[ziggy]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

way south of the hotspots though. Sayign a project in baffin ill help leverage change in the extreme north is like saying a project in BC will benifit the Ontario manufacturing industry.

There will be a good supply line to there allready.

[BartSimpson]

I've been on this site coming up on four years soon and for all of those years I've advocated that Canada needs a three ocean capability to protect her interests and for most of those years I was ridiculed. "Protect it from who?" was the myopic response. Well, now you have your answer and you still have jack sh*t to defend your interests with.

Now, as I was saying. Rebuilding the shipyards at Esquimalt and Halifax should be a priority so Canada is not at the mercy of the very people she needs to defend herself from when she needs a navy. And Canada needs a real, blue water navy NOW.

[Canadian_Mind]

that was msotly the response of the government on both sides of the spectrum... and their most avid supporters. alot of us new what you were saying and agreed with it, but what can we do when even the conservatives scrap plans?

[ziggy]

I see there is now a google earth underwater.Think i'll take a cruise to the pole,see what's down there under all that ice.

[mustang7617]

[quote="ziggy"]We could allways sit back,watch the Russians move in and wait for the US to save our ass which will come with a hefty price.

this is russia we re talking bout whose military is 5x the size of the US military. it would b unwise 2 provoke russia now. with US military focus commited overseas the last thing the US needs is 2 have 2 deal with a country as militarily powerful and unpredictible as russia. if pushed russia will certainly push back quite possibily with military force in which case the US would be forced 2 step up otherwise russia would easily take canada or blow it off the map if the russians wish. any such confrontation would only sprial out of control. remember that just because the cold war is over both sides still have massive nuclear arsenals which would likely be used in a limited way if things got out of hand. a limited nuclear war is likely if not inevitable at some point in the future with any major confrontation between the US and Russia being the most likely senario. there is a time and situation 4 everything and this time it is best 2 let politics sort this 1 out rather than outright provokeing conflict.

[ziggy]

They allready said if it went to court and they lost they would still push ahead with their ownership claims.

So it's just a matter of time.

The melting ice has nothing to do with it either,their talking about going in by 2012.

[Canadian_Mind]

Russian equipment is old,it's only numbers that would cause a problem. Our frigates were designed to counter Russian Ships and Subs, and since that time the Russians haven't created new ships that could upsurp ours. It's not like the Russian's would have an easy time, and they wouldn't be able to amass their whole fleet into the artic anyways. They'd be constantly pounded by fighters and Aurora's out of Alert and Resolute, aswell as having to deal with our surface and subsurface ships (if we could ever get the damned subs running). They wouldn't have air support, and are outclassed. We'd be in a pickle when we run out of munitions.

[Bacardi4206]

What is up with Russia? Diddn't they only recently just get there economy back, before when there citizens couldn't even afford a pair of blue jeans. Now they want to start another war, a war that will most likely destroy there military and send them to the poor house again?

Because if they think they can get the rights to the artic by military means, than they will be answered by military means. While at the same time the dispute is still being debated by countries on who get's what part of the artic and where the borders are. Countries with ACTUAL evidence, not just claims and military agression.

[Bacardi4206]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Russian equipment is old,it's only numbers that would cause a problem. Our frigates were designed to counter Russian Ships and Subs, and since that time the Russians haven't created new ships that could upsurp ours. It's not like the Russian's would have an easy time, and they wouldn't be able to amass their whole fleet into the artic anyways. They'd be constantly pounded by fighters and Aurora's out of Alert and Resolute, aswell as having to deal with our surface and subsurface ships (if we could ever get the damned subs running). They wouldn't have air support, and are outclassed. We'd be in a pickle when we run out of munitions.

NATO Agreements, U.S. would most likely back us up. Part of there responsability as a member of NATO, and they owe us for taking part of our NATO agreement by entering Afghanistan when America was attacked.

I am sure the UN wouldn't let it slide either, or the other countries. They want it settles diplomaticly with evidence of border claims. Russia flexing it's military muscles isn't going to win them the artic and hopefully they will see that.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I've been on this site coming up on four years soon and for all of those years I've advocated that Canada needs a three ocean capability to protect her interests and for most of those years I was ridiculed. "Protect it from who?" was the myopic response. Well, now you have your answer and you still have jack sh*t to defend your interests with.

