George W Bush tests Stephen Harper
Much has been made of Stephen Harper standing up to the US on the issue of Arctic sovereignty.
Not to take away from Harper's performance, but you do realize it was a test, don't you? And I think Stephen Harper passed.
During the campaign, the Conservatives promised to establish a real Canadian presence in the Far North:
- Stationing three new armed naval heavy ice breakers in the area of Iqaluit which will include 500 regular force personnel for crews and support;
- Building a new military/civilian deep-water docking facility in the Iqaluit area;
- Establishing a new Arctic National Sensor System for northern waters which will include underwater surveillance technologies;
- Building a new Arctic army training centre in the area of Cambridge Bay on the Northwest Passage staffed by an estimated 100 regular force personnel;
- Stationing new fixed-wing search-and-rescue aircraft in Yellowknife;
- Providing eastern and western Arctic air surveillance through stationing new long range uninhabited aerial vehicle (UAV) squadrons at CFB Goose Bay and CFB Comox;
- Revitalizing the Canadian Rangers by recruiting up to 500 additional Rangers increasing their level of training, activity, and equipment; and
- Providing an army emergency response capability through the new airborne battalion and airlift capacity stationed at CFB Trenton to provide a rapid emergency response capability throughout the entire Arctic region.
The Liberal party offered this:
Mr. Harper's questionable proposal is in stark contrast to the Liberal government's approach to maintaining and defending Canadian sovereignty in the North.
There are currently 4,000 Canadian Rangers providing a military presence in 165 remote, isolated and coastal communities in the North. They report any unusual activities, and conduct surveillance and sovereignty patrols as required. The Liberal government will increase this surveillance and detection capability by acquiring new state-of-the-art, medium-altitude, long-endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV).
The planned launching of Radarsat 2 in 2007 - a highly advanced imaging satellite funded by the federal government - will also greatly enhance our ability to detect pollution in our waters, monitor ship movements along our coasts and assist in vessel navigation in ice-choked waters.
Canadian Rangers are part-time reservists. Look at the picture -- most of them look like grandfathers. They take a ten-day orientation course, and that's it. They get paid for 12 days a year, plus a parka budget and an orange safety vest. Equipment? The No. 4 Lee Enfield rifle. A fine weapon -- in 1931 when it was first made!
UAVs? A cheap promise (and I suspect one to be forgotten had the Liberals won), and unless the UAVs are armed, they won't scare anyone. And in any case, they are useless for finding a nuclear sub deep underwater, and are not capable of carrying any kind of credible threat with which to prosecute a sub contact.
Sorry, but I don't see how the Liberals could think this group of part-time soldiers with World War II rifles and toy airplanes could establish Canadian sovereignty in the face of a American nuclear submarine.
Radarsat is a combined effort between National Defense, Evironment Canada, Transport Canada, and the Canadian Space Agency. It is not a military satellite, just a satellite the military uses. Its mission to look for pollution and such means it is not going to be much good for looking for submarines. Not that a satellite is necessarily the best tool for the job. In any case, without actual ships in the area, all Radarsat lets you do is watch helplessly while foreign surface ships sail unopposed through the north. Not much better than those UAVs, really.
The Conservatives sound serious, and they have a credible plan, and so the Americans reacted:
During the campaign, Harper said his government would beef up Canada's military presence in the Arctic. [U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins] took exception to that policy, saying that the U.S. "doesn't recognize Canada's claims to those waters" and implying Canada should rein in its Arctic ambitions.
Harper's response was unequivocal: "It is the Canadian people we get our mandate from, not the U.S. ambassador."
I think this was a test from the US. The American administration pushes, and studies the push back. Here's what I noticed:
- No nasty words for the US.
- No coupling with, or even mention of, trade issues or terrorism or gun control or health care.
- No mention of the United Nations or "international law".
- No attempt to personalize the issue or to score partisan points, for example, by claiming to be the only prime minister of the only party who can stand up to George W Bush
To me this suggests a mature and constructive relationship is possible, and that areas of disagreement can be resolved.
I think the folks at Foggy Bottom are thinking the same thing, having designed this test.
And who doesn't think Stephen Harper and his people saw this from a mile away. I've met some of these people -- they are sharp.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
I don't think it was a test but rather a gift. Why would the Americans care about the arctic except for security concerns? Most capital required to develop the arctic would come from US companies so there is no economic reason to claim it as international waters. Americans would more likely get a piece of the economic pie by having Canada exert it's sovereign claims through a military presence. Free trade guarantees this. By being the gadfly, Harper can muster support to move ahead in this costly endevour.
