Olympic security to cost $1-billion: federal government - Page 3

Canadian Mind · #41 Posted **Feb 3, 2009, 5:01 PM**

Ah, Seen. What a shitty-looking boat.

djmk · #42 Posted **Feb 3, 2009, 5:09 PM**

from the tyee

Military planes over Vancouver part of 2010 Games prep
By Geoff Dembicki February 2, 2009 06:32 pm

Vancouverites can expect to see military aircraft in the skies and navy vessels on the water when the second major security exercise for the 2010 Games gets underway next Monday.

Over 1,000 safety and security personnel will test Canada’s readiness for potential scenarios involving terrorism, earthquakes and extreme weather, assistant RCMP commissioner Bud Mercer of the 2010 Integrated Security Unit (ISU) announced today.

Mercer said the public should expect to see marine manoeuvres on Burrard Inlet and the coastline of Howe Sound and aircraft flying over the greater Vancouver area.

He added that local residents will not face any traffic or airport delays because of the security exercise, which runs from February 9 to 13.

“I don’t believe their lives will be impacted at all,” Mercer said.

The commissioner couldn’t give a precise dollar figure for the exercise because there will be over 100 departments, agencies and organizations from all levels of government involved. He pegged the cost of the operation for the ISU at $150,000.

Asked what the total security budget for the 2010 Games will be, Mercer declined to give a concrete answer. He said he hoped a precise figure would be announced this week.

Recent reports have put the total security cost at nearly $1 billion, which is more than five times Vancouver’s 2003 bid book projection of $175 million.

Next week’s security operation is termed “exercise silver” and follows on the heels of “exercise bronze,” which involved over 500 security personnel last November, Mercer said.

Rear-Admiral Tyrone Pile, head of the armed forces section of the ISU, said mountainous geography, open ocean and busy airways around Vancouver make providing a secure Games a challenge.

“It is not a surprise therefore that securing the Olympic Games is often described as the largest and most complex peacetime security operation in the world,” he said.

The ISU will be responsible for about 12,000 security personnel during the 2010 Games. That number includes 4,000 Canadian soldiers and 8,000 personnel from the RCMP, local police and private security companies.

Mercer said the United States will be involved in security planning but was adamant that there will be no American troops on the ground during next week’s exercise or the 2010 Games.

Geoff Dembicki is a staff reporter for the Hook.

twoNeurons · #43 Posted **Feb 3, 2009, 6:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

Aircraft carrier? Are you on drugs man? One aircraft carrier could house all our naval personell.

Icebreaker were the only broken promise so far there.

Well, the Kitty Hawk might be on sale.

Quote:

USS Kitty Hawk decommissioning in Bremerton

About 2,000 people are expected at an invitation-only decommissioning ceremony in Bremerton this Saturday for the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk, long known as "America's Flagship."

While the public is not invited to the event, at least they'll know that all those people on the ship's hangar deck are past crew members, friends and family gathering to honor the legacy of the 47-year old carrier as it leaves the nation's service. Ceremonies decommissioning the carrier will be held at Naval Base Kitsap's Pier D.

Canadian Mind · #44 Posted **Feb 3, 2009, 9:02 PM**

look at how muh trouble we are having with 4 15 year odl british subs, imagine the problems we'd have wit a 50 year odl aircraft carrier. There is a reason why it is being decommisioned.

And we wouldn't have the manpower to sail the thing anyways.

mr.x · #45 Posted **Feb 3, 2009, 9:03 PM**

I think this is a perfect time for us to invade a country....namely, Iceland.

We would so win it.

Of course, i'm kidding.

mr.x · #46 Posted **Feb 3, 2009, 10:58 PM**

The Canadian Pacific Fleet based in Esquimault (or at least 5 of the 6 big ships):

HMCS Vancouver

djmk · #47 Posted **Feb 3, 2009, 11:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr.x2

I think this is a perfect time for us to invade a country....namely, Iceland.

We would so win it.

