Arctic debate will probably result in armed conflict? Nooooo

Politics International Politics
1

nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=340975

PARIS – The fast-warming Arctic could be plunged into “armed conflict” unless the U.S. takes the lead in resolving rival claims by the U.S., Canada, Russia, Denmark and Norway over a region that could create billions of dollars in new wealth as the ice cap melts, according to new analysis.

Former U.S. Coast Guard Lt.-Cmdr. Scott Borgerson, in the latest issue of Foreign Policy magazine, argued that Washington has to start with a Canada-U.S. agreement on how the Arctic should be regulated as global warming opens northern sea lanes.

He also called on American leaders to take seriously Canada’s sovereignty claims over the Northwest Passage.

“The United States should not underestimate Canadian passions on this issue,” wrote Mr. Borgerson, a fellow at the influential Council on Foreign Relations.

He noted that Canada is among several countries bulking up their military and surveillance capabilities in the north in anticipation of expanded shipping and energy exploration activity.

“There are currently no clear rules governing this economically and strategically vital region,” stated the magazine’s summary of Mr. Borgerson’s analysis, called Arctic Meltdown: The Economic and Security Implications of Global Warming.

“Unless Washington leads the way toward a multilateral diplomatic solution, the Arctic could descend into armed conflict.”

This issue scares me. I don’t want to go to war over the Artic. There’s no people there, no lives to save, it would be purely for money. Russia can have it, for all I care.
And I’d like people to find a solution without “Washington leading the way”. NO. :noway:

2

I say nuke the North Pole and let God sort it all out.

3

Who would do that to innocent baby seals?

4

Who else is going to do it"?

5

Turn them into the number one supplier of delicious seal flippers?

recipes.chef2chef.net/recipe-arc … 7570.shtml

Replacing shark fin at a wedding banquet near you soon.

6

Who would do that to innocent baby seals?[/quote]

So I take it you wouldn’t support the Socialist countries in this battle? (Canada and Norway are huge seal killers).

7

[quote][i]"Former U.S. Coast Guard Lt.-Cmdr. Scott Borgerson, in the latest issue of Foreign Policy magazine, argued that Washington has to start with a Canada-U.S. agreement on how the Arctic should be regulated as global warming opens northern sea lanes.

He also called on American leaders to take seriously Canada’s sovereignty claims over the Northwest Passage.

“The United States should not underestimate Canadian passions on this issue,” wrote Mr. Borgerson, a fellow at the influential Council on Foreign Relations.

He noted that Canada is among several countries bulking up their military and surveillance capabilities in the north in anticipation of expanded shipping and energy exploration activity.

“There are currently no clear rules governing this economically and strategically vital region,” stated the magazine’s summary of Mr. Borgerson’s analysis, called Arctic Meltdown: The Economic and Security Implications of Global Warming.

“Unless Washington leads the way toward a multilateral diplomatic solution, the Arctic could descend into armed conflict.”[/i][/quote].
I’m sure a security protocol (updated regularly) for this matter was established long ago, including several provisions allowing the Canadian state, and it’s politicians to serve up a few classic hissy fits now & again, as a means of national toothpick wobbling. It looks smashing in the press, and serves to bolster public confidence in the Office of The Prime Minister.
Which is by no means the same entity as any individual temporarily occupying the position of Prime Minister.

8

Who would do that to innocent baby seals?[/quote]

So I take it you wouldn’t support the Socialist countries in this battle? (Canada and Norway are huge seal killers).

[/quote]

Me gots no problem with socialism, Me gots big problems with nuking an area of land occupied mainly by wildlife.

9

What? Let them blow each other up over it if you ask me. If there’s any resolving we need to do, let it be by claiming it for ourselves and telling everyone else to keep out.

10

Who else is going to do it"?[/quote]Check out the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Claims and counter claims, to this point, are being made under it provisions. It will provide the basis for a settlement, to be ironed out by negotiations.

11

The north pole (arctic) has no land, it’s all ice …

12

The north pole (arctic) has no land, it’s all ice …[/quote]

Which makes the idea of an armed conflict there even worse.

Which brings me to…what is entailed in getting the valuable stuff out of the ice. Hopefully not melting the ice. We need that ice. :help:

13

Anybody watch “The Man From Atlantis”–a 1970’s show starring Patrick Duffy as an Aquaman / Sub-Mariner knock-off? In one episode his arch-enemy, Mr. Schubert, plotted to melt the ice caps with microwaves, thereby flooding the world and allowing him to rule. (Schubert had like, submarines and underwater equipment and stuff.) Presumably it would have to be the South Pole, though, since the north polar cap just floats on the water and wouldn’t raise the sea level. Anyway, since this was the first U.S. show allowed into Communist China, I think it warrants a certain respect.

Once David Letterman read out the headline of a magazine ad starring Patrick Duffy. It seems that Crisco was running a contest where the lucky winner would get to meet Duffy. The ad showed Duffy speaking to the reader with these oh-so-inviting words:

Patrick Duffy says: “Let Crisco bring us together!”

14

Who else is going to do it"?[/quote]

basically leading the way means screwing over all the other countries…if the US doesn’t screw over the other countries, then another country will try to lead the way and screw everybody else.

its a loose loose situation that can only be resolved in destroying the competition.

15

The north pole (arctic) has no land, it’s all ice …[/quote]
Placing a glass of ice and water and in the microware for 2 minutes probably kills more organisms than nuking the polar cap with an a-bomb.

Sure there are other consequences, like opening the waterways faster…

But if they are really that stupid and greedy, I can only recommend letting a higher power sorting out the follies of human nature.

16

The north pole (arctic) has no land, it’s all ice …[/quote]
Placing a glass of ice and water and in the microware for 2 minutes probably kills more organisms than nuking the polar cap with an a-bomb.

Sure there are other consequences, like opening the waterways faster…

But if they are really that stupid and greedy, I can only recommend letting a higher power sorting out the follies of human nature.[/quote]

Why, you’re right.
from wikipedia: Polar bears are believed to rarely travel beyond about 82° North due to the scarcity of food, though tracks have been seen in the vicinity of the North Pole, and a 2006 expedition reported sighting a polar bear just one mile (1.6 km) from the Pole.[29][30] The ringed seal has also been seen at the Pole, and Arctic foxes have been observed less than 60 km away at 89°40′ N.[31][32]

Birds seen at or very near the Pole include the Snow Bunting, Northern Fulmar and Black-legged Kittiwake, though some bird sightings may be distorted by the fact that birds tend to follow ships and expeditions.[33]

Fish have been seen in the waters at the North Pole, but these are probably few in number.[33] A member of the Russian team that descended to the North Pole seabed in August 2007 reported seeing no sea creatures living there.[34]

But I am still against going to armed conflict over stuff. Money, greed.
How is anybody going to sell this war to us? If you were a soldier, would you be motivated to go to war over ice?

17

[quote=“trebuchet”]

But I am still against going to armed conflict over stuff. Money, greed.
How is anybody going to sell this war to us? If you were a soldier, would you be motivated to go to war over ice?[/quote]

How about bird shit?

[quote]Peru and Chile went to war with Spain in 1864-1866 to keep control over a group of guano islands that Spain was trying to exploit (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chincha_Islands_War).

Fifteen years later, British mineral interests in the guano and nitrate deposits of southern Peru and western Bolivia provoked the War of the Pacific (1879-1883). The British were fed up with Peruvian controls over the exploitation of their mineral deposits, so they lined up allies in Chile who agreed to be more compliant with their corporate wishes.

The end result was Chile’s conquest of the Atacama Desert, Peru’s loss of its (nearly depopulated but mineral-rich) southernmost province, and Bolivia’s loss of its only outlet to the sea. Bolivia has never forgiven Chile for its loss.[/quote]

And for those stalwart opponents of American Imperialism, this sinister note:

[quote]Glenn Davis Stone, a professor of anthropology at Washington University in St. Louis, whose fascinating work on the uptake of genetically modified cotton by Indian farmers has been featured here previously in “Ganesh and Brahma Bow to a New God” and “The Napster Pirates of Transgenic Biotech,” writes in to remind us of President Millard Fillmore’s State of the Union address in 1850.

"Peruvian guano has become so desirable an article to the agricultural interest of the United States that it is the duty of the Government to employ all the means properly in its power for the purpose of causing that article to be imported into the country at a reasonable price."

From which followed the passage of the Guano Islands Act, which authorized U.S. imperialist expansion in search of guano.

The first clause of said Act:

"Whenever any citizen of the United States discovers a deposit of guano on any island, rock, or key, not within the lawful jurisdiction of any other government, and not occupied by the citizens of any other government, and takes peaceable possession thereof, and occupies the same, such island, rock, or key may, at the discretion of the President, be considered as appertaining to the United States. "[/quote]

salon.com/tech/htww/
How the World Works - Salon.com

BTW, Andrew Leonard, the writer of that blog, has the dubious distinction of having been an English teacher in Taiwan.

18

That was then, this is now.
After spending half of the last decade screaming “no blood for oil”, what are the chances of drumming up public support for a war over mineral deposits buried in no-man’s land for someone else (but not the general public or those doing the actual fighting) to get rich off of?
Damn close to ZERO, unless you own one of the big oil companies.

Chances of the American people backing a war to help Canada/Norway defend itself from something truly dastardly that threatens the lives of their people: you can count on it. :rainbow:

Chances of the American people backing a war to help Canada/Norway rape and pillage a polar ice cap before someone else does: Don’t even entertain the thought. :wanker: