Given the squabbles between Canada and Denmark over fishing rights, I think it was, I can imagine the squabbling over claims here, which involves huge amounts of resources! :ph34r:
Quote
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/20091211polar_opposites_heat_up/srvc=news&position=also
Polar opposites heat up
While the Climaterati caucus over cappuccinos in Copenhagen about polar bear habitat and the fate of small island nations from rising sea levels, there are other possible climate change implications, too - those of the security kind.
In fact, we're already seeing them in the Arctic.
By many accounts, much of the Arctic sea ice is melting following a three-decade trend. But while the geographic North Pole belongs to no one, the area around it may hold as much as 20 percent of the world's undiscovered, technically-recoverable natural resources.
hat's good news, but who owns it?
Circumpolar nations (the U.S., Russia, Canada, Norway and Denmark) are clamoring to claim the vast untapped ocean floor under the disappearing ice - even the transit lanes through it.
Problem is there are overlapping claims, especially involving the potentially-rich Lomonosov Ridge, a 1,200-mile long undersea mountain range.
The five Arctic Ocean-bordering states have promised to play nice, but they're also gearing up for rough seas, particularly Russia.
In 2007, Russian mini-subs planted a titanium flag on the sea bed near the North Pole at a depth of nearly 14,000 feet, claiming for Moscow a territory the size of France, Germany and Italy combined.
While some saw the flag-planting as little more than a geopolitical stunt, the Russians are serious about it, which isn't surprising considering energy's central role in Moscow's re-emergence as a global power.
(Russia is the world's No. 1 producer of natural gas; No. 2 exporter of oil.)
In 2008, Moscow's ships, subs, icebreakers and bombers started flexing muscle in the Arctic - perhaps the first time since the Soviet Union's fall in the early 1990s.
But the Russians aren't the only ones gearing up for possible Arctic action. Canada's another.
Canadians are making Arctic claims and plans for a deep-sea port, a military base and ice-breaking ships to conduct patrols in the High North.
Ottawa also asserts sovereignty over the Northwest Passage, a route offering the quickest, potentially year-round sea route between Asia and Europe, eliminating the Panama Canal's limits.
We make claim to the Arctic through Alaska. But Washington disputes some territory with our northern neighbor, as well as the Northwest Passage's status, which Ottawa sees as an internal, not international, waterway.
The Scandinavians are scrambling, too. Denmark claims parts of the Arctic via Greenland. Beyond oil/gas, Norway is unnerved due to Russia's heightened, Cold War-like military activity in the north.
Someone should really get one of their subs in the area to swing by the Russian flag and knock it over.
QuoteRussia is the world's No. 1 producer of natural gas
Ed! :mad:
And that is why I think Canada spending money in Afghanistan is a waste of our resources. We have bigger frozen fishes to fry.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 11, 2009, 02:17:10 PM
And that is why I think Canada spending money in Afghanistan is a waste of our resources. We have bigger frozen fishes to fry.
Except you still need to placate us for when the Russians sink your icebreaker, and misfire their ICBM onto Watson Lake.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 11, 2009, 02:20:39 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 11, 2009, 02:17:10 PM
And that is why I think Canada spending money in Afghanistan is a waste of our resources. We have bigger frozen fishes to fry.
Except you still need to placate us for when the Russians sink your icebreaker, and misfire their ICBM onto Watson Lake.
Please do.
Fair point Toni.
Know that our claims are backed by nuclear weapons!
Quote from: Barrister on December 11, 2009, 02:42:00 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 11, 2009, 02:20:39 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 11, 2009, 02:17:10 PM
And that is why I think Canada spending money in Afghanistan is a waste of our resources. We have bigger frozen fishes to fry.
Except you still need to placate us for when the Russians sink your icebreaker, and misfire their ICBM onto Watson Lake.
Please do.
I quick-edited from my original "Halifax" just for you. :P
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 11, 2009, 02:58:33 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 11, 2009, 02:42:00 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 11, 2009, 02:20:39 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 11, 2009, 02:17:10 PM
And that is why I think Canada spending money in Afghanistan is a waste of our resources. We have bigger frozen fishes to fry.
Except you still need to placate us for when the Russians sink your icebreaker, and misfire their ICBM onto Watson Lake.
Please do.
I quick-edited from my original "Halifax" just for you. :P
:hug:
Quote from: The Brain on December 11, 2009, 02:08:40 PM
QuoteRussia is the world's No. 1 producer of natural gas
Ed! :mad:
*burp*
So, I see that Russia and Norway are two of the antagonists in this future issue. Now maybe it makes sense that a Russian missile.... "mis-fired"... near Norway, resulting in that unique light show! Hah! Maybe no coincidence! ;)
Hmm... I wonder if the Canadians have noticed any sneak Danish or US subs sneaking around, planting flags? Roll the Eddie Izzard comedy routine... "Have you got a flag?" :D
Up until a few years ago the skirmish btw DEN and CAN over Hans Islands was quite civilised. :bowler:
We'd swing by in an arctic patrol ship or by dog sledge, plant our flag and leave an note and a bottle of snaps or some other liquor for whomever came next.
Then the Canadians would do the same, albeit a tad less frequently as they didn't have arctic naval capacity without the aid of the US :hug:
Thus exchanging liquor and flags every two or three years...
That however changed over the last few years :(
V
Quote from: Valdemar on December 13, 2009, 05:28:26 AM
Up until a few years ago the skirmish btw DEN and CAN over Hans Islands was quite civilised. :bowler:
We'd swing by in an arctic patrol ship or by dog sledge, plant our flag and leave an note and a bottle of snaps or some other liquor for whomever came next.
