[DerbyX]

Wullu Wullu:

DerbyX DerbyX:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

can't, it's an international seaway according to treaty

A treaty between who besides the US & Canada? We would have a pretty strong case considering the river travels directly through the heart of Canada and we could justifiably make it a security issue.

The states, while demanding other nations respect the 10 mile off-shore limit to territory are very bad when it comes to their waters. Would they have ever let a soviet battlegroup conduct drill outside the 10 mile limit in the gilf of mexico?

And a big chunk through the heart of the US as well Derb...double edged sword there.

Aside from lake Michigan where does the St. lawrence (and associated great lakes) flow soley through US terrotory?

[YankGreat]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

YankGreat YankGreat:

DerbyX DerbyX:

YankGreat YankGreat:

DerbyX DerbyX:

YankGreat YankGreat:

Power For Great America!!!!

Perhaps its time we closed the St. Lawrence to all US sea traffic.

Bet you didn't think of that eh const?

Ooooo will that happen?

Bet you didn't think of that huh, dear?

If you guys keep deciding to act as criminals, quite possibly.

CRIMINALS?!?!?!?!?!!! Hey, you know that the United States is working for your own safety. YOU DARE CALL AMERICANS CRIMINALS?!?!?!!

Well you should know, yous guy's have HYPERCRIME

oh this is why I love freedom of speech.

You know that the United States loves you so much so that's why America wants to protect you from bad baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad VERY baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad SUPER ULTRA baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad people.

[Wullu]

Tman1 Tman1:

Wullu Wullu:

Matter of fact I do recall seeing another armed vessel in the Lakes last summer....us. 50 cal HMG, 6 pounder saluting guns, Sea Sparrow SAMs, Harpoon ASM, 20mm phalanx and 57mm Bofors. A tad more than a couple lousy little 60's.

You wouldn't happen to have a name for this vessel other than "us", would you?

Lakes Trip

[ShepherdsDog]

The North West Passage runs right through the northern third of canada but we aren't able to stop anyone from using it. How do you plan stopping the US from using the St. Lawrence Seaway, blockading it with your Canadian Tire inflatable raft?

[DerbyX]

YankGreat YankGreat:

oh this is why I love freedom of speech.

You know that the United States loves you so much so that's why America wants to protect you from bad baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad VERY baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad SUPER ULTRA baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad people.

Thats specious reasoning. I should sell my magic "tiger-keep-away" rocks to all Canadians. They must work because look at how few Canadians get attacked by tigers.

[Tman1]

Wullu Wullu:

Tman1 Tman1:

Wullu Wullu:

Matter of fact I do recall seeing another armed vessel in the Lakes last summer....us. 50 cal HMG, 6 pounder saluting guns, Sea Sparrow SAMs, Harpoon ASM, 20mm phalanx and 57mm Bofors. A tad more than a couple lousy little 60's.

You wouldn't happen to have a name for this vessel other than "us", would you?

Lakes Trip

Thanks. Are there regularly deployed armed vessels patroling the great lakes area by Canadian vessels?

[DerbyX]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

The North West Passage runs right through the northern third of canada but we aren't able to stop anyone from using it. How do you plan stopping the US from using the St. Lawrence Seaway, blockading it with your Canadian Tire inflatable raft?

I don't. Its a semantic argument. Of course we could always build a low bridge across the river or use our navy. Its simply an argument to show people like constantinople where their reasoning can lead.

[Wullu]

Tman1 Tman1:

Wullu Wullu:

Tman1 Tman1:

Wullu Wullu:

Matter of fact I do recall seeing another armed vessel in the Lakes last summer....us. 50 cal HMG, 6 pounder saluting guns, Sea Sparrow SAMs, Harpoon ASM, 20mm phalanx and 57mm Bofors. A tad more than a couple lousy little 60's.

You wouldn't happen to have a name for this vessel other than "us", would you?

Lakes Trip

Thanks. Are there regularly deployed armed vessels patroling the great lakes area by Canadian vessels?

Anyways, it was stated clearly that the treaty in 1812 prevented armed vessels from being in the waters and if the US were already using weapons on the waters, would that not mean they already disregarded the treaty?

Nah, we only send ships up the Lakes for PR trips like the one we did, but the Lakes Treaty provisions were something that we had to deal with. We wanted to fire the saluting guns a number of times in both US and Canadian ports as well carry out live fire training exercises with the real weapon systems such as the 57mm and the Phalanx. The US was more than happy to go along with it.

