Canada looking at building military bases in Arctic
Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog
-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 372
- Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 7:35 pm
Re: Canada looking at building military bases in Arctic
No, you can have an opinion, but it will be far less valid than someone who actually does the job. I would recommend you tell your 3 friends to hang up the uniform . Do not take part in something you do not believe in. If you understand the mission than you are for it. Some people just do not want to understand it because it means putting something before ones self. Again , welcome to Canada.
I have no doubt that there are some soldiers who may have mixed feelings. However, that is the case with anything. Bottom line, a solid majority have their sights set in the other direction.
I have no doubt that there are some soldiers who may have mixed feelings. However, that is the case with anything. Bottom line, a solid majority have their sights set in the other direction.
Re: Canada looking at building military bases in Arctic
So much of the operations in the Arctic depends upon good GPS navigation services . I wonder what effect on GPS service in Canada and the Arctic Lightsquare plan will have on the availability of GPS.
In case anyone has not been following what is happening in the USA, Lightsquare is a company that is proposing to develope a broadband network to provide wireless internet with video throughout the USA by building 40,000 towers. The FCC allowed Lightsquare a frequency band next door to the GPS signals without testing the effects. When tested, albeit with (deliberatly) flawed equipment, it was discouvered that Lightsquared towers, (operating at 1/2 power) will make all GPS go black in an 8 - 10 mile area surrounding the towers. At full power, GPS signals will be totally wiped out for up to a 50 mile area around the towers. When Congress objected, Lightsquare went to ICAO to circumvent Congress. They are now aligned with Sprint and other internet providers and are proceeding, regardless of the regulations.
Just remember that the US goverment can be bought. All that is necessary is to provide campaign contributions to elected officials and have money backed lobby groups.
If Lightsquare goes ahead with their plans, and they will regardless of regulations and objections, GPS will be in the garbage can. They have enough financial backing to buy the US government. The only hope is the US military, who owns the GPS system.
All this info comes from the AvWeb website.
In case anyone has not been following what is happening in the USA, Lightsquare is a company that is proposing to develope a broadband network to provide wireless internet with video throughout the USA by building 40,000 towers. The FCC allowed Lightsquare a frequency band next door to the GPS signals without testing the effects. When tested, albeit with (deliberatly) flawed equipment, it was discouvered that Lightsquared towers, (operating at 1/2 power) will make all GPS go black in an 8 - 10 mile area surrounding the towers. At full power, GPS signals will be totally wiped out for up to a 50 mile area around the towers. When Congress objected, Lightsquare went to ICAO to circumvent Congress. They are now aligned with Sprint and other internet providers and are proceeding, regardless of the regulations.
Just remember that the US goverment can be bought. All that is necessary is to provide campaign contributions to elected officials and have money backed lobby groups.
If Lightsquare goes ahead with their plans, and they will regardless of regulations and objections, GPS will be in the garbage can. They have enough financial backing to buy the US government. The only hope is the US military, who owns the GPS system.
All this info comes from the AvWeb website.
The average pilot, despite the somewhat swaggering exterior, is very much capable of such feelings as love, affection, intimacy and caring.
These feelings just don't involve anyone else.
These feelings just don't involve anyone else.
Re: Canada looking at building military bases in Arctic
I didn't say you can't have an opinion, I said that your opinion doesn't matter. Unless you're willing to sack up and go over there yourself, your views on military operations are meaningless. If you really think soldiers are mindless automatons, then your opinion is less than worthless: they're trained to follow orders, yes, but they're also trained to think independently, judge the present situation, and take the initiative, particularly if the chain of command or communications are broken. No one can go into a warzone and mindlessly wander around being told what to do without thinking. If that's your opinion of soldiers than you know even less about them than I gave you credit for.coreydotcom wrote:So since I am not a soldier I can't have an opinion... what? Are you serious? Soldiers do what? They follow commands. They don't do the thinking. They are told to do something, and do it. I guess that makes their opinions the only ones that matters. Granted, I am not on the front lines risking my life but if it were up to me they wouldn't be there either.modi13 wrote:The only opinions that matter are those of the soldiers doing the fighting
I know 3 people in the CFs who have been to Afghanistan. All 3 said it was complete and utter bull$h!t and all 3 are scared to go back. I guess we just don't know the same people in the CFs.
