Ice update

[NoTies]

After the usual panic about heavy ice conditions down here the cargo ship and fuel tanker have both successfully unloaded and have now left. The Russian icebreaker that was chartered lost a prop blade and did some serious damage to the rest of it's underwater gear but a few jury rigged repairs kept it alive. At one stage we had a passenger ship assiting with the vessel escort and channel "milling" duties.
Have just looked out the window and seen the US Coastguard breaker Polar Star heave into view. They were emergency dispatched from Seattle as a contingency measure and reached far enough south that they were committed to come all the way down just to refuel to make it back home. 14 hours bunkering and they will head back to Seattle, hope they brought plenty of books and games along.
An interesting aside. Due to NZ's no nukes policies and the US neither confirm nor deny response, the Coastguard vessels are prevented from entering NZ ports. An exception to this was made some years ago when one of them broke so badly she had to be towed back north and after much diplomatic wrangling was allowed to dock in NZ for repairs.
Ice breakers with missiles?

[SailorPaul]

Gimme a break. I spent five seaons on the ice. The "neither confirm nor deny" is an example of both of our governments being pig-headed and stupid.

Nukes are not part of the mission description of the USCG. What are they going to do, use heat from the blast to melt the ice right under their bow?

Nice to see the Polar Star is still having fun. At least now she can cut ice -- the reversible props in year one were a little problimatic.

[markpj23]

Yeah - they tried giving the Coasties those SADM / MADM devices (Small Atomic Demolition Munition / Medium Atomic Demolition Munition - both man-portable by the way) to clear the ice jams BUT they couldn't build a spar long enough to prevent the blast from sinking the ship. (Those who know of the C.S. Hunley will understand).

Kinda went the way of that nuclear-powered aircraft the Army Air Corps tried to build in the 50s....

Hey speaking of Coasties... being an ex-Navy guy, we were always told that you had to be over 6 feet tall to join the Coast Guard.... so that if the boat sank you could WALK HOME

No nasty notes... step away from the keyboard.....

[Alan Wheeler]

The Hunley. Mate!! if the film depicts what happened with even half accuracey, I have the greatest repect for the bravery of those men.

Yep the "confirm/deny" is pig headed, but I have to say on the part of the US. All we ask is if they want to send a ship here, they state it isn't nuclear powered, or carrying nuclear weapons. Simple! It's not JUST our GVT, it's also us Kiwi's that want this. I can't understand what the whoooharrr is all about. We don't know if an ice breaker is Nuke powered. Surely it can't hurt US security to say an icebreaker isn't Nuke powered. What are they trying to hide or be so pig headed about.
Oooops, this is starting to border on Political, so maybe I should retract that. I don't want this to end in a heated political argument, so just tell me if I have stepped to far and I will delete my post.

[rsn48]

Interesting to get a post from Antarctica; I'd love to hear more. The news and observation doesn't have to be profound. What's a typical day like there, hows the food, you know the every day stuff would be interesting.

[roverhi]

Who is being pig headed, the Kiwi's or the US?? Nuclear power and weapons are a way of life and they aren't going to go away. Nuclear power is our only currently viable, large scale, non greenhouse gas generating method of producing electricity.

Yes I know all about-geo thermal but that's limited to very specific areas and apparently hasn't been able to be developed into a major source of power, in any case.

If the Kiwi's wish to be mired in '60s dead end policies, it's their loss.

Aloha
Peter O.

[SailorPaul]

I spent a lot of time in NZ and understand the sensitivties. BUT give me a break...
1. if the USCG takes on thousands of tons of diesel fuel for bunkers -- she's not nuclear powered.

2. if the public specifications page lists her as having diesel-electric engines, plus gas turbines for thick ice -- she's not nuclear powered.

3. the "neither confirm nor deny" says nothing -- it's just a way to stay off the slippery slope of "Well, you told me about this one..."

Common sense should be applied.

[BC Mike]

It is a simple question. A mature approach should be able to come up with an answer. NZ and the US have been working together in the deep South for many years. It would help if the US accepted the fact that other countries have different views about things, rather than try to bully their ideas on to others. I am trying to get some boat talk in here but all I can come up with is Dennis Conner and his babble about cheating and hull thickness. Quite a startling display of ignorance at the time. For browny points give me the occassion.
Michael

[Wukong]

Quote:
"It is a simple question."

The US is a global power and we cannot have a policy for every soveriegn nation on the globe. If someone has to ask a stupid question. They will get a stupid answer.

