| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 7:56 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Wow. Jaw-dropping wow. That means we're all just:
Whereas you're all:
While participating in pissing contests that I don't give a dawn about is lots of fun, it's time to go out now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
supernick
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| With all that power, what happened in VN? You would have thought that a country with so much fire power would have cleaned up in no time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marlow
Joined: 06 Feb 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is a great essay that takes a look at all the issues. A bit long to read, so I just skimmed it. It seems very interesting and well researched. It fairly addresses most points. Better than us shooting our mouths off.
https://www.westga.edu/~canconf/Charron.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It'll be an interesting exercise in Canadian government logistics and policy promulgation.
Some obvious observations:
The Navy's current icebreaking capacity is: zip. nada. rien. opda.
They have no ships capable of performing icebreaking duties, and consequently they have no expertise in procurement or operations. This has been true since 1958.
The Coast Guard has this many armed icebreakers: zip. nada. rien. opda.
Icebreakers clear paths for traffic. They can do squat against nuclear powered submarines that go under the pack ice. We can't stop them, and what exactly can they do up there anyway? Poach seals?
Harper wants a year-round presence in the Arctic. Icebreakers are not the key to this. Currently only those nuclear submarines with strengthened ice-pack piercing sails and the largest Russian nuclear-powered icebreakers are able to operate in Arctic in winter. There is no commercial/scientific/civilian traffic up there in the winter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laconic2
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Wonderful World of ESL
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 9:21 pm Post subject: Saving |
|
|
| supernick wrote: |
| With all that power, what happened in VN? You would have thought that a country with so much fire power would have cleaned up in no time. |
Saving it for a war involving icebreakers?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PEIGUY
Joined: 28 Mar 2004
Location: Omokgyo
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It's mainly rhetoric more than anything. Like Bulsajo said, Canada doesn't have the capacity. Our Coast Guard is pretty useless except for catching ships illegally fishing etc etc mostly used for research. When you build these ships you would have to also build a supply ship that could resupply them. Canada has only 2 resupply ships both are very old. The idea seems better in the media than on paper really. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey PEI,
bravo zulu
| PEIGUY wrote: |
| Our Coast Guard is pretty useless except for catching ships illegally fishing etc etc mostly used for research. |
While I strongly disagree, that's a debate for another thread, although if you qualify your statement to "useless in an armed military capacity" I'd agree and point out that what makes a Coast Guard ship a Coast Guard ship (as opposed to navy ship) is the lack of armament in any form.
| Quote: |
| When you build these ships you would have to also build a supply ship that could resupply them. |
Not neccessarily; It's not clear whether a special icebreaking resupply ship would be required, or what sort of supply arrangments would be required (probably because the actual operational role such ships would perform hasn't been clearly defined yet... i.e. no one pushing this proposal {politicians} has really thought it through that far yet).
| Quote: |
| The idea seems better in the media than on paper really. |
Too true, too true.
Who would fulfill this role? The Navy with no icebreaking capacity/experience?
The Coast guard with no capacity/experience mandate with armed vessels?
Maybe the Conservatives want to see an armed Coast Guard along the lines of the USCG?
As I said in a different thread I'm all for Canada expanding its role in the North, but throwing lots of money at this concept might not be the best way to acheive this goal...
This whole exercise was triggered by a US naval 'publicity stunt' in the middle of an election, which led the Liberals and Conservatives into a sudden game of one upmanship campaign promises- these promises were on the fly and not part of any comprehensive and well thought out policy wwith regard to Canada's role in the Arctic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 4:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apparently Canadians are as stupid as Americans. (Glancing reference to another thread.) "Stay out of our ice!!" is just about as dumb as "President George Bush."
Too bad. I was counting on you guys to raise the gene pool's overall IQ after the merger. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
Apparently Canadians are as stupid as Americans. (Glancing reference to another thread.) "Stay out of our ice!!" is just about as dumb as "President George Bush."
Too bad. I was counting on you guys to raise the gene pool's overall IQ after the merger. |
An oversimplification of the issue which hides some important details, but your basic sentiment is correct: it's a cheap play to Canadian nationalism more than anything else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
Apparently Canadians are as stupid as Americans. (Glancing reference to another thread.) "Stay out of our ice!!" is just about as dumb as "President George Bush."
Too bad. I was counting on you guys to raise the gene pool's overall IQ after the merger.   |
An oversimplification of the issue which hides some important details, but your basic sentiment is correct: it's a cheap play to Canadian nationalism more than anything else. |
One man's oversimplification is another's getting to the heart of a matter. Some things really are simple, or should be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Cliches become cliches because so often they are accurate; the appropriate one here is 'the devil is in the details'. Defending sovereignty is a valid issue that is more than just a 'stay out of our ice' tantrum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| Cliches become cliches because so often they are accurate; the appropriate one here is 'the devil is in the details'. Defending sovereignty is a valid issue that is more than just a 'stay out of our ice' tantrum. |
Not really. Unless there is an issue of security, who the hell cares where the conatiner ships bob about? Sorry, this is nothing more than chest thumping.
Let me see you argue that Panama should truly have full control of the canal and should close it any time they wish, for as long as they wish. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| Cliches become cliches because so often they are accurate; the appropriate one here is 'the devil is in the details'. Defending sovereignty is a valid issue that is more than just a 'stay out of our ice' tantrum. |
Not really. Unless there is an issue of security, who the hell cares where the conatiner ships bob about? Sorry, this is nothing more than chest thumping.
Let me see you argue that Panama should truly have full control of the canal and should close it any time they wish, for as long as they wish. |
You seem to be confusing the Northwest Passage with the entire Arctic. And long term, in Canadian waters as a whole- including the Arctic- there is most definitely an issue of 'security'. You know I'm not a nationalistic chest thumper but whether we like it or not sovereignty is a real concern. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:59 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PEIGUY
Joined: 28 Mar 2004
Location: Omokgyo
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
Hey PEI,
bravo zulu
| PEIGUY wrote: |
| Our Coast Guard is pretty useless except for catching ships illegally fishing etc etc mostly used for research. |
While I strongly disagree, that's a debate for another thread, although if you qualify your statement to "useless in an armed military capacity" I'd agree and point out that what makes a Coast Guard ship a Coast Guard ship (as opposed to navy ship) is the lack of armament in any form.
| Quote: |
| When you build these ships you would have to also build a supply ship that could resupply them. |
Not neccessarily; It's not clear whether a special icebreaking resupply ship would be required, or what sort of supply arrangments would be required (probably because the actual operational role such ships would perform hasn't been clearly defined yet... i.e. no one pushing this proposal {politicians} has really thought it through that far yet).
| Quote: |
| The idea seems better in the media than on paper really. |
Too true, too true.
Who would fulfill this role? The Navy with no icebreaking capacity/experience?
The Coast guard with no capacity/experience mandate with armed vessels?
Maybe the Conservatives want to see an armed Coast Guard along the lines of the USCG?
As I said in a different thread I'm all for Canada expanding its role in the North, but throwing lots of money at this concept might not be the best way to acheive this goal...
This whole exercise was triggered by a US naval 'publicity stunt' in the middle of an election, which led the Liberals and Conservatives into a sudden game of one upmanship campaign promises- these promises were on the fly and not part of any comprehensive and well thought out policy wwith regard to Canada's role in the Arctic. |
In reference to the Coast Guard i should've clarified my point thanks for doing that, I don't know if the Conservatives are looking for an armed coast guard.. something tells me that they probably won't go in that direction. The coast guard has the experience of icebreaking but do not have the capacity to do so and the Navy has no experience but has the headstart of being armed and trained for combat but would they be prepared to take on this extra task? Would we even have the sailors to station on these ships? I guess i think too further ahead than the politicians do. We have to assert a position in OUR waters. That's it, nothing to do with chesthumping, Maybe it could be solved by diplomacy? probably would be cheaper!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
