Icebreakers

Inherency: Some important facts about the status quo Fact 1: Status Quo has 1 heavy and 1 medium icebreaker. While a new heavy icebreaker has been proposed for inclusion in the federal budget, it would only replace the existing icebreaker Polar Star when it is retired. [1] With the reactivation of Polar Star, the operational U.S. polar icebreaking fleet consists of one heavy polar icebreaker (Polar Star) and one medium polar icebreaker (Healy). The new polar icebreaker for which initial acquisition funding is requested in the FY2013 budget would replace Polar Star at about the time Polar Star’s 7- to 10-year reactivation period ends. Fact 2: We need 6 heavy-duty icebreakers and 4 medium icebreakers [2] One Coast Guard study determined the agency and the Navy need six heavy duty icebreakers and four medium icebreakers, the senators said. The reduction in Arctic ice has created more opportunities for Northwest Passage trade, fishing and oil exploration, as well as more environmental and security concerns. The icebreakers also travel to Antarctica to resupply McMurdo Station. The risks: Inadequate icebreaking capability leads to 3 RISKS: Risk 1. Arctic Ice Hazards. Warming Arctic climate alters the dynamics of ice floes and creates a more hazardous maritime environment [3] Arctic multi-year ice has been declining over the past 30 years and as a result there are more “ice free” days in the Arctic. However, this does not equate to an inherently safer environment. The resultant effect of this open water is increased wave action due to the wind’s effect on the greater area of the ocean’s surface, which causes large sheets of sea-ice to breakaway, forming large ice-floes up to a half-mile in size. Sea-ice floes of increasing size and frequency, driven unpredictably by winds and currents, create a more dynamic and hazardous maritime environment. From a practical standpoint, this “open water” and potential increase in human activity in the region presents additional risks for people, vessels, and the environment. Risk 2: Increased Arctic Shipping. Increased shipping in the Arctic increases icebreaking requirements [4] Although polar ice is diminishing due to climate change, observers generally expect that this development will not eliminate the need for U.S. polar icebreakers, and in some respects might increase mission demands for them. Even with the diminishment of polar ice, there are still significant ice-covered areas in the Polar Regions. Diminishment of polar ice could lead in coming years to increased commercial ship, cruise ship, and naval surface ship operations, as well as increased exploration for oil and other resources, in the Arctic—activities that could require increased levels of support from polar icebreakers. Risk 3: Antarctic Research. The US presence in Antarctica cannot be sustained without substantial icebreaking capabilities, and missions are at risk of failure[5] The principal role of the U.S. Coast Guard has been to provide logistics support to the U.S. Antarctic Program by breaking a channel into McMurdo Sound to allow resupply of McMurdo Station by tanker and cargo ships. Supplies from McMurdo are transferred to the South Pole Station by air, recently supplemented on a developmental basis by ground traverse. Icebreakers are a lifeline to and critical for the maintenance of USAP operations at the shore of McMurdo Sound and at the South Pole. Until recently, the two Polar class icebreakers (sometimes together and sometimes separately depending on ice conditions) were used to break open a channel for resupply. However, more challenging ice conditions and the deteriorating status of the Polar class ships now adds uncertainty and risk of failure to the operation. The National Science Foundation (NSF) is concerned that the lack of reliable icebreaking support may make it increasingly difficult to maintain the permanent stations and associated science programs. Investigations of alternate logistics plans by NSF (discussed in Chapter 8) have reaffirmed that icebreaker support is necessary to the Antarctic resupply chain for now and in the foreseeable future. I have the “Six Plus Four” plan, to be implemented by Congress, the Navy and the Coast Guard: 1. Over the next 2 years, buy 6 heavy and 4 medium icebreaker ships and assign them to the Coast Guard. 2. Funding from cutting Head Start. 3. Plan takes effect 30 days after an Affirmative ballot 4. Enforcement through normal military discipline and existing defense contracting procurement laws. 5. Affirmative speeches may clarify the plan Advantage 1: Increased national security. Icebreakers are critical to US national security in the Arctic[6] Access to the Arctic has received broad support in Congress. While the purchase of a new icebreaker has been supported by both Alaska senators, senators including Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Maria Cantwell, DWash., say the acquisition of a new icebreaker is a national priority. "Icebreakers are of critical importance to America's national security as well as our economic interests in the Arctic," Cantwell said in a statement. "According to the Coast Guard's own comprehensive analysis, we need to invest in at least six new icebreakers to fulfill our nation's icebreaking missions." Advantage 2. Arctic development. Icebreaking capability is key to resource development in the Arctic[7] Although polar ice is diminishing due to climate change, observers generally expect that this development will not eliminate the need for U.S. polar icebreakers, and in some respects might increase mission demands for them. Even with the diminishment of polar ice, there are still significant ice-covered areas in the Polar Regions. Diminishment of polar ice could lead in coming years to increased commercial ship, cruise ship, and naval surface ship operations, as well as increased exploration for oil and other resources, in the Arctic— activities that could require increased levels of support from polar icebreakers. Economic & Environmental benefits. New shipping routes in the Arctic will create economic and environmental advantages over existing routes [8] With reductions in the extent of sea ice, the long-term horizon creates the possibility of increasing usage of Arctic waters for transport shipping. New shipping routes through the Arctic could have similar effects and impacts to that of the transformation of the Middle East by the opening of the Suez Canal, where benefits would include the potential distances saved and associated economic and environmental advantages (in terms of reduced voyage time, reduced fuel consumption and reduced emissions). Advantage 3. Polar science. [9] Polar research has brought, and will continue to bring, tangible societal benefits. The success of polar research is intimately linked to the availability of appropriate infrastructure and logistical support to allow scientists to work in these natural laboratories whose unique settings enable research on fundamental phenomena and processes that are feasible nowhere else. Access to the polar regions, predicated on the availability of adequate icebreaking capability, is essential if the United States is to continue as a leader in polar science. Advantage 4: Antarctic Leadership. Treaty jeopardized. Without US presence, the Antarctic Treaty is jeopardized and a scramble for control breaks out [10] According to a representative of the Department of State assigned to Antarctic issues, if resupply of South Pole Station is not successful and the station were abandoned, this would jeopardize, and probably reduce, the influence of the United States in Antarctic governance. There would be significant consequences because abandonment of that key site would create a vacuum in leadership and likely result in a scramble for control. Abandoning it would be detrimental to the U.S. position as well as to the stability of the treaty system. To preserve the U.S. presence in Antarctica and hence its influential role in the Antarctic Treaty, it is paramount to maintain the three permanent research stations and their associated active research programs throughout the Antarctic continent. Icebreaker operations are critical to the continued existence of these stations and their associated outlying field sites. We prevent war. Maintaining the Antarctic Treaty prevents international conflict [11] For the last 50 years a tenth of the Earth has been regulated peacefully and in the interest of scientific research. Negotiated during the cold war, the treaty has ensured that potential conflict over the seven largely unrecognised and disputed claims to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica has been avoided. Indeed, as Phillip C. Jessup argued before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the importance of the Antarctic Treaty “lies. . . in the fact that it will permit the last great empty continent from becoming an international bone of contention, a scene of controversy and actual fighting.” For the harms I have shown, the plan to prevent these harms, and the advantages of my plan vote affirmative. Due to no space I will paste the URLs in the comment section.