[Alan Wheeler]

Oh boy, i am, simply not going to bite.

First you have to understand who we are as a nation. We are small and the only way we can survive in the "big world out there", is to have a point of difference. So our country is marketed as clean and green. OK, it has it's err slightly grey areas', but mostly, we are clean and green. Hey Sean eats Venison from NZ becuase he knows it has been raised in a very special way. We have huge tourism here, it is a major income for us. We export produce all over the world because the world "trusts" our product for how itis produced and the environment it is produced in. So imagine what would happen if we had the slightest little accident down here with nuclear energy. We would be wiped off the face of the earth as far as our income was concerned and someone may just as well have dropped a bomb on us. So it isn't about the "nuclear" part as much, it is about the potential risk if something should ever go wrong. Plus I think it is fair to say, we Kiwis don't support the idea of using nuclear weapons anywhere anytime anyway.
As a Kiwi, it is our view it is the US that is Pig headed. OK, firstly, it's not about JUST nuclear power being the engine of the vessel. It is about Nuclear full stop. Weapons, powerplants, whatever.
Secondly, you may argue about green house gasses and blah blah, but what do you do with the waste? And yep, I know they are really really really safe, but we still have had incidences in the world.
And lastly, if there wasn't an issue, how come when other countries are trying to ship waste around the world, no other country wants to have the ship come through their teritorial waters.
So to have a comment like "Hey we are a Global power, so we have the right to do what we want" which in a nutshell is what is being suggested, just show's plain ignorance of the rest of the world and the rest of the worlds views looking back at the US.(ooops I bit)
As for the US policy of confirm or deny argument. Firstly, a foriegn vessel is a Visitor to NZ. So Of course we have a right to ask. Remember, the question is not JUST the power plant. Why should we believe a spec on a piece of public paper. We want a standing official to tell us, no problem Kiwis, this vessel has no Nucs whatsoever. And we would say, great, come on in and have a cold one. For the US official to deny telling us, we would be silly if we did not think it maybe had something nuclear onboard.

[coot]

I don't see the big deal.

New Zealand says "we won't allow nuclear powered or nuclear armed vessels in our territory". Even if you don't agree with the reasons for that choice, 1) there are good reasons, and 2) it's their country, and that makes it their choice to make.

The US says "we won't say which of our military ships have nuclear materials on board". Even if you don't agree with the reasons for that choice, 1) there are good reasons, and 2) it's their ship, and that makes it their choice to make.

So what is the obvious answer? If the US doesn't send any military ships to NZ, then the US doesn't have to comment on nuclear materials and NZ doesn't have to accept ships that might have nuclear materials on board. Duh.

We don't necessarily have to assume pig-headedness. No compromise is possible, so I don't find it surprising that no compromise has been reached. Sometimes life is like that.

p.s. The "no confirm or deny" thing is about giving targeting information to potential enemies. A US ship in a NZ port would tell a Chinese or Russian observer that this particular ship is not carrying nuclear weapons.

[BC Mike]

When the nuclear plant blew up in the Ukraine the West coast of Canada monitored for radiation fall out, and they found it. It was not from the Ukraine, it was from Hanford Washington. Hanford did not confirm or deny, and likely would not have been detected if the sensors were not set up and monitored so closely.
Michael

[Wukong]

Alan,
You are absolutely right in saying that a US vessel is a "visitor" and you have a right to ask. We do not dispute NZ right to ask about nuclear weapons, propulsion or the radium that might be on the hands of a wrist watch. We are a nation with global defense commitments and have a policy that is known to all soverign nations to neither confirm or deny. If you want complete assurance you as a soveriegn nation have the right to deny entry. We will sail away and leave you in peace. How is that equated with bullying?

I like to put this bullying into perspective. For example the Straits of Molucca are vital to the national interest of nations in every part of the globe. Some one is going to patrol this waterway. The question is, who do you want to do it? The Chinese? The Japanese? The Indians? Why don't you Kiwis do it so we can go bully nations in other parts of the world.

North West Asia has been a explosive area for more than 60 years with an aggressive nuclear armed Soviet Union and a psycothic nation thing called North Korea and now a nuclear armed China. The one thing that keeps Japan from going nuclear is US Naval presence in the Pacific. If this is what passes for bullying these days, the US will continue to be the bully.

[GordMay]

”...The one thing that keeps Japan from going nuclear is US Naval presence...”, unless their constitution takes precedence over mere expedience.

[CaptainK]

And this is something Japan allowed into their country recently.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapc....ap/index.html