Coast Guard bracing for new wave

This is excellent news and goes a long way to enforcing our sovereignty in the Arctic.

Yes and no. In order for this to happen, you have to take a civilian agency and make it para-military. No easy feat in any way, shape, or form.

PUT IT BACK LIKE IT WAS???????
We can't DO that! No! No!

Not after all that work turning them into metermaids handing out tickets.
Hail Russian sub! That sailor isn't wearing an approved life jacket. That's a $500 fine. And look you're 2 flares short and no baling bucket. Melt-down? Hmmm.... let's see ...substances deleterious to fish.... oooooh you're really in trouble now!

Yes and no. In order for this to happen, you have to take a civilian agency and make it para-military. No easy feat in any way, shape, or form.


While that is true, it will help reduce the strain on the navy in terms of enforcing our sovereignty in the arctic. By at least beginning to arm our coast guard (which has lots of experience in the North), we're showing that we're serious about our Arctic claims and the NWP.

Yes and no. In order for this to happen, you have to take a civilian agency and make it para-military. No easy feat in any way, shape, or form.


While that is true, it will help reduce the strain on the navy in terms of enforcing our sovereignty in the arctic. By at least beginning to arm our coast guard (which has lots of experience in the North), we're showing that we're serious about our Arctic claims and the NWP.

Well again, yes and no. By arming a CG icebreaker with an RCMP officer and boarding party, you've given them the capability to do what exactly? Not much really. Putting a .50 cal HMG on an icebreaker and saying it can protect our soverignty is like putting wheels on your grandmother and calling her a wagon.
These are CIVSPEC ships, AM, not warships. These are civilian crews, unionized civilian crews. Just tackling that part of the deal will likely be difficult, let alone trying to take an essentially civilian ship (no offence to my coast guard brethren) and teach it how to fight.

Well again, yes and no. By arming a CG icebreaker with an RCMP officer and boarding party, you've given them the capability to do what exactly? Not much really. Putting a .50 cal HMG on an icebreaker and saying it can protect our soverignty is like putting wheels on your grandmother and calling her a wagon.
These are CIVSPEC ships, AM, not warships. These are civilian crews, unionized civilian crews. Just tackling that part of the deal will likely be difficult, let alone trying to take an essentially civilian ship (no offence to my coast guard brethren) and teach it how to fight.

I can see where you're coming from but it stillsends a visible message that we are serious. Sure, a .50 cal is a peashooter of a weapon for a ship but at least they will have SOME kind of capability instead of just "hey, you! Stop that right quick or we will send a strongly worded letter to your home country!"

The Canadian coastguard is not a branch of the military like it is in the US, it is part of the Dept of Oceans and Fisheries not the Department of National Defense. Civilian ships manned by civilians should not be carrying weaponry that not even the RCMP can use.

I can't do that!

Good news, and long overdue. Think of the Coast Guard as another line of defence. Giving them police powers and arming some ships could take the load off other areas, and showing their teeth once and a while wouldn't hurt.

-J.