- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 50
Posted by "Ian Edwards" <[email protected]> on Wed, 17 Jan 2001 16:21:03 -0700
Joan, again from Ian:
Wasn‘t meaning to pick on you, just that you reopened the thread. An
interesting sub-thread too. Obviously I have a bias against using troops in
non-military roles unless there is no other choice. Witness the use both in
Canada circa 1900 in labour strife, and the Brits ditto in the early/mid
industrial revolution sic, evolution. And in some cases, aid to the civil
power indicates lack of civilian planning. Was hoping to generate comments
for the many on this list now that we seem to have gotten away from the
Pre-Enlistment Blues not that that isn‘t a legitimate thread.
We would have to ask those in Toronto about the use of soldiers for
clearning snow. Seems from earlier threads that the calling out of troops
last year? was not such a good idea, overkill if you will pardon the use
of the term. BTW, it‘s about 3 Celcius here in Edmonton area and has been
like this almost all "winter" - what is this thing called "snow" I keep
hearing about? : touch wood.
If we have any sappers on the BB perhaps they would care to advise if they
could perceive of their employment in the case of environmental spills, etc
in the high arctic - training, equipment, logistics, etc. As the real
"pro‘s" on this BB wiould quickly confirm I may be old sorry, John but
sojering was never my real profession, just a hobby for a long time.
While your rasing the issue of environmental caution/concern for the North
is valid, my original jump-in in the thread several weeks ago concerned
maintainence of soverignity. My concern was not what was likely to happen
five, ten years down the road, but beyond that. By the time we can perceive
an immediate threat it may be too late.
----- Original Message -----
From: Joan O. Arc
To:
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: Arctic
> Ian - Frankly, I have no idea.
>
> But inasmuch as we now seem to be using the military in all sorts of
> "emergency" Plowing snow! - A good idea or a bad one? You tell me...
> situations floods, too, it doesn‘t seem entirely far-fetched to me that
> the day might come when the military could be called upon to help "mop up"
> some sort of disaster or another in the Far North.
>
> Wasn‘t commenting on the desireability - or the likely nature - of such a
> scenario, merely on the possibility of it occurring.
>
> In any case, I agreed with you on the broad point that the Arctic is an
area
> to which the "national defense community" might wish to pay more
attention -
> for whatever reason.
>
> However, whether parachutists, engineers - or any other component of the
CF
> - would be better suited to handling some of the situations that could
> emerge in the Arctic over the next 10 to 20 years than other government
or
> private agencies/departments is a subject on which I lack the expertise
to
> opine. It would, I suspect, like so many other things in life, depend
upon
> the context, but it would perhaps be reassuring/helpful to the nation to
at
> least leave the option open.
>
> You, and other "old pros" on the list who *do* have the expertise should,
> however, feel free to weigh in...
>
> - Joan
>
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: "Ian Edwards"
> Reply-To: [email protected]
> To:
> Subject: Re: Arctic
> Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 09:35:10 -0700
>
> Joan from Ian Edwards:
>
> What sort of force would you envision being sent to the Arctic as a result
> of an environmental disaster? Our Combat Engineers?
> If this "force" is a part of the CF, how could this units do a
> better/timely, more efficient/cost effective job than some other
department
> of the federal government and/or an industry body/group tasked for such
> emergencies?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joan O. Arc
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 8:02 AM
> Subject: Re: Arctic
>
>
> > A very belated comment:
> >
> > Given the growing interest in Arctic petroleum reserves, the scemario
Ian
> > and Peter envisage is not so far-fetched. At the very least, in the
case
> of
> > a major environmental disaster relating to the oil industry, it would
be
> > nice to know some sort of force could be dispatched to the site - for
> > whatever purpose - quickly and relatively easily.
