffic flow into the ice.  You might not need to go chasing under the ice,  any more than police need to go chasing after every speeder.  There aren't that many useable deep channels in the north and thus not that many exit points or choke points.  Those that there are are clustered fairly tightly together.  One sub at the entrance to Hudson Strait to the south of Baffin Island, another at the north end at the confluence of Lancaster Sound and Nares Strait and a third operating in the Beaufort Sea might just about get the job done.  It would certainly constrain the ability of subs or any other vessels to freely transit the area.  In that role the subs operating in domestic waters with the ice-breakers and air cover in support could spend time as much time on the surface as they wanted and the ice, weather and tactical situation allowed.


----------



## tomahawk6 (28 Jan 2006)

I think Alert needs to be kept as a base if the arctic is going to be a big priority.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Jan 2006)

Based on the suggested move of troops to the perimeter (Comox and Goose Bay as well as the Arctic generally) it would seem reasonable that both for sovereignty as well as technical surveillance reasons Alert might stay put.


----------



## Armymatters (28 Jan 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Based on the suggested move of troops to the perimeter (Comox and Goose Bay as well as the Arctic generally) it would seem reasonable that both for sovereignty as well as technical surveillance reasons Alert might stay put.



And Alert makes a damned good science station... there are plenty of scientists crawling all over that base on occasions, and its role in SIGINT for Canada cannot be underestimated.


----------



## TCBF (28 Jan 2006)

C'mon Al, when you quoted tomahawk6, did you have to quote  his whole map too?  Golly...

"I think Alert needs to be kept as a base if the arctic is going to be a big priority."

-Yes, but for what it does best.  Decades ago, the RCAF was looking at Hazan Lake on Baffin Island for an all-singing, all dancing base.  That area is now in a park.  I think a base on a defile in the NWP (and located on the islands, not the main continent: just to prove our point) would work, along with satelilte/SOSUS/RPV/Aurora/dogsled etc.

Tom


----------



## UberCree (29 Jan 2006)

"Even if everyone starts work today, an effective full time presence in the High Arctic will take a long time to establish. Maybe Prime Minister Harper can discuss this with President Rice in 08..... "  a_majoor
It will be with vice president Rice or with president Powell.


----------



## Jantor (29 Jan 2006)

Hello everyone

When the  northwest passage opens up enough for commercial shipping to use it, there will have to be a way to inspect and certify those carriers for using it. We couldn't allow just anyone to sail though there because any accidents or unauthorised bilge water/fuel spills would directly impact the the environment of the whole area whether it was internationally recognized or not. I think it would be irresponsible for us not to regulate passage. The ecology of our territory is to important to leave to chance in my humble opinion.

Buz


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Jan 2006)

Jantor brings up the other aspect of "Sovereignty" and that is the 200 mile Economic Exclusion Zone or more recently the Continental Shelf approach.  Under that approach we don't claim sovereignty over the territory but we do claim custody of the area. 

That's the regime under which Canada enforces fisheries, environmental and commercial laws on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts currently and under which Canada is set to extend jurisdiction out to the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap.  Its the legal basis for arresting Spanish trawlers and polluting CSL ships.  To my knowledge that doesn't prevent foreign military vessels transiting or operating in these zones.

One further point on sovereignty claims - Canada and the US have three areas where they have agreed to disagree on maritime boundaries for probably a century or more - the Straits of Juan de Fuca at the southern end of Vancouver Island, Dixon Channel at the entrance to Prince Rupert and where BC meets Alaska, and finally some island in the Bay of Fundy.  We haven't gone to war over those areas yet despite the occasional arrest of a vessel that tries the patience of one side or the other.

Expect the Arctic situation to be handled in much the same way.  The requirement is for surveillance, power of arrest (bodies and a place for them to sleep), and if possible get the other guy to write you a check or at least sign a waiver recognizing your authority.   That and some army training missions in the North and we'd be away to the races.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Jan 2006)

Now thats the kind of thinking we need.....our taking back a little more control of the "wild north" is not to poke the US with a stick, but to show our mutual co-operation.


----------

