Defence Policy in the 2006 General Election

[enfield]

Is it even possible to cover the entire Arctic region? Is it feasible to attempt to monitor all Canadian borders, perimeter, and coast?

The US spent 40 years driving subs around Soviet waters, and rarely (if ever) got caught... I'm not sure how we're supposed to do a better job at coastal/arctic security than the USSR.

This sounds more like a good sound bite then an actual sound defence policy. I agree we need to boost our Arctic presence, but I don't Harper has a grasp on the realities of monitoring millions of square kilometers of ice and ocean.
And he's still talking about resurrecting the Airborne, which is already done. Ugh. At least they don't want it in Gander anymore.

Although, in the last election Martin kept talking about silly things like a "peace keeping brigade of 5,000" - which disappeared and somehow morphed into a recruiting drive across the board. So, I have faith that whatever silly things Harper talks about will also disappear when the election is over and reality sinks in.

 

[Kirkhill]

Actually I think it is possible to "Monitor" the arctic insofar as it is not too difficult to monitor air approaches (by radar which we don't have but should) and the access to the Northwest Passage at a limited number of Choke Points (Hudson Strait and Lancaster Sound - north and south of Baffin and Amundsen Gulf north of Tuktoyuktuk - possibly McClure Strait as well)  Those three or four gaps represent the principle entrances to the NW Passage - Cambridge Bay and Resolute are on two internal choke points through which all ships (and subs) must pass.  Other waters are apparently too shallow and the ice is too deep and permanent to be navigable at all. 

Together with Nares Strait up by Alert controlling these few points, together with radar and air support it would be possible to "control" the Arctic.

Read Arctic Imperative: Is Canada Losing the North? - John Honderich, University of Toronto Press, 1987

Jeez, its only 18 years later and we're still talking not doing.

 

[Pencil Tech]

When talking about arctic sovereignty I don't think it's really necessary to be able to monitor ALL of the Arctic Ocean. I think Harper's proposal is a good one because what we do need is to demonstrate very clearly that those are our waters, and I have to admit that it seems to me that all the elements to his proposal do that. The threat to our sovereignty is not really primarily military but political and economic, as the northwest passage becomes more and more navigable. We've got to use it, or we'll lose it. In international law, if you can't demonstrate sovereignty over your territory you're on thin ice, pardon the expression.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

As someone once said, every country has an army â ” either its own or somebody else's. If we cannot protect the front door to North America, the Americans feel they have to, and I don't blame them. I don't look at it as an "Invasion of Sovereignty" more like a "Neighbourhood Watch" that we are to unskilled/ cheap/ ill equipped/ lazy to participate in. Nope, don't blame them a bit, and as long as it's them and not someone else surfacing there, so be it.

 

[greydak]

I watched the news today, and it seemed like his intent was to use the airborne as a SAR more then a first strike unit?

 

[dorionhawk]

Standing up for Canada...


Letter sent to the Defence MinisterThe Hon. W. Graham, MP, P.C., D.U., Q.C.

Minister of National Defence

101 Colonel By Drive

Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K2



Thursday, December 22nd, 2005



Dear Minister Graham,



On Monday Canadians learned of reports that that the American nuclear submarine USS Charlotte traveled through Canadian Arctic waters last month. The media reported the government refused to say whether it gave permission for this voyage.



Currently five nations possess nuclear submarines: the US, China, Russia, Great Britain and France. There are many indications that all of them have traversed throughout our Arctic waters. It is almost certain that many of them did not seek our permission. We have territorial disputes with the United States in three areas, at the bottom of the Alaska panhandle, in the Beaufort Sea, and with respect to the Northwest Passage. We also have territorial disputes with Russia on the Continental shelf and with Denmark over Hans Island. Our sovereignty is being challenged and will continue to be challenged as other nations covet our vast resources.



In a press conference on Monday, I called on your government to answer several questions concerning this potential violation of our sovereignty.  I have yet to receive a response from you or any government official. So today I am writing to put these questions directly to you:



Was the Government of Canada aware of this particular voyage into Canadian territorial waters?
If your government was aware of this voyage, did it grant permission for it to occur?
If your government did not grant such permission, what specific actions have you or your government taken to protest this apparent violation of Canadian sovereignty?
Is the government aware of other unauthorized foreign naval voyages that may have occurred in Canadian territorial waters without the permission or knowledge of the Canadian government?
What concrete measures are in your government's plan to prevent such unauthorized incursions into Canadian territorial waters in the future?


Sovereignty must be enforced to be credible with respect to international law. It is not good enough to say we are sovereign, we must demonstrate our sovereignty. I and all Canadians would like to know the specifics of your plan to defend our northern sovereignty.



I look forward to your response.





Gordon O'Connor, M.P.

Official Opposition Critic for National Defence

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Dorionhawk, please give us your reaction to this thread...
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37742/post-312302.html#msg312302

 

[Gunnerlove]

I still can't figure the Conservatives out. They are pissy when the Liberals take to long to buy something ( Cyclone) and are pissy when they act in haste (M-777). They bitch about the subs being a waste of money yet they have no real alternative (forget nukes, not going to happen kids).

After a decade in the forces I believe we are on the upswing as far as training and equipment go. As a military we also seem to have more support from government and the public than I can ever remember. Now why would I want to vote for a group that wanted Canada to invade Iraq?

 

[dorionhawk]

Short memory... from Warren Kinsella's web site....


In that vein, I wanted to point out that Paul Martin told the Laurier Club last night (check out CTV's extensive coverage and the video links here, about eleven minutes in) that, if Stephen Harper was a majority government Prime Minister, we would be at war in Iraq.
That might be true. But it's also true that, had he won a majority, Paul Martin would have done the same damn thing:

"¢ "I really think Canada should get over to Iraq as quickly as possible." - (Paul Martin, North Bay Nugget, April 30, 2003).

"¢ "I don't think there is any doubt, if there ever was... that [Saddam Hussein] does have weapons of mass destruction. ...he had lied and that he is continuing to lie." - (Paul Martin, Calgary Herald, March 7, 2003)

"¢ "The problem is...we know well that there is proliferation of nuclear weapons and that many of the weapons that Saddam Hussein had, for example, we do not know where they are, so that means the terrorists have access to all that." - (Paul Martin, Globe and Mail, May 11, 2004)
"¢ "Once the war in Iraq began, Canada was far from neutral." - (Paul Martin, CTV News, May 21, 2004)

"I really think Canada should get over to Iraq as quickly as possible." Get that? Paul Martin said that. Not Harper or Layton or Duceppe. Paul Martin. Get to war, and get to war fast. Said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, too.
On this Remembrance Day, it's useful to remember - as Paul Martin cravenly seeks to depict his opponent as pro-war - that, once upon a time, Paul Martin favoured George W. Bush's illegal war in Iraq, too.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

dorionhawk,

If your here to stump for the Conservatives, you better lay out your party's platform. We will have little time for someone that just comes here to attack without providing alternatives.

Anyone can surf for canned comments, what merits do you provide.

 

[ChopperHead]

As someone once said, every country has an army â ” either its own or somebody else's. If we cannot protect the front door to North America, the Americans feel they have to, and I don't blame them. I don't look at it as an "Invasion of Sovereignty" more like a "Neighbourhood Watch" that we are to unskilled/ cheap/ ill equipped/ lazy to participate in. Nope, don't blame them a bit, and as long as it's them and not someone else surfacing there, so be it.

I agree. we can't defend the artic heck we can barley moniter it right now. the US knows this and so does everyone else. so if we cant protect our borders then the US is not going to sit around and let something happen. If theoretically someone were to land on Canadian soil we would 1) not know about it for awile/if ever
2) not be able to do anything about it. exept give a warning or send some Natives on snowmachines. Not that the rangers arnt skilled or anything but up against  a proffesional army they are not much help other then recon.

 

[tomahawk6]

Paul Martin said that Canada needs to join the war effort in Iraq ? Once he was PM he could have followed through on that statement, but he didnt. Paul Martin offered more money to the CF but it was to be spread out over 5 years as a result the badly needed infusion of money was diluted. The CF needs a budget of $20b a year - minimum. The Navy needs money. The Air Force needs to start replacing its inventory of aircraft. The Army needs to modernize to be able to link with the US digital network. Above all I would like to see two brigade's with 6 infantry battalions .The Army needs Chinook helos and some type of robust attack helo. The CF needs to obtain mini UAV's that can be operated at the company/battalion level. The list goes on.

 

[enfield]

I still haven't seen any proof it's possible to monitor the entire Far North in a meaningful way. The US can't control all of its borders, and the USSR was never able to control it's entire Far North and coastline. Too much land and water.

The more I see Conservative defence plans, the more it becomes obvious they have a General from the 1970's in charge. The CPC seems to be aiming slightly off the mark on a lot of things, and is way out of line on a few others. He rails against JTF2, but looks to acquire big fleets of ships and planes, and re-invent the Airborne/CSOR. I had hoped with the appointment of General Hillier as CDS we had escaped the rash of poor senior officers of the 1980/early 90's, but one has returned to haunt us.

2) not be able to do anything about it. exept give a warning or send some Natives on snowmachines. Not that the rangers arnt skilled or anything but up against  a proffesional army they are not much help other then recon.

I don't know. How many armies can seriouly operate in the Far North? True, the Rangers are not a true combat force, but I wouldn't under-estimate them - especially when attached to a regular unit. Good luck to anyone who tries to fight North of 60 without them.

Besides, say China does put a division of paratroopers down on Baffin Island. So what?