> >
> > Happy new year all,
> >
> > Joan
> >
> >
> > ----Original Message Follows----
> > From: "Ian Edwards"
> > Reply-To: [email protected]
> > To:
> > Subject: Arctic
> > Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 13:45:31 -0700
> >
> > I envision a threat, some day, from the Chinese, the Japanese, the
> > Americans, and even the old Russians if and when they get their act
> > together. "Our" arctic, beyond the north coast of continental N.
America,
> > is a huge area with a great potential for metallic mineral wealth,
> > hydrocarbons, etc. and virtually void of population and at present not
> even
> > patrolled to any reasonable degree that would indicate "possession" by
> > Canada. Historical claims to that vacuum would be viewed by outsiders
as
> a
> > bit dubious should they wish to take an interest. One scenario could
see
> the
> > high arctic transformed into a UN preserve with no nations given any
> > overriding rights or a model such as the Antarctic. Another, even worse
> > scenario would see the return of "gunboat diplomacy" with the
> aforementioned
> > large nations saying, "well, Canada has no real right to the area and
has
> > never really exercised any REAL degree of sovereignty, therefore it‘s
up
> for
> > grabs. Even any variation on the former example means a loss to Canada.
> The
> > latter is really not unthinkable, perhaps just a matter of time.
> >
> > Stationing a few CF18s at temporary fields for a few days at a time per
> year
> > and a few four/sixteen ??? sovereignty flights per year by patrol
> aircraft
> > seems like defining the need in terms of what resources we care to
> expend.
> > Use it or lose it!
> >
> > Not that I think that a battalion of para. would solve the problem. Not
> that
> > I know what level of "presence" would preclude outsiders from casting
> > envious eyes on our high arctic.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Mike Oleary
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 1:39 PM
> > Subject: Re: Officers/NCO‘s.
> >
> > Large snip follows:
> >
> > > With respect to the arctic - what threat do you envision?
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to [email protected] from the account you wish to
> > remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> > message body.
> >
> >
_________________________________________________________________________
> > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to [email protected] from the account you wish to
> > remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> > message body.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to [email protected] from the account you wish to
> remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> message body.
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to [email protected] from the account you wish to
> remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> message body.
>
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to [email protected] from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.
Joan, again from Ian:
Wasn‘t meaning to pick on you, just that you reopened the thread. An
interesting sub-thread too. Obviously I have a bias against using troops in
non-military roles unless there is no other choice. Witness the use both in
Canada circa 1900 in labour strife, and the Brits ditto in the early/mid
industrial revolution sic, evolution. And in some cases, aid to the civil
power indicates lack of civilian planning. Was hoping to generate comments
for the many on this list now that we seem to have gotten away from the
Pre-Enlistment Blues not that that isn‘t a legitimate thread.
We would have to ask those in Toronto about the use of soldiers for
clearning snow. Seems from earlier threads that the calling out of troops
last year? was not such a good idea, overkill if you will pardon the use
of the term. BTW, it‘s about 3 Celcius here in Edmonton area and has been
like this almost all "winter" - what is this thing called "snow" I keep
hearing about? : touch wood.
If we have any sappers on the BB perhaps they would care to advise if they
could perceive of their employment in the case of environmental spills, etc
in the high arctic - training, equipment, logistics, etc. As the real
"pro‘s" on this BB wiould quickly confirm I may be old sorry, John but
sojering was never my real profession, just a hobby for a long time.
While your rasing the issue of environmental caution/concern for the North
is valid, my original jump-in in the thread several weeks ago concerned
maintainence of soverignity. My concern was not what was likely to happen
five, ten years down the road, but beyond that. By the time we can perceive
an immediate threat it may be too late.
----- Original Message -----
From: Joan O. Arc
To:
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: Arctic
> Ian - Frankly, I have no idea.
>
> But inasmuch as we now seem to be using the military in all sorts of
> "emergency" Plowing snow! - A good idea or a bad one? You tell me...
> situations floods, too, it doesn‘t seem entirely far-fetched to me that
> the day might come when the military could be called upon to help "mop up"
> some sort of disaster or another in the Far North.
