[bootlegga]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

bootlegga bootlegga:

If we were serious about Arctic defence, we would be building the three heavy armed icebreakers Harper promised in 2006 as well as subs capable of under ice ops, not building just one heavy (unarmed) icebreaker and 6 AOPVs.

If we were serious about Arctic defence we'd be buying SSN's. I'm no naval captain, but pretty well everything I've read on the topic suggests icebreakers are good for basic patrol and research duties but if bullets fly they are not of much (any) use. ASW in Arctic ice is near impossible. In theory armed icebreakers would be able to combat other armed icebreakers, but AFAIK no one else has built any. The ice will keep other countries conventional warships out of the region same as ours.

UAV/UCAV's should be able to cover anything on top of the water. SSN's for whatever may be under it.

That's exactly what I said - I just left it open-ended as some people have suggested AIP conventional subs work almost as well for a third the price and without the scary 'nuclear boogeyman' in someone's backyard (NIMBY).

Personally, I would prefer nuke boats, but some Canadians would never support Canada using them.

Several other nations (Norway & Denmark) have AOPVs, which are essentially armed, light icebreakers. I'm also pretty sure that the US could easily arm its icebreakers with light cannon just like it does its cutters in the south used for drug interdiction.

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Personally, I would prefer nuke boats, but some Canadians would never support Canada using them.

'Some Canadians' would object if the CF opposed the landings of armed North Koreans in Victoria. Just tell them to sod off.

[DanSC]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Personally, I would prefer nuke boats, but some Canadians would never support Canada using them.

Tell them they can go live with the Hobbits in Kiwistan.

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Personally, I would prefer nuke boats, but some Canadians would never support Canada using them.

'Some Canadians' would object if the CF opposed the landings of armed North Koreans in Victoria. Just tell them to sod off.

DanSC DanSC:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Personally, I would prefer nuke boats, but some Canadians would never support Canada using them.

Tell them they can go live with the Hobbits in Kiwistan.

Funny but unrealistic. The amount of bitching over SSNs based in Victoria (at CFB Esquimalt) would make the current campaign against Enbridge's northern Gateway pipeline look like a love-in.

[DanSC]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Funny but unrealistic. The amount of bitching over SSNs based in Victoria (at CFB Esquimalt) would make the current campaign against Enbridge's northern Gateway pipeline look like a love-in.

Interesting. Maybe you can trade not having nuke boats for actually building Northern Gateway? I ask because Keystone XL isn't going to do anything for me in California, but tankers full of Canadian crude supplying the refineries around here would help immensely.

[martin14]

bootlegga bootlegga:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Personally, I would prefer nuke boats, but some Canadians would never support Canada using them.

'Some Canadians' would object if the CF opposed the landings of armed North Koreans in Victoria. Just tell them to sod off.

DanSC DanSC:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Personally, I would prefer nuke boats, but some Canadians would never support Canada using them.

Tell them they can go live with the Hobbits in Kiwistan.

Funny but unrealistic. The amount of bitching over SSNs based in Victoria (at CFB Esquimalt) would make the current campaign against Enbridge's northern Gateway pipeline look like a love-in.

I daresay the Easterners wouldn't mind that much, we can
put them there and leave Victoria to the Yellow Peril.

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Funny but unrealistic. The amount of bitching over SSNs based in Victoria (at CFB Esquimalt) would make the current campaign against Enbridge's northern Gateway pipeline look like a love-in.

How silly. As if US nuclear powered ships don't make port-of-call at Esquimalt all the time. Why would CF nuc boats be any different?

[BartSimpson]

DanSC DanSC:

I ask because Keystone XL isn't going to do anything for me in California

Sure it will. It will cause oil prices in the US to decline overall.

[bootlegga]

DanSC DanSC:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Funny but unrealistic. The amount of bitching over SSNs based in Victoria (at CFB Esquimalt) would make the current campaign against Enbridge's northern Gateway pipeline look like a love-in.

Interesting. Maybe you can trade not having nuke boats for actually building Northern Gateway? I ask because Keystone XL isn't going to do anything for me in California, but tankers full of Canadian crude supplying the refineries around here would help immensely.

If I had to choose, I don't know which one I'd prefer, because I'd like both a lot.

And if NG was built, most of the oil would probably flow across the ocean to Asia, not California. Northern Gateway is designed to maximize the price Alberta producers get for their product. Shipping it south through Keystone won't help nearly as much as the NG will.

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Funny but unrealistic. The amount of bitching over SSNs based in Victoria (at CFB Esquimalt) would make the current campaign against Enbridge's northern Gateway pipeline look like a love-in.

How silly. As if US nuclear powered ships don't make port-of-call at Esquimalt all the time. Why would CF nuc boats be any different?

I'm not one who would be concerned with them (even if I did live in the area), but my guess would be that an occasional (and unannounced) visit is far less 'threatening' to environmentalists than SSNs based there 24/7/365.

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga bootlegga:

I'm not one who would be concerned with them (even if I did live in the area), but my guess would be that an occasional (and unannounced) visit is far less 'threatening' to environmentalists than SSNs based there 24/7/365.

That's the ironic part. So what if there's SSN's based at Esquimalt? The USN has them running offshore of Esquimalt all the time.

[Canadian_Mind]

Another thought I had, unrelated to the nuclear deterrent debacle...

I read in an article awhile ago, I believe it was actually a Macleans article, that due to it's one-child only boy prefferred policy, China has something like 30 million more males than females from the 10-30 year old demographics. Knowing the Chinese on human rights, and just their general viewpoint as viewing people as a resource, that is an awefully large resource. And I doubt they'd let it go to waste if it could be in any way beneficial too them.

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

I'm not one who would be concerned with them (even if I did live in the area), but my guess would be that an occasional (and unannounced) visit is far less 'threatening' to environmentalists than SSNs based there 24/7/365.

That's the ironic part. So what if there's SSN's based at Esquimalt? The USN has them running offshore of Esquimalt all the time.

Who knows? Maybe people are scared there will be a meltdown onboard or something else...

The fact is that human beings are typically nervous/scared when confronted with the unknown, and it's made worse by all the negative press nuclear reactors have received since the 1970s.

[martin14]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Another thought I had, unrelated to the nuclear deterrent debacle...

I read in an article awhile ago, I believe it was actually a Macleans article, that due to it's one-child only boy prefferred policy, China has something like 30 million more males than females from the 10-30 year old demographics. Knowing the Chinese on human rights, and just their general viewpoint as viewing people as a resource, that is an awefully large resource. And I doubt they'd let it go to waste if it could be in any way beneficial too them.

Lots of young unmarried men they can throw away without much worry.

Who knows, they may be happy to go ?

[BartSimpson]

martin14 martin14:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Another thought I had, unrelated to the nuclear deterrent debacle...

I read in an article awhile ago, I believe it was actually a Macleans article, that due to it's one-child only boy prefferred policy, China has something like 30 million more males than females from the 10-30 year old demographics. Knowing the Chinese on human rights, and just their general viewpoint as viewing people as a resource, that is an awefully large resource. And I doubt they'd let it go to waste if it could be in any way beneficial too them.

Lots of young unmarried men they can throw away without much worry.

Who knows, they may be happy to go ?

Been a while but I recall reading a paper in the past few years that spoke to chatter in PLAAMS about deliberately staging a wasting (losing) war with India with the dual purposes of disposing of millions of excess males and of gaining contested territory from India. Territory victory being accomplished with 100:1 casualties.

While that may be just a thought from a war game exercise, it's also China we're talking about here so the idea has to be given more than just a cursory dismissal.

Meaning as outrageous as the idea is, you just can't rule it out.