Defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty

[daftandbarmy]

That's funny: I saw it more as "placate" the "adventure-tourism" industry plan. These "adventure" warriors are mostly older rich adults from the urban centres of North America endEurope who want to see the Arctic and other remote lists , but from the comfort of fully equipped cruise ships, etc.  bored management consultants escaping the reality of their joy destitute lives

FTFY

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I suspect most of the opposition is from CCG management, who likely don't feel they are getting enough resources to support these types of station, therefore it is a threat to the other programs and in the CCG world, the big ships win, after Headquarters that is.

 

[a_majoor]

There was a thread a while ago about using hovercraft to move people and equipment around in the arctic, which eventually morphed into a sort of giant catalogue shopping thread (boats!, barges!, helicopters! MTVs!). If we can align military needs, we could actually do what both Chris and YZT are advocating as well. Military equipment optimized for that environment will be pretty much indistinguishable from CG equipment (getting around pretty much needs shallow draft boats and MTVs as a minimum), so the CG can team up and have joint service depots at the three military bases that would probably be needed (one to cover the Western Arctic, one to cover the Eastern Arctic and one to cover Hudson's Bay). And an "Arctic regiment" (even if it is just a battalion augmented by TBG companies rotating on 6 month Class "B" contracts) would provide manpower and stable funding/population base to support other economic activities as well (think of the service industries growing off "garrison" towns).

As YZT also points out, light aircraft are going to be needed (as a minimum), so there is scope for airforce activities as well. Once again leveraging the airfields and support needed for the three bases, they can serve as the air depots for the light planes as well.

 

[Underway]

Sorry folks, but to me, this capability has little if anything to do with 'defending Canadian Arctic Sovereignty'.  I see a capability where there wasn't one, but it is a SAR one, not a 'defence' or 'sovereignty' one.

Anyone know what size of an AOR a single boat of this type is typically responsible for?

Any Federal institution adds to sovereignty.  SAR is an important aspect of that even if only a small region for regional fishermen etc...  We used to do sovereignty with Post offices in the Arctic.  This is significantly better then that.

 

[daftandbarmy]

There was a thread a while ago about using hovercraft to move people and equipment around in the arctic, which eventually morphed into a sort of giant catalogue shopping thread (boats!, barges!, helicopters! MTVs!). If we can align military needs, we could actually do what both Chris and YZT are advocating as well. Military equipment optimized for that environment will be pretty much indistinguishable from CG equipment (getting around pretty much needs shallow draft boats and MTVs as a minimum), so the CG can team up and have joint service depots at the three military bases that would probably be needed (one to cover the Western Arctic, one to cover the Eastern Arctic and one to cover Hudson's Bay). And an "Arctic regiment" (even if it is just a battalion augmented by TBG companies rotating on 6 month Class "B" contracts) would provide manpower and stable funding/population base to support other economic activities as well (think of the service industries growing off "garrison" towns).

As YZT also points out, light aircraft are going to be needed (as a minimum), so there is scope for airforce activities as well. Once again leveraging the airfields and support needed for the three bases, they can serve as the air depots for the light planes as well.

Roads, as the Romans well knew, are the best way to control territory, manage populations, and 'stake a claim'.

If we can't even find the will to build a road to some of these places, no 'Hovercraft Regiment' or equivalent will help us stake an equivalently credible claim.

 

[Stoker]

When the Harry Dewolf Class starts to regularly operate in the Arctic, there is talk of a plan whereby for the 4 or 5 months of the operating season Aboriginal youth are embarked from the communities as ordinary crew members. This gets the youth out of the communities, teaches them new skills and possibly opens them up to permanent employment in the RCN. This might also open up a sort of Naval Arctic Ranger.

 

[a_majoor]

Roads, as the Romans well knew, are the best way to control territory, manage populations, and 'stake a claim'.

If we can't even find the will to build a road to some of these places, no 'Hovercraft Regiment' or equivalent will help us stake an equivalently credible claim.

Realistically, the roadbeds end in Moosonee in southern James Bay, you are boating or flying past that point. I'm not even clear if you could build a full time road from Edmonton to (say) iqaluit using current technology for any sort of reasonable price.

 

[dimsum]

Realistically, the roadbeds end in Moosonee in southern James Bay, you are boating or flying past that point. I'm not even clear if you could build a full time road from Edmonton to (say) iqaluit using current technology for any sort of reasonable price.

Maybe the same way they built the road from Inuvik to Tuk?  Although if going to Iqaluit, wouldn't it make more sense from a road north from say, Quebec City or Chicoutimi?

Either way, I think the distance itself would mean maintenance would be a complete pain. 