>
> Wasn‘t commenting on the desireability - or the likely nature - of such a
> scenario, merely on the possibility of it occurring.
>
> In any case, I agreed with you on the broad point that the Arctic is an
area
> to which the "national defense community" might wish to pay more
attention -
> for whatever reason.
>
> However, whether parachutists, engineers - or any other component of the
CF
> - would be better suited to handling some of the situations that could
> emerge in the Arctic over the next 10 to 20 years than other government
or
> private agencies/departments is a subject on which I lack the expertise
to
> opine. It would, I suspect, like so many other things in life, depend
upon
> the context, but it would perhaps be reassuring/helpful to the nation to
at
> least leave the option open.
>
> You, and other "old pros" on the list who *do* have the expertise should,
> however, feel free to weigh in...
>
> - Joan
>
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: "Ian Edwards"
> Reply-To: [email protected]
> To:
> Subject: Re: Arctic
> Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 09:35:10 -0700
>
> Joan from Ian Edwards:
>
> What sort of force would you envision being sent to the Arctic as a result
> of an environmental disaster? Our Combat Engineers?
> If this "force" is a part of the CF, how could this units do a
> better/timely, more efficient/cost effective job than some other
department
> of the federal government and/or an industry body/group tasked for such
> emergencies?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joan O. Arc
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 8:02 AM
> Subject: Re: Arctic
>
>
> > A very belated comment:
> >
> > Given the growing interest in Arctic petroleum reserves, the scemario
Ian
> > and Peter envisage is not so far-fetched. At the very least, in the
case
> of
> > a major environmental disaster relating to the oil industry, it would
be
> > nice to know some sort of force could be dispatched to the site - for
> > whatever purpose - quickly and relatively easily.
> >
> > Happy new year all,
> >
> > Joan
> >
> >
> > ----Original Message Follows----
> > From: "Ian Edwards"
> > Reply-To: [email protected]
> > To:
> > Subject: Arctic
> > Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 13:45:31 -0700
> >
> > I envision a threat, some day, from the Chinese, the Japanese, the
> > Americans, and even the old Russians if and when they get their act
> > together. "Our" arctic, beyond the north coast of continental N.
America,
> > is a huge area with a great potential for metallic mineral wealth,
> > hydrocarbons, etc. and virtually void of population and at present not
> even
> > patrolled to any reasonable degree that would indicate "possession" by
> > Canada. Historical claims to that vacuum would be viewed by outsiders
as
> a
> > bit dubious should they wish to take an interest. One scenario could
see
> the
> > high arctic transformed into a UN preserve with no nations given any
> > overriding rights or a model such as the Antarctic. Another, even worse
> > scenario would see the return of "gunboat diplomacy" with the
> aforementioned
> > large nations saying, "well, Canada has no real right to the area and
has
> > never really exercised any REAL degree of sovereignty, therefore it‘s
up
> for
> > grabs. Even any variation on the former example means a loss to Canada.
> The
> > latter is really not unthinkable, perhaps just a matter of time.
> >
> > Stationing a few CF18s at temporary fields for a few days at a time per
> year
> > and a few four/sixteen ??? sovereignty flights per year by patrol
> aircraft
> > seems like defining the need in terms of what resources we care to
> expend.
> > Use it or lose it!
> >
> > Not that I think that a battalion of para. would solve the problem. Not
> that
> > I know what level of "presence" would preclude outsiders from casting
> > envious eyes on our high arctic.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Mike Oleary
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 1:39 PM
> > Subject: Re: Officers/NCO‘s.
> >
> > Large snip follows:
> >
> > > With respect to the arctic - what threat do you envision?
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to [email protected] from the account you wish to
> > remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> > message body.
> >
> >
_________________________________________________________________________
> > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to [email protected] from the account you wish to
> > remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> > message body.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to [email protected] from the account you wish to
> remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> message body.
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to [email protected] from the account you wish to
> remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> message body.
>
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to [email protected] from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.
