The United States' fleet of nuclear hunter-killer and ballistic missile submarines balks at this article.

As global warming opens the Arctic Ocean to commercial and industrial traffic


Lies! LIES! Stopped reading right there.

This is Obama's fault. If he didn't waste so much tax money on taking away our healthcare then we'd not have to worry about Russian ships sneaking into Sarah Palin's back yard.

BronyMedic: The United States' fleet of nuclear hunter-killer and ballistic missile submarines balks at this article.

Fine while they're hidden in deep water. If the US navy wants to operate surface ships in Canada's waters, they need to ask. Politely.

Who told this idiot that there are seven oceans?

hogans: Who told this idiot that there are seven oceans?

Pirates?

The problem with Demark is that they just don't know where to draw the line.

hogans: Who told this idiot that there are seven oceans?

Obama.

steerforth: Seven oceans?

Pacific
Atlantic
Indian
Southern
Arctic
Billy
?

You forgot the Caribbean queen.

Arrrrrrr...it be the seven seas ye be speakin' of ye scurvy landlubberin' journalist!

Never mind that seventh ocean. Where the fark is Demark?

publikenemy: Never mind that seventh ocean. Where the fark is Demark?

Its the thing following deplane in those indiana jones travel scenes.

steerforth: Seven oceans?

I believe this is a play on the phrase "sail the seven seas," which refers to all the world's oceans.

By the way, is it now possible for a ship to travel the northwest passage thru the Arctic ocean without icebreakers at some point in the summer season? If not, I'm tired of hearing about the new trade route.

I think the author needs to brush up on their ancient terms

The Seven Seas

I like how the article thinks it's a big deal that the US Navy would have to rely on Coast Guard assistance in any Arctic operations. Uh, it's all one military, no? There is such a thing as inter-service operations. Plus, the USCG's active strength is about 42,000; the combined strength of the Canadian and Danish navies is about 12,000. (Russia is a different story.)

If a crisis were to happen now, the Navy lacks the ability to act in the Arctic without the help of one of those countries or the Coast Guard.

1) So we have the capability on a national level. They just don't want to ask the 'puddle jumpers' for help.
2) Are we really afraid that a bunch of middle easterners in sandals are going to lead a charge across the Arctic? They blowed up all our buildings by buying one way tickets on our airlines, training in our schools and eventually crashing our planes. If they go nuclear it's 95% likely they're going to do it with something that we or Russia forgot went missing.

Jesus Christ and we wonder why we have no money. No Susie, you can't have that dental work done for free because brown people are going to attack through Canada.

I thought there were Eleven Oceans. I mean, that's what George Clooney told me.

Dosen't surprise me.
The US military has a habit of learning hard lessons, forgetting them, and Then having to learn them all over again. They've been rediscovering what happens without properly winterized gear in Afghanistan. You'd think they'd have kept it in mind after WWII.
They avoided buying mundane ships like icebreakers so they could develop expensive stealth destroyers. Now they'll have to call the Russians if global warming skips a year.
It's almost funny how this keeps happening.

McManus_brothers: I like how the article thinks it's a big deal that the US Navy would have to rely on Coast Guard assistance in any Arctic operations. Uh, it's all one military, no? There is such a thing as inter-service operations. Plus, the USCG's active strength is about 42,000; the combined strength of the Canadian and Danish navies is about 12,000. (Russia is a different story.)

Ummm, the Coasties aren't military. Para-military maybe, but not military. They have police powers unlike the military and are organized under the DHS not DOD.

In order to apprehend drug smugglers, Navy ships need to have a CG officer aboard to make it all legal like.

What the Danish Navy may look like:

I'd like to point out that the US Coast Guard has the icebreakers Healy, Polar Star, and Polar Sea. The Healy takes scientists to the north polar regions annually. Because of their age, the Polar series ships are soon to be de-commissioned which will leave the US government with very few icebreakers left in inventory.For over 100 years, the USCG has gained plenty of cold weather operational experience, they have developed excellent cold weather clothing and the special communications equipment required for the region. Also, they have trained crews flying rotary and fixed wing aircraft adapted to cold weather operations and cold water divers and rescue teams.

The swab jockeys over at the Pentagon ought to vist with the Coast Guard and get schooled.

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: Maybe if we could cancel a war, we could afford this. You just know the Navy's solution will be a carbon-fiber/unobtainium hybrid stealth icebreaker/drone shooter with railguns and transparent aluminum bridge, that'll do 80 knots through 10 feet of ice without leaving a trail, and the first time they deploy it, they'll find out that it can't be operated while it's snowing.

So you're familiar with DDG-1000?

darkscout: If a crisis were to happen now, the Navy lacks the ability to act in the Arctic without the help of one of those countries or the Coast Guard.

1) So we have the capability on a national level. They just don't want to ask the 'puddle jumpers' for help.
2) Are we really afraid that a bunch of middle easterners in sandals are going to lead a charge across the Arctic? They blowed up all our buildings by buying one way tickets on our airlines, training in our schools and eventually crashing our planes. If they go nuclear it's 95% likely they're going to do it with something that we or Russia forgot went missing.

Jesus Christ and we wonder why we have no money. No Susie, you can't have that dental work done for free because brown people are going to attack through Canada.

First, I think the Navy's more concerned about Russia and China than terrorists when it comes to the Arctic. Second, I don't think universal healthcare is based on how high the national debt is, and if it was I still wouldn't want to pay for her "free" dental work.