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Realistically, the roadbeds end in Moosonee in southern James Bay, you are boating or flying past that point. I'm not even clear if you could build a full time road from Edmonton to (say) iqaluit using current technology for any sort of reasonable price.

Some Provinces do build roads though, at least the ones that care about exploiting their natural resources and unlocking their wealth.

Quebec has the James Bay Road, Trans-Taiga Highway, and Highway 389 which connects to the Trans-Labrador Highway.  I've driven all of Highway 389 and am planning to drive the James Bay Road this summer. 

Ontario should take a greater interest in it's North but it doesn't for whatever reason  :dunno: and I think the interest stops at Highway 7. 

The territories are Federal responsibility though and we really have no excuse there. 

Maybe the same way they built the road from Inuvik to Tuk?  Although if going to Iqaluit, wouldn't it make more sense from a road north from say, Quebec City or Chicoutimi?

Either way, I think the distance itself would mean maintenance would be a complete pain. 

Any road would need to have some sort of commercial purpose.  Also, driving some of these roads can be treacherous.  I have a truck with an off-road suspension, two spare tires and a jerry can of gas I carry when I go off on one of my road adventures.

I haven't done Trans-Taiga yet but you need Jerry Cans because the distance between gas stations is like 650km in some cases, not to mention you better have a smick about basic auto diagnostics because if you break down, you're screwed.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Any Federal institution adds to sovereignty.  SAR is an important aspect of that even if only a small region for regional fishermen etc...  We used to do sovereignty with Post offices in the Arctic.  This is significantly better then that.

I find calling both a single 9m RHIB and a post office 'additions rather silly, when the people who might threaten that sovereignty in the future are using nuclear surface/sub-surface...assets.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I know that the geography is different, but if Norway can run trains and roads right up to their border with Russia, we should be able to manage similar feats of engineering.

And the there’s Tromso, Paris of the North!

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I know that the geography is different, but if Norway can run trains and roads right up to their border with Russia, we should be able to manage similar feats of engineering.

And the there’s Tromso, Paris of the North!

Oh we could definitely do it, we would need to drastically increase our SAR bill if we did though.

People will never surprise me with their ability to underestimate mother nature, especially people from suburbia with no experience.

Note:  One thing that may be problematic is building in the Taiga where the Forests are swampy.  Norway doesn't have this problem but from my understanding, roads really don't like this type of ground and require fairly regular grading.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Far from me to trow a monkey's wrench in the discussion here, but anybody looked at where Iqaluit is located?

It's on Baffin Island, across Hudson's strait from mainland Canada. How do you cross either the 165 Kms from Kangiksujuak, Qc (or for those who prefer - Nunavik, the official name of all of the Quebec Northern region) to the Kimmirut Inuit lands, or the 185 Km from Kilinik, Qc, to the southernmost point of Baffin island?

And how do you justify the hundreds of billions of dollars (you think getting six AOPS is expensive - think again) you would need to put thousands of kms of roads to link even just the few, far flung, barely inhabited (other than two or three towns such a Iqaluit, Tuktuyaktuk and Kuujuak, which have a few thousand inhabitants) towns of a few hundred people?

This various towns all have small, gravelled but maintained, and operational airports and usually, at least weekly service from mostly Twin Otters and slightly larger cargo planes. Air, supplemented by ships for heavy cargo during the summer season, is the only logical and logistically efficient system up there, and the only justifiable one.

Here's my dare: I dare anyone who has actually been up there for any reasonable amount of time, to argue otherwise.

I know that the geography is different, but if Norway can run trains and roads right up to their border with Russia, we should be able to manage similar feats of engineering.

And the there’s Tromso, Paris of the North!

Daftandbarmy: Norway, because of the Gulf stream, is not an arctic tundra and all these roads/railroads do not have to run in extreme cold weather, nor has to go over muskeg or permafrost ground. Finally, they have a population of 5.3 millions (because it is inhabitable) in 325,000 square kilometres, whereas the Canadian Arctic - in reverse figures - has only 120,000 inhabitants (mostly in the  Yukon) spread over 3.5 millions square kilometres.

 

[Stoker]

Iqaluit would be better served by the construction of a deep water port than what they do there for the annual sea lift now.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Far from me to trow a monkey's wrench in the discussion here, but anybody looked at where Iqaluit is located?

It's on Baffin Island, across Hudson's strait from mainland Canada. How do you cross either the 165 Kms from Kangiksujuak, Qc (or for those who prefer - Nunavik, the official name of all of the Quebec Northern region) to the Kimmirut Inuit lands, or the 185 Km from Kilinik, Qc, to the southernmost point of Baffin island?

