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

The Arctic Military Base Thread [merged]

WRT To Mark's second link, (above Posted on: Today at 12:05:14)

First lines of the article "The Canadian army's part-time soldiers are expected to play a greater role in defending the Arctic with as many as 1,000 troops training in the northern region every year."

I can see it now.....

"Warrant, does that mean that Windoc this year will be held in Alert instead of Borden? Should I pack my parka or will my field coat with a fleece inside it be okay???"
 
Seeing as it is only -38 outside my window I would suggest that the fleece would just about do it  >:D 

Firstly as an isolated Yellowknifer a year round train would be a great idea to start with stronger benefits for the economy however we have been trying for 30 plus years to build a bridge across the Mackenzie, so doubt that will happen any time soon.

However when it comes to deep water arctic ports, one area where it would be beneficial would be Rankin, as that community has access to several smaller satelite communities, and could be used as a gateway for a proposed road to several proposed diamond mines which currently can only be supported by airlift! (Or a very long snow machine ride)
 
Bearpaw said:
I think placing a civilian/military deep-water port in the Arctic is a fine idea but is it cost-effective given the distribution of population in the Arctic? Right now the only place that really needs a port is Iqaliut.  From a military point of view, probably the most strategic location of a northern base would be Resolute.
 
Perhaps a better idea would be to first build an all-weather railway from Hay River to Yellowknife and then to the mouth of the Coppermine River(Kugluctuk) on the Coronation Gulf.  With decent port facilities there, one could logistically support several bases(Resolute included) if needed.  There is a real civilian benefit from this as well---there are several diamond mines along with other potential mine sites that could benefit from such a railway.  The railway would be expensive but the side-benefits would make it more likely to be done than just talked about.  I suspect the local governments would be quite enthusiatic about this.   A couple of ships operating from Kugluctuk could move much more equipment and supplies in a summer season than by the methods used now.  When the Coronation Gulf is impassable, the railway could build up stocks for the summer shipping season.

A realistic plan for protecting our claims in the Arctic is about 30 years overdue---some of the infrastructure could have been built long ago.
In any case this is an idea that should be considered---I think that the politicians would find it much more palatable than plunking down a small naval base at Pond Inlet or Resolute or somewhere else where there are no significant civilian side benefits. 

Being involved in many Canadian Enviromental Assessment Reviews (CEAA) I can only imagine what a pain the review for the rail line would be, for sure it would go to a Panel Review to insure that the sex life of the spotted shrew is not harmed... ::)
 
In reply to R933ex,

The problem with the bridge over the Mackenzie is exactly what I had in mind when I said some of these problems are 30 years or more in age.  As you well know, the cost of living in the north is very high, particularly in winter.....a decent rail system would reduce that quite significantly for most of the north.

In reply to Colin P,

I agree the environmental reviews would be bitterly fought---but if the local people see the benefits and the route is planned well, I think it might be a bit easier than you think---especially if the local politicians are supportive.

The route to Kugluctuk was not simply arrived at while I was sitting at my computer.  I started thinking about this problem in the 1960's when the Pine Point mine was being developed.  For several years I thought that a railway from Lynn Lake to the Boothia Peninsula would be best but there are not the side benefits of such a railway.  The route that I eventually thought best starts from Yellowknife towards Rankin Inlet for about 300km (going near some of the diamond mines) then turning northwest along the "ridgeline" toward Kugluctuk----this would minimize the number of bridges to be built.  I had looked at Rankin Inlet as a possible terminus until I read a Canadian Geographic article(had an excellent map which made me consider Kugluctuk) about the 8 people who live there and how narrow the inlet is----there was some talk of a port there but ships would be in peril from the wind in such narrow confines.  At Kugluctuk you have a town of about 1000 and sea access to both the mouth of the Mackenzie and to Coronation sound----the oil and gas developments of the future could use the railway to bring equipment of Kugluctuk thn barge it where needed----much as they do now on the Mackenzie. What I was not able to investigate is how deep the water is and the suitability of dock-sites at Kugluctuk--I could not find appropriate maps---I am sure they exist but I could not find them.

