Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Military brass defend need for submarines to help patrol huge ocean
Canadian Press via Sun Media ^ | 2004-10-20 | Stephen Thorne

Posted on 10/20/2004 7:12:33 PM PDT by Clive

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

1 posted on 10/20/2004 7:12:36 PM PDT by Clive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Clive
Might want to buy the extended warranty this time:')
2 posted on 10/20/2004 7:14:39 PM PDT by CindyDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clive
Military brass defend need for submarines to help patrol huge ocean

As opposed to submarines needed to patrol tiny oceans? What kind of pinhead writes these headlines anyway? A grad-u-8 of jernalizm skewl?

3 posted on 10/20/2004 7:16:55 PM PDT by sionnsar (Cbs: "It's fake but true!" | Iran Azadi | Traditional Anglicans: trad-anglican.faithweb.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clive

What do the Canadians need a military for, much less a submarine? Are they afraid of the French?


4 posted on 10/20/2004 7:19:35 PM PDT by BS69 (The Black Helicopter Society)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clive

If Canada were to have a submarine (again) they would probably just station it on Lake Erie.


5 posted on 10/20/2004 7:20:00 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
Someone HAS to tell the Canadians that submarines are NOT supposed to catch fire.
6 posted on 10/20/2004 7:22:12 PM PDT by 2thfxr ( letter I sent to Nightline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Clive

If you can't do something right, then maybe you shouldn't do it at all.


7 posted on 10/20/2004 7:22:49 PM PDT by Kirkwood (I think, therefore I am Republican!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson

The Canadians are devloping a new torpedo called the "Molson."

A six shot spread of them will send anyone to the bottom!


8 posted on 10/20/2004 7:23:35 PM PDT by montomike (Gay means happy and carefree not an abomination)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 2thfxr

They go under the water to put out the fire.


9 posted on 10/20/2004 7:23:56 PM PDT by BS69 (The Black Helicopter Society)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Great Dane; Alberta's Child; headsonpikes; coteblanche; Ryle; albertabound; mitchbert; ...

-


10 posted on 10/20/2004 7:24:45 PM PDT by Clive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clive
But Bloc Quebecois MP Claude Bachand pointed out the subs have limited capabilities under the polar ice cap, probably the most vulnerable region of Canada's 240,000-kilometre coastline.
"We require a presence up there," Bachand said.
Furthermore, he said aircraft - manned and unmanned - are quicker and more economical than submarines in any monitoring role,

Even under the polar ice cap, you cheese-eating surrender monkey?

11 posted on 10/20/2004 7:25:16 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Never apologise. Never explain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: montomike

LOL!


12 posted on 10/20/2004 7:27:36 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Clive

If you don't have subs, you may as well scrap the entire navy. Your boats will be absolutely defenseless against a modern sub force.


13 posted on 10/20/2004 7:27:38 PM PDT by Palmetto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clive

What is amazing is that Sweden, a country with 6 million people, can develop its OWN subs, and Canada a country with 25 million people, and MUCH more coast to patrol, needs to go to some other country's salvage yard and get a used sub.


14 posted on 10/20/2004 7:32:28 PM PDT by keithtoo (GOP: Faith , Family, Freedom. DemonRats: Traitors, Haters and Vacillators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Palmetto
"If you don't have subs, you may as well scrap the entire navy. Your boats will be absolutely defenseless against a modern sub force."

You obviously haven't seen their "navy". I have...subs won't help.

15 posted on 10/20/2004 7:33:24 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Clive

I think Canada is worried that those terrible Greenlanders may invade from the north.


16 posted on 10/20/2004 7:36:41 PM PDT by cynicom (<p)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clive

So, here's Canada trying to behave like a real country again. What's the saying? Canada's not so much a country as a location?


17 posted on 10/20/2004 7:39:31 PM PDT by NewHampshireDuo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
In all fairness to our ex-allies up north, they do have some legitimate concerns. Back during the original Bush Presidency the United States and Canada went through one of their periodic disputes over fishing rights along the Alaska/British Columbia border.

As part of this on again-off again dispute, the United States thumbed their nose at Canada and sent one of the Coast Guard's Polar Class icebreakers (virtually unarmed) through the Northwest Passage (up and over Canada) without gaining Canadian permission. Canada protested but were incapable of stopping an unarmed vessel from doing whatever it wanted.

A Canadian submarine wouldn't have changed the outcome but it might make them feel less impotent.

18 posted on 10/20/2004 7:40:09 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clive
The subs have been plagued by problems . . .including, rust, leaks

I can see where that would be a problem.

19 posted on 10/20/2004 7:40:32 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clive

I served on the USS Chicago from 89 - 92 when it visited Vancouver as part of an exercise. We were hosted by a Canadian surface ship, a common practice when a ship visits a foreign port.

The Canadian wardroom invited us over for dinner our first night in. They had a wet bar with a cook filing orders for all of us while we ate. I had two beers - couldn't believe we were allowed to do this. Then it came time to leave.

As we exited the quarterdeck, I noticed a chief standing at the brow giving breathalizer tests to people who were leaving the ship. I asked one of the Canadian officers with us what was up. He said they wanted to make sure no one was too drunk to go ashore and cause problems. Meanwhile, right across the pier, where the Chicago was moored, our topside watch was checking returning sailors to ensure no one was too drunk to come aboard.

Amazing difference between the two navies, huh?


20 posted on 10/20/2004 7:52:36 PM PDT by meisterbrewer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson