I couldn't help but notice that the fifth largest continent is uninhabited. According to the law, anybody can claim an uninhabited landmass. You need only prove a permanent population exists which can be as small as one person and be prepared to trade with neighbouring nations. Then the UN will accept you as an independant sovereign country. Now I understand that treaties exist forbidding the use of Antarctica but suppose somebody went ahead and did it anyway. Imagine a large population moves in and takes over. Not overnight but gradually. Then they boot out everybody else and declare independance. It's a horribly cold place but a lot easier than colonising say....Mars. A few nuclear reactors would warm up the place. Use the waste heat to carve out caverns in the ice. Even nuclear warheads wouldn't get through those. Once dug in it would be impossible to kick out a strong military. :m: Who's with me? It's not as charming as a tropical island but refrigeration costs will be really low.
If I remember rightly, Antarcitica is protected by international treaties. There are various research stations, from various nations on that continent. They are manned, nearly year round.
ummm, antatica IS owned the largest % is actully owned by Australia im not sure on the break down but its like 45% or something Australian, 10% NZ and not sure on the rest except that i think brittan is in there
Australia runs 40% of the place. Quite a considerable slice and the best part too. Actual land as opposed to just glaciers. Officially its uninhabited though. The treaties forbid any nation from attacking its considerable resources such as oil. Ofcourse, if we were to make a similar law about Australia then the Australians would get rather miffed. So we probably wouldn't. Might is right in the end. If a sizable population managed to build up on the Antarctic continent and then chose to declare independance they would not being setting a precedent. The US declared independance from the British despite laws forbidding them from doing so. Both Australian and American colonists gave little consideration to the natives laws when they took over. A firmly entrenched Antarctic community with a half decent military would be hard to budge and they won't have invaded another community. Apart from research stations there is nothing. Unman the research stations and the invasion is complete. Even reaching the Antarctic peninsula is difficult most of the year. A defensive strategy would be very effective. A few nuclear power plants really would work wonders there. The low temperatures would be of great help in cooling the reactors. With an overabundance of electricity and heat you could terraform a landscape kilometres under the ice. Down at the bedrock level. Hydroponic gardens with artificial lights for around the year gardening. Mining of mineral and metal wealth for technology and trade. Australia, Africa and the tip of Mexico could be reached during the summer months for trade.
its not just loaned to australia we own it like we own chrismas island they are both teritorys of australia and any crime comited in the Australian antartic teritory will be delt with by the AFP, same with the milatry, if it comes to it its the ARA, ARN, and the RAAF who would defend antatica from invasion
I know. I'm Australian. I'm talking about a gradual buildup. Smuggled reactors and weapons. A secret new nation. Antarctica is a huge continent. Hundreds of thousands of people could hide out there once living space had been found. I expect the continent must have natural limestone cave systems like the rest of the World. Perhaps with caverns measuring several square kilometres in area. Apart from the odd satellite on a polar orbit the chances of discovery are non-existant. It would take years to accomplish but once you have a big enough foothold nobody is going to kick you out very easily. Just to be on the safe side, build some nuclear weapons with the mox from your reactors. Military planes have a hard time just reaching Antarctica. There are few safe landing spots and they would be prey to surface to air missiles. Troops dropped down would face imminent frostbite, snow blindness and starvation from unreliable food drops. Meanwhile, their objective is snugly hidden away in underground cities. All that snow and ice makes great cover for remotely controlled weaponry. According to the law, posession is 9 tenths of the law. In other words, whoever actually lives there. Antarctica would be unconquerable in my opinion. A strong military with good ground support and rationing would have little trouble picking off invaders from the ARA, ARN and RAAF.
If somebody made an action and there was a small exodus of people going to Antarctica to live permanently, i'd sign up maybe. As long as i feel reasonably sure about resources and such, sure. Plus, i'd make sure the nation's laws argeed with me.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
There is no way (maybe a remote chance) a nation could survive in Antarctica if it expected to be a self sufficent nation. Huge greenhouses would have to be built to produce food for the nation, since the terrian and climate of Antarctica would not support any attempt at agriculture. And if you had enough money to buy a few fission reactors and all the other resources needed to start a nation in such a harsh enviroment, why not buy an army and take over an island in the south pacific? Heck, go for Christmas Island since Australia owns that too.