On a cost-benefit basis I am afraid that the Minister of Defence's deep-water port may well be strangled before birth unless a more integrated approach is taken.  The idea of the port at Iqaliut is a good one (and it should be built) but from a military point of view, it
is too far from the strategically important areas of the North-west passage.  A base at Resolute is probably the best answer, but it would be a real problem logistically now---at most a couple of ships per summer could supply the place---it is a long way to divert naval assets to supply the food, fuel, .... needed for an operating base of 300-500 servicemen. At any decent level of operations(land patrols and sea patrols supplemented by air patrols), probably at tanker load of fuel alone would be needed. 

Anyway just some more food for thought!
 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act, is another perspective, from columnist Neil Reynolds, from today’s (9 Feb 07) Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070209.wxrreynolds09/BNStory/National/home
Arctic sovereignty? Cue the military

NEIL REYNOLDS
From Friday's Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — Will Canada really need to deploy Arctic warships in the Northwest Passage? Couldn't we get away with dog-sled races and Maple Leaf flags on the ice floes? Here's Natalia Loukacheva, a Russian authority on the law -- or lack of it -- in the Arctic: "To assert its sovereignty [in the Northwest Passage], Canada needs to provide a military presence all year round, in the air, in the sea, on the ground." In other words, an occasional proclamation of sovereignty isn't quite enough.

At conferences in Finland and Sweden last fall, Ms. Loukacheva cited "weaknesses" in Canada's assertion of sovereignty in the Northwest Passage and said very little international traffic need pass through the passage to establish it as international waters -- and not Canadian waters at all.

Ms. Loukacheva is now a visiting fellow at the University of Toronto's Munk Centre for International Studies. In evaluating Canada's claims in the Arctic, she notes that rival assertions of sovereignty -- to the passage itself, to the resources beneath -- could come not only from Canada's polar neighbours but from countries "beyond the eight Arctic states."

They could, indeed -- and why not? When the members of the polar family of nations meet for the reading of the Arctic's last will and testament, for the final dispersal of this vast estate, won't all the distant cousins show up, too? When Russia asserts sole sovereignty over the North Pole, and huge territory surrounding it, won't it have non-Arctic associates ready to champion its claim? China, perhaps? Iran? Indeed, won't most countries find it expedient to support the U.S. and Europe in designating the Northwest Passage as an international waterway -- especially all the countries with fishing fleets? Won't Japan assert a right to kill whales "for scientific purposes" in the Northwest Passage?

Whose law, in the end, will prevail? International law? National law? Treaty law? Aboriginal law? In the Arctic, we have multinational agreements, accords, understandings and protocols -- but no universally recognized law.

We're talking the open range on the last frontier. It is for this reason that Canada needs a permanent military presence in every part of the Arctic where we assert sovereign rights. Simply put, the absence of law by itself raises the risk of war -- as the etymology of these words attests. In old English and in old Dutch, the word "law" was the precise opposite of the word "war." And, though not acknowledged in discussions of Arctic spoils, it remains so.

More and more, the polar countries (Canada, the United States, Russia, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Iceland) will buttress their claims to Arctic territory by arbitrary action. Canada provides an example. In 2005, Canada signed an amicable protocol with Denmark jointly to manage Hans Island, the celebrated island between Ellesmere Island and Greenland. In 2006, it nevertheless unilaterally awarded exclusive rights to prospect for minerals on the island to a Canadian biologist -- symbolically, almost a declaration of war.

Hans Island is entertainment for Canadian and Danish nationalists. Since the two countries have already divvied up the surrounding seas, the only prize is the tiny island itself. Why not simply split with Denmark the square kilometre of land that rises above the sea as well as the expanse of underwater territory around it?