I know a few more than three members of the CF, most of them combat arms. Everyone I've talked to, and every interview I've read, has demonstrated how universally the members of the military believe in the mission in Afghanistan.
-
- Rank 2
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 6:41 am
- Location: Montreal
Re: Canada looking at building military bases in Arctic
Yeah but shouldn't a distinction be made between if they believe in the mission and is it working? I can believe 100% in my stock broker thinking he is the best and he knows best but if my portfolio is declining in value, is he really working well for me?
Translating that to the current issue at hand - is the war in afghanistan really working? Are we winning? Has anything changed? If so, for the better?
If the answer to all those questions is "no" than its great that these soldiers believe in what they are doing, but if it's not working....
I, personally, am not really sure about the answers to the questions above, but I know a lot of intelligent people who would argue the answers are indeed "no".
Furthermore, I don't understand the mentality that "unless you're a soldier, your opinion doesn't matter"? Since they're soldiers they must be absolutely right? We shouldn't regulate banks or public companies because their employees know exactly what they're doing and they're always right?
I don't know very much about the military but correct me if I'm wrong: soldiers do not decide if they go to war or not? Politicians do. And who elects politicians? The public. So if the public elects an anti-war party (sorry for sounding like a hippie) then we don't go to war. So basically everyone's opinion matters, except the soldiers'... no? (well besides their vote). I may be totally off-base here and please correct me if I'm wrong but I'm having trouble understanding why no one except a soldier's opinion matter. Maybe it's because I've never been to war, but still I don't understand... are soldiers smarter than everybody else solely by virtue of being a soldier?
Translating that to the current issue at hand - is the war in afghanistan really working? Are we winning? Has anything changed? If so, for the better?
If the answer to all those questions is "no" than its great that these soldiers believe in what they are doing, but if it's not working....
I, personally, am not really sure about the answers to the questions above, but I know a lot of intelligent people who would argue the answers are indeed "no".
Furthermore, I don't understand the mentality that "unless you're a soldier, your opinion doesn't matter"? Since they're soldiers they must be absolutely right? We shouldn't regulate banks or public companies because their employees know exactly what they're doing and they're always right?
I don't know very much about the military but correct me if I'm wrong: soldiers do not decide if they go to war or not? Politicians do. And who elects politicians? The public. So if the public elects an anti-war party (sorry for sounding like a hippie) then we don't go to war. So basically everyone's opinion matters, except the soldiers'... no? (well besides their vote). I may be totally off-base here and please correct me if I'm wrong but I'm having trouble understanding why no one except a soldier's opinion matter. Maybe it's because I've never been to war, but still I don't understand... are soldiers smarter than everybody else solely by virtue of being a soldier?
-
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2165
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:38 pm
- Location: If it's Monday it's got to be somewhere shitty
Re: Canada looking at building military bases in Arctic
Now that is some of the most insulting drivel I've seen in a while and it shows how little you know about the military. As someone who spent fifteen years wearing the uniform I can assure you you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Here's a suggestion; make that same comment to your three friends, when you get out of the hospital ask them if you're still friends.coreydotcom wrote: Soldiers do what? They follow commands. They don't do the thinking. They are told to do something, and do it.
-
- Rank 2
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 6:41 am
- Location: Montreal
Re: Canada looking at building military bases in Arctic
I respectfully retract that comment as I see how it is insulting. I am sorry.shitdisturber wrote:Now that is some of the most insulting drivel I've seen in a while and it shows how little you know about the military. As someone who spent fifteen years wearing the uniform I can assure you you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Here's a suggestion; make that same comment to your three friends, when you get out of the hospital ask them if you're still friends.
I support the troops, I do, but I just don't see how the only people who have valid opinions on the matter are soldiers.
To maybe put that comment in context it came from a line of questionning I had from my buddy when he got back.
Me: So, how was it?
Him: (shoulder shrug). we got paid a lot, didn't die, people told us to do sh!t and we did it. i guess it was worth the money.
That's how my comment came about but I am sorry I said it like I did. Maybe it shows the character of my friend but my suspicion that not all of the soldiers are "for the cause" is just reinforced by comments like those.
