Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty

[CougarKing]

The Law of the Sea Treaty...interesting...

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,157953,00.html?wh=news

Pentagon: Sea Treaty in U.S. Interests
Military.com  |  By Bryant Jordan  |  December 11, 2007

The U.S. is not about to go to war with Canada over the possibility our northern neighbor will bar liquid natural gas tanker ships from passing through Canadian waters to New England -- a restriction that would impose a severe hardship on the region.
Nor is the administration going to invade Australia, even though our down-under ally demands the right to put an Aussie pilot aboard any ship -- including American -- passing through the Torres Straits running between the island continent and Papua New Guinea.

But with the U.S. facing these prospects the only way to resolve them is by the country signing onto the Law of the Sea Treaty, which 155 countries already have joined, according to Navy Capt. Patrick J. Neher, director of the Navy’s International and Operational Law Office of the Judge Advocate General.
"This is pretty serious stuff," Neher said during an interview with military bloggers Dec. 10. He said Australia is asserting a regulatory right over the waterway improperly, and threatens that any violator is subject to arrest and their ship held.

"Now we're not going to roll the 7th Fleet into Sydney Harbor to compel Australia to roll back their illegal [regulation]," he said. "But what we can do if we were party to the [treaty] is use the dispute resolution process ... and I'm confident we would win."

Same with Canada's plans to keep American LNG tankers from passing through Head Harbor Passage en route to Maine, said Coast Guard Capt. Charles D. Michel, chief of the Office of Maritime and International Law.

Diplomacy hasn't worked, he said, noting that the Canadian prime minister reportedly "blew off President Bush" when he weighed in to resolve the problem, and it's highly unlikely the U.S. will use military force against Canada.
That leaves dispute resolution, which is part of the Law of the Sea Treaty, he said.
According to a Navy story on the Law of the Sea Treaty, the agreement was negotiated between 1973 and 1982 in order to update the customary law of the sea that dates from the 1600s. The U.S. helped bring about the treaty but has never signed onto it because of concerns it would be giving up sovereignty or losing rights it has long held under the historical, customary law.
According to Neher, however, the U.S. stands to lose its role as a leader in determining sea law by not joining in the treaty.

"There is a fundamental disconnect [in] trying to lead an alliance of nations to maintain public order on the world's oceans when you're one of the handful of countries … that aren't parties to that convention," he said.

The Defense Department has come out squarely in favor of the U.S. joining the treaty, which Neher and Michel said guarantees right of passage through some of the most strategic areas. In June, the Joint Chiefs of Staff wrote to the Senate, urging it to support the treaty.

 

[Kirkhill]

Very curious Cougardaddy.

Previously I understood the US Navy to be one of the key OPPONENTS of the Law of the Sea Treaty.  Maybe they now have more faith in their lawyers than their hulls.

As to the US "negotiating" laws for everyone else then failing to get the domestic support to sign on themselves.......that isn't new.  In fact, as I think about it, treaties are negotiated by The State Department.....hmm.  Cultural disconnect between the State Department (and their "investigative arm" the CIA) and the rest of America?

 

[McG]

Russia foresees military conflict over Arctic; Security report a 'wake-up call' for Canada: expert
Randy Boswell
Edmonton Journal
14 May 2009

A new Russian government security report that predicts possible military conflict over energy resources -- including Arctic oil -- is another "wake-up call" for Canada, says one of the country's top analysts on polar geopolitics.

"In a competition for resources, problems that involve the use of military force cannot be excluded that would destroy the balance of forces close to the borders of the Russian Federation and her allies," states the document.

It forecasts security threats up to 2020 and named the petroleum-rich Arctic -- where seabed boundaries are now being determined under the rules of a UN treaty -- as a potential conflict zone.

The national security strategy released Wednesday surveyed a range of possible threats facing Russia along its Asian, European and Arctic frontiers, according to various news reports from Moscow.

University of Calgary political scientist Rob Huebert said the Russian outlook released Wednesday should spur Canada's efforts to beef up Arctic defences while continuing to pursue peaceful outcomes on boundaries, shipping rules and resources in the disputed polar realm.

"The Russians have been talking very co-operatively, but they have been backing it up with an increasingly strong military set of actions," said Huebert, associate director of the university's Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, who described Russia's stance as a "realistic" view of possible conflicts.

"You mix uncertain boundaries with major powers and massive amounts of oil and gas, and you always get difficult international circumstances," he added.

"I think the Russians have made that calculation."

Requests to the Russian Embassy in Ottawa for a copy of the security report and comments on its implications for Canada were not immediately returned.

A Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman said Canadian officials would not comment until receiving the report.

Over the past three years, Russia has been sending conflicting signals to Canada and other polar nations about its planned approach to resolving potential Arctic conflicts, said Huebert.

A Russian submersible's planting of a flag on the North Pole sea floor in August 2007 sparked an international war of words over Arctic sovereignty, with Defence Minister Peter MacKay -- then Canada's foreign minister -- decrying the Russian act as a throwback to "15th-century" territorial imperialism.

Tensions appeared to flare again in late February when MacKay -- nine days after two Russian aircraft ventured close to Canadian airspace in the Arctic -- described in a news conference how Canadian fighter planes had raced northward to "send a strong signal" to the Russian pilots that "they should back off and stay out of our airspace."

But Russia's defence minister later objected to what he called MacKay's "bizarre" criticism of a "routine" test flight, and insisted his country is committed to a co-operative, peaceful approach to problem-solving in the Arctic.

A Feb. 20 meeting in Moscow between top Canadian and Russian officials -- revealed earlier this week by Canwest News Service -- does appear to show significant co-operation between the two countries on Arctic issues.

The two sides appeared to be in agreement about Canada's claim to jurisdiction over the Northwest Passage, and even discussed a possible joint Russian-Canadian-Danish submission to the UN to determine Arctic sea floor boundaries.

But Wednesday's security report suggests Russia is also bracing for more pointed conflict in the Arctic and elsewhere as it strives to secure its position as a global energy superpower.

"The attention of international politics in the long-term perspective will be concentrated on the acquisition of energy resources," the paper said.

It said regions where such a competition for resources could arise included the Middle East, the Barents Sea, the Arctic, the Caspian Sea and Central Asia.

The strategy document was approved by President Dmitry Medvedev on Tuesday and published on Wednesday by the Russian Security Council, which includes Russia's top politicians and intelligence chiefs and is chaired by Medvedev.

"I see a Russia that is not necessarily getting aggressive," said Huebert, "but is getting increasingly assertive about controlling what it sees as the future of its long-term strength."

 

[McG]

Ottawa serious about sovereignty
Randy Boswell
The Leader-Post
15 May 2009

Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said Thursday that the Conservative government will strive to "work peacefully" with other polar nations but "will not hesitate to defend Canadian Arctic sovereignty."

The statement came a day after the release of a new Russian government report that predicts possible military conflict over Arctic oil.

Cannon, currently on a diplomatic tour in Asia, told Canwest News Service in a statement from Japan that recent steps taken by Canada to boulster its military and marine infrastructure in the North "will ensure that the Canadian Forces are prepared to address future challenges and respond to any emergency" that unfolds.

"Canada is determined to work peacefully in co-operation with all our northern partners in the Arctic," Cannon said. "That having been said: Canada is an Arctic power, and our government understands the potential of the North. Therefore, when and if necessary, this government will not hesitate to defend Canadian Arctic sovereignty, and all of our interests in the Arctic."

Cannon's comments come at a time when Russia has been sending mixed signals about its approach to resolving uncertainties over Arctic boundaries and securing resources in the potentially oil-rich polar region.

Top Russian officials have been publicly emphasizing the country's interest in resolving potential Arctic disputes peacefully under the terms of a UN treaty governing the Law of the Sea.

In February, at a meeting in Moscow attended by Canada's top legal adviser on Arctic issues, Russian diplomats even offered to submit its territorial claims in the polar region jointly with Canada and Denmark.

But Wednesday's security report from Moscow -- which mentioned the possibility of military conflicts over energy in the Arctic and on Russia's other frontiers -- was described as a "wakeup call" for Canada by University of Calgary political scientist Rob Huebert.

He said Russia has been "making nice sounds" about the Arctic on the diplomatic front while striking an assertive posture militarily on the ground and at sea throughout the North -- including an increase in aircraft training exercises.

Less than two years ago, a Russian submersible planted a flag at the North Pole seabed that prompted a rebuke from Canada's then-foreign minister Peter MacKay over what he described as a "15th-century" style land-grab.

MacKay, now Canada's minister of defence, clashed with Russia again in February over an Arctic test flight by two Russian bombers, which Canadian military planes scrambled to intercept.

Cannon, who said at the time of the February flight controversy that Canada would not be "bullied" by Russia, expressed a similar sentiment in his comments to Canwest News Service on Thursday.

"At every opportunity in my discussions with foreign ministers, including with the Russian foreign minister (Sergei Lavrov), I have and will continue to have frank discussions -- and that includes reiterating Canada will continue to defend Canadian Arctic sovereignty."

Cannon said the Conservative government's Canada First Defence Strategy will help the country's military "take action in exercising Canadian sovereignty in the North," and highlighted plans for a fleet of Arctic patrol ships, a deepwater docking facility in Nanisivik, at the north end of Baffin Island, an Arctic military training centre and the "modernization and expansion" of the Canadian Rangers -- a northern patrol force made up largely of Inuit citizens of the North.

 

[Yrys]

Canada extends Arctic mapping past North Pole, May. 24 2009

The beaver is starting to push back against the bear in the debate over who controls the top of the world.

Federal officials have confirmed that Canada's Arctic mapping flights have ventured beyond the North Pole
into areas claimed by Russia. The flights are the first step towards building a case that Canada's Arctic
sovereignty could reach past the Pole despite Russia's determination to extend its own northern footprint.

"We are surveying where appropriate to define the outer limits of Canada's continental shelf," Jacob Verhoef,
the Natural Resources Canada geophysicist in charge of the project told The Canadian Press in an email.

Canada and Denmark recently completed a series of joint mapping flights from three remote northern
airstrips to begin studying the series of undersea mountains and ridges that will determine how the United
Nations will divvy up most of the Arctic Ocean. The flights were originally said to end at the North Pole.
But Verhoef now confirms some of those flights continued past the Pole.

"We are also investigating the possible continuity of the Lomonosov Ridge beyond the North Pole and
therefore have collected supporting data beyond the pole on some of the flight lines during the recent
survey," Verhoef said.

Although Russia hasn't filed a formal claim for those waters leading up to the North Pole, it has made
no secret of its intent to do so. As well, Russia has undertaken a variety of moves that some call sabre-
rattling, from announcing the formation of special Arctic army units to the release of a policy document
that warns of the possibility of violence over the North's resources. Still, Russia has consistently promised
it would abide by the United Nations Law of the Sea process for settling all claims.

A summary of meeting held last February between Canadian and Russian diplomats said the two countries,
together with Denmark, are considering making a joint submission to the United Nations.

But the fact Canada hasn't simply accepted the North Pole as the extent of its claims shows a willingness
to play some diplomatic hardball, said Rob Huebert at the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the
University of Calgary. "We're not backing off on this one," he said. "We're going to have to wait and see
what the Russians do about it."

Huebert adds that neither country must submit claims to the UN until 2013, so there's plenty of time to
come to an agreement. Still, he suggests the aerial mapping means Canada intends to bargain from a
position of strength. "The government is acting on its promise not to be intimidated."

Verhoef cautions that the aerial mapping is only the start of assembling a claim. "The next step is to
analyze that (aerial) information and then decide what, if anything, we should do in terms of collecting
primary data (ie: bathymetry and seismic) in that region," he wrote.

Aerial mapping, which "reads" the seafloor by measuring minute changes in the earth's gravitational field,
must be backed up by extensive actual measurements. To that end, two miniature submarines are slated
to be deployed under the ice by spring 2010.

Although much is made of U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the equivalent of 412 billion barrels of oil
lie undiscovered beneath the sea ice, jurisdiction over the pole is unlikely to bring a huge resource bonanza.
Most of those hydrocarbons lie just off the coast of Russia. Most of the rest lies on or near continental
shelves, which are largely within existing jurisdictions.

 

[CANADIAN F0RCES]

any updates on this?

 

[Michael OLeary]

any updates on this?

None that have been posted here yet.

Have you tried searching Google news for more recent information?