Though they are antagonists on Hans Island, where it doesn't matter, Canada and Denmark are allies against Russia, where it does. Russia asserts that the Lomonosov Ridge, an underwater mountain range that runs for 2,000 kilometres, is an extension of Siberia. Canada and Denmark assert that it's an extension of North America. In this contest, Canada could win territory larger than Alberta, and perhaps richer in oil. Denmark could triple in size. Russia could extend its territory to encompass the North Pole and literally connect territorially with Greenland, Canada and perhaps the United States (whose own separate Arctic claims would add 1.5 times the territory of California to the country).

In his interview the other day with Policy Options magazine, Prime Minister Stephen Harper described the assertions of Arctic sovereignty by other countries -- "by no means restricted to the Americans" -- as worrisome for Canada. "We know that there has been foreign activity in the Arctic," he said, "for some time." Russia has aggressively mapped the Arctic seabed for more than 10 years. We're only beginning.

In 1867, the Russians sold Alaska to the Americans for $7-million (U.S.). Canada won't get Arctic territory quite so cheaply now. We'll get it only by possessing it -- which, as everyone knows, is nine-tenths of all law.

nreynolds@xplornet.com


“Canada needs a permanent military presence in every part of the Arctic where we assert sovereign rights.”

Not just a base, Reynolds asserts; not just a few vessels, aircraft and scouts, but, rather, as I read it, a real, capable military force which can:

  • Maintain 24/7 surveillance over all of the territories and waters over which Canada claims sovereignty and over the airspace above them;
  • Detect all intruders - authorized and not;
  • Identify all intruders;
  • Intercept intruders and, as necessary, arrest and either detain them or escort them out of our sovereign territory.

This is, in large measure, a constabulary function which can, and in some (many) cases should be done by or shared with other constabulary forces such as the RCMP.  But it is important to remember that, in our tradition, there is a strong constabulary role for the Canadian Forces - a role which predates Confederation.

If Reynolds is right, and I think he is, then this is going to be an expensive proposition which is yet another reason why I have been harping about the inadequate levels of funding proposed in the leaked version (Draft?) of the so-called ”Canada First” defence strategy.  How we will build new bases - the Arctic is a big, big place, I’m assuming more than one will be necessary - and put properly staffed and equipped ships, and army and air units there and conduct sovereignty operations there and, still, be ready and able to protect and promote our vital interests around the world, à la Afghanistan, if the financial resources for our national defence actually shrink over the next 20 years?  That, a shrinking military capability, is what a mere doubling of defence spending by 2025 gives us - when adjusted for real, defence related rates of inflation.   
 
Bearpaw said:
Railway in the arctic

Just curious if railways in permafrost have been operated and what is the operation experience with them. I can imagine that maintenace of way costs would be huge as the ground is highly unstable.

If a railway was build, mineral resources could become mineral reserves. Base metal deposits far from bulk transport routes (sea/rail) are not a paying proposition.
 
AJFitzpatrick said:
Just curious if railways in permafrost have been operated and what is the operation experience with them. I can imagine that maintenace of way costs would be huge as the ground is highly unstable.

If a railway was build, mineral resources could become mineral reserves. Base metal deposits far from bulk transport routes (sea/rail) are not a paying proposition.

The railway to Churchill is build, in some areas, on permafrost, and it is a nightmare to maintain, travel and put a decent load on the tracks. The grain cars going up to Churchill initially could only be partially filled to accommodate the weight restrictions.

I am sure there are other rail lines built on permafrost, but in each case I think you will find it ain't easy.
 
AJFitzpatrick said:
Just curious if railways in permafrost have been operated and what is the operation experience with them. I can imagine that maintenace of way costs would be huge as the ground is highly unstable.

If a railway was build, mineral resources could become mineral reserves. Base metal deposits far from bulk transport routes (sea/rail) are not a paying proposition.