For the record...I agree with Harper's plan.
Posted by: Paul at January 27, 2006 11:42 AM
Are there Canadaian plans to deploy a fleet of attack submarines to detect and track Russian ballestic submarines like the U.S. Navy currently does or will Canada choose to ignore them??
Posted by: MCPO Airdale at January 27, 2006 11:49 AM
I would offer another possible scenario.
"Stephen this is Dubya, by the way well done, listen I see you got a small minority and we are used to a bit of abuse from Canada, tell you what, I will get my guy up there to throw an easy one to you, on say security which by the way you have some good ideas on.Anyway you can stand up to us and stand up for Canada at the same time, that should get you off to a good start."
Seriously why would the Americans have mouthed off at this time if it wasn't to help the new government?
Posted by: ian at January 27, 2006 11:57 AM
This was a winning issue for Diefenbaker. I expect the same for Harper.
Most Canadians don't realize how tenuous our sovereignty in the North really is. We only have it because no one else wants it. Yet.
The Northwest Passage and natural resources are the attraction. If we can't project power up there, we'll lose effective control.
We must maintain a presence. Occupation is 9/10ths of possession. Harper's proposals are a good start. I would add others to strenthen our claim.
1. Big tax incentives for mineral, oil & gas exploration in the Arctic. Keep the prospectors up there. It also provides the justification for spending the money on the military.
2. Speedy approval of the Mackenzie River pipeline. Expand it to include a service road right to the Mackenzie Delta.
3. Build a couple medium/minimum security prisons in the Arctic. Provides some much needed employment, expands the population presence. The prison population doesn't really have much say in the matter. Also, with the crack down on crime, we will need to build new facilities anyways.
Posted by: PlaidShirt at January 27, 2006 11:57 AM
Angry: I agree that this may have been a test, but I also think it was a nice big fat soft ball tossed for Harper to hit out of the park. Which he did.
It makes Harper look great and likley got little airplay in the US. Calculated move by Bush.
Posted by: ward at January 27, 2006 12:04 PM
It was a test. I little poke at a Canadian policy that they don't agree with, but is popular in Canada. (relatively)
I think the Americans must be pleased with the arctic proposal. They do worry about a N Korean sub, launching missiles from these waters. If we can pick up a little slack here, the Americans will have more military resources for the larger security risks they face.
Posted by: Curtis at January 27, 2006 12:21 PM
Curtis, North Korea doesn't run any boomers.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/navy.htm
Posted by: RJ at January 27, 2006 12:52 PM
What Curtis said. Especially about Iran and N Korea having submarines. Oh, Curtis didn't mention Iran, but I will.
Sovereignty based on the 'honor system' and unarmed border guards will not fly any more.
Incidentally, are the passages between all of those islands in Indonesia international waters? Hmmm
An American
Posted by: moptop at January 27, 2006 12:59 PM
"Curtis, North Korea doesn't run any boomers"
Wow, and they never will either, you seem to imply...
Even in the comic books, the power to assert a negative on a scale like that is reserved to God, but here RJ not only displays perfect knowledge of N Korea's military technology, but knows what the future holds as well...
Well done RJ! Can you tell me who is going to win the Stanley Cup in 2010 while you are at it?
Posted by: moptop at January 27, 2006 01:03 PM
But the liberals said he would sell Canada to them?
They must be wrong,
Posted by: DrWright at January 27, 2006 01:12 PM
By the way RJ,
Dropping a team of 'special-forces' type jihadis with a suitcase nuke from a submarine makes the submarine a "boomer".
Posted by: moptop at January 27, 2006 01:14 PM
I agree with Ian...it's all part of the new North American Right Wing Conspiracy...mouhahahahahahah...
D
Posted by: David Lockwood at January 27, 2006 01:15 PM
I saw an article, listing the N Korean submarine launched missile scenario, as an American security concern, and thus 'A' reason for USN submarine patrols in Canadian arctic waters.
Just because N Korea cant afford to buy, or have the engineering experience to build an 'Ohio' class submarine, doesn't mean another submarine, couldn't be modified to fire a missile.
Its the Jerry-rigged launcher, that the Americans are concerned about.
Posted by: Curtis at January 27, 2006 01:17 PM
The threat currently isn't North Korean boomers (nuclear missile-carrying submarines), the concern is a North Korean or Iranian civilian ship carrying SCUDs (or now much more advanced ballistic missiles from Iran) concealed on deck and launching from offshore.
