[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Grey Fox]

The only credible aerial threat to Canadian territory, sovereignty and populace is a copy-cat "9/11" attack – a danger that essentially cannot be defeated by fighter aircraft.

If you read the rest of the piece he does not consider Russia to be a credible threat for decades to come.  If that ever occurs then Canada would respond.  But his point is why respond to a threat like Russia with newgen fighters when the current infrastructure is more than up to the job.

We need new fighters tho. They don't have to be Gen5ers but the fleet of CF-18 are mostly always broken down.

[The Minsky Moment]

Russia is – and will be for decades – a weak economic and military power trying to play a significant role in world affairs, moving gradually closer to the western industrialized nations and not exhibiting a perceptible effort to build up offensive military capabilities.

Huh?  (EDIT: comment directed to the globe writer, not cc)
Russian military spending has been increasing steadily for 14 straight years.  It has increased faster than any other significant power other than China.  It is easily the #3 military power in the world. (i.e. definitively ranks above Canada) And while technologically it may not be up to the top western gear, they do know how to make jet aircraft.  Purchasing 5th gen would help Canada secure a qualitative advantage, though certainly not a quantitative one.  Sticking to older gens would mean accepting technological parity or perhaps even worse over time.

Canada effectively shares a kind of border with Russia to the north, across a vast area of territory that as it happens:
(a) likely contains significant valuable resources
(b) is emerging as an important avenue for trade and commerce.
(c) is subject to conflicting claims of sovereignty and control that are not well defined under international conventions.

It does not require vast leaps of imagination to conceive of the possibility that significant tension could arise in the next couple of decades, in which the balance of airpower might be a relevant strategic consideration.

[Jacob]

Speaking of pipelines, CC, what's your take on this (the Kinder Morgan pipeline, not Northern Gateway): http://www.vancouversun.com/business/City+Vancouver+says+Kinder+Morgan+skirting+questions+about/10001618/story.html

This is the bit that stood out to me:

The city said the responses it did receive made it clear that the company will not cover the first responder costs incurred by Vancouver in the event of disaster

This, to me, is the crux of any pipeline project through BC. Oil is obviously essential to the modern world, and it's great that the Canadian economy is making money on it. What I'm not so keen on is that the environmental risks, including the financial part of it, is shunted off to the locals. If there's an oil spill, it seems only reasonable that the financial risk for cleaning it up should be borne by the people profiting from the sale of the oil or otherwise factored into the pricing of the oil, rather than have it shunted on to the BC taxpayers.

[crazy canuck]

Joan, why does Canada need a nextgen multirole fighter if what they really need is an interceptor?

[Jacob]

Russia is – and will be for decades – a weak economic and military power trying to play a significant role in world affairs, moving gradually closer to the western industrialized nations and not exhibiting a perceptible effort to build up offensive military capabilities.

Huh?  (EDIT: comment directed to the globe writer, not cc)
Russian military spending has been increasing steadily for 14 straight years.  It has increased faster than any other significant power other than China.  It is easily the #3 military power in the world. (i.e. definitively ranks above Canada) And while technologically it may not be up to the top western gear, they do know how to make jet aircraft.  Purchasing 5th gen would help Canada secure a qualitative advantage, though certainly not a quantitative one.  Sticking to older gens would mean accepting technological parity or perhaps even worse over time.

Canada effectively shares a kind of border with Russia to the north, across a vast area of territory that as it happens:
(a) likely contains significant valuable resources
(b) is emerging as an important avenue for trade and commerce.
(c) is subject to conflicting claims of sovereignty and control that are not well defined under international conventions.

It does not require vast leaps of imagination to conceive of the possibility that significant tension could arise in the next couple of decades, in which the balance of airpower might be a relevant strategic consideration.

Yeah, I don't have a dog in the jetfighter race really, but the assumption that Russia won't fuck with Canada in the next two decades or so seems... a bit optimistic. I mean, they may very well not, but I'm certainly less certain than the writer of that article.

[The Minsky Moment]

Joan, why does Canada need a nextgen multirole fighter if what they really need is an interceptor?

Does anyone make dedicated interceptors anymore?

Anyways, given the distances involved it would seem that Canada would want aircraft of sufficient range capable of flying to and loitering for some time over the Arctic, i.e something with decent range capable of carrying external tanks.  Like the F-35 for example.  I.e. not an interceptor. 

[garbon]

The only credible aerial threat to Canadian territory, sovereignty and populace is a copy-cat "9/11" attack – a danger that essentially cannot be defeated by fighter aircraft.

If you read the rest of the piece he does not consider Russia to be a credible threat for decades to come.  If that ever occurs then Canada would respond.  But his point is why respond to a threat like Russia with newgen fighters when the current infrastructure is more than up to the job.

Sorry I should have cropped more. I was confused about the idea how fighters cannot be used to prevent plane hijackers from using a hijacked plane as a weapon.

[crazy canuck]

Speaking of pipelines, CC, what's your take on this (the Kinder Morgan pipeline, not Northern Gateway): http://www.vancouversun.com/business/City+Vancouver+says+Kinder+Morgan+skirting+questions+about/10001618/story.html

This is the bit that stood out to me:

The city said the responses it did receive made it clear that the company will not cover the first responder costs incurred by Vancouver in the event of disaster

This, to me, is the crux of any pipeline project through BC. Oil is obviously essential to the modern world, and it's great that the Canadian economy is making money on it. What I'm not so keen on is that the environmental risks, including the financial part of it, is shunted off to the locals. If there's an oil spill, it seems only reasonable that the financial risk for cleaning it up should be borne by the people profiting from the sale of the oil or otherwise factored into the pricing of the oil, rather than have it shunted on to the BC taxpayers.

The bolded part is the important part.  I am not sure I am willing to accept at face value the characterization of the responses received by a municipal politician running for re-election during an election cycle. But taken at face value the position of the company is not unreasonable.  The company will be responsible for ensuring appropriate first response measures are in place so I am not sure why it should be liable for the first response others might wish to make.   But more importantly the pipeline doesnt even run through Vancouver and Port where the Tankers will be filled is not in Vancouver.  What Vancouver is saying is they want the company to make assurances regarding what happens when the Tankers transit through the waters adjacent to Vancouver.

That is an interesting issue because it engages a number of actors separate and apart from the pipeline company.  The Tanker company, the Vancouver Port Authority or other vessels could all be at fault for any accident which occurs in transit.  One could think of valid arguments as to why the pipeline company should not have any liability for costs responding to a tanker accident when, at that point, it will have nothing to do with the transport of the oil.   

[crazy canuck]

Joan, why does Canada need a nextgen multirole fighter if what they really need is an interceptor?

Does anyone make dedicated interceptors anymore?

Anyways, given the distances involved it would seem that Canada would want aircraft of sufficient range capable of flying to and loitering for some time over the Arctic, i.e something with decent range capable of carrying external tanks.  Like the F-35 for example.  I.e. not an interceptor.

I dont think the NORAD mission is to loiter in the Arctic for any amount of time.  The role is to intercept targets.

[The Minsky Moment]

I dont think the NORAD mission is to loiter in the Arctic for any amount of time. 

That's because NORAD doesn't give a crap about Canadian (or Russian) sovereignty claims in the Arctic.
The question is: does Canada?
If the answer is "yes" then Canada's options are either to try to convince the US to underwrite and enforce those claims in the event a pointy-edged stick is required, or acquire some credible domestic capability.

[Malthus]

I dont think the NORAD mission is to loiter in the Arctic for any amount of time. 

That's because NORAD doesn't give a crap about Canadian (or Russian) sovereignty claims in the Arctic.
The question is: does Canada?
If the answer is "yes" then Canada's options are either to try to convince the US to underwrite and enforce those claims in the event a pointy-edged stick is required, or acquire some credible domestic capability.

If Russia attacked Canadian territory to support its possible claims, whould this not be a NATO Article 5 matter? I can't see any scenario in which Canada took on Russia on its lonesome being very likely.

OTOH, if it is merely a measure of showing some presence in the arctic, icebreakers would be a more sound investment than fighter jets.

[Jacob]

The bolded part is the important part.  I am not sure I am willing to accept at face value the characterization of the responses received by a municipal politician running for re-election during an election cycle. But taken at face value the position of the company is not unreasonable.  The company will be responsible for ensuring appropriate first response measures are in place so I am not sure why it should be liable for the first response others might wish to make.   But more importantly the pipeline doesnt even run through Vancouver and Port where the Tankers will be filled is not in Vancouver.  What Vancouver is saying is they want the company to make assurances regarding what happens when the Tankers transit through the waters adjacent to Vancouver.

That is an interesting issue because it engages a number of actors separate and apart from the pipeline company.  The Tanker company, the Vancouver Port Authority or other vessels could all be at fault for any accident which occurs in transit.  One could think of valid arguments as to why the pipeline company should not have any liability for costs responding to a tanker accident when, at that point, it will have nothing to do with the transport of the oil.

Fair enough re: municipal politician, and also re: other parties possibly being responsible for a potential accident rather than the pipeline company specifically.

I do think that the City of Vancouver has a pretty compelling interest in potential oil spills in the waters adjacent to the city, even if we do not have jurisdiction over the area. It's not like a spill won't fuck up the city if it does happen.

The bottom line, for me, is that I want to see that potential environmental risks - including the financial components - are handled well and appropriately. If something goes wrong, anywhere along the logistic chain, I want there to be solid planning for quick and responsive clean up that is not paid for by BC and Vancouver residents.

Whether that is up to the pipeline company or some other entity is not that important to me, as long as I can be confident it's taken care of. Of course, the problem is that it's hard for me to determine whether that's the case or not.

[Josephus]

Are Canadians a bit dense?

Don't understand. Can you dumb it down a bit?

[crazy canuck]

I dont think the NORAD mission is to loiter in the Arctic for any amount of time. 

That's because NORAD doesn't give a crap about Canadian (or Russian) sovereignty claims in the Arctic.
The question is: does Canada?
If the answer is "yes" then Canada's options are either to try to convince the US to underwrite and enforce those claims in the event a pointy-edged stick is required, or acquire some credible domestic capability.

There are much better ways for Canada to assert sovereinty in the Arctic then to have nextgen fighters that can loiter in the area.   

[crazy canuck]

I do think that the City of Vancouver has a pretty compelling interest in potential oil spills in the waters adjacent to the city, even if we do not have jurisdiction over the area. It's not like a spill won't fuck up the city if it does happen.

I am not sure why you would think that.  The one time there was a spill, which btw was caused by third parties, there was no impact on Vancouver at all. 

The bottom line, for me, is that I want to see that potential environmental risks - including the financial components - are handled well and appropriately. If something goes wrong, anywhere along the logistic chain, I want there to be solid planning for quick and responsive clean up that is not paid for by BC and Vancouver residents.

Whether that is up to the pipeline company or some other entity is not that important to me, as long as I can be confident it's taken care of. Of course, the problem is that it's hard for me to determine whether that's the case or not.

If this approval process in anything like the Northern Gateway process there will be requirements for first response to be in place for everyone handling the oil.