news Canadian News
Good Morning Guest | login or register
  • Home
    • Canadian News
    • Popular News
    • News Voting Log
    • News Images
  • Forums
    • Recent Topics Scroll
    •  
    • Politics Forums
    • Sports Forums
    • Regional Forums
  • Content
    • Achievements
    • Canadian Content
    • Famous Canadians
    • Famous Quotes
    • Jokes
    • Canadian Maps
  • Photos
    • Picture Gallery
    • Wallpapers
    • Recent Activity
  • About
    • About
    • Contact
    • Link to Us
    • Points
    • Statistics
  • Shop
  • Register
    • Gold Membership
  • Archive
    • Canadian TV
    • Canadian Webcams
    • Groups
    • Links
    • Top 10's
    • Reviews
    • CKA Radio
    • Video
    • Weather

Canada to bolster Arctic claim with shipping al

Canadian Content
20677news upnews down
Link Related to Canada in some say

Canada to bolster Arctic claim with shipping alerts


Misc CDN | 206763 hits | Sep 24 4:35 pm | Posted by: Hyack
67 Comment

Canada plans to bolster its presence in Arctic waters � and by extension, its sovereignty � after agreeing to join Russia and Norway in providing weather and shipping alerts in the rapidly melting region.

Comments

  1. by avatar gonavy47
    Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:12 pm
    Canadian Shipping Alert: "Oh look! More ships passing through our waters that we can't do anything about because we don't have nuclear-powered submarines!"

  2. by avatar MAC1767
    Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:24 pm
    what a joke :lol: :lol: untill they put a base up there, and patrol it, wave the flag, and tell everyone else to stay the fuck out, a "shipping alert" what a joke

  3. by avatar bootlegga
    Fri Sep 25, 2009 5:06 pm
    No doubt. Until we have the ability to patrol up there year round, putting out shipping alerts doesn't mean squat. I wonder when the last time was that anyone heeded Malyasian or Indonesian shipping alerts...

  4. by avatar martin14
    Fri Sep 25, 2009 5:09 pm
    Jesus thats weak, we seriously can't do any better this ?

  5. by avatar BartSimpson  Gold Member
    Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:40 pm
    "gonavy47" said
    Canadian Shipping Alert: "Oh look! More ships passing through our waters that we can't do anything about because we don't have nuclear-powered submarines!"


    Concur. To effectively patrol the Arctic you need nuc boats. There's just no substitute.

  6. by avatar Akhenaten
    Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:53 pm
    "BartSimpson" said
    Canadian Shipping Alert: "Oh look! More ships passing through our waters that we can't do anything about because we don't have nuclear-powered submarines!"


    Concur. To effectively patrol the Arctic you need nuc boats. There's just no substitute.
    To effectively defend our borders we need nuclear deterrent. Just no substitute.

  7. by avatar EyeBrock
    Fri Sep 25, 2009 10:37 pm
    I don't think we need nukes but I'll go along with a couple of heavily armed nuclear ice-breakers backed up with 4 ice capable hunter-killer subs.

    It makes more sense to look at domestic defence once the Afghan mission is over.

  8. by avatar Winnipegger
    Sat Sep 26, 2009 12:47 am
    Ok, I'm going to post just the one post about my same old ideas.

    Why would we need nuclear submarines? They are clandestine; no one sees them until they attack. No one will respect them unless you use them at least once. Do you really want to shoot a heavy weight torpedo to sink a ship trespassing in Canadian waters? It is more effective to use a more visible military presence. Besides, aircraft are both more visible and faster. So build a full military base at Resolute Bay, with a forward base capable of hosting an entire wing of CF-18 fighter jets, or whatever their replacement may be. Then also develop guidance software for the Mark 48 heavy weight torpedo to work under the ice. Also develop a procedure to drop a dumb bomb to blow a hole in the ice, then have the plane fly around to drop a torpedo through that hole. You can take out any submarine that way.

    Simple anti-ship missiles carried on CF-18 fighter jets would do great damage to any surface shipping; believe me any commercial captain would shake in his boots at the sight of a modern fighter jet armed with any of the modern anti-ship missiles coming directly toward him.

    Add to that a sophisticated surveillance net capable of detecting any trespassing ships: satellites (RadarSat and RadarSat2), UAVs, patrol aircraft, and yes even underwater microphones (passive sonar). And, yes, relocate some of our Aurora patrol aircraft to Resolute Bay.

    Coast guard icebreakers can carry helicopters to carry inspectors and port pilots, civilians capable of dealing with trespassing ships who cooperate with authorities. The aforementioned military would make a formidable backup to the front-line coast guard.

  9. by avatar EyeBrock
    Sat Sep 26, 2009 1:22 am
    "Winnipegger" said
    Ok, I'm going to post just the one post about my same old ideas.