The most devestating use for such a weapon would not be to attack population centres (and they could easily do that at the same time).
It would be to launch a high altitude nuke straight up in the air over either or both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts - no particular accuracy required.
It would then detonate unleashing its Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP), which magnified by the effects of the ionosphere at high altitude, would permanently turn off most electronic systems accross astoundingly broad areas of the continent. This would largely revert North America back to the Bronze Age, but with a huge population and without the economy or individual knowledge to support it.
It would also instantly kill people wearing pacemakers, for example, and many driving cars and/or flying airplanes, yet these would be the least of our problems unfortunately.
Yes, this is a threat worth defending against.
Posted by: Chris from Victoria, BC at January 27, 2006 01:20 PM
...I don't think you can fit a nuke into a suitcase, the mass you need to reach critical mass is too great...a dirty bomb maybe.
D
Posted by: David Lockwood at January 27, 2006 01:21 PM
David, both Superpowers have had nuclear weapons that fit in suitcases since at least the early 80s. American A-teams and Russian Spetnatz units also produce (and still deploy) backpack nuclear weapons that special forces are trained to infiltrate and insert near key targets.
There are also (at least) hundreds of former Soviet, Chinese, and American nuclear warheads in artillery shells.
As far as the Soviet nuclear artillery shells go, not all of these can be accounted for.
Posted by: Chris from Victoria, BC at January 27, 2006 01:33 PM
If you are looking for someone manufacturing an incident, look no further than Jeffrey Simpson of the Globe and Mail. He asked the question of Ambassador Wilkins in London.
Wilkins just replied with the American boilerplate response. The same one that Celucci and every other American ambassador has used.
Next day CBC comes out with a headline saying Wilkins dismisses Harper's plan without mentioning Wilkins did not bring up the subject. He was answering a question. The CBC article left the impression that this was a priority issue for the Yanks - nothing of the sort.
Looking for a villain of the piece? Check our usual Canadian news manufacturers.
Cheers.
Posted by: Chris at January 27, 2006 01:34 PM
http://www.nationalterroralert.com/readyguide/suitcasenuke.htm
A small nuke can fit into a 'suitcase'
Posted by: Curtis at January 27, 2006 01:35 PM
The suitcase 'nuke' does in fact exist and is estimated to be about the size of a George Foreman grill. It requires about 25 lbs of the highest grade of plutonium. The maximum yield is estimated to be about 5 kilotons (5,000 lbs of TNT) which is not quite 1/2 the explosive power of the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima.
Posted by: Monty at January 27, 2006 01:39 PM
Actually David, and this is a bit of dark humour, but true that in the 1950s (before the lethal radiation was fully understood and while soldiers were still commonly holding exercises in nuclear fallout areas) the U.S. researched using atomic hand grenades.
The project was abandoned when it was determined that the smallest blast they could design would still always kill the person throwing the grenade.
Posted by: Chris from Victoria, BC at January 27, 2006 01:39 PM
As an interesting historical footnote, as you will discover from reading his autobiography, Colin Powell commanded an atomic cannon battery in Germany as a young officer.
Posted by: Chris from Victoria, BC at January 27, 2006 01:45 PM
"Why would the Americans care about the arctic except for security concerns?"
For the same reason that the Danes are interested in Hans Island:
OIL
Posted by: Ed Minchau at January 27, 2006 01:45 PM
I agree with Angry, but would add that according to the documentary series about the CF on the OLN channel, Truth, Duty, Valour, the Rangers are equipped with Lee-Enfields because they work best in sub-zero weather. (I don't know if any other Arctic nations use bolt-action rifles for any of their High Arctic troops.)
Re. 2010: The Leafs.
Posted by: andycanuck at January 27, 2006 01:46 PM
Well, that one backfired on Jeffrey Simpson, the Globe and Mail, and CBC ... didn't it, Chris?
:-)
Posted by: Chris from Victoria, BC at January 27, 2006 01:49 PM
I've observed the Rangers training AND been deployed as an infantryman in high arctic conditions alongside U.S. Marine FAST (Fleet Antiterrorism Security) teams, the special U.S. Navy teams that guard their nuclear-missile carrying boomers (whatever the heck they are called - I can't remember), and of course with our own army and navy.
I'll tell you that's a load of crap. It's because the Rangers (some of whom are excellent, some of whom are... great, but not overly disciplined) are not uniformly fantastic at maintaining their weapons. And besides, they mostly use their Lee-Enfields for hunting and self-defence from Polar Bears and the Liberal government doesn't like them appearing too "aggressive".
The C7 automatic-cabable rifle, C9 light machine gun, C6 medium machine gun, .50 cal. M1 heavy machine gun, and any infantry weapon I've ever been trained in (light and medium anti-armour weapons, mortars, non-atomic hand grenades, etc.) work perfectly well in the arctic with proper care and maintenance.
Our weapons (the C7 and C9 flip-down trigger guard is a good example) are especially designed for Canada's arctic conditions. You just don't oil them since that makes them freeze up. You can use them bone dry and they perform flawlessly or, if you want to go really crazy, you use the special powder graphic "lubricant" we issue.
Whoever says you need a 70-year old bolt-action rifle in the arctic is ill-informed on military matters.
Posted by: Chris from Victoria, BC at January 27, 2006 02:00 PM
Andy Canuck: The Danes use bolt-action Winchester/Mausers for the same reason.
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-arcticviking4sb-1.htm
Posted by: Jim Whyte at January 27, 2006 02:02 PM
* graphite "lubricant"
Posted by: Chris from Victoria, BC at January 27, 2006 02:03 PM
OK everyone, stop worrying about EMP. Until the North Koreans figure out how to make *fusion* bombs, it won't be a problem.
http://www.stevejanke.com/archives/134854.php
Posted by: Steve Janke at January 27, 2006 02:05 PM
Jim, if you'll read deeper into that article, you'll discover the Danes mostly use this weapon because its what their Inuit hunters, like ours, are familiar with.
Nothing wrong with that. They're both great rifles. I happen to love bolt-action rifles and the Inuit and other native Canadian Rangers are above average shots. But how do you think they would fair in combat against a force equipped as I have described above?
Posted by: Chris from Victoria, BC at January 27, 2006 02:07 PM
Yes, they need to make fusion weapons, but fusion weapons are damn simple.
It's getting a fission critical mass that's tough. Once you have that, you pack enough high grade plutonium beside it and "boom": fusion.
Posted by: Chris from Victoria, BC at January 27, 2006 02:10 PM
Anyway, Steve, I'm describing absolutely worst-case scenario, which must be taken into consideration and defended against for obvious reasons.
For reasons of nuclear-fuel processing, fission weapons are far more likely and would accomplish terrorist objectives.
But any unplanned by us nuke going off in or around North America is a bad nuke.
Posted by: Chris from Victoria, BC at January 27, 2006 02:15 PM
Sorry guys! The suitcase nuke is a myth. nationalterroralert.com's story is pure fiction. The smallest nuke ever built weighed in at 154 lbs and those units have all been destroyed. The smallest ones I ever saw were 500 lbs and were considered the smallest Tac nukes made. Don't you guys do your homework?
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007478
Posted by: Capt, Craig at January 27, 2006 02:27 PM
does anyone have respect for a wimp? No
Bush threw an easy one at him to see if he's gonna be a pussy. NO now George is happy, Canada is happy we wil look after our own land.
It opens up the artic as a place we have to be present, so now we can look for natural resouses. It's an indirect tike a hike Greenland that island is ours. It give Harper an excuse in a majority to ditch the tubs Chetien bought and buy some real subs probably nuclear to patrol under the ice. And I agree it would be a fantastic place to build some pens and give some employment to people up there. Although running them would be costly, might have to cut back on steak and tv.
Posted by: rob at January 27, 2006 02:28 PM
Capt Craig,
On this subject, you don't know what you're talking about.
This reminds me of when I, a lowly infantry Reserve Private, was taking my basic training at Wainwright, Alberta in the mid 1990s and was talking with our course officer, a Captain and a very good officer with a sound tactical mind, great leadership skills... but no awareness at all of Fuel Air Explosives or their capability.
We got in a discussion about this the then largest non-nuclear blast weapons, so powerful the largest is designed to be used to eliminate ground forces with an overpressure wave on an entire "grid square" (1 sq km). It has since been eclipsed by the BLU-82 MOAB (Massive Ordnance Air Burst).
He simply wasn't aware they existed (Canadians don't have any and most of our officers' training is minimal - as it is on nuclear weapons compared to the nations that have them).
The Russians are believed to have developed smaller nuclear weapons and Russian denials are probably not your best source of (mis)information.
