The following editorial appeared in the Seattle Times:
Changing environmental and political conditions in the Arctic reinforce the need for the U.S. Coast Guard to have the equipment and vessels appropriate to the hazardous conditions.
U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and U.S. Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Wash., joined forces to secure passage of a Coast Guard authorization bill that maintains the nation’s capacity to deploy icebreakers to represent U.S. interests.
Melting polar ice caps are creating a new commercial and political dynamic, with the prospects of greater Arctic access as a trade route.
As a consequence, China, Japan and the Republic of Korea are seeking permanent observer status on the Arctic Council, which overseas policy issues in the region.
The United States barely has the capacity to maintain a presence in the Arctic or Antarctic, which makes the work done by Cantwell and Larsen so important.
Currently, the Coast Guard has one operational icebreaker, the Healy, a medium icebreaker primarily equipped for scientific research. The Coast Guard’s only heavy icebreaker, the Polar Star, is near completion of an extensive overhaul at Vigor Industrial shipyard in Seattle.
The Coast Guard authorization bill also halts efforts to scrap the Seattle-based icebreaker Polar Sea, unless the Coast Guard can produce a study that shows how the action helps meet the need for additional icebreakers. A planned dismantling of the Polar Sea was halted earlier this year after the Washington state’s congressional delegation interceded.
Both heavy-duty icebreakers would be kept in Seattle for the next 10 years under the legislation passed and sent to the White House.
Cantwell cites a Coast Guard study that concluded that six heavy-duty icebreakers and four medium icebreakers are needed to help meet Coast Guard and U.S. Navy mission requirements. The country is nowhere close. A new vessel can push $1 billion and take a decade to build.
Icebreakers represent a practical investment in the nation’s security and commercial interests.
Comments (8)
Add commentMission requirements?
operations support missions. What are the missions, aside from presence & monitoring US EEZ & territorial waters? If emerging missions are SOLAS and keeping sea lanes open for commerce & industry, then a strategic trade & energy policy is in order. A 10 yr investment to ramp up assets to support operations is pointless if the mission is not clear.
transfer funding
from the military budget to the Treasury Department is this is such a critical issue of security. Adding more funding to the USCG alone is nothing more than increasing our debts. I read yesterday a story regarding a billion dollar project the Air Force decided was not going to work so they abandoned the project. Of course the billion had already gone to contractors before the conclusion to end the project was made. That seems to be a recusing theme in many of our military funded projects: enter some major contract for development and then abandon the project. With that in mind I say transferring funding to provide for ice breakers under the USCG should be a practical solution for the funding issue.
I clearly remember the US Navy operated the ice breakers back in the late 60s. Only the US Military could stage two ice breakers in Boston for duty in Alaska waters and consider it practical. I was there when the USS Adak and USS Edisto were transferred to the USCG from the Navy. I was involved with the move of the helicopter crews back to a local naval air station outside of Boston. The big news issue back then was the Navy did not transfer the operational budget for the ice breakers to the Coast Guard.
Bit dated?
Treasury Dept.? USCG? Try DHS
They're needed
This is the next economic frontier and we shouldn't ignore it. We need to protect our interests. The countries going up there are not our friends. We're so weak up here. Remember, it took a Russian icebreaker with Korean fuel to save Nome.
Why do we need USCGC ice breakers?
the RS-flagged RENDA was trailing USCGC HEALY the whole time. HEALY cut the ice.
I agree ice-breakers are needed, but again -- what is the mission? If it's to facilitate off-shore drilling ops, then maybe the oil companies want to contract or build a fleet capable of operating in the Arctic.
Comment
Balancing the federal budget is a higher priority. Demand for government services is infinite but the ability to pay is limited. Sooner or later we need to tell Communist China that we are not going to repay them or else some federal programs need to be closed.
G-Dog
just who do you think is going to tell Red China anything in the next 4 yrs? Recall last kow-tow session with DEPUTY premier? US President licking shoestrings of the PRC's number one tea-steeper to the premier.
Once again US shortsightedness will push America to the brink
of interdiction. The Arctic is a global event, in more ways than one.
Get in the game.