Canada: "The Arctic is Ours"

[cellardoor6]

Haha how cute.

LINK

Canada PM asserts Arctic claims

Canada's prime minister has stressed his country's claims to the Arctic region on a trip there, days after Russia laid claim to the North Pole.

Correspondents say Stephen Harper's tour has taken on new urgency since Russian sailors dropped a flag on the sea bed below the pole last week.

"Canada has taken its sovereignty too lightly for too long," Mr Harper said.

"This government has put a big emphasis on reinforcing, on strengthening our sovereignty in the Arctic."

Melting polar ice has led to competing claims over access to Arctic resources.

But the BBC's Lee Carter, in Toronto, says that not everything about Mr Harper's three-day tour of the Arctic is concerned with Canadian sovereignty.

See a detailed map of the region

Mr Harper also announced the expansion of one of the most remote national parks in Canada's vast and rugged north.

However, our correspondent says that when Mr Harper spoke to reporters it did not take long for the sovereignty issue, and in particular Russia's claims, to come to the fore.

"I think the recent activities of the Russians are another indication that there's going to be growing international interest in this region," Mr Harper said, speaking in Yellowknife, some 500km (311 miles) south of the Arctic Circle.

Unique expedition

Several other countries with territories bordering the Arctic have launched competing claims to the seabed below the North Pole.

That area is not currently regarded as part of any single country's territory and is governed instead by complex international agreements.

In a unique expedition last week, Russian explorers planted a flag on the seabed 4,200m (14,000ft) below the pole.

The move drew derision from Canada, with Foreign Minister Peter MacKay likening it to tactics used in the 15th Century.

Canada and the US are also engaged in a dispute over the future of the Northwest Passage, the partially frozen waterway that links the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

The US says it regards it as an international strait but Mr Harper has vociferously defended the passage as Canadian territory.

He has already announced plans to build six naval patrol vessels to secure the route.

--------------------------------------

This comes in wake of new discoveries of resources there, some estimates suggest that the Arctic holds 25% of the world's resources. Russia is making the most stink, they recently placed an underwater flag near the North Pole as a symbol that they consider it to be theirs. To a lesser extent, the US and even Norway and Denmark are squabbling a bit over part or all the region.

Now, I'd rather that Canada gets access to the resources than Russia for certain (we'd get first dibs in trade with Canada). However, Canada doesn't exactly have much to coerce or bargain with. Canada doesn't really have the power to protect by deterrence or force what they consider to be their territory. If the US doesn't assert itself in the arctic... it's just going to fall into the hands of Russia once the resource extraction (whatever the resource) becomes viable. Canada's tough talk may be adorable, but it's not exactly something that the Russians are afraid of. So no matter what the Canadians do, or what they think, the US is eventually going to have to intervene in some way, this my prediction.

My solution... US Carrier Battle Group. Better sooner than later.

Discuss.

[JugoDeMonstruo]

Who knows? Maybe Canada will send all ten of its soldiers to defend their claim with their new and improved maple syrup gun.

[Elfer]

This is most likely going to end up in international courts rather than a military conflict, much like almost every other sovereignity issue in the Arctic. This is just going to take much longer, and both sides will start drilling long before the complicated and messy court proceedings are worked out.

I mean, if the debate is still going about Hans Island, there's no telling how many centuries this could take.

[Slizor]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/07/0 9/arctic-cda.html

I wouldn't write Canada off just yet - how many countries that are claiming the Artic have started arming for it yet?

[cellardoor6]

At 8/10/07 08:38 AM, Slizor wrote: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/07/0 9/arctic-cda.html

I wouldn't write Canada off just yet - how many countries that are claiming the Artic have started arming for it yet?

Haha.

8 patrol boats... Oh dear, for the first time Canada is actually buying ships to patrol what it believes to be its territorial waters! Nevermind the fact that 8 ships with limited military capability mean absolutely dick if there was actually an armed conflict over the region.

Canada would HAVE to arm up. But actually, no feasible amount of arming up by Canada would make a difference when you're talking about Russia. Russia's military may be a rusting hull of its former self but it's nothing to be trifled with, especially by Canada.

I know this probably isn't your forte, and my condescension may be a bit uncalled for but... thanks for the laugh.

[Brick-top]

At 8/10/07 07:48 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Now, I'd rather that Canada gets access to the resources than Russia for certain (we'd get first dibs in trade with Canada).

No suprise there lol

[cellardoor6]

At 8/10/07 08:29 AM, Elfer wrote: This is most likely going to end up in international courts rather than a military conflict, much like almost every other sovereignity issue in the Arctic.

Well, you never know. I choose to try and see the bigger picture.

What if there is total chaos in the Middle East, thereby making several nations desperate for oil (the US) and/or desperate to make profit from it (Russia)? What if the Persian Gulf, where most of the world's oil comes from, becomes impassable by oil frigates due to a larger US-Iran conflict that involves the Gulf States and possibly Israel and Syria as well?

What if any number of geo-political and economic events take place that make the production and transportation of petroleum resources impossible from the Middle East, and thereby instill panic in the entire world?

Shit would go down, that is what would happen.

Considering estimates put 25% of the worlds petroleum and natural gas under the Arctic, and 2 of the contenders for these resources are political high rollers (Russia and the US) I'd say it's safe to say conflict over the region is a very, very likely thing to occur in future. Not the immediate future, but soon.

I mean, if the debate is still going about Hans Island, there's no telling how many centuries this could take.

You can't use that as an example because there's no sense of desperation over the Hans Island. The little rock in the ocean has no world-wide significance. The whole Hans Island feud is between 2 countries, Canada and Denmark, countries that are relatively unimportant in the whole scheme of things. And even then, the island isn't even really that important to those countries alone. Claiming that island isn't important to the national security or the well being of Canada or Denmark, it isn't imperative that they have claim over that meaningless Island.

What we're talking about here is an entire region, that is incredibly important, that is situated in a remote area that is right between Canada, the US, and Russia, as well certain Danish and Norwegian territories. It's the PERFECT atmosphere for a conflict if you consider what is/could be at stake, who the players are, and if you think that the very real possibility of an energy crisis will take place.

[cellardoor6]

At 8/10/07 09:26 AM, Brick-top wrote:

At 8/10/07 07:48 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Now, I'd rather that Canada gets access to the resources than Russia for certain (we'd get first dibs in trade with Canada).

No suprise there lol

I know you love to always post solely about me, but what do you think about the topic?

Humor me for once and do something other than devote your participation in a thread I post in around me.

[IllustriousPotentate]

I wasn't aware you could claim territory at the seabed beneath international waters. (?)

[lapis]

At 8/10/07 08:50 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: 8 patrol boats... Oh dear, for the first time Canada is actually buying ships to patrol what it believes to be its territorial waters! Nevermind the fact that 8 ships with limited military capability mean absolutely dick if there was actually an armed conflict over the region.

The only problem is the quantity, because the purpose is only to spot and perhaps block the passage of Russian oil drillers and patrol boats. The Russians would never even consider sinking one of these boats so it's not like it matters whether you send a patrol boat or a guided missile cruiser. If they sink one Canadian boat the US would immediately intervene and threaten the Russians with a nuclear war, either right away or after sending a small army or attacking a few Russian vessels in response, to prevent any further escalation of the conflict, the same way the Cuban missile crisis was never allowed to escalate. The Russians gain less or next to nothing more than they'd gain if they never sunk the Canadian partol boat. The Russians know this, and they're pretty well aware of the fact that no full-fledged war with the US would ever be profitable (and vice versa) so unless some drunk Russian submarine commander decides to torpedo a Canadian patrol boat this conflict will remain perfectly cold.

Both Russia and Canada will send a few boats to wave their dicks around and perhaps send a few early drillers like Elfer said, and maybe if the whole arctic is too big for the Canadian navy to patrol then the US can lend them some aid or send a few ships under the flag of the US (which will then lead to a few more heated debates in international courts and the UN General Assembly, which is all this will result in) but a whole Carrier Battle Group is a bit over the top if they only have to maintain a zone of control. Maybe at one point in time something will happen that's similar to what happened to British sailors in the Persian Gulf recently; the Russians will capture a Canadian patrol boat, claiming that they entered Russian territory, a few diplomats get expelled and a few uncomplimentary remarks are exchanged during televised speeches and maybe in the end Canada cedes half a percent of their claims in the region in exchange for the captured sailors to the Russians but that's the worst heat that I expect in this conflict - not something that's worth the cost of building a Canadian battle fleet.

Seriously, a war between the US and Russia is just as unlikely as it's always been since the early fifties. Both have too much to lose in an actual war and not even the resources of the North Pole can compensate for this. Even if the US get involved in a conflict with Iran or Syria they'd be even more keen not to get the Russians involved, which would cause them to fight out a proxy war in the Middle East. In the case of a war in the Middle East, Russia might step up the pressure in the Arctic region to try and exploit the fact that the US is busy elsewhere but they'd be complete idiots if they went too far and attacked Canadian boats. The Russians may be loud and insolent at times but they're rational enough to know that even an energy crisis in the US doesn't mean that the resources in the arctic are worth getting nuked over.

[Elfer]

At 8/10/07 09:27 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Considering estimates put 25% of the worlds petroleum and natural gas under the Arctic, and 2 of the contenders for these resources are political high rollers (Russia and the US) I'd say it's safe to say conflict over the region is a very, very likely thing to occur in future. Not the immediate future, but soon.

