13-08-2004 21:21									#61
	Suffering from ads?

It could be a test for the factors that will eventually come into play when the question of sovereignty over the North Pole will have to be decided in a few years' time. Danish scientists have been busy conducting geological and other surveys in Northern Greenland and the surrounding seas for some time now with that important issue in mind. I seem to recall that another ~ $ 5 mio. were recently channeled into further investigations on the matter.

Hans Island could be just the initial, preemptive strike, so to speak, in our quest for global polar bear count dominance.

	13-08-2004 22:20									#62
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

http://www.satirewire.com/news/feb02/warship.shtml

	13-08-2004 22:26									#63
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

at lefty


Warship!!! We have TWELVE of them.

and any one of them would give an older partially decommissioned US frigate a run for its money

	14-08-2004 22:42									#64
	Suffering from ads?

By the way, you folks do realise that the reason the RCN does not have icebreakers is because, from amilitary point of view, icre breakers are completely useless.

Let's say the evil Danes send a ship through the pack ice to Hans Island. They got to go though 500 miles of ice at a speed of about 5 - 10 mph. So it's going to take about 50 hours to reach the island.

In the meantime, in less than 12 hours we could have a squadron of CF-18s at Pond Inlet or Alert. That would put them within 20 minutes flying time of the Danish ship which would be stuck in the ice liek fish in the barrel.

And if for some strange reason we wanted Canadian troops ont he ground up there, we could air drop the RCR, PPCLI or the Vandoos within 48 hours. Our Hercs could transport helicopters to Alert which could then keep the troops supplied.

All of this shows there is abolutely no point for the RCN to have icrebreakers.

	14-08-2004 22:50									#65
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola http://www.satirewire.com/news/feb02/warship.shtml

I remember that

	14-08-2004 23:57									#66
	Suffering from ads?

quote: "You're kidding, right? Canada has a warship?" asked U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "Like for war? "Does Canada know?" he added.

	15-08-2004 00:08									#67
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Yanks: We need you to send ships and troops to Iraq.
Canadians: Ships? What ships? Troops? What troops?

	15-08-2004 01:17									#68
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai In the meantime, in less than 12 hours we could have a squadron of CF-18s at Pond Inlet or Alert. That would put them within 20 minutes flying time of the Danish ship which would be stuck in the ice liek fish in the barrel. And if for some strange reason we wanted Canadian troops ont he ground up there, we could air drop the RCR, PPCLI or the Vandoos within 48 hours. Our Hercs could transport helicopters to Alert which could then keep the troops supplied.

Fighter jets are only useful if you wanted to sink the Danish ship, and landing troops is only good if you wanted to occupy the island by force, both of which would be precurors to war - which this conflict will never come to.

Ships are the way to go because they allow you to have a forceful, peaceful and long term presence in the area, without actually going to the point of confrontation. The Danes can do this, the Canadians can't, which makes it more likely that Denmark will become the defacto owner of the island.

	15-08-2004 01:19									#69
	Got spare money?

We have icebreakers, dufus. They're just not part of the RCN.

	15-08-2004 01:21									#70
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

And what Tingkai was pointing out was that the icebreakers don't have a military role to play. That's why they aren't part of the RCN.

	15-08-2004 01:30									#71
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse We have icebreakers, dufus. They're just not part of the RCN.

Read the original post. The Danes have frigates with ice-strengthened hulls (which I called ice-breakers to make it simple), the Canadians don't. And the CCG can't compete with a Navy for sovereignty.

	15-08-2004 01:33									#72
	Remove this text

OMFG

You really can't follow a chain of logic, can you?

Why does an icebreaker have to be armed in order to maintain a presence?

If it's because there's going to be a shooting match then we'd wreck the hell out of the Danes from the sky anyway. Then once the seas were clear unarmed icebreakers would be free to do whatever they wanted to do.

Putting guns on an icebreaker is the stupidest melding of two distinct roles I've ever heard of.

	15-08-2004 01:34									#73
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

If there's no shooting then why should an icebreaker have guns?

	15-08-2004 02:07									#74
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse OMFG You really can't follow a chain of logic, can you?

Calm down.

quote: Why does an icebreaker have to be armed in order to maintain a presence?

Because if the RCN CAN'T send up an armed vessel, what kind of message does that send? And what does that say for Canada's claims to most of its arctic territory when it can barely reach it itself. Like I said before, a naval (ie, a NAVY) presence is the most peaceful means of exerting sovereignty, since they don't have to be confrontational, whereas flying fighter jets and landing troops is. Do you follow?

quote: Putting guns on an icebreaker is the stupidest melding of two distinct roles I've ever heard of.