Again, nothing but respect for the men and women serving. I am sorry for my stupid comment. If ever you are in Montreal and want free beer send me a PM and I will try and make it up. Sorry (last time)
-
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2165
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:38 pm
- Location: If it's Monday it's got to be somewhere shitty
Re: Canada looking at building military bases in Arctic
Fair enough. I am known for holding grudges but I also recognize sincerity when I see it, so no harm no foul. As for your friend; bear in mind that soldiers rarely speak about their real feelings about battle with outsiders, so you're not getting the whole picture. My own father was a member of the First Canadian Parachute Battallion in WW2 but when I put a direct question to him about his experiences, he'd only talk about the funny stuff. Maybe if I'd had the opportunity to ask him after I'd joined I'd have gotten a different response but more than likely not; sadly by then he'd already been dead for more than four years.coreydotcom wrote:
I respectfully retract that comment as I see how it is insulting. I am sorry.
I support the troops, I do, but I just don't see how the only people who have valid opinions on the matter are soldiers.
To maybe put that comment in context it came from a line of questionning I had from my buddy when he got back.
Me: So, how was it?
Him: (shoulder shrug). we got paid a lot, didn't die, people told us to do sh!t and we did it. i guess it was worth the money.
That's how my comment came about but I am sorry I said it like I did. Maybe it shows the character of my friend but my suspicion that not all of the soldiers are "for the cause" is just reinforced by comments like those.
Again, nothing but respect for the men and women serving. I am sorry for my stupid comment. If ever you are in Montreal and want free beer send me a PM and I will try and make it up. Sorry (last time)
As for the beer; while I appreciate the offer, I quit drinking during my time in Germany of all places but then I always did like to march to the beat of my own drum. Pardon the militarist pun.
Re: Canada looking at building military bases in Arctic
Who's in a better position to assess whether improvement has been made than the soldiers who have been on the ground in Afghanistan for five or six years? They see the schools, roads and dams being built, they see the reduced rate of suicide bombers and the weakening of the Taliban, and they see the improvement in the quality of life of the Afghan people. Most of those who've determined that the war is a lost cause are people in Canada, the US and Europe who've never been to central Asia and make their determinations based on statistical analysis of numbers they select very carefully to reflect their own preconceptions as to whether the mission is a "success" or not. This isn't the Second World War, it isn't black and white, good and evil, we won or we lost. This is about hearts and minds, changing the lives and perceptions of the next generation of Afghans so they won't be willing to support organizations like the Taliban or al-Qaeda in the first place.
If you aren't a member of the military, your opinion on military matters is about as useful as your opinion on cancer treatment at a medical conference: it's nice that you have one, but do you really have anything useful to say? Governments don't just arbitrarily decide that they're going to start wars (usually), they consult with military advisers to see if it's feasible or wise to engage in combat operations. The last several Chiefs of the Defence Staff, among other high-ranking generals, have all been ardent supporters of the mission in Afghanistan and have seen its benefits first-hand.
Soldiers' opinions are the only ones that matter on this subject because they're the ones fighting and dying for the mission. No one would put their life on the line for a cause they didn't support. You can sit back in your comfy armchair and criticize all you like, but the members of the Canadian Forces are the ones who are sacrificing themselves for the good of other people. That's why their opinions matter more than yours.
If you aren't a member of the military, your opinion on military matters is about as useful as your opinion on cancer treatment at a medical conference: it's nice that you have one, but do you really have anything useful to say? Governments don't just arbitrarily decide that they're going to start wars (usually), they consult with military advisers to see if it's feasible or wise to engage in combat operations. The last several Chiefs of the Defence Staff, among other high-ranking generals, have all been ardent supporters of the mission in Afghanistan and have seen its benefits first-hand.
Soldiers' opinions are the only ones that matter on this subject because they're the ones fighting and dying for the mission. No one would put their life on the line for a cause they didn't support. You can sit back in your comfy armchair and criticize all you like, but the members of the Canadian Forces are the ones who are sacrificing themselves for the good of other people. That's why their opinions matter more than yours.
-
- Rank 2
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 6:41 am
- Location: Montreal
Re: Canada looking at building military bases in Arctic
@shitdisturber: i wish they had a "shake hands" emoticon.
@ modi13: thank you for the explanation. I just didn't understand the statement before. I now understand the reasoning, not sure if I completely agree with it, but it's also something I clearly don't know a lot about.
Thanks everyone for the enlightening discussion.
@ modi13: thank you for the explanation. I just didn't understand the statement before. I now understand the reasoning, not sure if I completely agree with it, but it's also something I clearly don't know a lot about.