    Why would we need nuclear submarines? They are clandestine; no one sees them until they attack. No one will respect them unless you use them at least once. Do you really want to shoot a heavy weight torpedo to sink a ship trespassing in Canadian waters? It is more effective to use a more visible military presence. Besides, aircraft are both more visible and faster. So build a full military base at Resolute Bay, with a forward base capable of hosting an entire wing of CF-18 fighter jets, or whatever their replacement may be. Then also develop guidance software for the Mark 48 heavy weight torpedo to work under the ice. Also develop a procedure to drop a dumb bomb to blow a hole in the ice, then have the plane fly around to drop a torpedo through that hole. You can take out any submarine that way.

    Simple anti-ship missiles carried on CF-18 fighter jets would do great damage to any surface shipping; believe me any commercial captain would shake in his boots at the sight of a modern fighter jet armed with any of the modern anti-ship missiles coming directly toward him.

    Add to that a sophisticated surveillance net capable of detecting any trespassing ships: satellites (RadarSat and RadarSat2), UAVs, patrol aircraft, and yes even underwater microphones (passive sonar). And, yes, relocate some of our Aurora patrol aircraft to Resolute Bay.

    Coast guard icebreakers can carry helicopters to carry inspectors and port pilots, civilians capable of dealing with trespassing ships who cooperate with authorities. The aforementioned military would make a formidable backup to the front-line coast guard.


    Yep, you really are a geek.

  10. by avatar PluggyRug
    Sat Sep 26, 2009 1:28 am
    "Winnipegger" said
    Ok, I'm going to post just the one post about my same old ideas.

    Why would we need nuclear submarines? They are clandestine; no one sees them until they attack. No one will respect them unless you use them at least once. Do you really want to shoot a heavy weight torpedo to sink a ship trespassing in Canadian waters? It is more effective to use a more visible military presence. Besides, aircraft are both more visible and faster. So build a full military base at Resolute Bay, with a forward base capable of hosting an entire wing of CF-18 fighter jets, or whatever their replacement may be. Then also develop guidance software for the Mark 48 heavy weight torpedo to work under the ice. Also develop a procedure to drop a dumb bomb to blow a hole in the ice, then have the plane fly around to drop a torpedo through that hole. You can take out any submarine that way.

    Simple anti-ship missiles carried on CF-18 fighter jets would do great damage to any surface shipping; believe me any commercial captain would shake in his boots at the sight of a modern fighter jet armed with any of the modern anti-ship missiles coming directly toward him.

    Add to that a sophisticated surveillance net capable of detecting any trespassing ships: satellites (RadarSat and RadarSat2), UAVs, patrol aircraft, and yes even underwater microphones (passive sonar). And, yes, relocate some of our Aurora patrol aircraft to Resolute Bay.

    Coast guard icebreakers can carry helicopters to carry inspectors and port pilots, civilians capable of dealing with trespassing ships who cooperate with authorities. The aforementioned military would make a formidable backup to the front-line coast guard.



    A rather large pipe dream, don't ya think?

  11. by Lemmy
    Sat Sep 26, 2009 1:35 am
    "Winnipegger" said

    Ok, I'm going to post just the one post about my same old ideas.

    Why would we need nuclear submarines? They are clandestine; no one sees them until they attack. No one will respect them unless you use them at least once. Do you really want to shoot a heavy weight torpedo to sink a ship trespassing in Canadian waters? It is more effective to use a more visible military presence. Besides, aircraft are both more visible and faster. So build a full military base at Resolute Bay, with a forward base capable of hosting an entire wing of CF-18 fighter jets, or whatever their replacement may be. Then also develop guidance software for the Mark 48 heavy weight torpedo to work under the ice. Also develop a procedure to drop a dumb bomb to blow a hole in the ice, then have the plane fly around to drop a torpedo through that hole. You can take out any submarine that way.



    It's nice to know that I'm not the only one who likes to get high and watch The Hunt for Red October.

  12. by avatar EyeBrock
    Sat Sep 26, 2009 2:32 am
    Getting high and watching a military movie. Errr, kind of inconsistent. Military guys don't get high. They just get drunk.

    Obvious civilian.

  13. by avatar stratos
    Sat Sep 26, 2009 2:34 am
    "EyeBrock" said
    Getting high and watching a military movie. Errr, kind of inconsistent. Military guys don't get high. They just get drunk.

    Obvious civilian.



    (check out Comanderkai's radio show and request some songs)

  14. by avatar OldChum
    Sat Sep 26, 2009 2:36 am
    This is totally the wrong way to do it TAX the fuckers going in and out that will discourage them . 8O



view comments in forum
Page 1 2 3 4 5

You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news.

  • Login
  • Register (free)
 Share  Digg It Bookmark to del.icio.us Share on Facebook


Who voted on this?

  • Canadaka Thu Sep 24, 2009 6:50 pm
Share on Facebook Submit page to Reddit
CKA About |  Legal |  Advertise |  Sitemap |  Contact   canadian mobile newsMobile

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net