With the retreating sea ice the Northwest Passage is expected to become routinely (though seasonally) navigable in the near future. This is huge in terms of product transport and the fishing industry.
Canada is claiming ownership over the NW passage declaring it an internal body of water. US, Greenlands and othes are giving it the status of a straight and claim the passage is international waters.
Here's a pic.
We can probably bully Canada into sharing. But only with the US.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- The Northwest Passage
The Northwest PassageFollow
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Personally, I don't care if people want to use it as a passageway.
If they stop to do things like fish or drill for oil then we may have a problem.
If they stop to do things like fish or drill for oil then we may have a problem.
"I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"
Quote:
If they stop to do things like fish or drill for oil then we may have a problem.
Of course "they" will. They're people. It's what they do.
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
Canada has a pretty good case, though. I think using the UN accepted definition of International Waters, few (if any) parts of the passage fall within it. Here's a map I found from this site.
The arctic circle has been disputed for years, but this passage specifically seems pretty firmly within Canadian jurisdiction.
The arctic circle has been disputed for years, but this passage specifically seems pretty firmly within Canadian jurisdiction.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Elinda wrote:
We can probably bully Canada into sharing. But only with the US.
Iamadam the Prohpet wrote:
Personally, I don't care if people want to use it as a passageway.
If they stop to do things like fish or drill for oil then we may have a problem.
If they stop to do things like fish or drill for oil then we may have a problem.
Of course, drilling is without a doubt, going to be an issue and one we may have trouble settling with the US specifically, depending on who the President is at the time and what impossible promise they've made to remove the US from foreign fuel dependency.
Also, safe to assume Russia won't play nice on this one.
Edited, Apr 13th 2010 3:08pm by Uglysasquatch
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Canada wouldn't be the first country to offer up its back passage for the US to use as it sees fit...
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Wokka wokka wokka
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Wokka wokka wokka
I like you without premium.
Back in the 50's we flew Inuit from the north all way the **** up there to establish a presence. Was a pretty sad affair, caused lots of issues, if I could only remember the name of the show I watched on it :(
That being said international law aside, if Russia or the USofA decides it's international waters we are pretty much hooped. Denmark/Greenland, meh, but one of those big two would be pretty iffy. Watching it for the last 4 years though it has definitely been one of Harpers pet projects.
That being said international law aside, if Russia or the USofA decides it's international waters we are pretty much hooped. Denmark/Greenland, meh, but one of those big two would be pretty iffy. Watching it for the last 4 years though it has definitely been one of Harpers pet projects.
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
idiggory wrote:
Canada has a pretty good case, though. I think using the UN accepted definition of International Waters, few (if any) parts of the passage fall within it. Here's a map I found from this site.
The arctic circle has been disputed for years, but this passage specifically seems pretty firmly within Canadian jurisdiction.
The arctic circle has been disputed for years, but this passage specifically seems pretty firmly within Canadian jurisdiction.
From that map it looks like theoretically legally speaking shipping would have to go all the way up that triangular corner of Canada to where it meets Greenland, and come down between Canada and Greenland. Which would be a lot less efficient than shipping would like. And I don't know if that area up to the tippy top corner of Canada and Greenland would be icefree anyway.
But legalities can get a bit academic if they are unenforcable, and legalities are often unenforceable around the poles. For example Australia claims huge areas of the Antarctic which most nations don't acknowledge. Lots of nations have teeny tiny "soveriegn" research stations all over the Antarctic, with pretty much no regard to who, of several national claimants, owns the land. And since physical human life is so often at risk down there, there is usually in practise massive co-operation between people of the different research stations, regardless of how their parent nations are getting along in the rest of the world.
In other examples, whaling and fishing nations often flout "no-take" conservation zones in the waters of other nations. If the patrol planes/patrol boats don't see you - no foul. Even if they do see you - often nothing practically can be done about it. Diplomats complain strenuously, but the sort of actions that could be taken to arresting an entire ship come perilously close to aggressive war-like actions.
Sorry my map link goobered up on me.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Canada should install locks and charge a toll to anyone passing through their lands.
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
TirithRR the Eccentric wrote:
Canada should install locks and charge a toll to anyone passing through their lands.
That would be a groovey engineering challenge.
Aripyanfar wrote:
TirithRR the Eccentric wrote:
Canada should install locks and charge a toll to anyone passing through their lands.
That would be a groovey engineering challenge.
A man, a plan, a canal?
Edited, Apr 14th 2010 7:08am by AngstyCoder
Just as Planned.
The simple fact of the matter is that should the time ever come when we do actually see peak oil and exploiting the resources of the arctic circle ends up being the only way to delay the end of the fossil fuel era the United States will simply annex the country to our north and be done with it. We'll consider the bill due for the centuries of protection she has enjoyed and call it even. Sure, there may be some negotiation, it may not be called the United States of America anymore, but sovereignty will no longer reside in Ottawa. I could see the new continental government being built in the Twin Cities.
The influx of Mexicans would suck, but at least they'd outnumber the Somalis.
The influx of Mexicans would suck, but at least they'd outnumber the Somalis.
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
sovereignty will no longer reside in Ottawa London.
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Lord Nobby wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
sovereignty will no longer reside in Ottawa London.
/snicker
You guys are so cute with the whole Commonwealth thing.
