Thank you.
I appreciate that you have to make plans based on your determination of what the needs are, but I do understand that the basic test of need is the number of incidents you have, the number of times you're called upon to provide services. There is, throughout some of the literature that I've been reading, another way of looking at this: it's the kind of emergency you have to deal with, as opposed to the number of actual responses. While the number of incidents in the Arctic, as you've noted here, is relatively small compared to the number of other operations, the response time, the kinds of incidents you could have, and the number of people who could be involved might indeed call for greater or closer capability than you have right now. For example, this may be exceptional, but in 1991 a Canadian Air Force CC-130 Hercules went down, and it took 30 hours to actually get to that particular craft--I know there were bad weather conditions--and that was several miles from Alert. To what extent is the nature of the adversity you might be dealing with an issue when determining how close you should be to a potential disaster?