It depends on what you mean by "soon". Getting at arctic oil supplies is expensive, and might not even be viable yet. It probably won't be a really big deal until we start running out of uranium too.

I mean, if the debate is still going about Hans Island, there's no telling how many centuries this could take.

You can't use that as an example because there's no sense of desperation over the Hans Island. The little rock in the ocean has no world-wide significance.

Well, what I meant to say is that regardless of the actions of the various countries involved, the legal proceedings involved will be tied up in the courts long after the Earth has become nothing but a deserted wasteland. That's not to say that the court decisions will have any bearing on the actions of the parties involved.

What will probably end up happening is that everyone will be extracting resources from the region while constantly complaining at each other that everyone else is engaging in highly illegal activities.

By the time the energy situation is truly a crisis, it'll be too late anyway.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 8/10/07 08:50 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Haha.

8 patrol boats... Oh dear, for the first time Canada is actually buying ships to patrol what it believes to be its territorial waters! Nevermind the fact that 8 ships with limited military capability mean absolutely dick if there was actually an armed conflict over the region.

Hey, even the Roman Empire employed scouts. Ya' can't go to war with invaders until you know you HAVE invaders.

Canada would HAVE to arm up. But actually, no feasible amount of arming up by Canada would make a difference when you're talking about Russia. Russia's military may be a rusting hull of its former self but it's nothing to be trifled with, especially by Canada.
I know this probably isn't your forte, and my condescension may be a bit uncalled for but... thanks for the laugh.

Yeh, but I have a feeling that, with the U.S having much to gain from a victory by a close ally and important trading partner, Canada would get some help if Russia decided to make war.

[Slizor]

8 patrol boats... Oh dear, for the first time Canada is actually buying ships to patrol what it believes to be its territorial waters! Nevermind the fact that 8 ships with limited military capability mean absolutely dick if there was actually an armed conflict over the region.

I'm not entirely certain on his point, but how much Arctic military capability do countries have? I would assume, considering that there was little strategic significance in the Artic before now, that there is very little. Because of this, these ships may count for a large increase in worldwide arctic military capacity and also symbolise Canada's intent.

Canada would HAVE to arm up. But actually, no feasible amount of arming up by Canada would make a difference when you're talking about Russia. Russia's military may be a rusting hull of its former self but it's nothing to be trifled with, especially by Canada.

I severly doubt that there would be a Russo-Canadian war over the Artic, it will all be about who is able to project power through the use of military ships that are able to withstand arctic conditions. How each country is able to project their power will effect the political outcome of this conflict of interests.

I know this probably isn't your forte

No, it's not my forte to think in neo-realist terms. How often do issues such as this (between first world countries) get solved through the actual use of force? This issue will be solved through a political process, not a military one.

[Squirrel-General]

Hell, the Russian army is complete shit, at least their foot soldiers. The only thing they go working for them is nukes, and nuclear submarines. The Russians certainly have no airforce to speak of if war was to break out, their pilots only get around 10%-20% of the flight time U.S. pilots do. Funding for military matters in Russia is scarce, along with funding for everything else in Russia.

[Elfer]

At 8/10/07 08:50 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: 8 patrol boats... Oh dear, for the first time Canada is actually buying ships to patrol what it believes to be its territorial waters! Nevermind the fact that 8 ships with limited military capability mean absolutely dick if there was actually an armed conflict over the region.

I don't think the 8 patrol boats are preparations for any sort of conflict. It's more to give off a "stern librarian" aura.

[Brick-top]

At 8/10/07 09:28 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: I know you love to always post solely about me, but what do you think about the topic?

Wait and see I suppose.

Humor me for once and do something other than devote your participation in a thread I post in around me.

I think your funny.

[zambota]

maybe we could sell some our our shit to Canada?

[Korriken]

the solution is obvious, make it a no mans land and allow anyone capable to take of its resources, if anyone does anything stupid, destroy their presence there.

[invisible-evil]

Yeah but knowing the US Bush would just say... "I have reason to believe Canada was behind such and such an attack on American-Coalition forces.... Then what? The cabinet knows there's oil beneath the ice; however they cant touch it due to Natural Resource and emitions laws. so how does he get around this? annex that part of canada and using whatever laws he can pressure them to pass, start drilling in no time.... American Dependancy on foreign oil is not as bad as you think. We are simply trying to use up the reserves of other nations before starting to work on our own. There are also secret dealings (e.g. Halliburton) that have ties to foreign oil as well... certain countries are under embargo certain times of the year because of jobs in places such as texas and central california... Noone knows what the future holds for these arctic regions but Id put syriana on my to watch or watch list... because my prediction is Canada and Russia will be the next Saudi Arabia by the end of the decade...