Then the Canadians would do the same, albeit a tad less frequently as they didn't have arctic naval capacity without the aid of the US :hug:
Thus exchanging liquor and flags every two or three years...
That however changed over the last few years :(
V
You can only afford to leave a few beers?
Quote from: Valdemar on December 13, 2009, 05:28:26 AM
Up until a few years ago the skirmish btw DEN and CAN over Hans Islands was quite civilised. :bowler:
We'd swing by in an arctic patrol ship or by dog sledge, plant our flag and leave an note and a bottle of snaps or some other liquor for whomever came next.
Then the Canadians would do the same, albeit a tad less frequently as they didn't have arctic naval capacity without the aid of the US :hug:
Thus exchanging liquor and flags every two or three years...
That however changed over the last few years :(
V
Well, the Canadian needed at national rallying point. And claiming that the Evil Danes was trying to take over the arctic, was just the ticket. Ofcourse the fact that the disagreement over Hans Ø was more than 30 years old at the time didnt really matter...
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on December 13, 2009, 09:13:06 AMWell, the Canadian needed at national rallying point. And claiming that the Evil Danes was trying to take over the arctic, was just the ticket. Ofcourse the fact that the disagreement over Hans Ø was more than 30 years old at the time didnt really matter...
Simply put, the melting Arctic made the stakes higher.
The dispute was taken lightheartedly when it was believed to be over nothing more than a completely worthless island, but as more people began to understand that real resources could be at stake, it's not so funny anymore.
Increasingly exposed Arctic resources could play a major part in Canada's future, and as Hans Island may be useful for it's surrounding waters and to anchor claims to other parts of the Arctic, is it any wonder why Canada doesn't want to play games over this?
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on December 13, 2009, 09:13:06 AM
Well, the Canadian needed at national rallying point. And claiming that the Evil Danes was trying to take over the arctic, was just the ticket. Ofcourse the fact that the disagreement over Hans Ø was more than 30 years old at the time didnt really matter...
Yeah I know :D nothing like politicians that need a dead horse to beat :D esp. since at that point Canada couldn't place a flag there easily as they had near to no arctic naval capacity :D
And Beers??? :huh: Snaps isn't beer, and its the gesture that is important, not the content of the bottle
V
Quote from: Ancient Demon on December 13, 2009, 01:13:44 PM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on December 13, 2009, 09:13:06 AMWell, the Canadian needed at national rallying point. And claiming that the Evil Danes was trying to take over the arctic, was just the ticket. Ofcourse the fact that the disagreement over Hans Ø was more than 30 years old at the time didnt really matter...
Simply put, the melting Arctic made the stakes higher.
The dispute was taken lightheartedly when it was believed to be over nothing more than a completely worthless island, but as more people began to understand that real resources could be at stake, it's not so funny anymore.
Increasingly exposed Arctic resources could play a major part in Canada's future, and as Hans Island may be useful for it's surrounding waters and to anchor claims to other parts of the Arctic, is it any wonder why Canada doesn't want to play games over this?
Considering Canada has far more unsettled clains with its bigger neighbour, and that the claim to Hans Island is by international standards far harder for Canada to win is seems spurious that THAT particullar claim was the one they thought to make a case of.
Smacks a whole lot of internal Canadian politics than actual foreign realistic politics.
V
The natives wil just take all this land back after the Awakening and the Gewat Ghost Dance anyway. And they'll inexplicably seize Iceland just for fun, too.
Quote from: Valdemar on December 13, 2009, 01:50:27 PM
Considering Canada has far more unsettled clains with its bigger neighbour, and that the claim to Hans Island is by international standards far harder for Canada to win is seems spurious that THAT particullar claim was the one they thought to make a case of.
Feel free to link me, but the only other outstanding claim I can think of with the US is over ownership of the northwest passage. The only other outstanding claim was over fishing rights with St. Pierre/Miquellon, but even that was settled about a decade ago.
I'm sure Penguin can be more precise, and I have nothing but Danish papers from back then, but it was reported that a number of borders along the Canadian and alaskan borders have never been properly metered out, nor ratified, I have no idea if it is true.
It was reported as the result of uncertainties in the area and period due to the high north and frost, and later that no one would really touch the subject.
Perhaps some amuricans can spread light on it, it as reported here that it was the USians who was stirring that particullar pot about where the ACTUAL border is between those two states.
As to Hans Island, it is my humble opinion that it isn't the most obvious point of contest of a border disoute I've seen, esp. given the Haag rulings in the 30's against Norway on the Greenland issues.
Not to mention, we've been far better at stating that sovereignity over the Island :P does it even HAVE a Canadian name? :D
V
Quote from: Valdemar on December 13, 2009, 03:58:41 PM
I'm sure Penguin can be more precise, and I have nothing but Danish papers from back then, but it was reported that a number of borders along the Canadian and alaskan borders have never been properly metered out, nor ratified, I have no idea if it is true.
It was reported as the result of uncertainties in the area and period due to the high north and frost, and later that no one would really touch the subject.
Perhaps some amuricans can spread light on it, it as reported here that it was the USians who was stirring that particullar pot about where the ACTUAL border is between those two states.
As to Hans Island, it is my humble opinion that it isn't the most obvious point of contest of a border disoute I've seen, esp. given the Haag rulings in the 30's against Norway on the Greenland issues.
Not to mention, we've been far better at stating that sovereignity over the Island :P does it even HAVE a Canadian name? :D
V
One of the reasons why Denmark and Canada back in the 70's decided to just leave the issue of hans Ø undecided, was the problem of getting a precise survey of the position of the island. So I think the main problem back then would with maritime borders, any land border shouldnt be at problem to map