[Wada]

No. The article is about Russia protecting what they deem is theirs.

Do I think Canada should go to war. Absolutely not, we'd probably lose and war is not the answer. As I understand things Russia and Canada have similar interests and would do better to work together. What do you think?

[ziggy]

I think most didnt read the article.

[RUEZ]

Wada Wada:

No. The article is about Russia protecting what they deem is theirs.

Do I think Canada should go to war. Absolutely not, we'd probably lose and war is not the answer. As I understand things Russia and Canada have similar interests and would do better to work together. What do you think?

I dont' care what Russia does in the North as long as they stay within their borders. However Russia is threatening war, Canada is not.

[Proculation]

Wada Wada:

No. The article is about Russia protecting what they deem is theirs.

Do I think Canada should go to war. Absolutely not, we'd probably lose and war is not the answer. As I understand things Russia and Canada have similar interests and would do better to work together. What do you think?

What I would do is make the North Pole position a "International place". Much like Antarctic. But everywhere around it belongs to the northern countries next to it.

[Lemmy]

Proculation Proculation:

You have a link?

No, sorry, I still read my magazines in paper format. I find them less cumbersome than a laptop when I'm riding the shitter.

Proculation Proculation:

Me, I would go with the geographical lines so you do a triangle from the north pole. That is to the US (Alaska), that is to Canada (much of the arctic), that is to Greenland (Danemark) etc.

The problem is that international convention grants 200 miles from coastline. In the arctic, if Russia, the USA, Canada, Denmark (Greenland) and Norway all draw a line 200 miles from their territories, the lines all intersect. Virtually every square inch of the arctic lies with at least 2 nation's territorial control. So there can only be 3 solutions:
1. An international convention, multi-laterally negotiated
2. Economic exploitation, in other words, the Yankees buy out everyone else's interests.
3. War

Now, I'm all for #2, so long as we get the toughest negotiator in the world and we fuck the Yanks for all they're worth, but #1 would be a good second choice.

[Wada]

The us has got more debt now than it can pay so it's negotiate or war. Negotiate and everyone wins.

[Proculation]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Proculation Proculation:

You have a link?

No, sorry, I still read my magazines in paper format. I find them less cumbersome than a laptop when I'm riding the shitter.

Proculation Proculation:

Me, I would go with the geographical lines so you do a triangle from the north pole. That is to the US (Alaska), that is to Canada (much of the arctic), that is to Greenland (Danemark) etc.

The problem is that international convention grants 200 miles from coastline. In the arctic, if Russia, the USA, Canada, Denmark (Greenland) and Norway all draw a line 200 miles from their territories, the lines all intersect. Virtually every square inch of the arctic lies with at least 2 nation's territorial control. So there can only be 3 solutions:
1. An international convention, multi-laterally negotiated
2. Economic exploitation, in other words, the Yankees buy out everyone else's interests.
3. War

Now, I'm all for #2, so long as we get the toughest negotiator in the world and we fuck the Yanks for all they're worth, but #1 would be a good second choice.

I would go for #1 and use my "strategy". Since there's no land in Arctic, just use the North Pole and use the nearest nations. That's quite easy. They all gather at the North Pole and they can give hugs to each others there lol

[Wada]

Russia is NOT threatening war. They are merely keeping the option open. Not so unusual for any country to do the same, particularly the US.

[Lemmy]

Proculation Proculation:

I would go for #1 and use my "strategy". Since there's no land in Arctic, just use the North Pole and use the nearest nations. That's quite easy. They all gather at the North Pole and they can give hugs to each others there lol

The problem with your "strategy" is that it's too logical and too likely to be functional. A 5-nation, UN supervised international negotiation on arctic sovereignty could never adopt so elegantly simple a solution. They'd prefer a final document taller than my 3-year old daughter.

[Wada]

[bootlegga]

Proculation Proculation:

We need to build nukes before the conflict begins. We have all the technology and the uranium so it won't be much of a problem.

Nukes? What a colossal waste of money. We would never be able to build enough nukes to make a real difference anyways, considering the several thousand Russia already has.

Nuke subs would be a far better weapon for securing the Arctic from Russia.

Proculation Proculation:

We need deterrents.

We have already one...it's called NATO.

[PJB]

Sounds like a bunch of sabre rattling from a country that was once powerful and is now trying to regain that power. They seem to want to stake a claim on something that may or may not be there. This is just another reason for the entire world to end its dependance on oil.

[PJB]

http://www.globalfirepower.com/

Check out the key players in all of this.

I am ashamed how low Canada ranked. Shows our defence dependance on the US

[Wada]

Yah but we got big brave you. Not to worry.

[PJB]

Wada Wada:

Yah but we got big brave you. Not to worry.

Pardon me????!!!!