[ShepherdsDog]

CDN_PATRIOT CDN_PATRIOT:

Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:

Get used to it, BIMC. That passage is OURS. We really should put some huge guns on our coast guard ships and tell them to fire on anything or anyone who does not acquiesce to our requests.

Concur. And having a few of our naval forces on patrol periodically would help as well. Nothing too rash, a couple of frigates and a destroyer.

The Northwest Passage belongs to us, as it lies well within our borders. Fuck anyone that wants to question this.

-J.

Yup, Bob Punitarangan and his harpoon ought to be able to slow them down

[EyeBrock]

DerbyX DerbyX:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Soft power is like a flaccid penis Derby.

If we want to make a point we need to be able to back it up with a nice grey ship with guns.

Hard power is like an erect penis when you have no vagina around. All you can do us play with yourself.

I don't mind having a larger navy and have repeatedly said so. No offence but I don't think Canada will ever have a large enough navy/military for yourself and many others because it will mean gutting every other department. The cost associated with even 1 or 2 nuke subs alone puts that prospect on the imaginary list. There is a reason why Harper has cancelled/post phoned so many key purchases including the arctic navy.

Now if you have a financial plan of attack then by all means but the last time we talked about finances you were concerned about child tax credits (and I'm not attacking you for that). Removing ourselves from Afghanistan aside the key to a larger military is an aggressive attack on the federal debt (as Martin was doing) but I think you probably agree 100%

All that aside my opinion is that conflict over arctic resources is simply not going to happen for all the above reasons.

I dunno mate. In keeping with theme, just because you have a hard one and know how to use it doesn't mean you have to shag every vagina in sight.

Professional and well trained hard ones will shag only those that deserve it.

We just need some good old Canadian hard ones up north soon. There’s a lot of foreign vaginas checking out our Arctic territory.

[DerbyX]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I dunno mate. In keeping with theme, just because you have a hard one and know how to use it doesn't mean you have to shag every vagina in sight.

Professional and well trained hard ones will shag only those that deserve it.

We just need some good old Canadian hard ones up north soon. There’s a lot of foreign vaginas checking out our Arctic territory.

No sense buying a few thousand condoms just to look like you are getting lots though.

Seriously though, while I support being about to patrol our borders lets face it. Even if Canada committed a sizable amount of our military assets to the arctic it won't come anywhere near Russia or China's ability. Anybody who thinks we can out compete a nation with 100X our population and probably 50X our industrial capacity is simply wrong.

Why wouldn't we want to develop the arctic through a cooperative effort?

[GreenTiger]

Why wouldn't you want a cooperative effort? China argues that they should get 20% of the Arctic resources, France wants in on it, and if this chiseling works India will want in, ect. If this idea hold before long you will be the ones trying to get 10% of your own resources.

As far as what kind of a military force that is up there you don't need enough to sink every Russian or Chinese ship, but you do need enough to show that you are serious about defending your own territory.

When the Russians and Chinese and anybody else takes you seriously then you can decide what kind of cooperation you may or may not want to do.

[EyeBrock]

I agree GT.

Nobody will take any notice of Canada unless Canada takes Arctic defence seriously.

Having a few Rangers on ski-doos armed with 303's isn't a credible deterrent.

[bootlegga]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I agree GT.

Nobody will take any notice of Canada unless Canada takes Arctic defence seriously.

Having a few Rangers on ski-doos armed with 303's isn't a credible deterrent.

No doubt, this is what we have nowadays...

DerbyX DerbyX:

Seriously though, while I support being about to patrol our borders lets face it. Even if Canada committed a sizable amount of our military assets to the arctic it won't come anywhere near Russia or China's ability. Anybody who thinks we can out compete a nation with 100X our population and probably 50X our industrial capacity is simply wrong.

Why wouldn't we want to develop the arctic through a cooperative effort?

Canada doesn't need a massive force up North, just a handful of dedicated well trained units.

Look at the Danes. They might be a military midget everywhere else, but up North, they are taken seriously. Why? Because they have several frigates that are ice capable, they deploy F-16s to Greenland on a regular basis and they have guys with rifles up there (aboriginals much like our Canadian Rangers). They also send regular Army units up there to practice in the winter. That gives them a credible military deterrent in the North, unlike Canada. And that's all they need, because NATO would back up the Danes (or us) if Russia or China ever got nasty.

Nuke subs would be nice, but they are far too pricey for cheapo Canadian politicians. Some U212s would work just as well in their place, but even those are not a must have right now. We need Arctic capable hulls ASAP, and of those, there should be more than one measly heavy icebreaker (Harper promised three originally). Harper's Arctic Patrol vessels sound nice in theory, but the Navy demanded something that could be a jack-of-all-trades (because they don't WANT to patrol the Arctic - it isn't as sexy or as exotic as patrolling the Gulf of Aden or Arabian sea with our NATO allies), so they're only going to be good for 5-6 months a year up there. The JSS also needs to get going. One of the reasons it's so expensive is that, in addition to all its other capabilities, it's also Arctic capable (although not year round).

No, what we need is some real capability up there, not the annual summer exercise where we send a ship, a plane or two and 100 guys up there to fuck around for a week. We need what we used to have back in the 60s and 70s, full scale winter ops in Frobisher Bay (not better known as Iqaluit). We've got stations at Alert and Resolute, so let's get some guys up there for a week or two in winter to re-learn Arctic combat skills.

As for joint development, they can all fuck off, it's Canada's. If they want joint development of our Arctic territory, then I want joint development of the Spratleys, Siberia, etc. The only place I would be willing to develop jointly is anything that is in international waters (200 NM off our coast). Basically, that's part of the Beaufort sea (and maybe part of the Davis Strait & Baffin Bay). The area between our Arctic archipelago is ours to develop and ours alone.

BTW, China has about 40 times our population, not 100 (1.2 billion versus 30 million).

[Arctic_Menace]

DerbyX DerbyX:

CDN_PATRIOT CDN_PATRIOT:

Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:

Get used to it, BIMC. That passage is OURS. We really should put some huge guns on our coast guard ships and tell them to fire on anything or anyone who does not acquiesce to our requests.

Concur. And having a few of our naval forces on patrol periodically would help as well. Nothing too rash, a couple of frigates and a destroyer.

The Northwest Passage belongs to us, as it lies well within our borders. Fuck anyone that wants to question this.

-J.

All the other international passages then belong entirely to their host nations to do with as they please?

Here's the main difference between the Northwest Passage and all other international passages dude; theirs have existed forever. People only started to care about the arctic when it started to warm up. Canada claimed sovereignty over the Arctic Islands since we bought them from the British. No one really cared or questioned our sovereignty over the entire area and the Northwest Passage until it started melting and there is believed to be a massive cash of mineral wealth up there. Then and only then, did people like America, China and France start saying this crap about "well, it should belong to everybody". I don't buy that. It's been ours almost as long as we've been a country, we actually HAVE people living up there and we have some infrastructure up there as opposed to almost everyone else.

The rest of the world only started to give a crap about the Northwest Passage and questioning our claims when it started to melt and there were rumours of vast swaths of lovely resources up there. That's what makes this so different from the usual international shipping lanes.

[EyeBrock]

The rest of the world needs to know that we are serious about our own country.

Soft power isn't gonna cut it.

[herbie]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Two sides to this...

Bear in mind I have always sided with Canada on this topic, that said...

Chile allows international shipping unfettered access to their territorial waters in the Strait of Magellan and if Canada withdraws from the body of international law that keeps this as an open seaway then Chile would be well within their rights to interdict Canadian-flag ships transiting that strait.

The same would happen at Gibraltar, Suez, the Panama Canal, the Bosporous, the Kiel canal, the straits that go from the North Sea to the Baltic, the Strait of Malacca, the Java strait, and etc.

So I think you're eventually going to lose this argument because of two reasons:

1. Canadians ultimately will not want to withdraw from international treaties. No offense, but you're kind of obsessed with internationalism and I think it would just go against your grain to isolate yourselves.

2. Canada won't want to see international sea lanes and passages closed to Canadian warships and merchant ships.

No Bart, those all have a historical precedent as international waterways. The NW Passage doesn't.
And Canadians are pretty are pretty unanimous on the subject.
- If an allied warship wants to use it, just have the decency to tell us.
- If another warship wants to use it we should sink it
- If Exxon wants to run a goddam oil tanker we should board it an turn it around.
We're quite reasonable people, but it's ours and we make the rules and set the pilotage fees. Anyone who doesn't agree is free to take the long way around.