 

[MarkOttawa]

A post at The Torch:

Canadian Coast Guard for the North, not Navy
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/07/canadian-coast-guard-for-north-not-navy.html

The chairs (Liberal) of two Senate committees give their views:

'Wrong decisions could sink Canada’s navy
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Columnists/1130016.html

By COLIN KENNY and BILL ROMPKEY

THERE are two very good reasons why military planners cannot afford to make mistakes when purchasing ships for Canada’s navy.

First, new ships are going to be at the heart of the kind of navy Canadians are going to need to negotiate the turbulent waters of international politics in the coming decade. Anyone who doesn’t think a robust navy is important to a nation’s political and economic influence is not paying attention to the way the world works.

Second, vessels are extremely expensive, and one or two procurement blunders could bankrupt plans to rehabilitate our navy, which is currently in danger of sailing toward irrelevance.

For those reasons, the strange goings-on at the Department of National Defence these days regarding two vital purchases has some close observers feeling a bit seasick.

The most obvious problem is with the announced purchase of three joint supply ships ["Joint Support Ships", actually].
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/05/what-joint-support-ship-anyway-and-when.html
That purchase has been on hold since bids came in that would have put the cost of the ships well beyond what the current government seems willing to pay for them.

These were supposed to be huge vessels that would play dual roles, replacing 40-year-old supply ships that provide ammunition and fuel for Canadian task force operations at sea as well as hauling vehicles and other equipment for Canadian land forces operating abroad. The standstill on this purchase threatens naval renewal.

But there is another dual-purpose vessel on the drawing board that is cause for concern — the planned purchase of six to eight naval patrol vessels to be used in the Arctic in the summer and fall and off Canada’s East and West coasts the rest of the year.
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/06/arcticoffshore-patrol-ships-more-never.html

The Senate Committee on National Security and Defence has maintained for the past two years that the government’s plan to purchase these ships is wrong-headed for a number of reasons.

Now the Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans — in its new report Rising to the Arctic Challenge: Report on the Canadian Coast Guard
http://www.parl.gc.ca/40/2/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-e/fish-e/rep-e/rep02may09-e.pdf
— is also pointing to a better strategy for controlling Northern waters.

The Harper government, rightly seized with the issue of promoting Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic, has decided that the best way to do this would be to put these new patrol vessels under the control of the navy. They would also take on some Arctic responsibilities traditionally handled by the Canadian Coast Guard [icebreaking here].
http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/eng/CCG/Ice_Home

The Fisheries and Oceans report points out, "The coast guard has far more experience and expertise in the North than the navy." It says that the coast guard should be outfitted with new icebreakers that might not be in the same league as the powerful Russian icebreaking fleet, but which would at least be more respectable than the ones we have now.

Canada’s current icebreaking fleet, the report points out, is long in the tooth and was designed to be used in the St. Lawrence River, not the Arctic Ocean. "Canada’s icebreaking fleet will not be adequate once shipping increases" (due to warming in Northern waters). Unfortunately, only one new icebreaker is being ordered ["The "Diefenbreaker"--in 2017!?!"],
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/08/diefenbreaker-in-2017.html
as the government focuses instead on the patrol vessels. Those patrol vessels, the Fisheries and Oceans report observes, will only be capable of breaking newly formed ice. Serious Arctic vessels must be capable of handling the harder, thicker multi-year ice that will continue to clog Arctic waters.

Furthermore, the report quotes Michael Turner, former acting commissioner of the coast guard, as saying that since the new ships would be of hybrid design, they would have "limited capability in open water." This obviously applies to both the Arctic and along Canada’s East and West coasts. Slow and lightly armed, the new ships are meant for "low threat" environments. They would be too weak for Northern work.

The Committee on National Security and Defence has argued in two reports that moving the navy into the Arctic will drain its effectiveness elsewhere, and that the navy does not have the competence that the coast guard possesses in the Arctic [see here and here].
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/007756.html
http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/defe-e/rep-e/ExecSumRep27mar07-e.pdf

It has further argued that the coast guard should be armed like the U.S. coast guard is armed. If the government wants guns on boats to make a point about sovereignty — which it obviously does — then arm the coast guard. The union representing coast guard employees is not against this, as long as officers and crews are properly trained and compensated.

