Los Angeles Class sub

[Pongo]

We are talking about 1995ish when this was decided. Maybe 98

[Gunslinger]

I honestly can't speak for the military but I'm not sure if the US has an agreement with Canada like we do with the brits concerning Nuke tech.

Alot of the things that goes into a sub reacter is top secret....do we really want our bouncy head abooot saying neighbors to be able to come even slighly close to matching us in submarines????

I'm just kidding of course.  I'm equally confuse why the US gov wouldnt allow a sale to canada OR why Canad needs subs.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by GScholz
Well, I suppose they need subs for the same reason the US needs them. You tell me why they are necessary?

IMHO a submarine is more of an offensive weapon.

You can patrol/monitor more ocean surface using RADAR.....underwater there is the SOSUS net and the US whome I am assuming would detect any threat in Canadian waters as a threat to the US as well.

all this considering what I know and have read about Canada's military.....they are mostly a defensive force.  There are exceptions to that of course, but specifically their Navy is set up for deffense, not projection of power.  I could be wrong of course.

Again....not a pick on canada statement...I am eaqually confused at the veto of sale and the need for sale.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

The way I look at it, the U.S. has every right to decide who we share our technology with. We choose to share it with the British, but not the Canadians. We developed it, it is ours to do with as we please. Perhaps the U.S. government feels that the British are closer allies than the Canadians.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by GScholz
foreign nuke sub from operating in Canadian waters at will.

yes but were is the "threat" from that?

Again I'm basing this soley on the fact that IMHO subs are an "offensive" weapon system.  Who is going to attack canada by submarine.

You make a good point that they can add to the costal deffense of the US by operating there own subs but I honestly don't see the need for them w/ the canadian military.  

I honestly think we still keep our attack fleet because we don't know who is buying up cold war surpluss stuff.

That and delivery of special forces troops.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by GScholz
Well, not to be rude, but it is not the US' business to determine the needs of the Canadian military. They wanted nuke subs from Britain, you said no. Not very friendly, and not very logical from a defence standpoint, but very logical from a "we want to continue to operate in Canadian waters illegaly" standpoint.

if you are following the Illeagaly part of the statment I agree with you BUT

the US in this case makes a valid point....lending tech. to other countrys requires treaties and agreements and whos to say that Canada was not part of that treaty?   Although I'm not sure why.

I am mostly a realist though and realisticly Canada poses no threat in this deal Unless they then sell the subs to china/N. Korea or worse.

I however, don't see Canada doing that so this whole thing really doesnt make sense to me unless there is a treaty disput between Canada and the US.  

At the same time I do not see why the Canadian navy needs submarines.

[Wolfala]

GS,

Its a technology transfer, and Canada is a signatory of the NPT - and especially dealing with nuclear components in a post 9/11 enviroment. The Brits have their fleet for the sole purpose of a survivable first strike nuclear capability. 2 in the shop, 2 on patrol. I just came back from Russia 2 weeks ago and the Northern fleet, if you do your research is a shadow of what it was 15 years ago. There is no need for Canada, who in Gunny's honest opinion which I agree with being an analyst for the Navy - needs fast attack boats when their primary mission is loiterial within 200 miles of shore. Diesels, are quieter and better suited for those purposes.

Why do you think the US is going completely ape about China's diesel fleet and being able to detect them? Because they are a bricks hurl away from Taiwan and whatever Carrier group we currently have over there making life difficult.

Also your argument about operating illegally in canadian waters doesn't hold up since international law allows anyone to operate within 12 miles of the coastline. Economic exclusion zones don't count as a coastline.
Wolfala

[Wolfala]

There is a very short list of countries (China) being the only one that operates a boomber - and its a single sub that rarely leaves port: check your facts. The current proliferation trend is towards Diesel boats since they can be developed for a fraction of the cost, its a mature technology everyone knows how to use, and theres fewer problems. There are maybe 3 blue water fleets in the world right now - US, UK and France.

Russia's Typhoons are being retired because the reactors while giving greater power output use a sodium loop and have a tendancy to leak when its least expected. Russia's surface fleet, aside from maybe the Kirov and the Minsk is pretty much laid up and non functional for the forseeable future.

As for defense against cruise missiles - Subs are woefully under equipped to counter that given that any given time there are over 50,000 ships of all types operating in the atlantic on a given day. You'd be better off setting up a quarentine on airspace at the 12 mile ADIZ on the entire coastline - which is impractical.