[LightandDark]

oh god, i thought you were banned, anyway i don't really give a fuck, right now no countries have that much ships (or even any) in the arctic since it wasn't that important until now.

:that, and the fact since which one would the US support? it's close land neighbour, or it's overseas enemy turned ally (or neutral?) country? the choice is kinda obvious.

[JoS]

This is not goign to end in a full scale military conflict. For one the Artic is a very difficult place to have a full scale battle given the temperatures and all, and all the ice. You can't just send in any ship, you need ships that are specifically designed to deal with the heavy ice pacs you will encounter there. A carrier battle group would be a horrible idea, do you have any idea how much of a nightmare that would be. Noyt to mention the extreme cold and its effects on the planes, or the ice damage to the carrier and other ships. You need special ships or subs to patrol the artic. We originally bought subs but they turned out to be pieces of shit.

Canada has been laying claim to the Artic long before it was cool to do so.

[morefngdbs]

If you look at a map of the Arctic Ocean, You'll see that the Canada, Greenland (Denmark), Norway, Soviet Union & the United states are the countries that have landmass surrounding it.
Once you go above 80 degrees north latitude the only sizable community & armed forces base is in Canada at Alert the Northern tip of Ellesmere Island.
Both Greenland & Canada are less than 500 miles from the pole. The closest Soviet land to the pole is a small group of islands 'Franz Josef Land' is almost 600 miles away, the Norweigian Islands of Svalbard is also over 600 miles.

So with coastal areas in Canada, the U.S. and many other Maritime Nations being 200 miles It seems to be a place in international waters, but hell, what do I know I'm just looking at the map.

[The-evil-bucket]

At 8/10/07 08:05 AM, JugoDeMonstruo wrote: Who knows? Maybe Canada will send all ten of its soldiers to defend their claim with their new and improved maple syrup gun.

And they'll go there in their wooden boat.

[LightandDark]

At 8/10/07 03:55 PM, The-evil-bucket wrote:

At 8/10/07 08:05 AM, JugoDeMonstruo wrote: Who knows? Maybe Canada will send all ten of its soldiers to defend their claim with their new and improved maple syrup gun.

And they'll go there in their wooden boat.

Why the hell does everybody thinks that Canada is severely under current technology

:we`re not fucking using technology from the 19th century, and we have about 6,740,490 males capable of army service and 63,000 in currently serving the army (2005 est) with 36,500 in primary reserve. and 33 ships currently in the navy, don`t know how many of them are arctic capable (2005 est)

[Gunter45]

At 8/10/07 04:27 PM, CadillacClock wrote: This is why I don't visit the Newgrounds BBS. Russia and Canada are very powerful and wealthy Countries, there will be no military conflict. Especially not from the United States, which has already stayed relatively out of it

With that much on the line, I can imagine the discussions could get rather heated. Especially with the Russians teetering on the edge of reverting back to Communism under Putin, ruling out military involvement this early on is a little presumptuous.

[Makaio]

We may not spend lewd amounts on our military like the us, nor do we need it, our boats will be in the water and thats all that matters.

The arctic is ours, everyone knows it and those attempting to claim otherwise are just trying to get a piece of the pie.

Once we have shown we will protect out territory be force, even a superior military wouldn't dare fire as much as a bb-gun risking war.

[LightandDark]

At 8/10/07 07:29 PM, Makaio wrote: We may not spend lewd amounts on our military like the us, nor do we need it, our boats will be in the water and thats all that matters.

The arctic is ours, everyone knows it and those attempting to claim otherwise are just trying to get a piece of the pie.

Once we have shown we will protect out territory be force, even a superior military wouldn't dare fire as much as a bb-gun risking war.

because then they would invoke the US or translation: mess with Canada, you`re messing with the US.

:thank god for Canada being very close to the US

[SmilezRoyale]

At 8/10/07 10:57 AM, Slizor wrote: No, it's not my forte to think in neo-realist terms. How often do issues such as this (between first world countries) get solved through the actual use of force? This issue will be solved through a political process, not a military one.

i would earnestly hope that the governments of the world are above using military force to get they're hands on 'water control'

i say give all of it to the united states of Africa, they can sell the stuff to countries will pulling itself out of it's muck hole from revenue.

[SolInvictus]

At 8/10/07 07:48 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Haha how cute.

Canada PM asserts Arctic claims

would you rather those damn commies take it and set up super secret subarctic bases? you'll thank us when one of your allies has a monopoly on ice and not those bloody rooskies!

[SolInvictus]

aw fuck, you already answered my question. damn you Cellar!

in the 80s we were supposed to design and build the biggest ice breaker ever but, as we all know, that didn't happen.