i would like the the jews to forget about the promised land crap and go annex antartica. get a force field in place. live happily ever after
Hahaha, spookzPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Interesting thought about Antartica though.... it is possible.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Later T
No one owns Antarctica (but the ozone hole) Actually, many countries are claiming sovereignity over Antarctica, so you will see their claimed territory overlaps the claims of several other countries. There is going to be a real mess when one country says one day: "This is mine, you get out". Meanwhile, the one that reached Antarctica first was the ozone hole, and will stay there quite a long time after mankind had vanished from Earth 's surface. Take it cool... in Antarctica there is no other way to take it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Orbie seems to be the only one posting with any acumen or inherent judiciousness. I mean, forming a sovereign nation in Antarctica, a frozen desolation? I entreat you, comrade, be realistic. For a nation to sustain itself, it must have a stable, ample agrarian foundation. Agriculture, comade, is an irreplacable necessity to any country! I'm not enjoining you to look at this like a rustic physiocrat, but reconsider what you're suggesting! Antarctica doesn't have the climate, or terrain to produce the copious vials needed to feed a growing nation. As to the notion of fission reactors and subterranean gardens, well, it all seems rather farfatched. I mean, if you have that much dough to throw around, go conquer Micronesia.
Jesus, man . . . I've been posting here for over half a year . . . my username can be found in several of the same threads yours can . . . do you not read the threads? You just now remember?
If we can get good self sutaining habitats in the middle of Antarctica it would be great practice for making space colonies. Be hard as heck as they dont have soil, (you would have to harvest penguin guano) few scources of fule, (maybe geothermal or perhaps wind) and garbage dosnt decay in those temperatures. Mining, fishing, and penguin pelts may make it profitable. Get it running in the black for a few years, make it an interconnected complex, and give it a large greenhouse dome and I may even move there.
I'm with you Cthulhu- seriously. Actually I've been pondering the same Idea myself for a number of years. I would seriously join an Antarctic colony in a heartbeat. Actually, here are some reasons I though of for colonizing Antarctica: 1. global warming, and possible collapse of civilization due to outstripping of resources and internal moral collapse. There's a strong possibility that the earth is going to be made into a hell in 50 years. Climate systems fluctuate causing massive crop failure; engendering war and economic collapse. Possible nuclear war. In that event, most continents might even be made inhabitable, overrun by gangs of mutants and dictators intent on extermination, looting and pillaging. Except Antarctica. An Antarctic civilization would probably ride out the storm... and its citizens would be forced to depend on technology for their very survival. Nuclear winter? no problem. New ice age? no problem. Furthermore, they would be protected from outside invasion by apocalyptic barbarian dictators and nuclear attack (being naturally underground). The Antarctic civilization could then function as a bubble of civilization, (preserving culture and scientific technology, must like the Foundation in Azimov's novel) that might develop in its self sufficiency for a hundred years or so after the apocalypse, then go forth and reconquer the world with its super-advanced AI, cyborg and robot warriors with death rays, or just zap the mutant dictators like ants from outer space, using a giant laser. 2. Resources, create wealth, create civilization. Antarctica is rich in one natural resource; freshwater. It may become more valuable in the future. And who knows whats under the ice? Antarctica was once a warm continent, teeming with life. Under all that ice is an entire frozen, ancient world. 3. Road into space, and the sea. A technological, space/seafaring society could crystallize and hone its skills in Antarctica. How would living on Mars, or in sea colonies, be any different, except that the environment would be a tad more demanding? An Antarctic civilization would have to learn the skills of self-sufficiency, entirely producing their own resources and energy needed to survive. They would need to rely heavily on technology, and have a close-knit, technological and intellectual culture. The possibilities for social progress are astounding. People are shaped by struggle; the people who would go to Antarctica wouldn't just be going there for material gain (at first)... much like the Puritans who colonized America, they would be going there to create 'a city on a hill' and live in greater freedom away from the center of government.
heres antarctica; http://www.vjc.moe.edu.sg/academics/dept/geography/antarctica/map.html youll have quite a few countries on your ass if you try to set up in the middle of it
I'd join up too. It'd make a change, so long as there wasn't too high a risk of CERTAIN DEATH. But yeah, cool idea. A guest in Sciforums? OMG!
Colonizing Antarctica well the whole thing isn't claimedPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!, You couldn't live on the surface, however if a group of like 20,000 people went there, it would take some investing to build a permanant setlement, but i'm down, 3 steps to colonization, step1; Find sponsors or some way to finance building a permanant settlement.:bugeye: step2; flag and government type (I got that one covered)Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! step3; a new Antarctican Language (working on this one)