Yet that aside, the U.S.A. fielded the W-54 Davy Crocket variable yield nuclear weapon from 1961-1971. Its warhead weighted 51lb.
It is also reasonable to assume that both the U.S.A. and Russia (and China) have more compact still classified designs.
Posted by: Chris from Victoria, BC at January 27, 2006 03:00 PM
"The smallest nuke ever built weighed in at 154 lbs and those units have all been destroyed. "
Another omniscient poster. I am impressed by the quality of the "Angry Gods" Steve gets to post here.
Who really knows what North Korea has? Who really knows what Iran is planning? We only know that both have subs, one has nuclear weapons, and the other designs on nuclear weapons.
154 lbs does not represent even a minor obstacle to a determined group. Once inside Canada, travel would be easy. Then the border is a pushover in any number of ways, which I will refrain from suggesting.
Posted by: moptop at January 27, 2006 03:02 PM
AFTERTHOUGHT: The Americans didn't drop the 1950s atomic hand grenade project because it was impossible. They dropped it because it was unwise.
Posted by: Chris from Victoria, BC at January 27, 2006 03:04 PM
"might have to cut back on steak and tv."
Don't you mean "beer and popcorn?"
Posted by: moptop at January 27, 2006 03:04 PM
Belmont club has some interesting thoughts on suitcase nukes.
His conclusion, they can't be controlled, so it is a fool's game to build them.
http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2006/01/suitcase-nukes.html
Posted by: moptop at January 27, 2006 03:12 PM
Belmont's analysis is lacking. Yes, you can't control them once released.
Yet our enemy is virulently dedicated to the point of suicide and has demonstrated similarly fanatical determination. Militaries around the world are trusted with fearsome power and have only rarely used that power against their own side.
To say that radical Islamist terrorists can't be trusted to attack western targets is a weak argument.
Posted by: Chris from Victoria, BC at January 27, 2006 03:30 PM
An additional factoid: The U.S. has had 11 "Broken Arrows" (nuclear weapons lost) that were never recovered.
The Russians have had more.
The Chinese? Good luck finding out that number.
Posted by: Chris from Victoria, BC at January 27, 2006 03:37 PM
You've never traveled with a girl. A suitcase can easily weigh 154 Lbs. The smallest nuke, you've ever seen was 500 Lbs, you must have go to a better supermarket than I do. Nuclear weapons are not an inventoried item at the market I frequent.
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Hayden_072204,00.html
http://www.olive-drab.com/od_nuclear_suitcase.php
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/050624.html
Posted by: Curtis at January 27, 2006 03:37 PM
"To say that radical Islamist terrorists can't be trusted to attack western targets is a weak argument."
I wouldn't bet the safety of NYC on the idea that they wouldn't build them. That is for sure, but I always like to look at an issue from all sides. One thing I serious doubt is that they would be blindly handed over to Al Quada to use as they wish.
Posted by: moptop at January 27, 2006 03:48 PM
Nukes are a threat weapon, you cannot use them, you use them as a threat.
"Islamic" terroists who beleive that death while taking out Satan, on the other hand would love to use them. Imagine blow yourself and everyone else in the city, country, world, up, and collect on heaven and your promised virgins and everything is great.
Posted by: rob at January 27, 2006 04:08 PM
Besides the good optics that Canada will defend it's own sovreignty, and there may be valuable resources to explore and exploit, there is the real issue that the American missile defense strategy will require some additional bases in the eastern artic to complement the Alaska stations.
Missile defense.....hmmm.
Posted by: john at January 27, 2006 04:10 PM
This is a fascinating discussion to read.
I must admit to not knowing the exact location of Canada's northern border.
I always thought it went all the way up to the North Pole. I'm not so sure now.
Can anyone help me understand where our real boundary runs along the arctic side of things?
Its a good thing to know.
Thanks all
Tom
Posted by: banjotom at January 27, 2006 04:11 PM
Blindly, moptop, friend? No, with eyes wide open.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, has announced that not only does he intend to destroy Israel, but the United States of America as well, and that he has a plan to do it.
Even France gets this.
You are an absolute and total loveable fool if you think he isn't planning on doing this. It will come down to war, one way or the other.
Posted by: Chris from Victoria, BC at January 27, 2006 04:12 PM
Sounds like posturing to me. The Americans want us to build up our armed forces why would they be opposed to us actually defending our soveringity for a change? No me thinks this along with a bunch of other suspiciously timed announcements and events are designed to condition the Canadian people into wanting Harper to build up our military. Don't get me wrong I think we are in dire need of an increse in our military spending but I don't like being made a fool of by trying to sway my convictions due to press releases and conditioning.
I may be way of base here but only time will tell and there is already a pattern starting to develop.
-BC Border crash? Just a bit to dramatic and convienient when you consider Harper wants to arm our border patrol. Once again I'm in agreement but the masses probably aren't totally convinced.
-Questionable timing on the release of the US 1930 plans to invade Canada?
-Polygamy report leaked?
-Rise in STD's released?
-Posturing by US ambassador with relation to Reticent nations and KYOTO?
-US Submarine surfacing in high Artic during election?
Just to name a few. Don't fk with me either tell me the way it is or your no better than MArtin was! With his Social and International policies by stealth. Were being played like little kids. I just hope it isn't in cooperation with Mr Harper but rather the US trying to influence our internal policies and politics.
Posted by: NL Expatriate at January 27, 2006 05:02 PM
Moptop:
"Wow, and they never will either, you seem to imply...
Even in the comic books, the power to assert a negative on a scale like that is reserved to God, but here RJ not only displays perfect knowledge of N Korea's military technology, but knows what the future holds as well..."
I have had people refer to me as learned, but this is the first time that I have had godlike powers ascribed to me.
Had you bothered to check out the link that I had included, you would have read an analysis of North Korea's navy. This, combined with the current state of their economy, makes the possibility that they would be running boomers highly unlikely.
Since we were referring to protecting the arctic passage, you also have to consider the potential range of such an attack, and whether a missile, even a jerry-rigged one as Curtis suggests in a later post would be able to reach a target of consequence.
If a sub were to slip through arctic waters, they would then have to run the gamut of ASW patrols and equipment along the east coast in order to be able to reach a target of consequence.
Your SF-team delivering a suitcase nuke would strike exactly--where? There are no targets of consequence within walking (or riding) distance of any potential beaching point of such a team.
A more realistic threat analysis would not involve North Korea, but more likely Russia or China--both of which are facing turmoil. Iran may have the cash to purchase a Boomer from Russia or the Ukraine, but this would cause a significant international incident.
I would think that the case for Canadian control over the Arctic would involve less speculation about rogue states than it would about protection of and claim to the resources that exist under the ice in Canada's arctic.
And for the record, it'll be the Flames in 2010.
Posted by: RJ at January 27, 2006 05:02 PM
http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/reference/national/can_political_e/referencemap_image_view
That's the thing. Nobody really knows the arctic boundaries. Even the border between the Yukon and Alaska is open to (some) debate.
Iam also very much in favour of arctic development. Putting prisons in the arctic may seem like a good idea, but liberal media comparisons to the soviet gulag would be inevitable. Also prisoners do have some rights, we cant keep prisoners in absolute isolation. They do have the 'right' to be visited by family, etc. Perhaps video conference would do.
I also would like to see a 'Klondike rail road' running from Edmonton to Inuvik on the Beaufort Sea. This will make accessing the high arctic much less expensive, and will also make living there much less expensive, as goods could arrive by rail, instead of by truck - or by air.
Posted by: at January 27, 2006 05:16 PM
ooops forgot to sign my post.
Curtis.
Posted by: Curtis at January 27, 2006 05:17 PM
As for the Armed Ice Breakers I think we would be better of with Military Hover Crafts for the Artic. Or a combination of both. Hover Crafts break ice relatively well and can travel much faster over the ice than an ice breaker can travel through the ice.
Also and ships shouldn't be built with a boom or bust mentality but rather one every 10 years or one every time one is decommisioned. This would keep our ship building industry going in times of bust with internal contracts and ensure our ships will always be being upgraded in an ongoing process.
As for your concerns about heating prisons in the high artic heating wouldn't be so much a problem with heat pumps but rather supplying them with the electricity to run would be. Remember the Artic is dark 24 hours a day in the winter and light 24 hours a day in the summer. Give or take the seasonal change.
Posted by: NL Expatriate at January 27, 2006 05:24 PM
Curtis, if you want to create a clickable link, the HTML formula is:
[a href="URL"]TEXT[/a]
where:
[ = >
and:
] = >
For example:
[a href="http://www.stevejanke.com/"]Steve Janke's kick-ass blog[/a]
becomes:
Steve Janke's kick-ass blog
Posted by: Chris from Victoria, BC at January 27, 2006 05:36 PM
Iam not sure who was concerned about heating our mythical arctic prisons, but there is plenty of natural gas up there, no reason some of that couldn't be used to power prisons.
Hovercraft do make wonderful ice breakers, they're used extensively along the st Lawrence seaway to keep it ice free. However I am not sure of their operational range. Iam sure a ship could go almost anywhere in the arctic seas, but a hovercraft, because it has to be light enough to be lifted off the ground, may have hard limits on the amount of fuel it could carry. (and thus how far it can travel - also keep in mind hovercraft get horrible gas mileage, like a helicopter)
Posted by: Curtis at January 27, 2006 05:53 PM
FWIW: A standard exercise of the US Special Forces was the delivery of a Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM). This was a non-functional nuke. [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition]See one here[/a] It was a "dial a yield" device; somewhat more sophisticated in that it used "mumble" to get the preferred yield.
I agree, it was a softball to get the issue of Canadian sovereignty in the north off the dime and onto the table.
Posted by: Hungry Valley at January 27, 2006 06:42 PM
Hey Curtis:
Thanks for the URL of CANADA
Posted by: banjotom at January 27, 2006 07:47 PM
Hey Curtis:
Thanks for the URL of CANADA
And thanks Chris for the html tip
Posted by: banjotom at January 27, 2006 07:48 PM
Get it right eh. It's not Bush who's behind the "Let's Make Harper Look Good" campaign, it's Karl Rove. Mu-ha-haaaaa...
/moonbat persona off
Posted by: Ovni at January 27, 2006 07:57 PM
Speaking of crying...Oil for $260/barrel...
http://money.nnn.com/2006/01/27/news/international/pluggedin_fortune/index.htm?cnn=yes
put cnn
Time to break out the nukes...maybe Bush wasn't nuts after all, then agian, cheap oil means cheap lives lost (read: soldiers)
But we won't digress into that right?
cheers
tom
Posted by: tomax at January 27, 2006 08:48 PM
As long as the solution doesn't involve us handing over co-control of the Arctic to the States, I'm sure Harper will do a fine job of maintaining our control of the North West Passage. Too many people died looking for it, for Canada to give it up without a thought to the future, or to our past.
Posted by: saskboy at January 27, 2006 11:13 PM
Nukes: I worked with them for a while in the army, the smallest was about a beer keg size. Thanks to the design factors, I don't see how you could get it into a suitcase unless you could get it to a big can of beans size.
Arctic claims: I could easily be wrong but I think a deal was made long ago about no claims made for the south and north poles (and the moon). Research stations were allowed, but no permanent claims (tho it'd be tough to build a research station at the north pole since it's often open water).
Defense of the far north: Go ahead Canada, do it, that's fine by the US. Just do it right. If we need to send a sub through, we'll say "sub Becky needs to go - okay?". You'll say okay and that's it. But until you do it right, we'll have to do it. Maybe Harper will do that but I think it may cost him more monery than he's prepared for.
And the Great White Far North has to be defended by somebody, right?
Posted by: Jay at January 28, 2006 07:03 AM
PS: I've driven by the Atomic Cannon in Junction City - the main road is maybe a mile away and it looks a lot bigger than the picture in the link shows.
Posted by: Jay at January 28, 2006 07:09 AM
Interesting enough, Canada doesn't have any subs to go under the ice pack...so we should be grateful the US does to keep Russian and Chinese subs at bay (excuse the pun).
I guess we could lease the subs at West Edmonton Mall though...
cheers
tom
Posted by: tomax at January 28, 2006 01:32 PM
You need a nuclear powered submarine to go under the ice back. A diesel powered submarine has never done it.
I think we're having trouble over the definition of suitcase... The sites I linked sized - and shaped a nuclear weapon - like a mid-size or smaller shop vac... So the 'suitcase' would be more like a steamer trunk.
Posted by: Curtis at January 28, 2006 03:08 PM
The point is, Curtis, that small nuclear weopans capable of easily being moved by one or a small group of men are CATEGORICALLY, ABSOLUTELY, WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, CLEARLY AND FUNDAMENTALLY realistic.
Posted by: Chris from Victoria, BC at January 28, 2006 06:08 PM
I think Walmart has them on sale this week...
Posted by: tomax at January 28, 2006 06:45 PM
Chris: Fusion weapons are simple "in theory". It's shaping the fission explosion to "trigger" the fusion process that is fiendishly difficult. The fusion process uses hydrogen isotopes, specifically tritium and deuterium. The former has a very short half-life...something around 12 years, so it must be regularly replaced for the weapon to work.
comments, re: EMP by h-bomb are effectively correct. It is the small and dirties that we need to be concerned about.
