The US Isn't Ready For Conflict in the Arctic

[tomahawk6]

I agree to the premise that we are not prepared for conflict in the Arctic. Are we going to invest in ice breakers ? Commit troops ? Fly more surveillance patrols ? All at a time when we are still trying to stamp out the threat posed by the IS. I would favor buying new ice breakers to replace the three that we have and add say 5 more to the fleet. Plus add to the Coast Guard capability. The conflict may arise if we start drilling despite Obama putting arctic drilling off limits.Both Canada and Russia have strong interests in the arctic.Cooperation would be nice but we will see.

http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/retired-4-star-us-military-ill-prepared-for-arctic-confrontation

The thawing Arctic, and its potentially vast deposits of minerals and natural gas, is opening the global community to intense competition among major geopolitical players, a competition that a former top U.S. military commander in Europe believes is vital to U.S. and NATO interests.

For the U.S., the Arctic is “absolutely vital — not only nationally but in the context of NATO — [as] all Arctic nations, save only Russia, are NATO members, and Russia is building real military muscle in the high north," said retired Adm. James Stavridis in an interview with Military Times.

“There will be strategic competition over resources — hydrocarbons and shipping routes, primarily — and global warming will exacerbate them by exposing those resources,” Stavridis said.

Stavridis, the current dean of the Fletcher School and a retired four-star admiral whose last command was Supreme Allied Commander Europe, believes the U.S. is far behind other competitors, namely Russia, in pursuing interests in the region.

- mod edit of thread title -

 

[Loachman]

Relax. There's another mini ice age on its way.

 

[tomahawk6]

I hope it happens before all the seals are clubbed to death. [

 

[Old Sweat]

I hope it happens before all the seals are clubbed to death. [

Do you think we are heartless brutes? We just club the helpless babies.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Do you think we are heartless brutes? We just club the helpless babies.

Oh, that's so wrong!  And inefficient.  Those who go to the "Front" primarily use rifles to harvest (about 70% of all sealing in Canadian water); the in-shore harvest will have a greater mix of clubs in the tools, they're traditionalists .  And the seals are not "helpless babies"; the taking of "pups" is illegal, they must already have moulted their first fur (whitecoat), are now independent and not reliant on their mother - so they are probably 25 to 30 days old.  In terms of social development, that would be equivalent to a 16 year old joining the army and there has been more than one RSM who wanted to use his stick on such.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

That was the quickest swerve off the subject I may have seen......though comical lets keep this on topic please.
Bruce

 

[YZT580]

Wouldn't it be wiser to spend your money on economic development rather than military. Defending the north with anything other than air power, which can be brought in from the south if needed is impractical and cost prohibitive.  Let Putin waste his money, wait somewhere south of 60 and collect the frozen troops as they come south.  It worked for Russia against both Napoleon and Hitler and it will work for us too.

 

[CBH99]

I was going to say, the environment in the Arctic is so inhospitable that it makes armed conflict pretty redundant.

If the primary means of expressing military force in the arctic is air power, and both Russia & the US could eliminate each other's ability to deploy air power in the first day or two, makes the whole situation pretty mute.

Forward air 'bases' sounds impressive, but those 'bases' aren't much more than just forward operating locations.  Those locations need electricity, runways, fuel supplies, etc.  All of which could be taken out pretty darn easily, by both sides.

 

[GR66]

Arctic warefare capability isn't limited to repelling an invasion of the North American arctic.  We may have a need to have the capability of protect (or even re-take?) specific key military, infrastructure or economic locations against hostile forces.  We may also have a need to deploy arctic-capable forces in other locations worldwide (Norway and Iceland come to mind).

 

[Kirkhill]

Forward air 'bases' sounds impressive, but those 'bases' aren't much more than just forward operating locations.  Those locations need electricity, runways, fuel supplies, etc.  All of which could be taken out pretty darn easily, by both sides.

All of which suggest that a Canadian Defence Force should be focused on Generators, Blivets, CC177s, CC130s, CH147s and CF35Bs (and yes, I do mean the Marine's VSTOL version).

Edit: Oh.  And Parachutes.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I agree to the premise that we are not prepared for conflict in the Arctic. Are we going to invest in ice breakers ? Commit troops ? Fly more surveillance patrols ? All at a time when we are still trying to stamp out the threat posed by the IS. I would favor buying new ice breakers to replace the three that we have and add say 5 more to the fleet. Plus add to the Coast Guard capability. The conflict may arise if we start drilling despite Obama putting arctic drilling off limits.Both Canada and Russia have strong interests in the arctic.Cooperation would be nice but we will see.

http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/retired-4-star-us-military-ill-prepared-for-arctic-confrontation

The thawing Arctic, and its potentially vast deposits of minerals and natural gas, is opening the global community to intense competition among major geopolitical players, a competition that a former top U.S. military commander in Europe believes is vital to U.S. and NATO interests.

For the U.S., the Arctic is “absolutely vital — not only nationally but in the context of NATO — [as] all Arctic nations, save only Russia, are NATO members, and Russia is building real military muscle in the high north," said retired Adm. James Stavridis in an interview with Military Times.

“There will be strategic competition over resources — hydrocarbons and shipping routes, primarily — and global warming will exacerbate them by exposing those resources,” Stavridis said.

Stavridis, the current dean of the Fletcher School and a retired four-star admiral whose last command was Supreme Allied Commander Europe, believes the U.S. is far behind other competitors, namely Russia, in pursuing interests in the region.

As opposed to NATO operations in Northern Norway, which were essentially heavy armoured/ amphibious forces relocated to cold climes to deter Soviet invasion, it would be 'easier' to stake a claim to the North American arctic via a range of cheaper, more flexible options e.g., an airborne/ airmobile presence in the high Arctic involving quick 'in and out' type sovereignty exercises/ operations based around existing airfields etc.

Canada already does this to a certain extent. As well as maintaining the Ranger program.

 

[Stoker]

So if needed I assume we can base CF 18's out of Iqaluit Airport, or Rankin Inlet? How much infrastructure is actually there. I assume we have done this before for exercise?

 

[Old Sweat]

As opposed to NATO operations in Northern Norway, which were essentially heavy armoured/ amphibious forces relocated to cold climes to deter Soviet invasion, it would be 'easier' to stake a claim to the North American arctic via a range of cheaper, more flexible options e.g., an airborne/ airmobile presence in the high Arctic involving quick 'in and out' type sovereignty exercises/ operations based around existing airfields etc.

Canada already does this to a certain extent. As well as maintaining the Ranger program.

I tend to agree that little else is required as ground forces in the high arctic. As an aside, Canada has the record for the world's farthest north artillery live firing. In November 1971 1st Airborne Battery RCA fired live in the area of Resolute Bay. This area was north of the north magnetic pole, which required the use of a gyro orienter to find north, and off the gridded maps, which required the battery originating its own grid system by designating the gun position grid reference 000 000 and going from there.

To play devil's advocate for a minute, I have my doubts about much of the predictions of an ice free or even a greatly ice diminished arctic. First, we only have satellite coverage of the area since 1972, so we don't know what the area looked like any time before then. Second, it would take more than a few degrees warming to melt the sea ice and the land ice year round and even for more than a very few months. This soldier fears that alarmism has been elevated to fact by repetition and shouting down of any dissenting voices. I may be wrong, but it doesn't seem within the realm of possibility.

 

[Journeyman]

I have my doubts about much of the predictions of an ice free or even a greatly ice diminished arctic.

Oh, David Suzuki is so  going to bitch-slap you!  :slapfight:

    ;D

 

[jmt18325]

The real question is, are those doubts based in reality.  It seems not, based on the evidence.

 

[George Wallace]

The real question is, are those doubts based in reality.  It seems not, based on the evidence.

Which doubts?  What evidence?

Seems that studies are now saying that we are entering a "Mini Ice Age".  Those studies would indicate that the Northwest Passage will remain frozen for a long time to come. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11733369/Earth-heading-for-mini-ice-age-within-15-years.html

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/01/06/researchers-predict-that-a-mini-ice-age-is-coming-very-soon/

Now, other reports have been published to discount a Mini Ice Age as early as in the next decade or two, while other research is saying within the next millennium.  As with all predictions of Global Warming and the Ice Cap having melted raising the level of the Oceans four or more meters by 2010, these environmental models are 'best guesses'.  It remains to be seen what Mother Nature has planned in the way of WEATHER and what effects that will have on defence of the Arctic.

 

[Kirkhill]

We have a Global Warming Thread already.

 

[Old Sweat]

We have a Global Warming Thread already.

Indeed we do, but what I am suggesting is that the arctic will remain a very inhospitable area for a long time, even if there is some warming, and we had best take it seriously.

 

[Stoker]

Having deployed to the Arctic on Ship seven times, its pretty harsh and that's in the Summer with weather that can change in hours, with land as desolate as any desert.  I can't imagine whats its like in the Winter. Our greatest defence up there is the weather. Like was mentioned before, records only go back so far and quite possibility be part of a normal cycle of warming/freeze we're seeing.

 

[Kirkhill]

Having deployed to the Arctic on Ship seven times, its pretty harsh and that's in the Summer with weather that can change in hours, with land as desolate as any desert.  I can't imagine whats its like in the Winter. Our greatest defence up there is the weather. Like was mentioned before, records only go back so far and quite possibility be part of a normal cycle of warming/freeze we're seeing.

Actually, I believe that it is formally described as a desert - where compasses don't work, it is dark 6 months out of the year and the weather is like Saskatoon in January.  With or without Global Warming it is a challenging environment.  And its commercial/strategic value is always in flux.