Arctic ice has receded enough that the northwest passage is open to shipping. Even with Russia's military resurgence and conflicting claims of sovereignty the Canadian Navy is essentially in disrepair.
NATO obligations aside, the US and Canada also dispute its sovereignty. So is America obliged to defend/patrol it?
I have a little insight into this. During a residential school for a course i do i met a fellow who works for NATO in Norway. Basically he is part of the Royal Navy but works in some department that looks at future conflicts.
He told me this is going to be the next major one, there are already Chinese ships patrolling up there. Fact is this route is of huge economic importance being cheaper and quicker than the Suez canal. Everyone is going to want to control it so you can bet America will be there.
Yes, because Canada is both NATO and NORAD, plus its international waters and one of the missions of the US Navy is to provide secure use of international shipping lanes, so the Russians can't really do much. That and their Navy is pretty shit.
If america wants our sweet crude nectar, they better be ready to play ball.
The reason canada wants to control the waterway is largely environmental. We're OK with other people using the passage for a small fee, but they also have to be bound by some regulations and agreements that would dictate responsibility in case of an accident. i.e., we don't want ivan steaming thru with a big load of oil and no safety measures, because if he accidentally dumps it he's probably just going to fuck off back to russia and leave us to clean up the mess.
Will the US defend it?
Is there anything currently worth defending?
The arctic is a harsh mistress and currently there isn't enough infrastructure to wage a conflict over it.
>The arctic is a harsh mistress and currently there isn't enough infrastructure to wage a conflict over it.
Assuming the ice continues to melt it shouldn't be too long before that infrastructure is built. 18% of the Earths remaining oil is supposed to be there.
>The reason canada wants to control the waterway is largely environmental.
No its not. It's because of the massive oil reserves underneath. It's just not economical to extract it right now so there's not much activity.
In my opinion I really couldn't care less what's under the ice. It's our fucking territory and I wish our politicians would actually do something about our blatant lack of security and enforcement of sovereignty up there.
Don't get me wrong, I love our little back and forth with the Danes and I think it's cute as fuck. But we have a real problem.
Don't worry, we got a bunch of natives on snowmobiles equipped with Enfields to police the entire north
>If america wants our sweet crude nectar, they better be ready to play ball.
The Canadian oil industry is in worse shape the the US one. And the tar sands aren't profitable until oil is nearly $70 a barrel.
We are increasing our supply right now, so I guess we don't really have to play ball now do we?
>plus its international waters and one of the missions of the US Navy is to provide secure use of international shipping lanes
That's kind of the gist of my question. America claims they're international waters but Canada claims they're internal.
Canada has made very little effort outside of claiming shipwrecks as a way to validate their sovereignty while letting their navy fall into disrepair.
If (hypothetically) America policed the waters it would instead validate the US claim that they are indeed international.
there is a number of ways in which u.s./nato has already lost arctic war before it even began, but the "northwest passage" you're suggesting is not even relevant to the subject
>so the Russians can't really do much. That and their Navy is pretty shit.
they don't even want to interfere in inferior Canadian Northwest passage when they have the much shorter, more ice free, and already dotted with bases plus sort of the doorway to their Northern Fleet, and most important of all part of their territory -Northeast passage.
>"northwest passage" you're suggesting is not even relevant
What makes you say that? There are plenty of ships too large for the Panama Canal that currently have to go all the way around Cape Horn.
The original question was about the sovereignty of the waters for shipping more so than oiling, as the US protects international shipping lanes an already existing conflict is escalated.
The old saying, "Possession is 9/10ths of the law" holds true here.
I've been to the arctic circle, up to Inuvik and Tuk, and let me tell you, the place might as well be deserted. If you look at the islands up there, then it really starts to fall apart - how can it really be Canadian if there's no population up there? The fight over this territory probably isn't going to end in Canada's favour.
And icebreakers become less important as the melting trend continues. Unescorted cargo ships can already make the passage w/o escort.
>So is America obliged to defend/patrol it?