Of course, i'm kidding.

iceland is in NATO. we would lose.

however, Bahamas is nice and warm

jlousa · #48 Posted **Feb 3, 2009, 11:20 PM**

Why invade, offer them canadian citzenship and $100K cash each, wouldn't even make a dent in our budget and you'd probably get over 50% of them to agree. Maybe raise it to $200K each and you might push that number to 2/3rds. Still cheaper then waging a war. Do the same with Greenland, offer them a cool Million each as there isn't very many of them and it's a large country.

metroXpress · #49 Posted **Feb 3, 2009, 11:24 PM**

^ Interesting pics

Yume-sama · #50 Posted **Feb 3, 2009, 11:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by djmk

iceland is in NATO. we would lose.

however, Bahamas is nice and warm

Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth would like to have a word with you.

Damn her title is long...

Metro-One · #51 Posted **Feb 3, 2009, 11:35 PM**

Wasn't there some islands in the Bahamas that wanted to join Canada? If so are we crazy not to do so? Canada seems to be the only major industrialized nation that did not lose WW2 to have no far off colonies.

I don't think we even have a research station in Antarctica, which many nations such as Russia, the USA, Australia etc... do.

As for are military i do support some growth and feel that if we did construct/purchase larger vessels we could find recruits to man them, for with better equipment there would be more of an attraction.

djmk · #52 Posted **Feb 4, 2009, 12:35 AM**

^^^

Turks and Caicos

Yume-sama · #53 Posted **Feb 4, 2009, 12:36 AM**

What, is Nunavut not a far off and exotic location for ya

?

Canadian Mind · #54 Posted **Feb 4, 2009, 12:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr.x2

The Canadian Pacific Fleet based in Esquimault (or at least 5 of the 6 big ships):

Wrong, 2 are Canadian, 2 are Australian, and one is American.

Quote:

HMCS Vancouver
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1020/538178281_557b1a92f6_b.jpg

The first two definitally arent Vancouver, Vancouver is a Halifax class ship, that is a Kingston class.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

As for are military i do support some growth and feel that if we did construct/purchase larger vessels we could find recruits to man them, for with better equipment there would be more of an attraction.

Wrong. Halifax are/have been the best in their class since they were put into service, and only now are much stealthier frigates being designed and built that theya re finally being succeded.

Every time a Canadian ship takes part in an American naval group, it always becomes the flagship for 3 reasons: The ship is more capable at defending itself as a stand-alone vessel than any American ships, the computer systems are constantly being updated, re-worked, and strealined, and the crews are better trained.

It is public knowledge, but no one really cares. As it is we don't have enoug personell to man the ships we have, nevermind more ships. Only way to get more members would be to recruit more aggressively, which knowing NIMBY's of all types that would be shit on.

Plenty fo great money, learning oportunities, and career opportunities in the forces. Think of all the jobs that need to be done on a civilian ship, aswell as maintinence of said ships, those need to be done on a military ship too. The training you get is free and you are only committed for a limited period of time. You get to go all over the world... My buddy form highschool right now is in Hawaii for his second time, and will soon be on his way to Australia. He's only been in for a year and a half.

If that was more actively advertised, you'd get more recruits, and thusly more manpower, and thusly more room to play with larger/more ships.

Canadian Mind · #55 Posted **Feb 4, 2009, 12:48 AM**

.

Metro-One · #56 Posted **Feb 4, 2009, 2:45 AM**

Quote:

Wrong. Halifax are/have been the best in their class since they were put into service, and only now are much stealthier frigates being designed and built that theya re finally being succeded.

Oh i know that, what i meant by my comment was more equipment, such as larger vessels and submarines.

Canadian Mind · #57 Posted **Feb 4, 2009, 10:44 PM**

why need larger vessels when the current ones are adequate (just not enough of them IMO)

a new frigate/destoryer with commonality in the designs would be a nifty deal. Frigates fullfilling the current roles of our frigates, and the destroyers fuilling the same roles plus long-range anti-air, anti-surface, and shore bombardment. think the gov was talkign about that a few years ago.

I'm no navy expert, but I've heard from reputable sources that the German U-212/214 is the best design for our needs.

mr.x · #58 Posted **Feb 4, 2009, 11:30 PM**

^ i believe our ships will need replacement within the next 10 years, that might be why.

ravman · #59 Posted **Feb 5, 2009, 1:14 AM**

getting back to topic of olympic security reaching 1 billion dollars

the full amount is being released today?

mr.x · #60 Posted **Feb 5, 2009, 3:40 AM**

There were a ton of vapour streaks in the sky this morning....i counted like 20, i'm guessing those were from our fighters.