Now, as I was saying. Rebuilding the shipyards at Esquimalt and Halifax should be a priority so Canada is not at the mercy of the very people she needs to defend herself from when she needs a navy. And Canada needs a real, blue water navy NOW.

Ever get the feeling that you accidentally changed both your text and font colour to white?

[bootlegga]

ziggy ziggy:

Air support is way cheaper then shipping it in that 3 month window when the ice is clear.

Then you could drill,2 guys to a heli drill,these guys are tough,they can live in anyhing. Mostly their Maritimers.
An icebreaker isnt going to make any money for Canada,my plan would.

The whole point of heavy icebreakers is you can operate up there for a lot longer than three months. If we had built the Polar 8 from Mulroney's days, we could be up there almost all year long. Frankly, I don't care about making money, I care about maintaining our sovereignty.

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I've been on this site coming up on four years soon and for all of those years I've advocated that Canada needs a three ocean capability to protect her interests and for most of those years I was ridiculed. "Protect it from who?" was the myopic response. Well, now you have your answer and you still have jack sh*t to defend your interests with.

Now, as I was saying. Rebuilding the shipyards at Esquimalt and Halifax should be a priority so Canada is not at the mercy of the very people she needs to defend herself from when she needs a navy. And Canada needs a real, blue water navy NOW.

Well, I've been very vocal in building real icebreakers and creating capabilities to maintain our sovereignty in the Arctic. See my editorial;

http://www.canadaka.net/article/668-a-n ... st-century

We have a real blue water navy (althought if Harper doesn't get off his ass and order the JSS, we might not for much longer). Building carriers as you've advocated wouldn't help in the Arctic. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever sent a carrier into the Arctic. With aerial refueling, our CF-18s have the legs to operate anywhere in the Arctic.

We'd be far better off building our own nuke subs (as the US and Brits won't sell them to us) and heavy icebreaker(s) and maintain a year round presence up there. Given that we're also scrapping 1/3 of our Auroras (a mistake IMHO), we also need to purchase/design very long-range UAVs, capable of dozens of hours of flight and thousands of KMs of range. Something with 10,000-15,000 kms range and at least a 24 hour flight capability would be a good fit.

[ziggy]

I dont understand how heavy icebreakers will show our soveriegnity.Busting through ten feet of ice for what?
Your not going to keep a channel open for very long.

How does this instead of boots on the ground make sense?
Theres also a reason the deep port isnt being built right now and you ask the greedy mining companies about that,when they heard the govt. was thinking of building a port they dropped all of their part of the funding,seeing how they were to benefit the most the govt. held off.
I cant see how an arctic base would be worse then heavy icebreakers,it would be cheaper,keep our supply lines open to the north and could supplement the DEW line which is getting a major workover on it as I type.Them we have a permanent presence,instead of an icebreaker that would come by once a month looking for what I dont know.

[Choban]

Is this the new "Cold War" Pardon the pun, but why are we even arguing the fact with these morons. If they wanted to claim arctic territory they should have done so waaaaayyy back when we weren't in a position to argue with them!
We need to assert our ownership of the land in question, and do something about it, weather asking our allies to back us or taking it up on a world wide level, Russia is already the largest country in the world with the world's greatest reserves of mineral and energy resources, WTF do they need to fight for their claim for. Tell them to get bent and stop pussyfooting around the issue.

[OPP]

"The purpose of our being lies in the expansion of our space. The shelf belongs to us. Polar bears live there, Russian polar bears. And penguins live there, Russian penguins."
-That's something I'd expect Bush to say

On a more serious note, NATO already sent troops to establish a base and a "foothold" in the region so what's all this talk of "Russians flexing their muscles"? There's lots at stake here. When the ice withdraws you can expect too see the whole commerce and economic map redrawn. Some pretty juicy trade routs are thawing out and who wouldn't want a peace of that?