Funny that the guy who ultimately decides is not a military man though, no ?(not talking about any PM in particular - just saying, in my lifetime I have not seen a PM who was a general/admiral) I know they consult, but still... I consult my girlfriend sometimes when buying a shirt, but I don't always listen (very stupid/simple analogy).modi13 wrote:If you aren't a member of the military, your opinion on military matters is about as useful as your opinion on cancer treatment at a medical conference: it's nice that you have one, but do you really have anything useful to say? Governments don't just arbitrarily decide that they're going to start wars (usually), they consult with military advisers to see if it's feasible or wise to engage in combat operations.
Thanks everyone for the enlightening discussion.
Re: Canada looking at building military bases in Arctic
modi13 wrote:Who's in a better position to assess whether improvement has been made than the soldiers who have been on the ground in Afghanistan for five or six years? They see the schools, roads and dams being built, they see the reduced rate of suicide bombers and the weakening of the Taliban, and they see the improvement in the quality of life of the Afghan people. Most of those who've determined that the war is a lost cause are people in Canada, the US and Europe who've never been to central Asia and make their determinations based on statistical analysis of numbers they select very carefully to reflect their own preconceptions as to whether the mission is a "success" or not. This isn't the Second World War, it isn't black and white, good and evil, we won or we lost. This is about hearts and minds, changing the lives and perceptions of the next generation of Afghans so they won't be willing to support organizations like the Taliban or al-Qaeda in the first place.
If you aren't a member of the military, your opinion on military matters is about as useful as your opinion on cancer treatment at a medical conference: it's nice that you have one, but do you really have anything useful to say? Governments don't just arbitrarily decide that they're going to start wars (usually), they consult with military advisers to see if it's feasible or wise to engage in combat operations. The last several Chiefs of the Defence Staff, among other high-ranking generals, have all been ardent supporters of the mission in Afghanistan and have seen its benefits first-hand.
Soldiers' opinions are the only ones that matter on this subject because they're the ones fighting and dying for the mission. No one would put their life on the line for a cause they didn't support. You can sit back in your comfy armchair and criticize all you like, but the members of the Canadian Forces are the ones who are sacrificing themselves for the good of other people. That's why their opinions matter more than yours.
You are partly right on that one. Soldiers, especially officers, and especially high ranking ones, are privy to information about what is happening outside their compound.
There is another problem, in that they themselves are fed a lot of useless and incomplete information.
They are also handicapped by their short stays in Af. So, if the commander decides to support the construction of a new school, he will probably never see the school complete. The next commander will come, and have his own ideas, and may complete ignore the fact that a school is being built somewhere...
But soldiers do not post in public forums their inner thoughts.
Where I work, we also have stats, going back 10 years, on all insurgent activities... It shows a different picture...
It shows an analogy to the soviet occupation, where things get worse with time, not better.
Success in life is when the cognac that you drink is older than the women you drink it with.
Re: Canada looking at building military bases in Arctic
With the only major difference - back then the West was training, supplying and financing the (now) Taliban. Today no such force is backing up and instigating the resistance today.Expat wrote: Where I work, we also have stats, going back 10 years, on all insurgent activities... It shows a different picture...
It shows an analogy to the soviet occupation, where things get worse with time, not better.
Re: Canada looking at building military bases in Arctic
Holy topic derailment - anyone out there a mod?
I'm looking forward to more in the way of Arctic basing/missions. Some of my best flying has been north of 80.
I'm looking forward to more in the way of Arctic basing/missions. Some of my best flying has been north of 80.
Re: Canada looking at building military bases in Arctic
My original intent in posting this was for a discussion about what this would mean for work for Northern operators. You often hear about all the flying that was done for DEW line construction and support. Do you think that if the military does go ahead with this plan they will keep all the flying in-house or contract some work out to commercial operators?
Re: Canada looking at building military bases in Arctic
While Canada's military hasn't been supplemented by private contracting companies to the same extent as the US, I'd be shocked if much of the construction and logistics weren't contracted out to a private firm, saving the C-17s and C-130s for situations where commercial operations aren't feasible or appropriate. Especially considering that this would all be done on Canadian soil.
no sig because apparently quoting people in context is offensive to them.
