Delta Force
Banned
Apparently Lake Michigan is located entirely within United States territory. Is it still considered part of the Great Lakes for the purposes of the 1818 Rush–Bagot Naval Disarmament Treaty?
Militarization of Lake Michigan?
- Thread starter Delta Force
- Start date
It has generally been assumed that the treaty (which speaks of the "American lakes" http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/conv1817.asp) does apply to Lake Michigan despite arguments to the contrary during the ACW: "Some also argued that Lake Michigan was not a 'boundary lake,' since it was separated from the boundary by the Straits of Mackinac and because it had not been named specifically in the Rush-Bagot convention. If this were the case, an unlimited number of warships could be placed on the lake. Lyons took a copy of the report to Seward and asked if it were consistent with the agreement. Seward refused to resort to sophistry concerning lake Michigan's status, and he told Lyons that he doubted whether a bill based on Arnold's report would pass either house. All the members from the select committee were from the lake states, and such a bill would be an obvious effort to dip into the 'pork barrel' to obtain federal funds for local improvement..." Robin W. Winks, *The Civil War Years: Canada and the United States,* p. 121. https://books.google.com/books?id=PF-4P0zOKSoC&pg=PA121
Further evidence that it has been thought applicable to Lake Michigan:
(1) Navy and Army Illustrated, 1903: AMERICA AND THE LAKES--Since 1818 the Rush-Bagot Treaty has restricted both British and American Naval expansion on the Great Lakes. But for many years past the Government at Washington has been strengthening its position on Lake Michigan, meanwhile throwing out suggestions to Canada that it is time for the Treaty to be modified. She, on her part, is not inclined to respond. In the first place, her feeling towards the United States is not as warm as it sometimes is, and, in the second, she is very well pleased with things as they are. But the tremendous importance of the ship building interest on the Great Lakes is bound to create a new situation sooner or later, and American Naval engineers have this week proposed to join the Lakes and the Mississippi by means of a canal, and so give the Union a seaboard, as it were, inland. The object of this is to secure fresh sources of supply for the Navy in men and material. On the shores of Lake Michigan there is a Naval school, and everything is provided except the necessary training on sea. Hence the desire to abrogate the Rush-Bagot Treaty."
https://books.google.com/books?id=2Kc_AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA210
(2) New York Times, 2006: "U.S. Firing Plans for Great Lakes Raise Concerns
"GRAND HAVEN, Mich., Oct. 10 — Even in autumn, the cold, silent expanse of Lake Michigan defines this town, where pleasure boats glide into harbor, fishermen wait patiently for salmon and tourists peer up at the lighthouse.
"But the United States Coast Guard has a new mission for the waters off of these quiet shores. For the first time, Coast Guard officials want to mount machine guns routinely on their cutters and small boats here and around all five of the Great Lakes as part of a program addressing the threats of terrorism after Sept. 11.
"And, for the first time in memory, Coast Guard members plan to use a stretch of water at least five miles off this Michigan shore — and 33 other offshore spots near cities like Cleveland; Rochester; Milwaukee; Duluth, Minn.; and Gary, Ind. — as permanent, live fire shooting zones for training on their new 7.62 mm weapons, which can blast as many as 650 rounds a minute and send fire more than 4,000 yards.
"The notion is so unusual that it prompted United States diplomats to negotiate with Canadian authorities in order to agree that it would not violate a 189-year-old treaty, signed after the War of 1812, limiting arms on the Great Lakes..." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/16/us/16lakes.html
Further evidence that it has been thought applicable to Lake Michigan:
(1) Navy and Army Illustrated, 1903: AMERICA AND THE LAKES--Since 1818 the Rush-Bagot Treaty has restricted both British and American Naval expansion on the Great Lakes. But for many years past the Government at Washington has been strengthening its position on Lake Michigan, meanwhile throwing out suggestions to Canada that it is time for the Treaty to be modified. She, on her part, is not inclined to respond. In the first place, her feeling towards the United States is not as warm as it sometimes is, and, in the second, she is very well pleased with things as they are. But the tremendous importance of the ship building interest on the Great Lakes is bound to create a new situation sooner or later, and American Naval engineers have this week proposed to join the Lakes and the Mississippi by means of a canal, and so give the Union a seaboard, as it were, inland. The object of this is to secure fresh sources of supply for the Navy in men and material. On the shores of Lake Michigan there is a Naval school, and everything is provided except the necessary training on sea. Hence the desire to abrogate the Rush-Bagot Treaty."
https://books.google.com/books?id=2Kc_AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA210
(2) New York Times, 2006: "U.S. Firing Plans for Great Lakes Raise Concerns
"GRAND HAVEN, Mich., Oct. 10 — Even in autumn, the cold, silent expanse of Lake Michigan defines this town, where pleasure boats glide into harbor, fishermen wait patiently for salmon and tourists peer up at the lighthouse.