No. It's not our fault the country that put an entire division ashore on D-Day -- with a much smaller economy and population -- is so shit eatingly lazy that it can't keep the Chinese loggers out of British Columbia and Korean fishing vessels from raping their fish stocks, much less face off the Russians.
No blood for syrup. Our freeloading allies need some tough love.
>he doesn't believe in global warming
>how can it really be Canadian if there's no population up there?
it's Canadian because it goes right through the territory they've had for 100+ years. By your logic any land that doesn't have a population doesn't belong to the country that owns it, so 99% of Greenland somehow doesn't belong to Denmark because nobody lives in those parts.
Anybody with the power to do so can just go right through and set up a colony or whatever without firing a single bullet or taking a single life. They wouldn't actually be taking anything from Canada.
As a norwegian I really dread the fact that Svalbard is a demilitarized area. Seeing as ship traffic is going to increase along the coast of Svalbard it would have been nice to stronger hold on it.
We were originally going to block letting China in as a observer the artic council since they were freezing us out diplomaticlly/economiclly because of Lu Xiabao. We should have kept that position. Less non-allies mendeling in the artic is better.
>So is America obliged to defend/patrol it?
>No, they're Canadian waters m8.
>they're Canadian waters
Who the fuck do you think owns Canada?
I always like how Americas use the word "believe" regarding the matters that have nothing to do with religion or faith.
Science can only build a model that explains existing facts. If science predicts, it predicts something that is easy to verify based on credible experience. Any theory trying to accurately predict the future is a scam. If i "predict" that 500 years from now mankind will invent a hyperdrive, it will be bullshit and not a prediction, even if the hyperdrive will be built.
What science knows is that over the last 65 millions years Earth has been through 4 glacial eras so there was no anthropogenic factor involved which global warming zealots claim to be the case. The last retreat of glaciers has began 10 thousands years ago and it is the prime reason why you're shitposting on 4chan instead of hunting the mammoths right now.
Since the beginning of written history humanity has lived through numerous climate changes more severe than the current one, sometimes replacing each other over the course of few decades. Arctic ice was growing from 1946 to 1979 while Antarctic ice was melting at the same period of time, now the trend has flipped upside down and Antarctic is going cold while Arctic is warming up. This alone proves that: a) nature provides no clear measures or standards; b) climate change is cyclic; c) planet doesn't give a shit about humanity; d) global warming is a scam.
>Even with Russia's military resurgence
Cool, now keep that tiny, convoluted, hazardous route clear of ice 365 days a year, every year, while Europe and China can ship 1000x more cargo through the already warmed up northern one, bypassing North American continent entirely. Melting trend doesn't mean that the ice magically disappears, but rather that it becomes easier to pierce through, which means icebreaker fleet will be vital to sustain it for decades to come.
The highways of the Arctic are paved by icebreakers. Right now, the Russians have superhighways, and you have one dirt road with potholes.
We'll just send the Canadian rangers to defend it.
But in all srs US/Canada will have more operations going on up north more then likely.
Alot of people like to shit on Canada or US but what they don't know is our armies work together constantly.
Sweden and Finland's ice breakers are only used on the Baltic sea m8
No, oilsands oil breaks even at around $20- and that was ten years ago with the tech of the day. It costs more to expand, which is why you won't see growth in the sector for some time to come.
As an Aussie who's spoke with a bunch of Canadians; they believe that they could dissolve their military and the US would be forced to cover them due to Canada's strategic value in a fight against Russia.
Straya on the other hand has to be able to handle South East Asian countries mostly on its own until Murica can send support if it wants to. That, or we can wait for New Zealand, with it's 60 million sheep and 9000 NZ Defence Force personnel to do something (maybe make a big ass sweater to suffocate our enemies with).
If we did that we might as well annex them.
Teach those socialists in Canada's government what happens when you disarm or neuter the entire country in favor of worthless welfare and 'free medical'
>The original question was about the sovereignty of the waters for shipping more so than oiling
given how the u.s. is the only military in western hemisphere, i find this question genuinely perplexing