DRDC Future Arctic Scenario Papers Out

[The Bread Guy]

From "Arctic Planning Scenarios:  Scenario #1 – Defence Scenario" (PDF):

.... The scenario makes use of open source references and the (Capability Inventory Tool) to present an overview of the current situation and presents a projection out to 2015 to set context for a possible security environment. In the test case scenario, there are significant tensions between Canada and Russia over Arctic sovereignty. While all efforts have been taken to present a plausible scenario, the research was not based on any intelligence assessments and is not intended to be considered a likely future. Rather, it presents a forum designed to test a range of capabilities required for Canada to be able to meet its strategy and policy objectives.

(....)

Projected Arctic Tension in 2015 – Proximal Causes

(....)

Given the tension over the Lomonosov Ridge, [20] Canada’s decision to escalate the scope and nature of Op NANOOK 14 into something akin to a NATO ‘Cold Response’ type exercise in which thousands of military personnel were involved across all domains was seen as very anti-Russian -- focused as it was against territorial incursions into Canadian territory. NATO’s broader participation in the exercise was received badly in Moscow and was negatively reported in a state controlled media. Politically, Russia responded in a manner which was sure to exacerbate the situation:
- Op NANOOK was constantly observed by research vessels in the vicinity of disputed waters (Lomonosov Ridge);
- All Op NANOOK Air defence serials attracted a defensive posture from the Russia’s with MIG interceptors airborne for daylight hours;
- Russian Carrier strike was exercised adjacent to major NATO maritime TASK GROUP in what Russia claims were international waters;
- A Russian Deep Diving Vessel landed a saturation dive team onto the Lomonosov Ridge;
- NORAD Radar and satellites were intermittently jammed by unknown sources;
- NATO TASK GROUP was shadowed by at least two Russian SSNs during a simulated Amphibious Raid against pre-prepared Canadian Army positions; and
- Russian SOF gave a capability demonstration to Russian media as they practiced an assault against a fuelling facility mock up.

The exercise was hamstrung by this cat and mouse game being played out by both sides.  Tensions were high throughout the culminating week when NATO had hoped to show the effectiveness of its comprehensive approach. Media speculation fuelled the situation with some exaggerated coverage from the tabloid newspapers as to how the Cold War had been reborn in the Arctic ....

From "Arctic Planning Scenarios:  Scenario #2 – Safety and Security Scenario" (PDF):

.... The scenario makes use of open source references and the (Capability Inventory Tool) to present an overview of the current situation, presents a projection out to 2020 to set the context for a future security environment in which there are threats of illegal immigration, organized crime, and human smuggling and illegal narcotic importation that piggy-back onto the increased shipping and tourism that is likely to take place. The use of the northern approaches for illegal activity and entrance into North America is seen to be a common concern. While all efforts have been taken to present a plausible scenario, it is not based on any formal intelligence assessments and is not intended to be considered a likely future. Rather, it presents a forum designed to test a range of capabilities required for Canada to be able to meet its strategy and policy objectives ....

 

[lethalLemon]

OH BABY! Sign me up and hand me a rifle!

On a more serious note:

I find DRDC papers to be very intriguing as it gives you a more indepth look into what goes on in the military world. The way I see it, while Russia has a valid argument by saying that the Arctic region has never really been properly divided among the "arctic nations" (although, I'm pretty sure it has, you just have to look at a map), however it poses questions like:

"Are world maps displaying political land and water borders printed and monitored for accuracy throughout the world?"
I don't know the answer to this, but I will take a guess and say that maps are not internationally regulated and there may be discrepancies from one nation to the next. Therefore, it's understandable that the Russians would dispute over Arctic ownership. HOWEVER, if the case is not true and there is an international body that regulates maps and what borders are where etc. etc. Why isn't anyone saying "Hey Ruskie, this isn't your territory, GET OUT!"

"Should uninhabited arctic bodies of ice/land be permitted to belong to one specific nation?"
In my opinion, they should. All land/geographic bodies within the vicinity of a nation should be part of that nations' political administration (as in, ownership and control etc.), to prevent other nations from seizing opportunities that would make one cringe. Example: small islands north of Inuvik or far east of Resolute - Russians could erect military outposts for devious plots for... whatever... or start a massive resource harvest to build military assets etc.

Just a couple things I thought about during my second and third readings.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I was intrigued by the "increased tourism+increased vessel traffic = increased human trafficking + increased organized crime" scenario in the security scenarios paper.

With drugs/folks having to travel so far to get to bigger centres, would this be lots more, or just a bit more that would be difficult to track/monitor because of its remote origins?