Tricky Chicken: McManus_brothers: I like how the article thinks it's a big deal that the US Navy would have to rely on Coast Guard assistance in any Arctic operations. Uh, it's all one military, no? There is such a thing as inter-service operations. Plus, the USCG's active strength is about 42,000; the combined strength of the Canadian and Danish navies is about 12,000. (Russia is a different story.)

Ummm, the Coasties aren't military. Para-military maybe, but not military. They have police powers unlike the military and are organized under the DHS not DOD.

In order to apprehend drug smugglers, Navy ships need to have a CG officer aboard to make it all legal like.

Ah, that's right, they're DHS now. I guess that renders my entire post pointless, because law enforcement and military are completely incapable of joint operations.

So the US would have to rely on other members of Nato, isn't that the purpose of allies?

/Welcome Aboard

Compared to US warships almost all others are like papier-mâché and tinfoil. Although they have (or had) some decent ships, the Russian navy is practically scrap metal at this point.

Icebreakers do not make a navy but the US certainly could use more.

Lt_Ryan: So the US would have to rely on other members of Nato, isn't that the purpose of allies?

/Welcome Aboard

Even worse. The U.S. would have to rely on using more than one branch of their armed forces and use the Coast Guard.

Tricky Chicken: Ummm, the Coasties aren't military. Para-military maybe, but not military. They have police powers unlike the military and are organized under the DHS not DOD.

In order to apprehend drug smugglers, Navy ships need to have a CG officer aboard to make it all legal like.

Not sure if troll or...

The men and women of the United States Coast Guard are considered uniformed services under Federal Law. They are military, subject to the same code of conduct and law as the military under the UCMJ, and able to participate in conflict the same as the United States Navy. Individuals in the coast guard are authorized to wear military awards and decorations the same as any other branch, and have done some pretty damn heroic things in combat.

The only difference is that they are exempt from Posse Comitatus because of their status as a DHS agency, not under the DOD. And Posse Comitatus does not prevent military forces from assisting Law Enforcement, only from enacting arrests.

is it really just 1 ocean anyway

Evilhippie: What the Danish Navy may look like:

[cdn.marineinsight.com image 400x300]


Just a little cooler then the Canadian counter part

McManus_brothers: Tricky Chicken: McManus_brothers: I like how the article thinks it's a big deal that the US Navy would have to rely on Coast Guard assistance in any Arctic operations. Uh, it's all one military, no? There is such a thing as inter-service operations. Plus, the USCG's active strength is about 42,000; the combined strength of the Canadian and Danish navies is about 12,000. (Russia is a different story.)

Ummm, the Coasties aren't military. Para-military maybe, but not military. They have police powers unlike the military and are organized under the DHS not DOD.

In order to apprehend drug smugglers, Navy ships need to have a CG officer aboard to make it all legal like.

Ah, that's right, they're DHS now. I guess that renders my entire post pointless, because law enforcement and military are completely incapable of joint operations.

He didn't say it renders your post pointless. Don't get so upset at the inaccuracy in your post being pointed out.

opiumpoopy: BronyMedic: The United States' fleet of nuclear hunter-killer and ballistic missile submarines balks at this article.

Fine while they're hidden in deep water. If the US navy wants to operate surface ships in Canada's waters, they need to ask. Politely.

And they do... because they're friends.

If you don't have the missiles, planes, and subs to back them up, your surface navy commands precisely two things: jack and squat.

In other news: The American telecommunications network is incapable of delivering 5Mbps speeds to my house for less than $100 per month. This is far more detrimental than the Navy's lack of icebreakers, but the Navy has more political clout so I'll bet they get the fanciest icebreakers money can buy.

Denmark?

I'm a big fan of Denmark but I thought they lost their Navy back when the English took it, no?

*Off to read more Danish history...

Is subby really crying because there is only one ocean left to conquer?

/geesh

Tricky Chicken: Ummm, the Coasties aren't military. Para-military maybe, but not military. They have police powers unlike the military and are organized under the DHS not DOD.

No, they are one of the five US Armed Forces. Being organized under the DHS and not the DOD doesn't make it not so.

darkscout: 1) So we have the capability on a national level. They just don't want to ask the 'puddle jumpers' for help.

The Coast Guard's capabilities are pretty meager too, even if the Navy did rely on them. See Section 5 of this report.

Smackledorfer: McManus_brothers: Tricky Chicken: McManus_brothers: I like how the article thinks it's a big deal that the US Navy would have to rely on Coast Guard assistance in any Arctic operations. Uh, it's all one military, no? There is such a thing as inter-service operations. Plus, the USCG's active strength is about 42,000; the combined strength of the Canadian and Danish navies is about 12,000. (Russia is a different story.)

Ummm, the Coasties aren't military. Para-military maybe, but not military. They have police powers unlike the military and are organized under the DHS not DOD.

In order to apprehend drug smugglers, Navy ships need to have a CG officer aboard to make it all legal like.

Ah, that's right, they're DHS now. I guess that renders my entire post pointless, because law enforcement and military are completely incapable of joint operations.

He didn't say it renders your post pointless. Don't get so upset at the inaccuracy in your post being pointed out.

Granted, it's a Sunday morning and I need coffee, but as others in the thread have pointed out, I'm technically correct in referring to the USCG as a branch of the US military.