Too little, too late.

Now that Putin's stretched Russia's Arctic claims as far north as one can possibly get, the only place left to go is south into someone else's turf.

He could very well announce that everything north of the Banks Straight - Barrow Straight - Lancaster Sound line is Russian and there's precious little up there to oppose him besides a half-dozen Inuit settlements and SIGINT station CFS Alert.

Put another way, if Russians started drilling for oil in the Sverdrup Basin and actively impeded our entry into the area [i.e. seized ships approaching, forced aircraft away]... would we have 1) the stomach to do anything about it, 2) with what?

That old chestnut "possession is 9/10ths of the law" is particularly apt in matters of territorial claims. Without any external enforcement regime, it doesn't matter what's right -- it only matters what a nation can get away with. Just look at native land claims here. Canada has a bunch of land it ought not to, has had it for several generations, and the process will take even longer to sort out. Are the native nations going to get it all back? Nope. But today's grandkids <i>might</i> be lucky enough to see their grandkids (or great-grandkids) get compensated, if they're lucky.

I am happy to say I didn't vote for these wahoos. (Though, I cannot say I will vote the same as I did next time around.)

I do know at least a few who did for the very reason that they were up to creating a year round arctic base. A four month per year base is fricking useless. We need to stop mopping up after the Yanks all over the world and spend our tax dollars on 24/7/365 full circumference border protection and humanitarian UN non-Offensive operations.

Solution: fund the Canadian Rangers like they should be funded, set up permanent mini-bases and let them patrol the landand the ice when frozen by air and foot.
http://www.rangers.forces.gc.ca/pubs/rangers/intro_e.asp

Nothing beats air power for range and flexibility (the ability to be "everywhere"). Anything we can't do with aircraft due to weather or other conditions is unlikely to be within reach of this rinky-dink fleet, either. A three- or foursome of nuclear-powered submarines, on the other hand...

A half-dozen ships which are not particularly well-suited to either all-season, all-weather territorial arctic waters operations or international blue-water operations are a poor use of funds.

Frankly, that is exactly what I thought. I grew up to Greenwood air force base in NS in the 1970s and there were long distance Arctic air patrols out of there constantly. Dad being a minister, this also meant some of the air crew members in the congregation brought us Arctic char from time to time.<p>Maybe a branch of the Federal Government needs relocating to Ellesmere Island like when they moved the HQ for Veterans Affairs to PEI in an effort to assert some vestige of civilization.

Let's put Brian Tobin and a couple of well armed fast patrol vessels on an ice-station and tell them the spanish are coming.

lrC, you are thinking about warfighting, and airpower is terrific at that. What it isn't so great at is providing on-the-ground proof of inhabitance and use. More Canadian aircraft (Kenn Borek Air) are located in and fly around Antarctica than anyone else's, but our territorial claims to that turf (treaties notwithstanding) would be pretty slim. Nuc attack boats are also very good at warfighting but are a complete non-entity for providing territorial proof of inhabitance and use.

Alan's suggestion is probably closest to the mark, some kind of permanent show-the-flag presence has to be there, year-round. Although the patrol ships may not be there year-round, they are a stepping stone to developing all-weather all-year maritime arctic capability, something the Canadian Forces has never attempted and has no cadre trained to handle.

You don't simply buy the all-weather gear without developing the doctrine and learning the lessons with smaller hardware and lesser capabilities first. You take small steps to learn basic capabilities which eventually add up into a comprehensive whole. We didn't just throw together a Saturn V and go to the moon in 1961, after all. We had to learn and demonstrate mastery of the journey in stages -- sub-orbital flight, orbital flight, multi-crewed vehicles, docking, duration/endurance missions in Earth orbit approximating the length of lunar missions, trans-lunar injection, etc.

While I am usually in the "give war a chance" brigade I'm inclined to think generous tax incentives for a through exploration of the oil and gas/mineral potential of the high Arctic might make more sense here. Mounties/Navy/Rangers need something to preserve and protect: a few seismic teams and some drill rigs would be just the thing.

Where's Smilin' Jack Gallagher when you need him?

>you are thinking about warfighting,

I am not. I'm thinking mainly about buses, not bombers. Aircraft are simply more flexibly equipped to go wherever there might be challenges to sovereignty. If proof of on-the-ground inhabitance and use is what we want, then we should have people living and working there (civilians) other than a make-work CF station.

Hello.

Please excuse me, but what is the difference between mandatory northern service and conscription? Some choice!

Would you be willing to spread the word about www.draftxxxe.xxx? It's a site dedicated to shattering the myths surrounding the selective slavery system and building mass civil disobedience to stop the draft before it starts.

Our banner on a website, printing and posting the anti-draft flyer or just telling friends would help.

Thanks!

Scott Kohlhaas
PS. When it comes to conscription, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!<p><blockquote class="smalltext">[Ed.: spam edited out.]

No.