Ok, the Duke of Lancaster would no longer be calling the shots in Canada.
Better?
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
The simple fact of the matter is that should the time ever come when we do actually see peak oil and exploiting the resources of the arctic circle ends up being the only way to delay the end of the fossil fuel era the United States will simply annex the country to our north and be done with it. We'll consider the bill due for the centuries of protection she has enjoyed and call it even. Sure, there may be some negotiation, it may not be called the United States of America anymore, but sovereignty will no longer reside in Ottawa. I could see the new continental government being built in the Twin Cities.
The influx of Mexicans would suck, but at least they'd outnumber the Somalis.
The influx of Mexicans would suck, but at least they'd outnumber the Somalis.
America has made it politically untenable for itself to annex anything now, what makes you think it'll be able to do so in a few decades' time?
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
The simple fact of the matter is that should the time ever come when we do actually see peak oil and exploiting the resources of the arctic circle ends up being the only way to delay the end of the fossil fuel era the United States will simply annex the country to our north and be done with it. We'll consider the bill due for the centuries of protection she has enjoyed and call it even. Sure, there may be some negotiation, it may not be called the United States of America anymore, but sovereignty will no longer reside in Ottawa. I could see the new continental government being built in the Twin Cities.
The influx of Mexicans would suck, but at least they'd outnumber the Somalis.
The influx of Mexicans would suck, but at least they'd outnumber the Somalis.
America has made it politically untenable for itself to annex anything now, what makes you think it'll be able to do so in a few decades' time?
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
The simple fact of the matter is that should the time ever come when we do actually see peak oil and exploiting the resources of the arctic circle ends up being the only way to delay the end of the fossil fuel era the United States will simply annex the country to our north and be done with it. We'll consider the bill due for the centuries of protection she has enjoyed and call it even. Sure, there may be some negotiation, it may not be called the United States of America anymore, but sovereignty will no longer reside in Ottawa. I could see the new continental government being built in the Twin Cities.
The influx of Mexicans would suck, but at least they'd outnumber the Somalis.
The influx of Mexicans would suck, but at least they'd outnumber the Somalis.
America has made it politically untenable for itself to annex anything now, what makes you think it'll be able to do so in a few decades' time?
You're cute when you're naive.
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
The simple fact of the matter is that should the time ever come when we do actually see peak oil and exploiting the resources of the arctic circle ends up being the only way to delay the end of the fossil fuel era the United States will simply annex the country to our north and be done with it. We'll consider the bill due for the centuries of protection she has enjoyed and call it even. Sure, there may be some negotiation, it may not be called the United States of America anymore, but sovereignty will no longer reside in Ottawa. I could see the new continental government being built in the Twin Cities.
The influx of Mexicans would suck, but at least they'd outnumber the Somalis.
The influx of Mexicans would suck, but at least they'd outnumber the Somalis.
America has made it politically untenable for itself to annex anything now, what makes you think it'll be able to do so in a few decades' time?
Frankly, it's not a very good question, as I know his answer but disagree.
I'm pretty tired, though.
Quote:
You're cute when you're naive.
I'm afraid you're the one being naive.
Also, possibly trolling? Who knows or cares.
Edited, Apr 14th 2010 12:35pm by Kavekk
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
The simple fact of the matter is that should the time ever come when we do actually see peak oil and exploiting the resources of the arctic circle ends up being the only way to delay the end of the fossil fuel era the United States will simply annex the country to our north and be done with it.
America has made it politically untenable for itself to annex anything now, what makes you think it'll be able to do so in a few decades' time?
Frankly, it's not a very good question, as I know his answer but disagree.
I'm pretty tired, though.
I'm even curious now. What's my answer?
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
The simple fact of the matter is that should the time ever come when we do actually see peak oil and exploiting the resources of the arctic circle ends up being the only way to delay the end of the fossil fuel era the United States will simply annex the country to our north and be done with it.
America has made it politically untenable for itself to annex anything now, what makes you think it'll be able to do so in a few decades' time?
Frankly, it's not a very good question, as I know his answer but disagree.
I'm pretty tired, though.
I'm even curious now. What's my answer?
Uh, that the urgency of getting more oil at that point will make the annexation of Canada to directly procure more acceptable enough as a political position for it to be actualised?
It's a stupid outcome for that scenario.
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
America has made it politically untenable for itself to annex anything now, what makes you think it'll be able to do so in a few decades' time?
Frankly, it's not a very good question, as I know his answer but disagree.
I'm pretty tired, though.
I'm even curious now. What's my answer?
Uh, that the urgency of getting more oil at that point will make the annexation of Canada to directly procure more acceptable enough as a political position for it to be actualised?
It's a stupid outcome for that scenario.
I'm not trolling. I think that the real advent of peak oil will dramatically change the world. The climate will be such that decisions unpalatable in the past will become relatively easy to make in the face of the new realities. In times free of real conflict decisions like that are only fun to think about in the abstract, but thinking about them does allow for planning should certain eventualities materialize.
Quote:
Uh, that the urgency of getting more oil at that point will make the annexation of Canada to directly procure more acceptable enough as a political position for it to be actualised?
Edit: Don't post so fast
Edited, Apr 14th 2010 9:43am by Uglysasquatch
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Recent Visitors: 232
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (232)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- The Northwest Passage
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC