Who owns Hans Island?

[Winston]

That's interesting, but it's in no way contradictive of what I posted.

[Tingkai]

All right, true, the Danish Navy has some coastal icebreakers.

My point is that Canada doesn't need frigates with ice-breaking abilities because we have purpose-built ice-breakers.

I assume that the Danish Navy has ice-strenghtened ships because they don't have access to the same level of purpose-built ice-breakers.

[Winston]

Yes, that is my understanding as well.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I don't think you quite understand the concept of sending planes there...

for one, you can have regular patrols. I'm sure at least some of your planes patrol regularly; have them fly around the island. Long-term presence.

Moreover, simply having planes within striking distance of the island, on short notice, is a long-term presence.

I don't think you understand the concepts at play with this dispute. How is sending planes going to reassert sovereignty to a bunch of Greenlandic Inuit, who are the only ones who actually, and occassionally, use the place.

The point is, sending a Naval presence up there is the best solution to this problem. Denmark realizes this, the Government of Canada realizes this, pretty much every major Canadian news publication realizes this - why can't you?

Originally posted by Tingkai The idea of building ice-breaking frigates for the RCN is crazy. It would be a complete waste of money and it would reduce the ship's operational abilities. There is no need for Cdn navy frigates to have icebreaking capabilities because we have purpose-designed icebreakers.

True, but the point of all this is to set precedent. Hans Island could be just the beginning of Canadian claims being challenged over its Arctic Territories, especially with undefined and questionable boundaries existing between Canada and Russia, Denmark and the United States. Canada needs to send the message that it can access its territory by land, air and sea. Furthermore, if what you are saying is true, and Canada is already capable of making and maintaining claims over the arctic, then there shouldn't be a problem, yet clearly there is - why is that?

By the way JCC, if you want to be a Canadian, you'll have to start talking hockey.

Hockey sucks

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


You don't have to pay the coast guard

They don't have the kind of ships we need (armed, heavy ice-breakers), thats the whole point.

[GePap]

Simple solution to his mess:

Hold a thermonuclear test there. Then there won't be an island to dispute anyways.

[Az]

Not one that one that anyone will want, anyway, since it will be a barren piece of ro.... wait!

[Flubber]

JCC don't you think your point is getting a bit tired?

Canada could get its navy up there if it wanted to by bringing along icebreakers and I suspect ( have not checked this) that the Canadian purpose built icebreakers could go further north and stay longer in more adverse conditions than Danish Ice strengthened warships.

Also you have completely failed to show how a demonstration of force by a warship is superior to the presence of a ship (say an icebreaker) and armed forces ( land or air). You keep saying nobody is going to fight but then discount any unarmed ship

As for the rest of the north, both the Inuit who have signed dozens of agreements with Canada, and the oil companies that have paid Canada millions for oil exploration rights, would be suprised to hear that Canada does not exert soveriegnty. Canada does so with every dollar it spends and nobody else is doing anything up north except to sail a ship through there-- That may hurt any claim to controlling navigation but does nothing with regard to ownership of the shelf resources. Who would challenge us up north, Russia?? The natives won't want the US LOL.

As for Hans island, who really cares except to the extent it influences other borders. its not like you can do anything with it anyway

[GePap]

Just buy a few old Typhoons from Russia.