Hovercraft. Large ocean-going types like the Ruskies had/have

FYI, Hovercraft are far more effective for icebreaking than ships. (faster/breaks more/more economical/multipurpose platform)

As far as the physical security of our arctic goes what really are we looking at?  I remember during the Hans Island nonevent a couple of years back knowing that the Danes were headed for and going to Hans Island for at least a week before they ever got there.  What points of entry are we looking at/

IMO there are 4 possible points of entry, East, West, airborne and Subsurface.  There are however a multitude of questions that need to be asked before we go of half-cocked...

Which point of entry is the greatest threat? Where do we put limited forces in order to maximize our control? Where do we trust to automation? What response is appropriate when it is our "allies" that defy our sovereignty, what about other nonaligned forces? What do we do when (not if) it goes pear shaped and we loose de facto sovereignty over the NW Passage.

Our land territory is not the real issue here, the Arctic Archipelago is fairly safely Canadian, the NW passage however, could be declared an international Strait in fairly short order, and UNCLOS is not on our side.

IMO we should be paving the way for the larger sovereignty issues by resolving our border disputes with the US and Denmark.  Once, and only once our Western and Eastern borders are established by something more substantial than our ill advised and largely unrecognized use of straight baselines, then we will know exactly what our actual borders are and we can start worrying about what is inside them.
 
Was not hovercraft covered thoroughly in another thread regarding the artic, and it was pointed out that they do NOT work very well in cold temperatures...
 
GAP said:
it was pointed out that they do NOT work very well in cold temperatures...

Really?  There are civy, recreational HC that operate down to -32 c, while not suitable, I don't think that the company was realy trying for an arctic machine either.
 
Reccesoldier said:
... we should be paving the way for the larger sovereignty issues by resolving our border disputes with the US and Denmark.  Once, and only once our Western and Eastern borders are established by something more substantial than our ill advised and largely unrecognized use of straight baselines, then we will know exactly what our actual borders are and we can start worrying about what is inside them.

It seems to me that our dispute with the USA is more complex than that and revolves, mainly, around the definition of the Northwest Passage: is it an international waterway or is it Canadian sovereign water?  The USA says international, we say Canadian.  It appears to me that compromise is unlikely.

For the moment, at least, the USA has the better hand in the game - they can demonstrate the 'right of innocent passage' whenever they want.  We, on the other hand, cannot prevent anyone from doing much of anything in and around the waters and lands  we claim as our own because we have no force to give authority to our words.  If we cannot enforce our claims to sovereignty then our sovereignty does not exist.

Thanks, M. Trudeau; thanks M. Chrétien; you’re creation of and pandering to our national cult of entitlement, at the expense of our national defence, has rendered us impotent.
 
I agree with the comments that building a railway on permafrost has great challenges---there is a 1100Km railway in Tibet on permfrost that has some problems, the Canadian Arctic Railway proposal(to Fairbanks, Alaska) has looked at the problem, we also have the Murmansk railway in Russia, the Trans-Siberian railway, and others, the Churchill and Lynn Lake railways and Great Slave Lake Railway in Canada to draw experience from.  Weight and size restrictions on the trains should be expected----but a small train delivering say 2000 tons of cargo every 2 or 3 days can move a lot more cargo than 1 ship bringing maybe 10000-15000 tons once a year.

I suspect the best way to build such a railway would be to do it in early winter---let the rail embankment cool and freeze over the winter.  The real problem is the thermodynamic balance in the summer---there has been some mathematical modeling on this problem but no conclusions as far as I know---perhaps the embankments may have to be spray-painted or something like that to reflect heat---this is really a problem for engineers.

Here are some links with some interesting points and information:
http://www.whitehorsechamber.com/newsletter/march06/?nid=news...
http://www.croatianmall.com/lupic/arctic/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060209.wcomment0209/BNStory/National/home
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?0304109

What the government of Canada must do is pick a long-term sustainable strategy to achieve their sovereignty goals in the Arctic and work toward it by a careful development of infrastructure.  The infrastructure will be needed for other things than military purposes.
When in place we will have the capability to build whatever military presence we need in the Arctic.
 
