Why Canada is sending subs to the Arctic

(Note: like everything else, this is just an opinion. However, after being called out by Bubbleheads, I feel I have no choice but to write a little piece on here.)

Now, I'm not going to go into all the details, mostly because I don't feel like doing research and posting sources.

From Bubbleheads: (full post Here)

The Commander of the Canadian Joint Task Force Atlantic says he wants to send one of Canada's submarines on a "sovereignty patrol" of the country's Arctic regions. As I've mentioned before, Canadians are apparently upset that American submarines might be passing through Canadian territorial waters when sailing through the Arctic Ocean.

Now, I already wrote a comment there so I'll just copy/paste it and tack on things here and there. It's simple, I won't repeat things I've already said, those of you who came on here after reading it won't get bored, and those of you who didn't go there first will still know what I'm talking about.

"It's more complicated than just having you guys passing through our waters with your subs. We also have the Danish and Russians to contend with, and they both want the ressources (minerals, oil, etc) present in the region."

...Oil drilling is getting more and more feasible in the Arctic: not only is it getting better economically due to rising oil prices, the technology is getting better. There are also lots of minerals, both under the sea and on land, that would probably be worth selling. To add to that, there's fish, the water itself, and the people.

"Now, if we don't at least appear to be doing something to "keep you guys at bay" so to speak, it sends the message that we're weak and we won't defend what's "ours." (And I'm not even talking about the disputed areas)"

As you might or might not be aware, Canada and Denmark are "at war" (not quite a war, but there is tension) over Hans Island and, generally, a chunk of the Arctic. Likewise, Russia is claiming more and more of the Arctic as it's own. If we just sit back while the US "violates our territorial integrity," it tells the Russians and the Danish that, hey, we don't really care about that territory, and they might as well take it if they're gonna use it. ("Use it or lose it." -PM Harper) It's not so much that we have a peeve with the Americans--I'm pretty sure their subs went into our waters during the Cold War, when the evil Soviets were hanging around--but rather we can't say different things to different countries.

"Besides, Canada is trying to reassert itself as a credible middle power. To do that, we have to go around showing other nations that we do have some might--granted, we couldn't pick a fight with you guys, even though our grunts, sailors and airdales are better than yours. We're just doing what the US has been doing for years: flexing our muscles to show we have them."

Some of you might remember the Turbot War with Spain, off Newfoundland. We sent our Navy and "convinced" the Spanish fleet to leave--too bad we didn't capture any treasure galleons, though. We had both surface ships and submarines in the area, and I'm pretty sure the Spanish didn't feel like turning one of their ships into a sub. (Which would have created an international incident, too... Not good.)

Like I mentionned before, we're also "at war" with Denmark over Hans Island. They've sent soldiers, we've sent soldiers, (they just never met each other...) we've put flags, they've put flags, so on and so forth. Their fishermen have also violated our territorial integrity by landing somewhere up North and putting their flag there--a de facto invasion, as it stands.

The ability to operate submarines in difficult conditions in the Arctic would signify to other countries that we're always around, and they can't just do what they want on our coasts. If a country like Spain decides to ever come back to Newfoundland to steal our fish, it'd also tell them our submarines will have no trouble operating in the North Atlantic, and we all know what kind of threat a submarine poses to ships.

"Finally, our subs haven't been seen much, and although I'm sure they've been out to sea doing things other than training, they haven't been public about it. The public (and even part of the Canadian Forces) still think that after the HMCS Chicoutimi fire, our subs are in dock waiting to be scrapped."

That pretty much says it all. The public is ill-informed about our military, and propaganda campaigns by leftist media is making people believe that our military is incapable of doing much more than shovel snow in Toronto after a mild snowstorm. They are increasingly aware of the Army, thanks to Afghanistan, but most of what the public sees about the Navy is bad: Seaking crashes, submarine accidents and our percieved inability to operate in the Arctic. By sending a submarine up North, it will show the public (assuming the media coverage is sufficient) that we have a capable Navy that can oppose threats and operate in bad waters.

It's all about the PR, guys.

"Anyway I'll be writing a little something (with a tiny bit more detail than this comment) about the situation on my own blog. [/shameless plug]"

Oh, wait, that's what I just did.

I guess all I'm trying to say is that the American "violation" of Canadian territorial waters is a pretext to doing operations there. Sure, we don't like it when they come through our waters unannounced, but we're not going to sink American ships (let alone nuclear submarines) just because they tresspass.

It's not that we couldn't, either: Victoria-class submarines are (if properly maintained and crewed) among the best subs in the world. Now we just need AIP propulsion, or maybe buy the Akulas we're helping decommission... One can dream, right?

(Launching Seakings and Auroras to flush out American submarines operating in the area.)

Everyone feel free to comment, whether you want to say "let's sink those damned American subs!" or "you damned poutine-eating polar bear!" or even "get out of this lane, Naval Cadet!"