We would rather have the submarine

[MagicRat]

I liked this article. Canada's tax dollars are being used to dismantle Russian nuclear powered submarines, mostly to make sure the nuclear fuel is kept safe.

All of Canada's subs are diesel, including some recent 'Oberon' class subs.

We could use a few nuclear subs to patrol the Arctic ocean, chase Denmark off a disputed island near Greenland and surprise some Portuguese fishing trawlers illegally poaching fish in our waters.

I say don't dismantle them. Our 24 million should buy a couple of dozen.
(Next, I say, lets buy an aircraft carrier!!)

OTTAWA (CP) - Canada has agreed to spend $24.4 million to help Russia scrap three Cold-War-vintage nuclear submarines, Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew announced Wednesday.

The agreement says Canada will eventually help dismantle 12 of the Victor-class subs, at a cost of more than $100 million. Russia has 56 retired submarines awaiting disposal in the Barents Sea region, Foreign Affairs said.

The Canadian contribution is part of a $20-billion program to help dispose of Russian nuclear weapons and materials, which was announced at the Kananaskis, Alta., G-8 summit meeting two years ago.

"Spent nuclear fuel in Russian submarine reactors presents an international security risk and an environmental threat to the Arctic and Barents Sea," Mr. Pettigrew said. "Funding this initiative is a key element of our international security agenda."

Canada joins Britain, Norway, Japan, Germany and the U.S. in funding Russian nuclear submarine dismantling.

Canada plans to contribute up to $1 billion to the G-8 program over 10 years.

At the end of the Cold War, Russia was left with nearly 200 nuclear submarines rusting at the dockside. The Victor-class boats were the workhorses of the Soviet-era sub fleet.

Scrapping decommissioned nuclear subs is a long and costly process. The vessels have to be guarded, moved to a defuelling facility and stripped of their radioactive fuel. That material has to be safely disposed of, along with radioactive equipment such as the reactor itself.

[twospirits]

Strange, but I always thought Canada did have nucleur powered subs. Guess i was wrong. Its true one learns something new each day.
Maybe Canada should build their own rather than get the old stuff from Russia, not knowing how well stable they are. Do you know where they are going to place the fuel?

[YogsVR4]

24 million wouldn't pay for the frame of a sub. They run over a billion a piece.

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

24 million wouldn't pay for the frame of a sub. They run over a billion a piece.

You have missed the point of this thread.
Countries are paying money to rid the world of the problem of these subs. They don't cost anything because they have no value.

Technically speaking they HAVE NEGATIVE VALUE as money must be spent to make them disappear.
Therefore, we could be paid for taking them away! The money could be spent to spruce them up then go on a nuclear cruise.

(Can't you tell I'm an accountant in real life? )

[taranaki]

A lesson in how to channel money into making the world a safer place.Sure as shit it's smarter than some of the initiatives being conducted under the same banner at the moment.

[twospirits]

opps, my bad, I mis-read it as saying 24 billion.

[NavyFord18]

Ok, I am in sub's myself, so I think I have a little wieght here. Listen, the thing with sub's is this, a surface boat can perform a number of different task, no matter what is was made for. But, a sub is good for only stopping a ship or ship's from doing ANYTHING! sub's (britian and US namely) are so quiet that all things thought about, the only sure way to tell if a sub is even in an area is when ship's start coming up gone. that cost money. just the threat of a sub in the area is enough to send whole fleets packing. We don't need more, we don't know what to do with alot of the ones we have. sub's are seeing job's in SPECOP mission as transports and escort, and as massive criuse missile platforms. So, everyone (namely us) will always have them, but not always need them.

[DGB454]

They should be put on E-Bay.

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by NavyFord18

Ok, I am in sub's myself, so I think I have a little wieght here. Listen, the thing with sub's is this, a surface boat can perform a number of different task, no matter what is was made for. But, a sub is good for only stopping a ship or ship's from doing ANYTHING! sub's (britian and US namely) are so quiet that all things thought about, the only sure way to tell if a sub is even in an area is when ship's start coming up gone. that cost money. just the threat of a sub in the area is enough to send whole fleets packing. We don't need more, we don't know what to do with alot of the ones we have. sub's are seeing job's in SPECOP mission as transports and escort, and as massive criuse missile platforms. So, everyone (namely us) will always have them, but not always need them.

Agreed.
Although my post was intended to be funny, Canada has unique coastal patrol issues of which you may not be aware. We have many thousands of miles of coastline on 3 oceans and not enough presence or patrols to exert soverienty. Even the US does not recognise Canada's territorial claim to much of our arctic waters, because of our relative inability to patrol them.
This is mostly a Cold War hangover (discouraging intrusion from then Soviet subs) ,and is not a big issue between Canada and the States. However, if Canada wants to claim those waters, our navy should have something floating around in it, other than summer, when an icebreaker can get through. A nuclear powered sub is perfect.

[Flatrater]

Originally Posted by MagicRat

Agreed.
Although my post was intended to be funny, Canada has unique coastal patrol issues of which you may not be aware. We have many thousands of miles of coastline on 3 oceans and not enough presence or patrols to exert soverienty. Even the US does not recognise Canada's territorial claim to much of our arctic waters, because of our relative inability to patrol them.
This is mostly a Cold War hangover (discouraging intrusion from then Soviet subs) ,and is not a big issue between Canada and the States. However, if Canada wants to claim those waters, our navy should have something floating around in it, other than summer, when an icebreaker can get through. A nuclear powered sub is perfect.

So are you saying that you are afraid of the US invading Canada?

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by Flatrater

So are you saying that you are afraid of the US invading Canada?

Well, when the US realises that Canada has the second largest proven oil reserves in the world (true!) we will be!

Seriously, there are two distinct issues here.

Most nations recognise a 200 mile limit for soverignty most coastal waters, except, of course where it runs into another nations jurisdiction, At that time, boundaries are agreed upon.
The US slone does not recognise this in the Arctic waters. They say there is a 12 mile limit for Canadian soverignty off the Arctic coast.
(They recognise 200 mile limits for the Atlantic and Pacific coasts)

So why this inconsistency on the part of the Americans??

Its so the US forces can patrol in Canadian waters to deter the Soviets during the Cold War without asking for permission. At the time, Canadian and US Arctic defences were, and largely still are so closely tied that it was just a minor point of contention and never amounted to much.

However, these days, Canada's claim and control over those waters would be strengthened with a stronger presence there, as much for a diplomatic show as for actual defence. Everything would help, whether its subs, ice breakers, dog sleds on the ice, etc.
Canada is making strides towards this goal though, with new ice breakers, modern maritime patrol aircraft, settlements etc.