Icebreakers: a Necessary Investment?

One major strategic issue for the Arctic nations surrounds future plans to build cost-intensive icebreakers. Indeed, a modern polar icebreaker costs well over one billion dollars. Icebreakers are a politically sensitive topic and have design and construction lead times of eight to ten years. Given that climate scientists now favor models which indicate total summer ice melt by 2030-2040, one might question the logic of new investments in icebreaking capabilities. Of course, whether to invest in new icebreakers is a politically charged issue and policy outcomes will differ on a nation-by-nation basis. However, some basic conclusions are outlined below.

On the whole, icebreakers represent a large investment for a minimal surface presence. They are slow, carry relatively large crews and are expensive to operate and maintain. Non-nuclear (in 2010, this implies non-Russian) icebreakers are limited in range by fuel considerations and can put to sea for only a few months at a time. In addition, icebreakers represent an easy surface target in the event of war. It would be impossible for even a sizable fleet of icebreakers to entirely patrol activity in the vast Arctic region.

On the other hand, icebreakers do serve a variety of roles in the polar world. Their very presence is a deterrent to rogue activity, for instance unauthorized Arctic voyages by non-Arctic class Chinese tankers. Icebreakers serve as scientific research platforms and thus represent crucial pieces of the global information network in the Arctic. Icebreakers have the potential to dramatically reduce the risk of shipping in the Arctic by providing icebreaking services to ships in transit. They can likewise help to keep Arctic shipping routes open for a longer season than might otherwise be possible. In the event of a serious environmental disaster, a well-positioned icebreaker could be the only surface vessel in a position to respond and provide ground support. Icebreakers can also work to enforce fisheries regulations and regularly inspect offshore oil and gas platforms to ensure compliance with best practices.

This paper advocates, therefore, that new icebreaker construction is in the case of the larger and better endowed Arctic nations, namely Russia and the United States, warranted. However, icebreakers should be seen as just one piece of the global Arctic infrastructure. Well-developed monitoring infrastructure, such as a comprehensive radar network, regular area overflights and a central command system, should complement icebreakers. Icebreakers should be used mainly for scientific and shipping support with occasional regulation enforcement duties when necessary. In even the most optimistic scenario, it would be 2018 before the United States could fully construct a polar class icebreaker. With full summer ice melt predicted by 2030-2040, more research into the type and number of vessels warranted is needed before such a significant investment is made. However, any country planning to build an icebreaker in the future should begin immediately to ensure that the vessel is put to proper use for the bulk of its service life. Tankers engaged in Arctic transit are a different matter entirely and construction should be mandated to Arctic-class specifications for all such vessels to minimize the risk of environmental disaster.