Again, the Defence committee reports dovetail with the Fisheries and Oceans report, which recommends deploying multi-mission coast guard icebreakers "as a cost-effective alternative to Canada’s surveillance and sovereignty patrol needs in the Arctic."

In short, both the manning of these patrol vessels by navy officers and the purchase of the ships themselves would be a huge mistake — the kind of mistake a country with a limited military budget can’t afford to make. These patrol vessels wouldn’t even be fast enough to outrun speedy fishing vessels, which makes them of dubious use on the East and West coasts.

When two committees tell the government it needs to rethink its course in the Arctic, perhaps the government should show some signs that it is listening.'

I agree with most of the above. However I do not think the Canadian Coast Guard itself needs to be armed. Armed RCMP or Fishery officers are now carried as necessary (as can be Navy personnel), and weapons such as machine guns can be temporarily mounted if needed. Heavier calibre weapons are not necessary. Canada is not going to assert its (dubious) sovereignty over the Northwest Passage by shooting explosive shells at foreign vessels but by maintaining a presence of government vessels, for which the Coast Guard is just fine.

The Harper government's insistence on using the military to assert sovereignty in the North is wrongheaded, especially as no country has any claim to our land there (Hans Island aside). Some earlier posts:

"Icebreakers best bet in Arctic"
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/03/icebreakers-best-bet-in-arctic.html

The right approach to Arctic "sovereignty"
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/07/right-approach-to-arctic-sovereignty.html

The icebreakers we should build
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/08/icebreakers-we-should-build.html
   
"A job for the Coast Guard"
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/07/job-for-coast-guard.html

What to do with the Canadian Coast Guard?
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/02/what-to-do-with-canadian-coast-guard.html

"Military should focus on coastline, not war: Layton"
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/09/military-should-focus-on-coastline-not.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The first step in changing the CCG mindset will be to arm existing vessels with .50cal MG. This will be a cheap and easy fix. It will allow them to more effectively support armed boarding parties provided by the RCMP/navy. I guesstimated the cost to arm each major CCG ship with 3 MG, two protected mounts, ammo lockers, gun lockers and communications systems to be approx $50,000 for each ship. Training can be done during regular crew cycles onboard with the trainers coming along with the ship on it's regular duties. After the initial qualifications, the crew can do target practice at sea and other training during regular crew cycles. this is actually the easy part. The hard part will be changing the mindset of the senior management and Captains. Ships' Officers will have to take courses designed to teach them basic interdiction tactics, use of force policies. As the junior officers who receive this training move up the ranks they will be better prepared to run ships with heavier armament. In the future I can see a CCG ship with a remote operated turret with perhaps a gun in the 50mm range and MG mounts on both sides. It may be fitted with or more likely "capable" of carrying either Surface to surface or AD missiles and defensive systems like chaff.
The fitting of a small turreted gun will give the CCG the means to enforce sovereignty on foreign shipping and illegal fishing. It won't have to be used as much as it's there as an implied threat, similar to a Police Officer holstered gun.
As for boarding parties, that's a huge kettle of fish, requiring lots of training, manning, physical health standards and a huge mindshift within the Guard. Start with the Mg's and by the time new ships come along the mindshift will have started. Even if the debate about arming them is not settled, build them to be capable of being armed with hard points already built into the vessel.

 

[McG]

The first step in changing the CCG mindset will be to arm existing vessels with .50cal MG.

There is an ongoing discussion on this theme of arming the CCG for domestic security purposes here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/32547.0.html

 

[The Bread Guy]

In response to RUS announcing they're sending paratroopers to the North Pole next year,

Defence Minister Peter MacKay says the Canadian government is closely watching Russian plans to drop paratroopers in the Arctic next April.

"Any country that is approaching Canadian airspace, Canadian territory, will be met by Canadians," MacKay said Friday in Halifax after an announcement on an international security conference planned for November.

MacKay didn't give any specifics on what Canada will do in April but he said Canada is prepared to protect its borders.

"We're going to protect our sovereign territory and we're always to meet any challenge to that territorial sovereignty. "....

More from the Canadian Press.

