NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6287436.stm

Canada has announced plans for six naval patrol vessels and a deep-water port in the north to assert its claim to territorial waters in the Arctic.

Other countries, including the US, say the waters are international territory.

The $3bn (£1.5bn) announcement at Canada's Pacific naval base comes in part to fulfil an election promise.

Ottawa also sees economic potential in protecting its claim to the Arctic, as the area is thought to be rich in natural resources.

So, any thoughts or opinions on Canada's claim? Should the Arctic be international waters? Or should it be "use it or lose it?"

Well, I can think of six countries that could reasonably lay claim to the arctic, including Canada.

One of these countries is already investigating the underlying continental shelf to see what part that they can reasonably claim as their own.

International waters. No doubt about it. If Canada gets to claim parts of the arctic ocean "territorial waters", then Russia's arctic ocean claims will look more credible. Which is one step closer to Russia laying claim over the vast amount of natural resources in the arctic circle.

The silly thing is is that if the US would just ratify the UN's Law of the Sea treaty, then there would actually be a proper framework to sort out these arctic claims.

Oh but wait, any kind of UN treaty "violates" US sovereignty.

There are a lot of resources that are just waiting to be ripped out of the earth and water and sold for a mighty profit.

Global warming is just going to make it easier to get our hands on those resources. These are the first moves in a war for control over resources. The interesting thing is that all the players are nominally white Christians. I doubt any bullets will be fired.

My theory is that no one is going to organise anything and for the next while we are going to see a free for all. In the end, though, the capitalists will win.

In a perfect world, it would be a nature preserve.

I'd also like to assert my claim on the arctic waters.

Unfortunately I can't afford a Navy :(

The polar bears could use the help of the penguin army.

What a waste of tax payer money. It SHOULD have been invested back in the healthcare and education systems.

Well, I can think of six countries that could reasonably lay claim to the arctic, including Canada.

One of these countries is already investigating the underlying continental shelf to see what part that they can reasonably claim as their own.

Russia, iirc. According to italian newspapers, their claims about the shelf look quite reasonable and leave a lot of space to Canadian or US claims.

I do hope that the Arctic Ocean won't become as polluted as the Mediterranean.

International waters. No doubt about it. If Canada gets to claim parts of the arctic ocean "territorial waters", then Russia's arctic ocean claims will look more credible. Which is one step closer to Russia laying claim over the vast amount of natural resources in the arctic circle.


HORROR ! CHEAP NATURAL RESOURCES! WHATEVER SHALL WE DO?

HORROR ! CHEAP NATURAL RESOURCES! WHATEVER SHALL WE DO?

Ever thought what happens to the ball of dirt you live in when you go through unmitigated resource rapeage?

Have a self contained biosphere somewhere do we?

Well, I can think of six countries that could reasonably lay claim to the arctic, including Canada.

One of these countries is already investigating the underlying continental shelf to see what part that they can reasonably claim as their own.

I can think of only five countries: the United States (due to Alaska), Canada, Denmark (due to Greenland), Norway (due to Svalbard), and Russia.

Sweden and Finland do not have Arctic coastlines, and Iceland is a bit too far south to make claims within that region.

Ever thought what happens to the ball of dirt you live in when you go through unmitigated resource rapeage?


You know, it is possible (and in Western countries increasingly DONE) to harvest and use resources witthout spamming the athmosphere up with crap.

You know, it is possible (and in Western countries increasingly DONE) to harvest and use resources witthout spamming the athmosphere up with crap.

Well I wonder if that phrase will take us into a new era huh.

'Spamming the atmosphere'

Sweet man sweet!;)

What a waste of tax payer money. It SHOULD have been invested back in the healthcare and education systems.

To me, this looks like more of a long range investment.

If you look at how the current Alberta oil boom is powering the Canadian market, you can imagine how much the Canadian government (especially our current one) would like to have something to replace it with when the oil eventually becomes less than profitable to extract. The taxes Ottawa receives just from sales tax in the housing market alone probably pays for any investment it made in Alberta. Some of that money goes to fund education and healthcare. Probably not enough.

Enter the Arctic shelf. Lots of unexploited resources there. Natural resources are the fuel in Canada's economic engine. My main beef is the eventual ecological rape that will inevitably follow. Ecological safeguards minimise profits, and that's bad for the economy.

I would like to see some sort of First people's land claims to as much of that area as possible. Hopefully, we would see more intelligent and sustainable handling of the environment.

Everyone knows that Austria still maintains her "silent claim" on Franz Josef Land. Even though it was only named by an Austrian and never claimed, we all know those wily Imperialists in Vienna still whisper of an Austrian Arctic Empire.

What a waste of tax payer money. It SHOULD have been invested back in the healthcare and education systems.

Sometimes you have to spend money on other things then healthcare and educational systems. Seems a bit of a canned response you wrote. What if their scheme netted Canada much more in tax revenue? Then would it make sense?

International waters. No doubt about it. If Canada gets to claim parts of the arctic ocean "territorial waters", then Russia's arctic ocean claims will look more credible. Which is one step closer to Russia laying claim over the vast amount of natural resources in the arctic circle.

The silly thing is is that if the US would just ratify the UN's Law of the Sea treaty, then there would actually be a proper framework to sort out these arctic claims.

Oh but wait, any kind of UN treaty "violates" US sovereignty.

This is the second time in not very long that you wrote about this treaty and oh the US bit. That treaty is not the end all problem solver. The 12 mile home waters rule is adequate to stop Russia and other potential nations including the US in overstepping their territorial waters.

Well, if Canada and Russia can claim the Arctic... then on behalf of Australia - I claim ALL, and I do mean ALL, of Antarctica. Its only fair *nods*

Down with Canadian Imperialism! Destroy the maple-leafed despots!

Down with Canadian Imperialism! Destroy the maple-leafed despots!

We have tasked Denmark for this task. However they just manage to only yell and erect flagpoles on tiny islands in the middle of nowhere. I think it's time to enlist someone else.

Well, if Canada and Russia can claim the Arctic... then on behalf of Australia - I claim ALL, and I do mean ALL, of Antarctica. Its only fair *nods*

The Antarctic is already protected from military takeover and resource exploitation. Australia has the largest claim of the seven countries claiming part of the Antarctic continent, but they would have to go toe to toe with the French, the Chileans, the Argentines, the UKians (what do you call a citizen of the UK?), the Norse (wtf?) and the Kiwis. If you teamed up with the Brits and the Kiwis, you should be fine.

Mind you, trying to drill through the ice shelf to get the ores and oil underneath may prove somewhat of an obstacle. But I'm sure the Ausiies can handle it.

I'm sure that Canada's fleet of amazing borked fire-catching submarines will be more than a match for the Russian nuclear submarine fleet... :rolleyes:

The interesting thing is that all the players are nominally white Christians. I doubt any bullets will be fired.


:confused:

White Christians don't shoot each other, right. Just like between Germany and France, Germany and Poland, Austria and Serbia, Italy and Austria, etc, etc, etc...

They won't be firing at each other because that would mean US vs Russia, hence nukes.

Anyway, better a peaceful agreement than a shootout.

:confused:

White Christians don't shoot each other, right. Just like between Germany and France, Germany and Poland, Austria and Serbia, Italy and Austria, etc, etc, etc...

They won't be firing at each other because that would mean US vs Russia, hence nukes.

Anyway, better a peaceful agreement than a shootout.

Are you implying that White Christians somehow are smarter than other people?

The Antarctic is already protected from military takeover and resource exploitation. Australia has the largest claim of the seven countries claiming part of the Antarctic continent, but they would have to go toe to toe with the French, the Chileans, the Argentines, the UKians (what do you call a citizen of the UK?), the Norse (wtf?) and the Kiwis. If you teamed up with the Brits and the Kiwis, you should be fine.

Mind you, trying to drill through the ice shelf to get the ores and oil underneath may prove somewhat of an obstacle. But I'm sure the Ausiies can handle it.