 

[MacKenzie1NSH]

the rangers only observe and report anyways don't they? They have no real authority to do anything do they?

 

[Dare]

Besides, say China does put a division of paratroopers down on Baffin Island. So what?

You could probably have just summed up your arguement with that statement.

Some people care about Canadian sovereignty.

 

[Infanteer]

Having done exercises in -40 C weather, I'd be happy to simply let an enemy sit in Baffin Island - they most likely wouldn't last long.  Winter warfare is extremely attritive on forces that don't have a high degree of specialized training and equipment; I've seen this first hand.

 

[karl28]

I think that we should protect the north with a stronger presence .  Its our back door and  if its not protected it could eventually bite us in the back side one day .

 

[enfield]

You could probably have just summed up your arguement with that statement.

Some people care about Canadian sovereignty.

Having done exercises in -40 C weather, I'd be happy to simply let an enemy sit in Baffin Island - they most likely wouldn't last long.  Winter warfare is extremely attritive on forces that don't have a high degree of specialized training and equipment; I've seen this first hand.

Exactly, Infanteer.
China/Cuba/North Korea/Luxembourg lands in the high North. Give them a week, and then go pick up the bodies.

War cannot be waged at those latitudes, the conditions are simply too severe. No one tries to maneuvre serious forces that far North - if nothing else, there's nothing worth fighting over that far north. Warfare in higher latitudes - such as Russia 41-45, Finland 1939-40 - is highly seasonal, and farther North it's just impossible to fight.

I care a great deal about Canadian sovereignty, but I am realistic about the ability of a nation of 32 million people to hermetically seal a country with 202,080km of coastline, 891, 162 sq km of territorial waters, and 9 million square km of land, not too mention the borders with the US. Like I said earlier - the Soviet Union was fanatic about protecting itself and sealing its borders, and it never managed it. Despite massive resources, they were never successful in keeping US subs out of their waters. Canada has a small defence budget and little patience for military matters - I don't see a need to waste our money and times chasing Los Angeles-class submarines around under the ice.

I am far less concerned with minor symbolic acts - like US subs in the Arctic - then I am with important, immediate, in-theatre issues. The fact recent Canadian wounded in Afghanistan have had to be medevac'd by American helicopters is more embarassing, to me, than a boat up north.
Canadian sovereignty is being decided in Afghanistan as much as it is in Ellesmere Island.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I am far less concerned with minor symbolic acts - like US subs in the Arctic - then I am with important, immediate, in-theatre issues. The fact recent Canadian wounded in Afghanistan have had to be medevac'd by American helicopters is more embarassing, to me, than a boat up north.
Canadian sovereignty is being decided in Afghanistan as much as it is in Ellesmere Island.

Seen, but to me, the point is not that we should build a coastal defence bunker every 500 m throughout the arctic or have a dogsled-mounted infantry battalion on each and every island north of 60.  The point is that we need to be able to regularily survey the territory we have have up there by air/sea/land forces.  We need to have at least a "token" permanent military presence in the North that can be rapidly reinforced up to (platoon/company/Battalion?- someone needs to sit down and do the estimate).  I would not argue that we need to be prepared to fight a Corps-sized, conventional war north of 60- we just need to be REGULARILY north of 60 with some level of credible armed force.  To do that, it does begin to imply a certain bill for airlift (ahh- the strategic versus tactical lift debate continues), for icebreakers, for sensors (above and below the water) and infrastructure to house both permanent and surge forces.  I don't think that is too much to pay, considering the considerable mineral, natural and cultural wealth the North possesses.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm with SKTO on this one.

It isn't the necessity of repelling corps and hordes.  Its worse than that.  They are relatively easy to detect and repel.

It's more the case of governing an uninhabited area.  If we don't exercise authority in the area then it leaves the area open for exploitation by others which may or may not be backed by a foreign government.  Some of you might remember that the flashpoint for the Falklands War was actually a bunch of Argentinians harvesting "resources" (scrap metal) from a British island (South Georgia) in the middle of no-place.

The Danes and Norwegians are fishing high up in Baffin Bay without supervision.  The Danes are pushing their boundary claims at Hans Island.  The Russians are pushing out along the Lermontsov ridge onto "our side" of the North Pole.  The Americans are pushing into the Beaufort Sea.

What is happening is that the entire area is becoming a Border Zone,  a zone of instability, a contested area, that is likely to be exploited by not just us "locals" but by all-comers.  It's not corps we need to be worried about its "scrap metal" dealers, fishing, gas, mining and shipping companies, potentially backed by foreign governments and possibly protected by private security firms that could outmatch your average RCMP Constable or CF Ranger.  That's the immediate threat that needs to be checked.

Just as SKTO says - you don't need a massive force permanently dug in with forts and dog patrols to get that job done.  His shopping list will do just fine.