Some previous discussion around this:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/79865.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/77491.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42518.0.html

 

[AJFitzpatrick]

And more

Harper to attend military's Arctic sovereignty exercise

Out of curiosity does the prime minister have a formal military position in the chain of command?

 

[X-mo-1979]

So does this mean next year the Yellowknife Company will be on a NTM?As that is what they were created for?

Let's face it.We will have in the end what Russia and the USA leaves us with.I have a funny feeling Our posturing and the Danes will have little to no effect.

So would this be an invasion?As the Russians have already claimed it?If we are there already wouldn't that be a Canadian invasion of Russia?

 

[wildman0101]

russian para (special forces spetsna???) excuse the spelling
wouldnt that be and act of agression(war) on our our
soverign claimed  territory,,,, just a question is all
                            scoty b

 

[X-mo-1979]

russian para (special forces spetsna???) excuse the spelling
wouldnt that be and act of agression(war) on our our
soverign claimed  territory,,,, just a question is all
                            scoty b

Question is THEY have claimed it.Have placed their flag on it.Would us being there to meet them be a act of aggression on our part?

 

[retiredgrunt45]

The US and the Russians have already claimed the artic 50 years ago at the start of the cold war. They've had their boomers and attack subs patrolling those waters for decades...

I keep hearing the government say "we'll defend our rights to the artic. Don't they realize that by our inaction over the past 5 decades that we have already lost those rights.

The real fight is going to be between the US and Russia and like it or not, Canada will get whatever is left over after the two heavy weights finish duking it out. If Canada has any hope of trying to defend its northern borders I think the government should start shopping for a few nuclear subs like yesterday.

McKay is just embarrassing himself and his government by continuing to shout empty conjecture. Then there's Mr. Cannon "we'll do it the Canadian way and be nice" I'm sure the Russians will make nice, shake hands and say no problem take what you want. God get a clue! 
We've been hearing the same old song since 2006. Only Now they sound just like the liberals.

 

[Old Sweat]

Before we go nuclear here, let's get some more information. For starters, how do the Russians expect to extract their jumpers from as inhospitable a place as we are apt to find on the earth? Either they are talking a very small party that could rendezvous with a nuclear submarine or be picked up by a light aircraft or helicopter which is taking a big chance, or they are planning to jump onto or near an already established scientific or research station floating on the ice. Perhaps they are planning to drop the equivalent of the old 12 plane formation commando group that was a standby of our airborne planning a long time ago. They might be planning to drop a large enough force to include engineer plant to build an airstrip and enough folks to guide aircraft in to extract them.

Note: in the early '80s the SSF para dropped a respectable-sized force near a Soviet scientific station that was drifting/floating on sea ice in the very high arctic. This had been coordinated with the USSR before and our troops built an airfield for their own extraction and for the resupply of the research station.

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

Out of curiosity does the prime minister have a formal military position in the chain of command?

Yes and no.  Cabinet is authorized to make regulations and the prime minister leads cabinet and cabinet sits at his will.  A challenge in Canada is to find legislation that grants any power to the prime minister.  All power flows from the Queen through the Governor-General to the Prime Minister.  The prime minister isn't even mentioned in the constitution.

While specific powers are awarded to the Minister of National Defence, he could be replaced tomorrow even by the Prime Minister himself and the will of the Prime Minister will be enforced.  While the Prime Minister's power isn't written, it is real and through administrative powers almost dictatorial.

http://www.queensu.ca/dms/DMS_Course_Materials_and_Outline/NDHQ-Accountability%20and%20Organization-Sept1999.pdf

 

[Dog]

We all know that Canada will never do more than pay lip-service to arctic defense. It's too expensive, and too much of a hassle to start a new web of infrastructure. Military expansion has never been a priority of the average Canadian Taxpayer... should we lose our rights to the arctic however, watch the masses scream with outrage declaring that the military should have taken steps to prevent the loss.

Not that I'm complaining.... I sure as hell don't want to get posted up above the tree-line.

 

[SARgirl]

This is a topic I don't know very much about.

So... what is stopping Russia from showing up on our arctic shoreline tomorrow and if they want it so badly, why haven't they used their force to take it?  Does Canada really stand much of a chance in stopping the Russians, when we are so short on troops, weapons, air craft, subs etc...?