Reccesoldier said:
I was refering to the Beaufort Sea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaufort_Sea

I assumed that from your "straight baselines" comment and, on that issue I agree.

I wanted to comment on the bigger, more complex set of disputes and our lack of capability to give weight to our words.
 
Big hovercraft are hard to maintain and the Russians have mothballed most of theirs, although they did sell some to the Chinese recently (hmm, wonder why they would need them.....)

Hovercraft were used with success in the arctic, in fact one of the hovercraft I worked on in the CCG was based in the arctic for many years doing seismic work. Also ATL ran a couple of big Finish ones for moving supplies. Hovercraft are slope sensitive (car, ice, hill, you get the picture) they also can be inhibited by pressure ridges over 4' high.

Like it or not we will need to build a port and make more of the roads up there year round (Mackenzie bridge should be built) if we want to hold onto the area.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
It seems to me that our dispute with the USA is more complex than that and revolves, mainly, around the definition of the Northwest Passage: is it an international waterway or is it Canadian sovereign water?  The USA says international, we say Canadian.  It appears to me that compromise is unlikely.

For the moment, at least, the USA has the better hand in the game - they can demonstrate the 'right of innocent passage' whenever they want.  We, on the other hand, cannot prevent anyone from doing much of anything in and around the waters and lands  we claim as our own because we have no force to give authority to our words.  If we cannot enforce our claims to sovereignty then our sovereignty does not exist.

Thanks, M. Trudeau; thanks M. Chrétien; you’re creation of and pandering to our national cult of entitlement, at the expense of our national defence, has rendered us impotent.

I think, as much as anything, the US and the US Navy in particular, are concerned less about the particulars of the Canadian claim and more about precedence.  Their concern is that the point-to-point theory could close up many choke points.  For example, if Britain gave back Gibraltar to the Spanish and the Spanish retained their islands on the south side of the strait then they might be tempted to close off the Med to the US the next time Israel got into a discussion.  Or it might encourage Iran to invade Muscat and close of the Arabian/Persian Gulf.  Or Malaysia or Indonesia to close off the Straits of Malacca......

It is all about maintaining freedom of movement and innocent passage.
 
Kirkhill said:
I think, as much as anything, the US and the US Navy in particular, are concerned less about the particulars of the Canadian claim and more about precedence.  Their concern is that the point-to-point theory could close up many choke points.  For example, if Britain gave back Gibraltar to the Spanish and the Spanish retained their islands on the south side of the strait then they might be tempted to close off the Med to the US the next time Israel got into a discussion.  Or it might encourage Iran to invade Muscat and close of the Arabian/Persian Gulf.  Or Malaysia or Indonesia to close off the Straits of Malacca......

It is all about maintaining freedom of movement and innocent passage.

The crux of the matter deals with money and trade.  The NW passage as an open international strait cuts over 6000km off a journey from Asia to Europe.  It makes it possible to use larger ships than can be accomodated by the panama canal and would be safer than rounding the cape. 

 
why don't we make the Northwest passage into another "St Lawrence seaway".
I understand that the US and others want the freedom to move military vessels without obtaining permission but... WTF... there has to ba some sort of solution & international treaty that can be applied.
 
Geo --If we had the spine and money to do it...
 
geo said:
why don't we make the Northwest passage into another "St Lawrence seaway".
I understand that the US and others want the freedom to move military vessels without obtaining permission but... WTF... there has to ba some sort of solution & international treaty that can be applied.

I never understood why we didn't just sign an accord with the 'States.  They recognize it as sovereign Canadian territory and we give them special access rights for military vessels.  Tie that in with a threat that otherwise we fund an oilsand pipeline to Prince Rupert for the Asian Market, and I think they'd jump on it.


Matthew. 
 
Back
Top