Then why do other navies do it? You don't seem to understand what we mean here... its not putting guns on some tugboat ice-breaker, its reinforcing the hulls of military vessels so they can withstand and break hard ice. Canada has no such vessels (surprisingly), while Denmark does (4 of them). Denmark and Canada both claim an island - Denmark can reach it, Canada can't. Maybe Canada doesn't need ice-breaking naval ships, but in this situation, it makes a difference. Do you see the problem? If not, then you obviously don't believe Canada should own Hans Island, which is fine.

	15-08-2004 02:11									#75
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

It'll all be unimportant in a few years or so, when global warming causes Hans Ø to disappear.

But until then, Hans Ø remains danish, of course. Remember...our words are backed with drunk Greenlanders (internal danish joke).

On the other hand...we're allies. Just how an encounter between danish and canadian forces at Hans Ø would play out, I'd like to see...

Asmodean

	15-08-2004 02:12									#76
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Krazy: Basically, the fact that Denmark can send frigates to Hans Island and Canada can't, assuming there is not going to be any shooting or war, gives Denmark uncontested sovereignty of the Island. So if Canada cares, it needs to increase its capability to traverse its own territory. This would involve getting better ships, which Denmark has already done.

	15-08-2004 02:17									#77
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Asmodean It'll all be unimportant in a few years or so, when global warming causes Hans Ø to disappear. But until then, Hans Ø remains danish, of course. Remember...our words are backed with drunk Greenlanders (internal danish joke). On the other hand...we're allies. Just how an encounter between danish and canadian forces at Hans Ø would play out, I'd like to see... Asmodean

It could go the opposite way though. Many are arguing that with global warming, the arctic will become more hospitable (which might make Hans dissappear) but will probably lead to other disputes over other parts of the Canadian Arctic. Hans Island is more important for precedent than anything else.

	15-08-2004 02:18									#78
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Like I said before, a naval (ie, a NAVY) presence is the most peaceful means of exerting sovereignty, since they don't have to be confrontational, whereas flying fighter jets and landing troops is.

Ridiculous statement. Flying a jet nearby is more confrontational than sailing a boat nearby is?

quote: Then why do other navies do it? You don't seem to understand what we mean here... its not putting guns on some tugboat ice-breaker, its reinforcing the hulls of military vessels so they can withstand and break hard ice.

Your point?

Like we've been telling you: on the first day of any conflict every boat in the water would be sunk. A reinforced frigate is an anachronism. It's silly. The Danes can do anything they want to. Doesn't make it a good idea. It's like sharks with frikkin laser beams.

quote: Denmark can reach it, Canada can't.

Untrue. Air power is the most deciding factor in disputes over largely uninhabited regions. Naval power (unless we're talking about subs or CVNs) within reach of land-based air defenses is silly. Frigates are practically useless. They're little toy boats. They're jokes. The only real usefulness of a frigate is in stopping smugglers or other police duties. They're not a threat to sovereignty in the face of a modern air force with the legs to reach the battle area.



If you come up with something worthwhile then post it. Otherwise you should keep sputtering and I'll just remain a silent witness to your silliness.

	15-08-2004 02:21									#79
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn Krazy: Basically, the fact that Denmark can send frigates to Hans Island and Canada can't, assuming there is not going to be any shooting or war, gives Denmark uncontested sovereignty of the Island.

Some stupidity as before. Why does the ability to send a frigate meant that you have sovereignty? What sort of dictionary are you using? The Danes can do whatever they want. They can waste all the money they want on specialised craft whose only usefulness is putting a militarily insignificant presence near a tiny island. At the end of the day we can blow their asses out of the water and put boots on the ground on every piece of ice in the vicinity.

	15-08-2004 02:27									#80
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse quote: Like I said before, a naval (ie, a NAVY) presence is the most peaceful means of exerting sovereignty, since they don't have to be confrontational, whereas flying fighter jets and landing troops is. Ridiculous statement. Flying a jet nearby is more confrontational than sailing a boat nearby is? quote: Then why do other navies do it? You don't seem to understand what we mean here... its not putting guns on some tugboat ice-breaker, its reinforcing the hulls of military vessels so they can withstand and break hard ice. Your point? Like we've been telling you: on the first day of any conflict every boat in the water would be sunk. A reinforced frigate is an anachronism. It's silly. The Danes can do anything they want to. Doesn't make it a good idea. It's like sharks with frikkin laser beams. quote: Denmark can reach it, Canada can't. Untrue. Air power is the most deciding factor in disputes over largely uninhabited regions. Naval power (unless we're talking about subs or CVNs) within reach of land-based air defenses is silly. Frigates are practically useless. They're little toy boats. They're jokes. The only real usefulness of a frigate is in stopping smugglers or other police duties. They're not a threat to sovereignty in the face of a modern air force with the legs to reach the battle area. If you come up with something worthwhile then post it. Otherwise you should keep sputtering and I'll just remain a silent witness to your silliness.