"But the United States Coast Guard has a new mission for the waters off of these quiet shores. For the first time, Coast Guard officials want to mount machine guns routinely on their cutters and small boats here and around all five of the Great Lakes as part of a program addressing the threats of terrorism after Sept. 11.
"And, for the first time in memory, Coast Guard members plan to use a stretch of water at least five miles off this Michigan shore — and 33 other offshore spots near cities like Cleveland; Rochester; Milwaukee; Duluth, Minn.; and Gary, Ind. — as permanent, live fire shooting zones for training on their new 7.62 mm weapons, which can blast as many as 650 rounds a minute and send fire more than 4,000 yards.
"The notion is so unusual that it prompted United States diplomats to negotiate with Canadian authorities in order to agree that it would not violate a 189-year-old treaty, signed after the War of 1812, limiting arms on the Great Lakes..." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/16/us/16lakes.html
I recommend looking up the history of the Great Lakes Naval base, Navy Pier on the shore of Chicago, the USS Wolverine & USS Sable, & submarine construction at Manitowoc Wisconson. 28 Gato class subs were built there.
http://militaryhistorynow.com/2016/...avys-forgotten-great-lakes-aircraft-carriers/
http://www.wisconsinmaritime.org/the-submarine-experience/28-freshwater-submarines/
I also recall several German subs were brought to the Great lakes post Great War.
http://militaryhistorynow.com/2016/...avys-forgotten-great-lakes-aircraft-carriers/
http://www.wisconsinmaritime.org/the-submarine-experience/28-freshwater-submarines/
I also recall several German subs were brought to the Great lakes post Great War.
I seem to recall someone coming up with a plan to use the Great Lakes as a cheaper alternative to the MX ICBM system. The idea was to put a bunch of ballistic missile subs in the Great Lakes and let them roam around the lakes waiting for the order that hopefully never came. Stripped of the need for running quiet and fending off ASW activity, the concept was that the subs could be built far cheaper than MX could be done.
Delta Force
Banned
That's one of the things I'm wondering about with this (as well as something similar with Lake Baikal). However, there would be significant implications for the postwar situation if the largest sources of freshwater in the world are used as sponges to soak up hundreds or thousands of nuclear warheads.
Driftless
Donor
Marinette Marine (subsidiary of Lockheed-Martin) is currently building Littoral Combat Ships in Marinette, WI on Green Bay(which opens on Lake Michigan)
Theoretically, the use of USS Wolverine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wolverine_(IX-64) and USS Sable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Sable_(IX-81) as training ships during World War II may have violated the treaty, but Canada certainly didn't object...
Driftless
Donor
With those two being paddle wheel steamers there had to be an air of steampunk "tomfoolery" to those ships...
Even if you just used Lake Michigan for this, it has an area of 22,000 square miles. Pretty much impossible to hit a sub in the middle of that, even with a lot of warheads. That would be, of course, the strategic advantage of the plan over MX: a reserve fleet packing a walloping second strike capability pretty much invulnerable to being taken out in a first strike. If you throw Lake Huron into this plan as well, you have an even larger area offering protection, but that would get into the treaty's coverage as you would be operating in Canadian territorial waters or in waters immediately adjacent thereto.
Speaking as a native Chicagoan, we actually do have a Naval Base here, Naval Base Great Lakes. Up until fairly recently there was at least a frigate and some cutters stationed here. It got turned into a training base in the early 2000's and now it's pretty much just a museum though.
Delta Force
Banned
They were large and so might have broken the part about maintaining ships of like burden, but they didn't break the part about maintaining no more than two ships per lake (limited to one on Lake Ontario and Lake Champlain) or the part about having no more than one cannon for armament. Like burden is a matter of interpretation too.
Yep, and don't forget that my hometown of Manitowoc, WI built submarines during WW2.
Also, there is an area in the central part of Lake Michigan that is occasionally activated as restricted airspace - the Minnow MOA (Military Operating Area). Aerial Gunnery is practiced in the MOA by Air National Guard (and occasionally Regular and Reserve Air Force) units. Civil aircraft flying through Minnow, have to check activity notifications for it, to make sure that they do not fly through it, while military activity is in progress.
In the event of an actual nuclear war, I think that's the least of our worries. Humanity would already be doomed.
I appreciate the sentiment, but I think it's clearly incorrect in terms of fact. It is actually very hard to wipe out humanity, and even a full-scale nuclear exchange probably wouldn't do it. Our current high-tech civilisation? Yes, that could easily be destroyed. The institutions and ideals we're familiar with? Again, vulnerable if the damage is bad enough. You might get to the point where there's a massive discontinuity in terms of what human society is like. But wiping out humanity as a species? No, can't see that happening, even in the wildest 'nuclear winter' projections.