Posted by: Henry at January 28, 2006 07:54 PM
Atomic weapons were built in the 1940s, Tomax, and compact weapons built and widely mass-produced by at latest the early 60s.
It's now 2006.
Nation states, with this and other information available, can develop these weapons. One, in particularly, has a fanatical madman (that his own people and perhaps foreign intelligence agencies are repeatedly trying to kill to end his rule) in power whom is threatening to destroy Israel and announcing he has a plan to defeat the United States of America.
I take him seriously, Tom.
Posted by: Chris from Victoria, BC at January 28, 2006 07:55 PM
Henry, you don't need to shape the f*cking fission blast for Christ sakes. You shape the chemical blast, which triggers the fission blast. Once this is initiated, you simply need an amount of concentrated highly processed plutonium sufficient to again reach critical mass, this time for fusion.
Fusion weapons aren't that difficult to create with advanced engineering knowledge, readily available weapon design, and processed plutonium.
As proof of this, the world has had fusion weapons for over 50-years.
You are correct that smaller fission weapons are a more readily available potential threat although the reasons have more to do with nuclear fuel processing and, to a limited degree, weapon size.
An even greater threat? A man in power who is willing to use them because he thinks Armageddon is a good thing.
We have such a man in place. Witness Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and study my comment under this post from January 27, 2006 04:12 PM.
One final thought, Henry. You're off base when you talk about the difficulties involved in weapons maintenance. Yes, they obviously exist, but they are hardly insurmountable; they're less of a problem than simply making the nuclear weapons in the first place.
Your observation demonstrates the main thing that you're completely failing to grasp: This isn't a technical discussion about how many angels can fit on the head of the pin, this is a determined enemy who wants to use these weapons and destroy Westen Civilization to the poing where Islam triumphs. He has many allies.
How long nuclear weapons "last" when he gets them may well prove to be a moot point.
Posted by: Chris from Victoria, BC at January 28, 2006 08:24 PM
*point
Posted by: Chris from Victoria, BC at January 28, 2006 08:26 PM
Calm down Chris. I am not about to get overly technical here, but you are in error. Details of this remain classified, but you can get the basic picture from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teller-Ulam_design
Plutonium does not undergo fusion, but fission. Its presence and placement in a “hydrogen bomb” is to assist in the “compressive process” that triggers a tritium-tritium and tritium-deuterium fusion process ---the really big bang.
My point was that we need not be overly concerned with Iran suddenly creating a hydrogen bomb, particularly of sufficient power to produce continent-wide EMP from a high-altitude blast. Iran will not “use these weapons” because it cannot make them under the time scales that it fanaticism and abilities allow.
I grasp the point that seems to elude you: Fusion weapons are not fission weapons. Fission weapons must come before fusion weapons, so the main concern is fission weapons: U235/238 and plutonium. It is NOT easy, and waving a hysterical magic wand and saying so does not make your comments true.
The presumption in my earlier post was that they have not “found” a fusion weapon. I do not consider this a realistic concern, compared to the danger of fission weapons, due to the operational lifetime of fusion weapons. “Maintenance” isn’t as simple as changing the oil in your car! You need sufficient tritium to begin with, and this is not easy to get, and then you have to “dismantle” the weapon, put the stuff in, and put it back together…without mucking up the tolerances, of which you have no knowledge. Any “old H-bomb” would likely end up producing a purely fission blast.
Enough. I agree with your central point. Give Iran nuclear capability and they would first of all take out Israel and then go for Western cities. They need to be stopped. I have addressed this elsewhere.
BTW, “how many angels can fit on the head of the pin” merely asks in nontechnical language whether angels are corporal or noncorporal. Positing angels, this is a sensible question.
Regards,
Henry
Posted by: Henry at January 29, 2006 12:41 AM
It makes Harper look great and likley got little airplay in the US. Calculated move by Bush
Posted by: germ at January 29, 2006 05:34 AM
The Canadian Rangers are a shameful joke. A high school cadet unit probably has more credibility. There's examples elswhere in the world that show how it should be done, for example the [a href="http://www.specialoperations.com/Foreign/Australia/RFSU.htm"]Australian Regional Force Surveillance Units[/a] (aka NORFORCE).
Posted by: rob at January 29, 2006 02:59 PM
 
|
|