Don't you get it? there isn't going to be a war. It doesn't matter if the RCAF can sink the whole Danish navy, because it never will. Sending a friagte is the best way to have a long term, non-confrontational military presence. Fighter jets can't land, and the Army isn't going to want to set up a permanent base on the island either because thats confrontational.

Get out of your silly WWIII mindset where Canada and the Danes will face off, because its not going to happen. Why do you think PM Martin went up there a few days ago? Did you think he was going to shoot all the Danes and Eskimos off Hans Island? Of course not, he went to make a point; a frigate, more than anything else, makes a peaceful point. Thats my point.

	15-08-2004 02:29									#81
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

He doesn't get it because his national pride is hurt. But that's okay. He will find consolation in the fact that Canada will win more medals than Denmark in the ongoing Olympics.

Asmodean

	15-08-2004 02:31									#82
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: At the end of the day we can blow their asses out of the water and put boots on the ground on every piece of ice in the vicinity.

More gunho, fanciful silliness. At the end of the day, this thing is going to be resolved by an international agency, unless it comes to war (which it won't). And when it does, in light of the fact that both have equal claim to the Island, and the fact that pretty much only Denmark can get up there, is going to play a part in having the decision go in Denmark's favor.

No asses will be blown out of anything, so you can disband that part of your argument.

	15-08-2004 02:32									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

You've really grabbed a hold of your own tail haven't you...

Sending a frigate sends a point: "we can put an insignificant presence here"

Sending a pair of CF-18s to buzz the frigate sends a better point: "you're still alive because we don't want to kill you yet"

I know which message I'd rather send.

	15-08-2004 02:32									#84
	Got spare money?

Wait, Krazy, are you assuming that Canada lawfully owns Hans Island in the first place? Because thats not a safe assumption... its pretty well equally contested.

	15-08-2004 02:32									#85
	Support Apolyton

quote: pretty much only Denmark can get up there

Big fat lie.

	15-08-2004 02:33									#86
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn Wait, Krazy, are you assuming that Canada lawfully owns Hans Island in the first place? Because thats not a safe assumption... its pretty well equally contested.

We've had the claim in place far longer than the Danes have.

	15-08-2004 02:34									#87
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Sending a frigate sends a point: "we can put an insignificant presence here"

Its not insignificant if thats all they're sending. Its matching their force. Sending a CCG vessel to meet their frigate would be insignifcant.

quote: Sending a pair of CF-18s to buzz the frigate sends a better point: "you're still alive because we don't want to kill you yet"

Not going to happen. Threatening to sink their vessel, or proving that you can, is confrontational. Canada is not a confrontational country, nor should it want to be... especially regarding Denmark (an ally).

	15-08-2004 02:38									#88
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

You're an idiot. If nobody is going to sink anybody else then why does our icebreaker need guns?

By the way, sovereignty over Hans Island was ceded to Canada by Britain in 1919

The Danish claim is recent and seeks to reverse what was established fact for decades.

	15-08-2004 02:39									#89
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse quote: pretty much only Denmark can get up there Big fat lie.

Read:

quote: Even more troubling is the condition of the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) ice-breaking fleet. It is very professional and one of the most highly trained fleets in the world, but it is small, aging and drastically underfunded. Unlike the Danes, none of our naval vessels are ice-strengthened, thus only the Coast Guard's icebreakers can actually voyage to the region surrounding Hans Island. The current inventory of CCG icebreakers are: one heavy - Louis St. Laurent built in 1969 (rebuilt 1988-92); four medium - Pierre Radisson (1978), Sir John Franklin (1979), Des Groseillers (1982), and Henry Larsen (1987). Compounding the limited number of vessels is the fact that the operational budget of these vessels has been continually reduced in the past decade to the point where the Coast Guard cannot operate these vessels all year round.

This means: only the CCG can get up there. But the CCG doesn't cut it.

quote: However, to ensure that the Canadian government's position is taken seriously, it must ensure that it also has the means to maintain a strong presence in these waters. It needs the tools to monitor and control its arctic region. There is not a requirement for ice-strengthened gunboats, but rather the means to respond to standard maritime problems such as search and rescue; environmental protection; and, the maintenance of law and order. By having the means to do so, Canada is then able to justify its claims of control. This will include a renewed ice-breaking fleet and surveillance capability discussed above. It will also have to include the training of personnel to have an ability to operate in the Canadian north. This will include navigation expertise, search and rescue in Arctic climates, and environmental responses to spills.

http://www.naval.ca/article/Heubert...he_Vikings.html

	15-08-2004 02:41									#90
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn This means: only the CCG can get up there. But the CCG doesn't cut it.

Only the Danes can put an armed naval vessel near Hans island is what you should have said then. Because we can put planes in the sky and boots on the ground. Your hard-on for naval power is interesting but futile.