Wolfala

[Wolfala]

Originally posted by GScholz
I don't think the NPT is a concern here. These are naval nuclear reactors, and Canada surely already has the technology to make reactors if they want. Probably bombs too. I know we do.




That is true ... however in peacetime when operating within 200 nautical miles of a foreign nation a submarine must sail on the surface and announce its presence.

Navy reactiors use HEU (Highly Enriched Uranium) which is weapons grade material - yes it is a proliferation concern. I did my senior thesis on nuclear proliferation and taught a class on nuclear weapons, war and arms control. I can stay up pretty late if you want to debate this point.  

Show a me a rule book about a sub needing the run on the surface - I lived next to where they built the 688's in New London CT, and i've flown over those submarines as they dove within the 12 mile restriction. Here's an example off Block Island just east of Long Island New York.

[Wolfala]

Originally posted by GScholz
Ok, I can understand that, but does not Canada have this technology already?

Section III of the 1958 Geneva Convention, the rule is established that transit is innocent only “so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state.” The last section of the article also requires that submarines exercising the right of innocent passage navigate on the surface, showing their flag.

I refer you to my previous post while emphasizing on the word "foreign". You can do whatever you like in your own waters. Nice picture though.

Simply put - no. They had a research reactor back in 1945 but are an NPT signatory. They havn't pursued breeder reactors or anything regarding HEU fuel or Plutonium enrichment technology which is weapons applicable only.

Then I guess its a good reason that submarines are the origional stealth technology. But I suspect the reasoning behind not caring has to do with the cooperative nature of the US/CANADA with BMEWS, EWR, PAVE PAWS, DEW LINE and NORAD.

Clearly the US/CANADA's security is intertwined - so foreign might be referred to those countries other then US and CANADA operating within those loitorial limits.



Wolfala

[Wolfala]

Originally posted by GScholz
I find it hard to believe that a modern, western nation like Canada does not have the technological knowledge to make nuclear reactors or weapons, even tiny Norway has this. We could probably cobble a nuke together in a 6-12 month time span if we made the effort.

Of course if you have a defence treaty that includes the free operation of submarines in Canadian waters, it's fully legal.

Thats not the point GS - the knowlege has existed for the last 60 years. If you had enough HEU, which is the hardest thing about building a nuclear weapon is getting the required amount of fissile material,  you don't even sophsticated explosive lenses - you just make a gun-type weapon like that was used on Hiroshima - that one didn't even need to be tested. The problem that countries will run into is getting the requisit amount of fissile material.

If you look at how Iraq tried to go about it with Osarik and its enrichment facilities that it hid very very well - they spent a tremendous amount of money on trying to hide the infrastructure to allow them to get that requisit amount of fissile material. Thankfully, they never did or it might be a smoking irradiating ruin courtesy of israel - don't think for a second they wouldn't after the Supergun incident after Gulf war 1.

[Wolfala]

Norway is an NPT signatory with its first research reactor brought critical in 1959. There is only 1 operating power reactor within the country and there are no enrichment facilities. As for the question of HEU would be in violation of the NPT - remember, the NPT was made to prevent the export of technology related to the proliferation of nuclear weapons: hence non proliferation treaty.

This is the sad state of arms control - you can violate that because there is very little in the way of verification by an overseeing entity. An example - Iran is an NPT signatory - yet today there is clear evidence that they and North Korea helped in developing Pakistan and India's ballistic missile program to what it is today.

So it really depends - is the answer. My guess is nobody would care about a reactor used domestically. They would care if that reactor was shipped to the DPRK however. I'm not the State Department - they make the rules.



Wolfala

[Wolfala]

Accoring to the stats i've got - you guys have 1 power reactor and 1 research reactor.

[Wolfala]

If you want a good reference; this is what I had my students read as a primer: The Technology's underlying Weapons of Mass Destruction. You can download the PDF from this website.


http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1993/9344_n.html

[Otto]

Can anyone  show me one reference on the ‘net’ to the United States denying Canadian purchase of Nuclear Submarines?   I’ve tried very hard and I can’t find a thing.

There is a lot of opposition within Canada it’s self but I can’t even find a ‘Conspiracy’ site that says the US stopped it.

(I did find mention of the U.S. Navy being happy that Canada was going to have non-nuclear subs so each Navy could cross-train there sub and surface fleets on the various types)