And how do you justify the hundreds of billions of dollars (you think getting six AOPS is expensive - think again) you would need to put thousands of kms of roads to link even just the few, far flung, barely inhabited (other than two or three towns such a Iqaluit, Tuktuyaktuk and Kuujuak, which have a few thousand inhabitants) towns of a few hundred people?

This various towns all have small, gravelled but maintained, and operational airports and usually, at least weekly service from mostly Twin Otters and slightly larger cargo planes. Air, supplemented by ships for heavy cargo during the summer season, is the only logical and logistically efficient system up there, and the only justifiable one.

Here's my dare: I dare anyone who has actually been up there for any reasonable amount of time, to argue otherwise.

Daftandbarmy: Norway, because of the Gulf stream, is not an arctic tundra and all these roads/railroads do not have to run in extreme cold weather, nor has to go over muskeg or permafrost ground. Finally, they have a population of 5.3 millions (because it is inhabitable) in 325,000 square kilometres, whereas the Canadian Arctic - in reverse figures - has only 120,000 inhabitants (mostly in the  Yukon) spread over 3.5 millions square kilometres.

100% concurrence, Iqaluit would be best served by a port of some sort.  As I stated earlier, a road should only be built for commercial purposes, like Quebec is doing with the James Bay Route, Trans-Taiga and hwy 389.

I've been to Resolute Bay, Iqaluit, Hall Beach, Arctic Bay, Pond Inlet (Summer and Winter in each).  I really see no point in having a road to any of these places.  A port in Iqaluit would probably be helpful and make a lot of sense, my understanding is this is in the works.

EDIT:

As I said earlier, one of the only provinces that's taking northern development seriously is Quebec.  Here is a transportation plan from 2002 for Northern Quebec, it's pretty detailed and in english.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110716212313/http://www.mtq.gouv.qc.ca/portal/page/portal/Librairie/Publications/en/regions/abitibi/nord_prediagnostic_en.pdf

 

[dimsum]

A port in Iqaluit would probably be helpful and make a lot of sense, my understanding is this is in the works.

Agreed.  My comment about the road was more of the "can" vice "should".

 

[MarkOttawa]

daftandbarmy: Thing is, no country has any claim on our Arctic land territory (Hans Island aside)--and our claim to sovereignty over NW Passage is disputed by almost everyone (Russia aside), not just the US.  Meanwhile, what about our sovereignty over, e.g., Labrador?  All this nationalist frenzy was whipped up by Harper with no factual basis and then accepted by the clueless media--more from 2011:

The Misguided Fixation on the Arctic and Our Military
http://www.cdfai.org.previewmysite.com/the3dsblog/?p=365

NORAD air defence in the Arctic is not a matter of sovereignty, rather simply the geographical location of a military threat to to the continent as a whole--plus broader considerations here:

Arctic Tensions Not Really About the Region but Relations With Russia
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/05/27/mark-collins-arctic-tensions-not-really-about-the-region-but-relations-with-russia/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Far from me to trow a monkey's wrench in the discussion here, but anybody looked at where Iqaluit is located?

Yup...been there recently.  $69 for fish and chips!!!  rly:

It's on Baffin Island, across Hudson's strait from mainland Canada. How do you cross either the 165 Kms from Kangiksujuak, Qc (or for those who prefer - Nunavik, the official name of all of the Quebec Northern region) to the Kimmirut Inuit lands, or the 185 Km from Kilinik, Qc, to the southernmost point of Baffin island?

See attached pic?    ;D

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

That, Eye in the Sky, would be my way to get to Iqaluit too.  :nod:

Mark: You are oversimplifying the situation in your post:

Everybody except the Russians is contesting Canada's position that all the waters contained within straight base lines enclosing the Arctic archipelago are internal waters of Canada under the law of the sea.

Nobody (not even the US) is contesting that Canada's territorial waters extend 12 NM from every piece of land in the Arctic that is recognized as Canadian. This means that many parts of the NW passage fall completely within Canadian territorial waters, as they are narrower than 24 NM.

Similarly, nobody contests that Canada's EEZ in the Arctic extends to at least 200 NM from any piece of land in the Arctic that is recognized as Canadian, which means all the waters within the archipelago and outwards to 200 NM since there are no parts of the archipelago that are wider than 400 NM.

The distinction on what powers a nation may exercise in territorial waters as opposed to internal waters, in particular restrictions on peaceful passage,  is the real issue that causes international problems, and is therefore contested.

Finally, when it is open, because the NW passage links two international bodies of water, the US, and some but not all other nations, claim that, on top  of all that, the rules relating to freedom of navigation (this is distinct from issues of sovereignty) in international straits must apply at all time, so Canada would have no power at all to impede in any way peaceful passage.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Canada would have no power at all to impede in any way peaceful passage of any kind, in reality.

:Tin-Foil-Hat: