It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Antartic War

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 05:49 AM
link   
This is my first post so im still learning about the site at the moment so bear with me, This is something i have been thinking about for a while now,
As im sure u all know Antarctica has rich resources and minerals beneath it shell Now the Antarctic Treaty protects any of these resources from being used.
30 countries in total are members of the treaty from the Slovakian Republic in 1952 to Estonia in 2001 but eventually the resources in other parts of the world will begin to run out and it will start to become neccessary to used the resources.
Now Falklands war in 1982 was caused by the argentinians invaded the Falkland Islands but why were the british so desperate to keep a hold of the Falklands, well because the falklands are very close to antartica and one of the only links the UK has with the South Pole this is western countries and rich countries in the east are trying to keep and tight grip on these islands because it my opions it is only a matter of time before One of these countries breaks the treaty and invades antartica
What does evryone else think

Resources:
www.antarctica.ac.uk...

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 3/1/06 by Xenesthad]




posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Why did we want to keep it?

A) Its ours , we own it, our people are on it.
B) It has OUR oil around it.
C) Did I mention that we own the sheep on it?



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 10:21 PM
link   
very intresting, would be a good place for a base b/c of all the white...cheep and very efective camo



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by engenerQ
very intresting, would be a good place for a base b/c of all the white...cheep and very efective camo

Umm, yeah , you realise there is like no point in going there due to the cost, danger and distance from help...right?



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   
exactly im far from an expert but if i wanted to do some questanable exparaments and i wanted to hide far far away. though it would b quite dangerous i think they could find some craazy enough people to live there. as for the money well you know goverments and money



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Well, I figure that by the time Antarctica is mined, there will be a tottaly different world power system than there is now, I.E. other contries being superpowers than the current ones.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by engenerQ
exactly im far from an expert but if i wanted to do some questanable exparaments and i wanted to hide far far away. though it would b quite dangerous i think they could find some craazy enough people to live there. as for the money well you know goverments and money

Why?
The cost isnt worth it...hell britain alone has many small islands with no people on them, easy enough to use them.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by engenerQ
very intresting, would be a good place for a base b/c of all the white...cheep and very efective camo


By this statement, are you referring to those little fluffy clouds on legs.......................
SHEEP?

Obviously you know next to nothing about sheep!

Have you ever tried to creep up on a
sheep or lamb?

Course you haven't! And neither have I!

Why?

Because the little
keep running away and when you stop chasing them, they just stand there, looking back at you...........staring at you, waiting for your next move..............then, when you do, the little
run away again!

So your idea of using them as camouflage is a non starter!

Now, if those canny Falklanders had brown cows, that'd be a different matter. Bloody inquisative yer average cow is! Come and
stand all round you in, just begging for a smack on the nose!

I suppose you could always snurgle up and have a bit of a bash at an elephant or walrus seal. Have to be pissed out of yer 'ead, 'cause them
can't half move and if you got caught, imagine a couple of tons of blubber sitting on top of you!



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 01:51 AM
link   
X,

I think that fighting in 70` below zero temperatures (instant frostbite upon removal of even facial or hand coverings /before/ you add in the Catabatic (sp.) Winds that are in the 150-200mph range and run all up and down the coastal plains 24:7:365 of AA makes war in the southern polar extremes one of those things that you do only when you grow tired of installing screen doors on submarines.

Literally, steel snaps like glass under these conditions.

As others have stated, there are alternative sources of power available, some much closer to home (the UK has 986TWh worth of windpower off her shores and is building her wind industry up at a rate of 10% every year with some 321TWh now exploited).

Furthermore, I expect that along about the time we are expected to make some serious 'power or materials' choices on the remaining oil, 'someone' will discover a way to make bacteria pump the stuff out under conditions akin to uncle jo's still (a giant mash under salt domes 1,500ft down) such that we can make all the plastic we desire.

Of much more urgent concern are those indicators which seem to point to the shrinkage of both polar caps and particularly the sluffing off of giant segments of the Antarctic ice sheet. Certainly, I can think of no one nation that would desire responsibility for 'stabilizing the AA environmental crisis' if such was indeed their sole responsibility.

And that is ultimately the problem with your premise. War has gone from being a blatant 'devil may care' statement of burgeoning nationalism for pride or resource/trade access reasons to some vainly twisted notion of 'Moral Supremacy' as an artificial justification. Where people refuse, for cultural, religious or ethnic reasons, to ascribe to such shared social mores; they have little or no ability to come together as friends or enemies.

Certainly not if the outcome of war is not merely embarrassment and occupation but isolation and excoriation as a vae victis victim of the winner, indefinitely.

You wanna fight? You talk about food shortages, clean water and social entropy (nobody wants to be a slave nation with a rich economic production base, nobody wants to be a 'service' economy with utter dependence on slave states for production of goods that they can no longer afford). All leading to a general (global) decay of the civilization engine where conflict is less about societal values than the certainty of the wealth and security that they once brought are no longer assured or unique enough to be worth the struggle.

THIS will lead to 'war' as a widespread scream of the chained drey beast we have become, harnessed to our own social plow. It may be we need severe climatic stress, a pandemic disease or secondary geo-political upheaval to make it catalyst into warlike struggles at home as much as abroad. But it will be our disgust with US, as a people losing our awareness of self, that ultimately dooms us to combat.

At which point, ironically, people may want to come to the farthest known regions just to get away from a vastly overpopulated, mixed ethnicity, resource 'shared', and ultimately socially tyrannical governing system necessary to put return things to stability if not aright.

Dunno, if the plexiglass is thick enough, can you do hydroponics in Antarctica?


KPl.



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Haven't the Nazi's been down there for over 60 years now? I think they are dug in pretty well.



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 09:12 PM
link   
The Antarctic nazis have been fighting with the Soviets for quite a while, but your right, the nazis own most of the continent.

Seriously folks. It has no strategic value. It cannot support bases, it has no mining ability due to 0 infrastructure, it would violate treaties, and finally, its simply too harsh. There is no point. Its worth nothing in a military sense.



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xenesthad
As im sure u all know Antarctica has rich resources and minerals beneath it shell Now the Antarctic Treaty protects any of these resources from being used.


[edit on 3/1/06 by Xenesthad]


Anyone interested in the topic should try to watch the show Artic rush.

Your correct its estimated that 1/4 of all remaining natural resources on the planet on now tied up in the Artic regions of earth. With the global increase in temps theses resources are becoming easier to get and in the case of the north the great North passage men have dreamed of for centuries may be opened in a few decades. That if it opens for a even a small part of the year will be the most important shipping lane on earth.

In the case of the Artic only four countries can and are trying to make resource and shipping lanes grabs. Russia which has the best case and is trying to claim over half of it. The rest is being divide between Canada the US and I think Norway.

Antartica no doubt has just as vast resources but really no super important shipping lanes that can open up like in the north. None of the global powers are in a rush for resource rights like in the north they really dont have a case to claim them.

The north is a different story and that is where the dispute of some global powers is focused and will be for some time.

[edit on 28-1-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Umm, I'm a bit confused, since when have there been NAZIs in the antarctic?

I'm very confused now.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 02:35 AM
link   
screw antarctica...I have bigger plans..much bigger plans. *Invades Greenland* Who does Greenland belong to and why isn't it recognized as a conitinent?



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Why should Greenland be considered a continent? It's 1/3rd the size of Australia and half the size of India.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Greenland information for the lazy



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Here's food for thought- Antarctica used to be bare land- it's been ice for a long, long time, but back when the atmosphereic CO2 levels were much much higher, there was virtually no ice on this planet. If the whole global warming thing actually happens some people are going to be in trouble. I'm willing to guess the UK would be looking for some new real estate at that point. At the rate we're going, not accounting for exponential growth, we'll be there in a few hundred years.
You and me- not worried. Governments- worried. The egg timer on the global chessboard is timed in decades and centuries, not months and years.


As for greenland, I got a map of the North American plate for you guys, courtesy of NASA.
Wikipedia on tectonics



Greenland isn't moving on it's own, it's moving with North America- hence no continent. Also, there is limited debate over whether or not it is even one island. I couldn't find anything concrete on the matter on the wikitalk page regarding the matter, but there was an inspecific citation of some study which found it was two islands, and many argue that if the ice melted it would be an archipelago. All inconclusive, but ultimately irrelevant since it hasn't got it's own plate.

[edit on 29-1-2006 by The Vagabond]

[edit on 29-1-2006 by The Vagabond]



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 08:32 PM
link   
well ive gotten thoroughly flamed for invading greenland, so ill go pillage and do some pirate stuff.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Antarctica is actually a very busy place.

www.newzeal.com...

South Africa base ...www.saasta.ac.za...

No idea if the Nazi's still have theirs or how much shooting there was to take or keep it.


Stellar



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   
We already own Antartica
charlieandrews.org..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join