Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!fred
From: fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: A naval presence in the arctic
Message-ID: <2168@mnetor.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 13-Sep-85 09:56:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: mnetor.2168
Posted: Fri Sep 13 09:56:20 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Sep-85 11:25:22 EDT
References: <1386@utcsri.UUCP> <5952@utzoo.UUCP>
Reply-To: fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams)
Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 43
Summary: 

In article <5952@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> ... I
>> can see no way of arming an icebreaker (and a civilian one at that) to take
>> on subs under the ice that would not be hopelessly high-tech.
>
>In fact, there is no way, high-tech or not.
>
    Quite right! There is no way an icebreaker is going to take on 
nuclear subs in the artic. Launching smart torpedoes *might* score
a hit if a nuclear sub was encountered, but the subs would have no
difficulty knowing where the ice breaker was, and they are much faster!
The ice breaker would simply never see them.
    However, subs are not the only threat to our claim to the artic.
We need something there to chase out the surface craft that are there
expressly to challenge our claim, and we need teeth in those waters.
Not large teeth, but very sharp!

>Nuclear submarines are very expensive, which is one reason why they are
>not more widespread.  Another reason is that the few nations which build
>them have shown no inclination whatever to export them.  Maybe we could
>convince Britain to sell us some; I'm unsure about the US.
>
    Why not let the Americans use their own subs in the area?  If we
give them permission, then it is no threat to us. They are the ones
who are really worried about the Soviets in the arctic anyway. I
rather expect that both Soviets & Americans have been into the area
with their subs in a big way for many years now. It hasn't hurt us
at all, because they're not talking about it. The major threat is that
one of them might break down and pollute the water.

>
>My conclusion is that we basically cannot afford an antisubmarine force
>that would be effective in the Arctic, and we should not waste money
>building an ineffective one.  We should concentrate on *monitoring* subs
>in the Arctic, and doing something about them once they either surface or
>leave the icecap area.

    Exactly so!

-- 
Cheers,      Fred Williams,
UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!fred
BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 318