But I thought you knew!!! Australia already secretly controls the Poms and the Kiwis. We brainwashed them with trashy Australian soapies and meat pies filled with brain controlling pathogens. The French - cheese eating surrender monkeys , duh!! As for the Argentines and the Chileans, they're just typical South American commie cowards. Everyone knows what Dubya says is true. Get with it man, geez. As for exploiting the vast resources that lie under the pristine wilderness that is Antarctica... we'll just get the Kanaks and the Ruskies to help out. Then, as the three countries controlling the North and South Pole, we'll take over the world!!

Just kidding :p

----edit----

Besides since when has anyone taken notice of the UN or it's treaties?

:confused:

White Christians don't shoot each other, right. Just like between Germany and France, Germany and Poland, Austria and Serbia, Italy and Austria, etc, etc, etc...

They won't be firing at each other because that would mean US vs Russia, hence nukes.

Anyway, better a peaceful agreement than a shootout.

I was simply alluding to the current societal focus on middle eastern Muslims as the preferred targets du jour. But you are correct, we could always go back to war with 'the commies'. But it won't be necessary if the same group of western industrialists are making the profit. They won't care whose flag is flying, as long as the account balance is rising.

Are you implying that White Christians somehow are smarter than other people?

Actually, (s)he is implying the exact opposite; i.e. that they are just as likely to engage in that stupidity and violence we call war.

But I thought you knew!!! Australia already secretly controls the Poms and the Kiwis. We brainwashed them with trashy Australian soapies and meat pies filled with brain controlling pathogens. The French - cheese eating surrender monkeys , duh!! As for the Argentines and the Chileans, they're just typical South American commie cowards. Everyone knows what Dubya says is true. Get with it man, geez. As for exploiting the vast resources that lie under the pristine wilderness that is Antarctica... we'll just get the Kanaks and the Ruskies to help out. Then, as the three countries controlling the North and South Pole, we'll take over the world!!

Just kidding :p

----edit----

Besides since when has anyone taken notice of the UN or it's treaties?

It's not a UN treaty. It was actually a treaty between the former Soviet Union and the USA. Ironically, it was the first arms agreement of the Cold War. But don't let that slow the Aussies down!

Actually, (s)he is implying the exact opposite; i.e. that they are just as likely to engage in that stupidity and violence we call war.

Funny, during most of the Cold War, both sides excelled at getting a lot of non-white people to fuck each other up instead of warring directly with one another.

Funny, during most of the Cold War, both sides excelled at getting a lot of non-white people to fuck each other up instead of warring directly with one another.


Yeah exactly. We white people are are so cowardly and stupid we won't even fight our battles and sort our own crap for ourselves, we get other poor innocent sods to do it instead.

This is the second time in not very long that you wrote about this treaty and oh the US bit. That treaty is not the end all problem solver. The 12 mile home waters rule is adequate to stop Russia and other potential nations including the US in overstepping their territorial waters.
Yea, you see, the Northwest passage is within 12 miles of Canadian land at all points along its route, so it is technically, and legally Canadian waters. The claim to the segment of open ocean to the north pole is a bit iffy, but we did claim it rightfully long ago, back when no one cared. Now that it's melting up there, everyone's like "you can't have that, that's ours!" It pisses me off that the rest of the world is trying to assert its soveriegnty over something that it knows is rightfully the property of Canada. And before you get all argumnetative, let me remind you of that 12 mile rule, we're following it.

The waters of the Canadian arctic archipelago are Canadian! Hands off!

isn't this to do with America sending subs into Canadian waters?

isn't this to do with America sending subs into Canadian waters?

Or is it about the lame Canadian submarine force that can't stay submerged without catching fire?

isn't this to do with America sending subs into Canadian waters?

Every year. To keep their claim alive. And every year the Canadian ambassador tells Washington that it's not nice to invade without warning and to keep their sub in international water.

Every year. To keep their claim alive. And every year the Canadian ambassador tells Washington that it's not nice to invade without warning and to keep their sub in international water.

Maybe if you had not bought those used pieces of crap from the British, that can't submerge, and constantly catch fire, you might be able to warn off the US in a more pointed manner.