So far as arming ships under the treaty? Well that is based entirely the weapon calibre and that in turn was based on 1812 technology. So we are talking about wether or not the cannon in question is a 4 pounder or a 18 pounder, smooth bored, rifle bored, breach loaded, muzzle loaded etc etc. Not alot really applicable to today's weapon systems. The only systems that we had to get the ok on was the 57mm and the 6 pounders. Our 20mm 3000 round a minute Phalanx was not of large enough calibre to be considered under the treaty, so a 7.62mm round at 600 rpm would hardly count either. The 7.62 is no larger than a hunting round someone might use for big game.

Then there is the question of wether these RHIBs (rigid hull inflatable boat) qualify as a "ship".

[Wullu]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

The North West Passage runs right through the northern third of canada but we aren't able to stop anyone from using it. How do you plan stopping the US from using the St. Lawrence Seaway, blockading it with your Canadian Tire inflatable raft?

Actually the NW passage is only considered to be Canadian waters for the purposes of international transit by one country....Canada. The rest of the world consider it to be an international water passage along the lines of the Straits of Gibraltar, the passages between all the islands in the SW Pacific, between Japan and the Asian mainland etc etc.

[Tman1]

Wullu Wullu:

Nah, we only send ships up the Lakes for PR trips like the one we did, but the Lakes Treaty provisions were something that we had to deal with. We wanted to fire the saluting guns a number of times in both US and Canadian ports as well carry out live fire training exercises with the real weapon systems such as the 57mm and the Phalanx. The US was more than happy to go along with it.

So far as arming ships under the treaty? Well that is based entirely the weapon calibre and that in turn was based on 1812 technology. So we are talking about wether or not the cannon in question is a 4 pounder or a 18 pounder, smooth bored, rifle bored, breach loaded, muzzle loaded etc etc. Not alot really applicable to today's weapon systems. The only systems that we had to get the ok on was the 57mm and the 6 pounders. Our 20mm 3000 round a minute Phalanx was not of large enough calibre to be considered under the treaty, so a 7.62mm round at 600 rpm would hardly count either. The 7.62 is no larger than a hunting round someone might use for big game.

Then there is the question of wether these RHIBs (rigid hull inflatable boat) qualify as a "ship".

Fair enough. I for one fail to see the need to have 60 cal machine guns on coast guard vessels that shoot choppers down (sure hope friendly fire doesn't come into play) and armoured vehicles. This just makes more militarization of the US/Canadian borders.

[Wullu]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Wullu Wullu:

DerbyX DerbyX:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

can't, it's an international seaway according to treaty

A treaty between who besides the US & Canada? We would have a pretty strong case considering the river travels directly through the heart of Canada and we could justifiably make it a security issue.

The states, while demanding other nations respect the 10 mile off-shore limit to territory are very bad when it comes to their waters. Would they have ever let a soviet battlegroup conduct drill outside the 10 mile limit in the gilf of mexico?

And a big chunk through the heart of the US as well Derb...double edged sword there.

Aside from lake Michigan where does the St. lawrence (and associated great lakes) flow soley through US terrotory?

The Bertrand H. Snell and Dwight D. Eisenhower locks are entirely with the US as you get out into the Thousand Islands.

[Wullu]

Tman1 Tman1:

Fair enough. I for one fail to see the need to have 60 cal machine guns on coast guard vessels that shoot choppers down (sure hope friendly fire doesn't come into play) and armoured vehicles. This just makes more militarization of the US/Canadian borders.

Not 60 cal Tman, 7.62mm. 60 is the old designater for the type of MMG that the USCG is mounting on the RHIBS, sorry for the confusion...my bad. You could conceivably take a helo down with a 7.62 but it is actually a lot harder to hit a moving target from a moving target than ya might think. So far as taking out an armoured vehicle with it? No chance. These MMG are used for the same purpose we mount 50 cal (12.7mm) HMG on our ships. Take out small craft that present a threat.

[DerbyX]

Wullu Wullu:

The Bertrand H. Snell and Dwight D. Eisenhower locks are entirely with the US as you get out into the Thousand Islands.

Locks yes. Do the states control them as US territory or are they "international"? You must agree there is a difference between manufactured passages then natural waterways. The US has (justifiably so) asserted the right of control over all people passing through there territory including the those of Canadians airlines transitting (but not landing) their airspace while they fly from Canadian point A to Canadian point B.

We can assert the same. We can demand full cargo/passage manifests and assert national security to deny whatever and whomever we decide may threaten that.

Fair is fair right?

[ShepherdsDog]

Constantinople? What does a finktional character have to do with the issue of international waters?

[DerbyX]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Constantinople? What does a finktional character have to do with the issue of international waters?

He has been ressurrected so to speak.