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.

 

Russia to deploy 2 army brigades in Arctic

page: 2
26
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Regenstorm
 


They should listen to this:

www.youtube.com...

The oil won't matter!




posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by BLV12
 


This first link will show you how the Russian high command will often mislead their country into thinking the military is stronger than it actually is. Alot of politics involved:

www.bu.edu...

This next link will show how the Russian military was graded during testing only a few years ago:

www.jamestown.org...

Russia may be adding in new equipment but it doesn't mean their readiness is very good. I'm sure they could put up a great fight with their crack A-list troops for a few weeks or a month but after that they will suffer heavily.

Russia cannot withstand a prolonged war without serious losses of life and hardware.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by kro32


Russia cannot withstand a prolonged war without serious losses of life and hardware.


Be that as it may, can't the same be said for ANY nation ?

second
edit on 1-7-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


There's a major, major difference between wide open ocean and the Arctic.

The ocean is open, with little to no natural barriers. You can pour concrete and build on top of it. The Arctic is huge pieces of thousand ton ice chunks floating and moving constantly. The task to build an oil rig in that scenario is quite daunting.

Not saying its impossible, its just....unfeasible.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


Actually America's military readiness is very high but even more important than that is the experience they've gotten since our non-stop military escapeds over the last decade or more.

Our fighting forces, though stretched, can't be matched currently by any nation in the world.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by isthisreallife
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


There's a major, major difference between wide open ocean and the Arctic.

The ocean is open, with little to no natural barriers. You can pour concrete and build on top of it. The Arctic is huge pieces of thousand ton ice chunks floating and moving constantly. The task to build an oil rig in that scenario is quite daunting.

Not saying its impossible, its just....unfeasible.


Already figured this out:

www.marisys.com...

Underwater oil rigs.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by isthisreallife
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


There's a major, major difference between wide open ocean and the Arctic.

The ocean is open, with little to no natural barriers. You can pour concrete and build on top of it. The Arctic is huge pieces of thousand ton ice chunks floating and moving constantly. The task to build an oil rig in that scenario is quite daunting.

Not saying its impossible, its just....unfeasible.


unfeasible means impossible. Perhaps you meant that tongue in cheek.

regardless, oil extraction in the arctic is indeed difficult, but not 'impossible' or 'unfeasible'. And it will only become easier as the arctic continues to lose ice mass. As long as there are tens of billions of gallons of crude down there, there will be an effort to extract it.

en.wikipedia.org...

www.usgs.gov...


www.nytimes.com...

edit on 1-7-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


I wasn't sure if anyone would pick that one up.....


I agree that eventually we will be able to harness that energy. But for now, with current technology, it is quite difficult.


reply to post by kro32
 


Just read the article. Very impressive.

I think we are all on the same side. I just believe that all of this military movement and political claims of the Arctic is pointless.

Nothing will change.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   
lol come on everyone, we all know they just want to guard the entrance to the hollow earth, just ask admiral bird lol



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   
I found this information. I cannot personally verify it but I read it anyways. There is more in the article. I only used a little of the information.


Of primary importance, the Arctic Ocean has two main sea routes that, with the help of icebreakers, are open to shipping about five months each year: the Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage. The Northern Sea Route links the Barents Sea and the Bering Straits. When navigable, this route reduces transportation time and costs between the Pacific Rim and Northern Europe and Eurasia. The Northwest Passage runs through Canada’s Arctic archipelago, which reduces transit distance and time from Asia and the eastern North American continent to Europe by one to two weeks. However, Canadian shipping organizations predict that the Arctic Ocean will not be ice-free year-round for another decade or two, thus making the Northwest Passage hazardous to continual navigation. Still, current increased human activity has stoked fears of endangerment of the Arctic biodiversity and risk of environmental degradation from oil spills and pollution.[2]

The Northern Route cuts distance and costs considerably as well depending on whether the alternative is the Suez Canal or the traditional Rotterdam-to-Yokohama routes. Using the Northern Sea Route instead of the Suez Canal to transport an iron ore shipment from the Norwegian town of Kirkenes shaves off eight days to China, 11 to Korea, and 13 to Japan. Similarly, the Northern Sea Route along Russia’s northern route is forecast to become increasingly navigable. This passage cuts transit time between Europe and Asia by one-third and cuts distance by half. The precipitous decrease in the ice sheets that have historically blocked the majority of Arctic waters makes passage feasible.

Additionally, the Arctic is a repository of fossil fuels. Estimates of petroleum resources in this region range up to 22 percent of the world’s remaining undiscovered hydrocarbon reserves.[3] The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that areas north of the Arctic Circle contain up to 90 billion barrels of economically recoverable petroleum and 44 billion barrels of liquid natural gas.[4]

In 2008, the U.S. Minerals Management Service began selling oil and gas leases for drilling rights in the outer continental shelf.[5] The Russian gas company Gazprom has already staked plans for extracting gas from the 3.8 trillion-cubic-meter Shtokman field 370 miles north of the coast of the Kola Peninsula in northwestern Russia.[6] In addition to oil and gas reserves, Norway’s Svalbard Islands hold large coal mines in the Arctic; the Svea Nord mine produced 4 million tons of coal in 2007.[7] Greenland may also have its own coal deposits.

The Arctic also contains economically significant marine life such as cod and whales, which are already exploited. Much of these resources are outside of the 200 nautical-mile limits of the national exclusive economic zones (EEZ), hence the rush by Denmark and Russia to extend their EEZs. The United States does not recognize these claims.

Military interests are also a factor in the Arctic region. Russia bases nuclear-missile ballistic submarines in Arctic waters. Russian, as well as American and British, nuclear submarines are designed to be able to smash through the Arctic ice in order to launch missiles. In addition, the flight paths of U.S. and Russian bombers and missiles pass through the Arctic airspace because it is the most direct route between American and Russian territories. Over the past two years, Russian Tu-160 strategic bombers apparently penetrated northern Canadian airspace using Arctic routes.[8] For that reason, the U.S. and Canada maintain air defense early-warning and missile-tracking radars that provide surveillance of Arctic airspace. The U.S. Air Force’s 12th Space Warning Squadron operates a Ballistic Missile Early Warning Site at Thule in Greenland.

Air sovereignty remains a primary concern. In August 2010, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and the Russian Federation air force conducted a cooperative air defense exercise, “Vigilant Eagle.”[9] Although the exercise happened near the Arctic, its focus centered on shadowing “highjacked” commercial airliners and monitored aircraft exchanges.[10] This exercise was conducted as part of an overall counterterrorism strategy.[11]

www.heritage.org /research/reports/2011/03/eucom-should-lead-us-combatant-commands-in-defense-of-national-interests-in-the-arctic



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Regenstorm
Great news!
They will be defeated when the manure will hit the mill!



The truth is so unbelievable that no one will believe it.

No comment.



HHAHAHAHAHAH Stephen Harper and the Obamanator will not allow this to happen. This should be funny. WTF is russia going to do when they try to claim canadian land as their own. WW 3 anyone? LOL
edit on 2-7-2011 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 02:06 AM
link   
they are just getting ready for the pole shift.That way they will be in control of a nice piece of property when it moves closer to the equator ha ha



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


hahaha a aussie sas soilder would crap all over the americans, do some research on australian and american training if you want to argue americans are the best. but i'm not nieve enough or bias enough to say they are the best in the world. I'll say one thing your a good patriot if nothing else.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by crikeyoioioi
 


if i were silly enough to believe everything i read or was told i'd say its a fact one aussie sas can take out 50 of the worlds best so that means we only need one 50th of your total. Lol



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 03:47 AM
link   
Actually, Canada has beefed up its artctic presence considerably since the Ruskies started this claim the artctic trip.
They sent soldiers to Nunavit and beefed up the Icaluit military base.(Icaluit currently has the third longest runway in North America, and is an alternate for the space shuttle landings).....
There will be some hassle over the norths possession, and it looks as if it will be a military one.
But dont expect itll kick off for another decade or so........



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 04:10 AM
link   
I think it has something to do with realizing how important the arctic will be in the next decade to humanity. I didnt read the whole article but Canada's doing something similar.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 04:19 AM
link   
Why would you need troops in the Arctic? Right now today? Hmm.

There is no war or competition really going on for them. Nothing major.

That we know of.

So what is it that requires 2 brigades of Russian military?

It just seems like we are not hearing the whole story.
Why do you need guns there now?

Wouldn't civilian workers be fine to complete the work they are doing in that zone?



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by IWANT2B3LI3V3
I think it has something to do with realizing how important the arctic will be in the next decade to humanity. I didnt read the whole article but Canada's doing something similar.



Yeah sure, but you don't need to send in precious trained military assets to accomplish that job.

There is no real debate over the Arctic, and the locations the Russians were sent to would be totally fine with just civilian workers in those positions.

Unless, you need military trained professionals with guns.

What enemies are there?

See we are not being told something here.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by XxRagingxPandaxX
wow, very interesting. As the ice caps melt countries are going to want their share of the resources being exposed. And it looks like Russia's the first one to say they're not necessarily gonna claim theirs peacefully.


Do you blame Russia ?

The USA is bombing all over the world in an effort to steel oil and both Russia and China know they can not sit back and let this happen so if this turns into WWIII then history will show that the USA and it's zionist paymasters fired the first shots.

I trust Russia a lot more than the USA because they didn't started bombing the world during the economic collapse of the soviet union which is more than i can say for the USA/UK/France.

I'm no whimp but we need to pull in our goverments and only allow them to start military engaments after putting it to the vote by the people because most people don't agree with the attacks on Libya and yet they call him a dictator whilst pretending they want to spread democracy.

Well what about some democracy here at home or must the people of greece burn the place to the ground to stop public services and building being sold off on the cheap to internatinal bankers.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Master_007
 


very good points, one strange thing thow is russia has claimed the air space over the arctic circle for a while. My brother who lives in sweden took a joy flight over the north pole a couple of years back and had to get russian permission otherwise they would have been shot down. Why the sudden need for more military. Something more to the story i feel.




top topics



 
26
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join