Maybe if you had not bought those used pieces of crap from the British, that can't submerge, and constantly catch fire, you might be able to warn off the US in a more pointed manner.

would you mess with that kind of submarine crew?!

http://i.somethingawful.com/goldmine/02-04-2003/slavboy-2.jpg

would you mess with that kind of submarine crew?!

There are ways to get a point across without sinking anyone.

During the Cold War, the US and USSR played cat and mouse games underwater. This sends a message that, if pushed to it, you will defend your claims.

The Canadian Navy submarine force is a fucking joke - yet another purchase of unsalvagable equipment from Britain at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer.

Funny, during most of the Cold War, both sides excelled at getting a lot of non-white people to fuck each other up instead of warring directly with one another.

You did that thing again where you quoted my post without addressing the point.

You did that thing again where you quoted my post without addressing the point.

Did he adress any point at all in this thread?

Did he adress any point at all in this thread?

Yes, I did. I see you are unable to read.

You know, it is possible (and in Western countries increasingly DONE) to harvest and use resources witthout spamming the athmosphere up with crap.

It is possible, but I suspect most don't if they can get away with it.

Good on 'em. I think Australia and NZ should team up and do the same thing with Antarctica. Fucking USA and their 'We have not made a claim on Antarctica, do not recognise the existing claims, and reserve the right to make a claim later' BS.

I can think of only five countries: the United States (due to Alaska), Canada, Denmark (due to Greenland), Norway (due to Svalbard), and Russia.

Sweden and Finland do not have Arctic coastlines, and Iceland is a bit too far south to make claims within that region.Both the US and the russians could have better claims for the region, if they hadn't been doing their little land trading thing in the past. The russians sold Alaska to the US for 7,2 million dollars, and the US bought the Virgin Islands from Denmark for 25 million dollars AND the northern part of Greenland.:p

Since the danes gave up some beatiful carabian islands in exchange for the cold and bitter northern part of Greenland, it's only fair if we get any natural resources in the arctic.

Both the US and the russians could have better claims for the region, if they hadn't been doing their little land trading thing in the past. The russians sold Alaska to the US for 7,2 million dollars, and the US bought the Virgin Islands from Denmark for 25 million dollars AND the northern part of Greenland.:p

Since the danes gave up some beatiful carabian islands in exchange for the cold and bitter northern part of Greenland, it's only fair if we get any natural resources in the arctic.

Fine by me as long as you keep off our Hans Island, the danes are welcome to anything they find under greenland.

Fine by me as long as you keep off our Hans Island, the danes are welcome to anything they find under greenland.

BREAKING NEWS:

Huge stores of the valuable Helium-3 have been found underground in Greenland, only scant days after the Canadians tell them that it's "a worthless patch of ice in the middle of nowhere".

Maybe if you had not bought those used pieces of crap from the British, that can't submerge, and constantly catch fire, you might be able to warn off the US in a more pointed manner.

That's not true.

They can submerge, or they can have bow torpedoes. They just do both at once.

The fire thing I am sure is the fault of the Canada people.

On paper it was really a very good deal for Canada, however. They are very advanced submarines. They just don't work that well.

Fine by me as long as you keep off our Hans Island, the danes are welcome to anything they find under greenland.It's not just under Greenland, it's the entire arctic ocean we're going for :p

Hans Island just need to be split in half and a border crossing be put in the middle, just for the heck of it. Maybe there are even people that want to work there, maybe to get away from their wives or perhaps creditors.:D

That's not true.

They can submerge, or they can have bow torpedoes. They just do both at once.

The fire thing I am sure is the fault of the Canada people.

On paper it was really a very good deal for Canada, however. They are very advanced submarines. They just don't work that well.

At least there are women on Canadian subs.

At least there are women on Canadian subs.

Yay. Mr. Prostitute.

Yay. Mr. Prostitute.

Can't let all those subs full of seamen go to waste...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6287436.stm


So, any thoughts or opinions on Canada's claim? Should the Arctic be international waters? Or should it be "use it or lose it?"

I believe the Law of the Sea is very clear on this issue.

International waters. No doubt about it. If Canada gets to claim parts of the arctic ocean "territorial waters", then Russia's arctic ocean claims will look more credible. Which is one step closer to Russia laying claim over the vast amount of natural resources in the arctic circle.

The silly thing is is that if the US would just ratify the UN's Law of the Sea treaty, then there would actually be a proper framework to sort out these arctic claims.

Oh but wait, any kind of UN treaty "violates" US sovereignty.

We agree to all but Part XI and follows it but Part XI as customary law.

This is the second time in not very long that you wrote about this treaty and oh the US bit. That treaty is not the end all problem solver. The 12 mile home waters rule is adequate to stop Russia and other potential nations including the US in overstepping their territorial waters.

Agreed.

Russia, iirc. According to italian newspapers, their claims about the shelf look quite reasonable and leave a lot of space to Canadian or US claims.

I was actually thinking of Denmark. They were testing some equipment in Kattegat, to see if it would work.

I can think of only five countries: the United States (due to Alaska), Canada, Denmark (due to Greenland), Norway (due to Svalbard), and Russia.

Sweden and Finland do not have Arctic coastlines, and Iceland is a bit too far south to make claims within that region.

I considered Greenland a country by its own right as well as Denmark owning it.

The politics between the two can be amusing at times ;)

I considered Greenland a country by its own right as well as Denmark owning it.

The politics between the two can be amusing at times ;)

Owning is not the politically correct term. It's more like the government and parliament are "shared", meaning that 4 out of 179 members are representatives of the North Atlantic, i.e. Greenland and the Faroes. Greenland remains in the Realm because it receives considerable block grants, and it is hoped that tourism and mining in Greenland and its environs will generate revenues at some point. Specifically the Arctic Ocean and the North Pole is interesting in that respect.

The disagreement over Hans Island is not a dispute of land, since no one can live there, save allegedly for two fools both named Hans, and nothing can grow there, save for perhaps some lichen, which is the favourite dish of Hans and Hans. It is about the water and the resources underneath it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6287436.stm


So, any thoughts or opinions on Canada's claim? Should the Arctic be international waters? Or should it be "use it or lose it?"

Speaking as a Canadian citizen, I'm all for modernizing our military, but I don't approve of our government trying to lay claim to these waters so long as no one else is. If, on the other hand, someone tries to grab a portion of the arctic lying directly north of us.. then I think we're obligated to tell them to screw off.

Wasn't the total cost of this $7 billion (if servicing the ships is included)? Now we know where the money the Conservatives cut from the women's rights groups went.
I think that this is just a cover operation to seize the baby seal (http://www.ilmondodielena.it/tendress/foca/PVWild00-BabySeal-Closeup-InSnow.jpg) population. You know, for government propaganda (I can has vote against gay marriage? :D)

The Arctic Ocean isn't exactly the Atlantic. It's filled with big chunky islands and many of them are Canadian soil. The waters around those islands are ours and to back it up we're putting more vessels in the water.


So behave yourself USA or we'll be forced to unleash our mind controlled polar bears and destroy the rest of your subs!

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/default.asp?target=bear_sub1.htm

Yea, you see, the Northwest passage is within 12 miles of Canadian land at all points along its route, so it is technically, and legally Canadian waters.


Quite right. The northwest passage totally and utterly lies within the 12 mile territorial waters mark, as measured from the lowest point of the low tide (section 13, UN Convention on the Law of the Sea).



The claim to the segment of open ocean to the north pole is a bit iffy,

Nope. Canada has a quite solid claim to a good chunk of that open ocean. Nations can claim up to 200 miles from the end of the territorial waters as their exclusive economic zones (article 70 summat, UN Convention on the Law of the Sea).


All the waters around the Canadian archepelago, including the fabled (and lucrative Northwest passage) legally belong to Canada. A great big chunk of the Arctic Ocean may only be solely exploited by Canada.

Great big chunks of that same ocean may also be solely exploited by their respective littoral states (US, Canada, Greenland/Denmark, Norway, Russia).

Incidentally, I am not a national, nor am I in any way affiliated to any of those states.

Habeas