Re: Canada looking at building military bases in Arctic
My speculation is that this would be largely a CF centric project. The costs involved with civilian contracting up that far north would most probably be prohibitive. We have our own heavy equipment operators, construction engineers, plumbers, electricians etc. I believe that the new facilities at Eureka were all assembled via modular parts shipped up north via barge.grimey wrote: I'd be shocked if much of the construction and logistics weren't contracted out to a private firm,
Re: Canada looking at building military bases in Arctic
Just to point out a few things, that a few people got wrong including the article.
Resolute Bay can handle C-17's because it has been going in there on a weekly basis getting ready for operation Nanook.
Nanisivik is now closed, and the road is closed going to it. However judging from the condition of the runway I highly doubt it would be hard to re-open it. That runway can also handle the C-17. The new strip is in the town Arctic Bay, but I doubt that strip can handle the C-17.
Iqaluit, Rankin, and Inuvik already have military facilities, ramp and hangar facilities for fighter operations.
Resolute Bay can handle C-17's because it has been going in there on a weekly basis getting ready for operation Nanook.
Nanisivik is now closed, and the road is closed going to it. However judging from the condition of the runway I highly doubt it would be hard to re-open it. That runway can also handle the C-17. The new strip is in the town Arctic Bay, but I doubt that strip can handle the C-17.
Iqaluit, Rankin, and Inuvik already have military facilities, ramp and hangar facilities for fighter operations.
Re: Canada looking at building military bases in Arctic
TheCheez wrote:We spend an awful lot of money running around the north on the local economies already. Putting a base in somewhere to use as a hub is inevitable.
Funny enough a lot of the infrastructure in the north was DND property at some point in the past. Cleared out after the cold war. What's old is new!
Well, Resolute Bay was a Military base operated by the RCAF from 1949 to May, 1964 so they cleared out considerably BEFORE the end of the cold war.
It was turned over to a civilian contractor in May, 1964. Cost-cutting.
The subsequent closures of the joint High Arctic Weather Stations years later, were all cost-cutting measures.
At the time, the Russians had a research base on a moving ice island off the west coast of the Arctic Islands for years....They probably still do.
-
- Rank Moderator
- Posts: 3592
- Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 9:29 am
- Location: The Frozen North
- Contact:
Re: Canada looking at building military bases in Arctic
The Russians had a station on the ice that ended up on the west side of Banks Island 12 years ago.
The Dewline was built by IT&T and subcontractors. The flying was mainly PWA Arctic Air Arctic Wings and probably Nordair.
The North Warning Sites were built by Bot construction. At least as far east as about Cambridge Bay. Radar by Paramax. Flying was NWT Air, first air, Borek, Aklak, Adlair and Cdn Helicopters.
Forget who built the FOL sites, but it wasn't the CE fOlks from the Forces. And when they left, the boneheads left all the lights on for five months.
There'll be military QA guys I'm sure. But building a new base?
Dunno
The Dewline was built by IT&T and subcontractors. The flying was mainly PWA Arctic Air Arctic Wings and probably Nordair.
The North Warning Sites were built by Bot construction. At least as far east as about Cambridge Bay. Radar by Paramax. Flying was NWT Air, first air, Borek, Aklak, Adlair and Cdn Helicopters.
Forget who built the FOL sites, but it wasn't the CE fOlks from the Forces. And when they left, the boneheads left all the lights on for five months.
There'll be military QA guys I'm sure. But building a new base?
Dunno
Re: Canada looking at building military bases in Arctic
First of all, I don't see there being any major northern projects in the near future.SAR_YQQ wrote:My speculation is that this would be largely a CF centric project. The costs involved with civilian contracting up that far north would most probably be prohibitive.
But when it/if something did get built, there's no way it would "CF centric".
Ever seen the military guys dock a twin otter?
'Nuff said.
Re: Canada looking at building military bases in Arctic
To bad you're currently going the dead opposite direction for it.SAR_YQQ wrote:I'm looking forward to more in the way of Arctic basing/missions. Some of my best flying has been north of 80.

____________________________________
I'm just two girls short of a threesome.
I'm just two girls short of a threesome.
Re: Canada looking at building military bases in Arctic
Still need to plan for my future - gotta go somewhere in 4 years. I'll get my heavy time down here and then go back to flying Twotters off eskers north of 80.mcrit wrote:To bad you're currently going the dead opposite direction for it.