• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Why NATO needs a Standing Maritime Group in the arctic

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
61
Points
530
Russia should be a natural counterweight to PRC global ambition's.Russia could lose Siberia and its important resources. So an arrangement with NATO would be smart. Anyone who has spent time in the arctic would know that the region would not be a great battlefield. Deny the region certainly to potential enemies which could be done with airpower and USN's nuke subs. Boots on the ground I hope not.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,431
Points
940
lenaitch said:
It has nothing to do with unions allowing anything.  In Ontario, Section 43 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act lays out an employee's right to refuse dangerous work, unionize or not, and police are among the group of workers that are exempt.  A key component is if the risk is inherent in the work.  For a cop, the risk of getting shot is inherent - being made to drive on bald tires is not. Assuming "fish cops" are DFO, no doubt there is similar federal legislation.  I have no difficulty with defensive overwatch of maritime law enforcement; that is part of their mandate, but the discussion seemed to me as proposing the CG as part of an Arctic naval military presence, not law enforcement.  Perhaps I misunderstood.

Perhaps it would be beneficial to mimic the USCG divisions of white fleet (national security), black fleet (bouy tenders, etc.) and red fleet (heavy ice breaker).

We had that: "Red fleet" (CCG), Gray fleet (Fisheries) "white fleet" was Science/CHS. There was also the smaller Grey/white fleet of DPW vessels (dredges, repair vessels and snag pullers) There was a lot of heartache bringing them together.
 
Top