[Wullu]

So, someone finally decided to mention that the waters of the passage are not ours to dictate over?

Wow!

It's why they are called a "passage". They no more belong to us than the Straights of Gibraltar belong to the UK or Morroco. Or the waters of the Agean belong to Greece.

My fellow Canucks really need to pull their heads out on this one. It's an ocean going passage when ice conditions permit. We co no more decide who gets to use it than the UK and France can decide who gets to use the English Channel.

[EyeBrock]

herbie herbie:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Two sides to this...

Bear in mind I have always sided with Canada on this topic, that said...

Chile allows international shipping unfettered access to their territorial waters in the Strait of Magellan and if Canada withdraws from the body of international law that keeps this as an open seaway then Chile would be well within their rights to interdict Canadian-flag ships transiting that strait.

The same would happen at Gibraltar, Suez, the Panama Canal, the Bosporous, the Kiel canal, the straits that go from the North Sea to the Baltic, the Strait of Malacca, the Java strait, and etc.

So I think you're eventually going to lose this argument because of two reasons:

1. Canadians ultimately will not want to withdraw from international treaties. No offense, but you're kind of obsessed with internationalism and I think it would just go against your grain to isolate yourselves.

2. Canada won't want to see international sea lanes and passages closed to Canadian warships and merchant ships.

No Bart, those all have a historical precedent as international waterways. The NW Passage doesn't.
And Canadians are pretty are pretty unanimous on the subject.
- If an allied warship wants to use it, just have the decency to tell us.
- If another warship wants to use it we should sink it
- If Exxon wants to run a goddam oil tanker we should board it an turn it around.
We're quite reasonable people, but it's ours and we make the rules and set the pilotage fees. Anyone who doesn't agree is free to take the long way around.

Totally agree herbie.

These are not international waters. These are Canadian waters/territory with baseless claims from other countries.

We need and armed and capable presence in our Arctic now. The Afghan mission has less than a year to go, we need to 're-tool' for Arctic defence and a 24/7 military presence that is VISIBLE to the world.

[BartSimpson]

Under the various treaties to which Canada is signatory internationally navigable waters are open to international navigation.

Canada's choices are limited here, like it or not.

1. Withdraw from the treaties that Canada uses to keep foreign waters open to Canadian flagged vessels.

2. Honor the treaties and police the passages like other countries do and, while you're at it, build some proper military facilities to remind people passing through the area that it belongs to Canada.

[EyeBrock]

Option 3.

Re negotiate those treaties as they pertain to Canadian sovereign territory and enforce it with Coastguard, naval warships, recce aircraft and infantry elements. Ensure that entry to an 'international' passage way that transits Canadian territory has controlled access and is administered and enforced by Canada.

The US would never stand for this 'international' BS if it was their waters. We even have to ensure passenger manifests for passenger aircraft that are merely flying over US soil (not even landing in the US) meet US security approval.

Come on Bart, the US enforces strict control of it's territory. Getting all 'international' on us is a bit hypocritical.

[BartSimpson]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Option 3.

Re negotiate those treaties as they pertain to Canadian sovereign territory and enforce it with Coastguard, naval warships, recce aircraft and infantry elements. Ensure that entry to an 'international' passage way that transits Canadian territory has controlled access and is administered and enforced by Canada.

So you need to get 100 some-odd countries to agree to this. Good luck with that.

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

The US would never stand for this 'international' BS if it was their waters. We even have to ensure passenger manifests for passenger aircraft that are merely flying over US soil (not even landing in the US) meet US security approval.

Flying *over* the USA is not the same as navigating near it.

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Come on Bart, the US enforces strict control of it's territory. Getting all 'international' on us is a bit hypocritical.

We do. You're right. But at the same time we also allow even foreign warships to close to within 12 nautical miles of our coastline because we want the same rights in *their* waters. We also do not interfere in international shipping to Canada that transits US waters in the St. Lawrence or the Strait of Juan de Fuca. We even go so far as to allow small foreign ships to use the Mississippi and the Chicago River to get to Canadian ports on the Great Lakes. And when we controlled the Panama Canal we allowed ships from countries we were hostile to through the Canal because of the treaties we had signed.

[Zipperfish]

But I thought global warming was a pile of crap, so isn't this question merely academic?