Who owns Hans Island?

[Winston]

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.

[Lefty Scaevola]

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

[Flubber]

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

[Tingkai]

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.

[Kuciwalker]

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

I remember that

[Heresson]

"You're kidding, right? Canada has a warship?" asked U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "Like for war?

"Does Canada know?" he added.

[Tingkai]

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

[JimmyCracksCorn]

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.

[KrazyHorse]

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

[KrazyHorse]

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.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

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.

[KrazyHorse]

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.

[KrazyHorse]

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

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
OMFG

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

Calm down.

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?

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.

[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