|
Folks asking me to define worth: Can't farm it, it's nearly inhospitable, and it's really hard to get to. It's like buying the moon.
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 15:44 |
|
|
Peanut President posted:Folks asking me to define worth: Can't farm it, it's nearly inhospitable, and it's really hard to get to. It's like buying the moon. Laying claim to mineral or hydrocarbon reserves is useful, and it gives the US significant claims to arctic territory. Considering how the arctic has been warming and become more open to shipping, this is pretty darn useful. It is a long term investment for sure, but it absolutely has worth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
And I'm pretty sure it was strategically useful in the Cold War, too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
When Putin rears his head and comes into the airspace of the United States of America, where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
made of bees posted:Wasn't part of the reasoning just to not have the Russians so close to the parts we care about? According to Wikipedia, many Americans thought it would be a stepping-stone to annexing British Columbia. Wikipedia posted:American public opinion was not universally positive; to some the purchase was known as Seward's Folly. Nonetheless, most editors argued that the U.S. would probably derive great economic benefits from the purchase; friendship of Russia was important; and it would facilitate the acquisition of British Columbia.[7] Forty-five percent of newspapers endorsing the purchase cited the increased potential for annexing British Columbia in their support.[4]
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
SurgicalOntologist posted:And I'm pretty sure it was strategically useful in the Cold War, too. It was strategically useful in WWII. A lot of lend-lease gear was sent through Alaska and then Siberia to the USSR from the USA. There's sadly not an accompanying map but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_convoys_of_World_War_II
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:Folks asking me to define worth: Can't farm it, it's nearly inhospitable, and it's really hard to get to. It's like buying the moon. America paid only $116 million in 2012 dollars for billions of dollars in natural resources as well as the strategic value of shifting its borders with Russia.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
chairface posted:It was strategically useful in WWII. A lot of lend-lease gear was sent through Alaska and then Siberia to the USSR from the USA. There's sadly not an accompanying map but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_convoys_of_World_War_II IIRC Soviet-flagged ships would carry lend-lease cargo from Alaska to Vladivostok, right through the heart of the Japanese Empire and the IJN wouldn't touch them over fear of drawing the Soviets into the conflict.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:Folks asking me to define worth: Can't farm it, it's nearly inhospitable, and it's really hard to get to. It's like buying the moon. Unironically we should start thinking about how to split up the moon and asteroids soonish.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:IIRC Soviet-flagged ships would carry lend-lease cargo from Alaska to Vladivostok, right through the heart of the Japanese Empire and the IJN wouldn't touch them over fear of drawing the Soviets into the conflict. Wouldn't we have had the same advantage there regardless or whether the Russians or British had ended up with Alaska? It's not like the Japanese were going to buy it if we passed after all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Wouldn't we have had the same advantage there regardless or whether the Russians or British had ended up with Alaska? It's not like the Japanese were going to buy it if we passed after all. I doubt at the time of the purchase in the 1860's we were really taking the concerns of the wartime Imperial Japanese into considerations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
chairface posted:It was strategically useful in WWII. A lot of lend-lease gear was sent through Alaska and then Siberia to the USSR from the USA. There's sadly not an accompanying map but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_convoys_of_World_War_II A huge road was built to Alaska as well. I guess it included or connected to one in Canada, but I feel the entire thing was made at once. I saw a doc on it over a decade ago, it was interesting to see how the army built a highway through mountainous terrain at such an absurd and consistent pace. The US at the time was concerned of a Japanese attack on Alaska, and wanted to be able to defend it via ground as well. Lawman 0 posted:Unironically we should start thinking about how to split up the moon and asteroids soonish. Yes. Since nations have stated plans to build at least semi-permanent bases on the moon, we should likely start thinking about this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
Lawman 0 posted:Unironically we should start thinking about how to split up the moon and asteroids soonish. Even if we get bases up and running it's still not going to be any easier to do moon stuff than Antarctic stuff and that continent is still considered neutral ground.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Even if we get bases up and running it's still not going to be any easier to do moon stuff than Antarctic stuff and that continent is still considered neutral ground. Yeah I was going to bring this up too. There is a continent worth of stuff, including a gently caress-ton of water, that nobody is exploiting. This is fine for now, but in 50 or 100 years when other resources have been depleted, well, I pristine Antarctica will be the new frontier. This was featured in the Red Mars series of books. The same Trans-National corporations that were taking over Mars and Space were mining Antarctica because nobody felt like defending the treaties. Neat stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
There's supposedly giant reserves of coal and other petrolchemicals under the ice sheet as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Yeah I was going to bring this up too. There is a continent worth of stuff, including a gently caress-ton of water, that nobody is exploiting. This is fine for now, but in 50 or 100 years when other resources have been depleted, well, I pristine Antarctica will be the new frontier. It was also because the colonists started terraforming Mars, making the poorer nations left behind on Earth think: "Wait, why must Antarctica be left in a pristine state why they are messing with a WHOLE PLANET?" A map relevant for all discussions about mining in Antarctica, namely the parts of Antarctica above sea level (in danger of shrinking even more because of sea level rise):  Of course if you are content to wait a few thousand years then glacial rebound will counteract rising sea levels.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
I love Antarctica maps because the place looks like some crazy fantasy continent you'd find in D&D or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:Of course if you are content to wait a few thousand years then glacial rebound will counteract rising sea levels.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:At the time, no. It was something closer to "If we don't buy it, the British will." I think it's better to say that that's the reason the Russians were so happy to sell: "If we don't sell this to somebody, Britain will just take it." This of course being during the height of tension over The Great Game in Central Eurasia, which people expected to produce a war sooner or later. Peanut President posted:Folks asking me to define worth: Can't farm it, it's nearly inhospitable, and it's really hard to get to. It's like buying the moon. Others have said it, but it turned out to be just jammed up with gold and oil. And while we only know that in retrospect, there was also contemporary speculation about how valuable it might be for sealing (and presumably whaling?). Plus it fits the whole Manifest Destiny theme which I think Seward was pretty big on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 00:39
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Isn't the landmass of Antarctica being compressed by the ice on top of it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
Probably yes, though the effect of that would depend on it's exact geology. Certainly northern Canada has been rebounding upwards since the glaciers receded. Up to 2 cm per year in some areas. I imagine the same is happening throughout the northern hemisphere, but I'm a busy man so I haven't checked yet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
Star Man posted:Isn't the landmass of Antarctica being compressed by the ice on top of it? PittTheElder posted:Probably yes, though the effect of that would depend on it's exact geology. Certainly northern Canada has been rebounding upwards since the glaciers receded. Up to 2 cm per year in some areas. Anyway, given normal rock and ice density, total rebound should be roughly around 1/3 of ice thickness.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
How the hell does one even measure something like that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
Thump! posted:How the hell does one even measure something like that? Lasers and satellites  i don't really have any idea
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
Thump! posted:How the hell does one even measure something like that? You know what the continent is made out of and you know what happens when ice does similar things to that type of rock mixture.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
Thump! posted:How the hell does one even measure something like that? Here, have an http://eyes.jpl.nasa.gov/earth/index.html America Inc. fucked around with this message at 03:11 on Jan 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
Microwaves and satellites? Close enough 
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
Thump! posted:How the hell does one even measure something like that? Additionally, use long term static GPS observations. This is also the method used to track continental drift.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
The flip side of glacial rebound, of course, is that the areas south of the rebounding areas actually dip. This is why London and southern England are at an even greater risk of flooding in a +2°C world than other areas of equal altitude (because Scotland is rising while England is sinking)
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
Thump! posted:How the hell does one even measure something like that? Well, you can calculate the general amount of glacial rebound by knowing how the mantle reacts to the overlying crust being pushed down on it. It's solid, but over long periods of time the mantle acts more like a hot marshmallow. Squeeze down on it and it flows away, take the weight off and it flows back. If you know the volume of mantle being pushed away by the weight of the overlying ice, you can estimate how much the ocrust will rise once the mantle starts flowing back.. You can also simply measure how quickly land is rising above sea level. It's quick enough that the effects are noticeable in surveys taken decades apart. You end up seeing stuff like this and this. And if you don't want to wait around, well, stuff like GPS monitoring and InSAR will show you what's up relatively quickly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 09:16
|
|
|
Did you notice that map of Ukrainian political preferences splits very much exactly where Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth border with Russian and Ottoman empires was 500 years ago?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 14:06
|
|
|
Pyromancer posted:Did you notice that map of Ukrainian political preferences splits very much exactly where Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth border with Russian and Ottoman empires was 500 years ago? Yeah, this should be no surprise. In Belgium they don't even bother with pan-Belgian parties any more and just have different parties for the two language groups. There was never a unified Yugoslavian people no matter how hard others tried, and it dissolved along lines that are hundreds of years old. And it is striking how little support the Tories have outside of England. And even though the USA is much younger, you can still see the legacy of the civil war, with most of the CSA in the hands of Republicans, and New England with the Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:And it is striking how little support the Tories have outside of England. quote:And even though the USA is much younger, you can still see the legacy of the civil war, with most of the CSA in the hands of Republicans, and New England with the Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:And it is striking how little support the Tories have outside of England. They used to have a fair amount of support in Scotland a few decades ago. The one-two whammy of Thatcher using the place as a testing ground (culminating in the poll tax) and just Thatcherism in general destroyed all that. Guavanaut posted:Yup, even Cornwall, which has been de facto part of England for over a millennium (although the de jure status is debated by Cornish national groups), has a lot less Tory support than the 'heart of England' counties. 1/2 of Cornwall's MPs are Tory, I think you're overestimating how not-popular they are (once you exclude some of the weird side effects of FPTP, very few parts of the UK that aren't stockbroker belts of the home counties are actually solid blue Tory.) ookiimarukochan fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Jan 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:In Belgium they don't even bother with pan-Belgian parties any more and just have different parties for the two language groups. It's true, literally every party with seats in the Belgian federal parliament is tied to a specific linguistic community. Even Northern Ireland has the Alliance Party. Here's how the UK general election played out in Northern Ireland in 2010, before steinrokkan accuses me of self-obsessed circle jerking:  Sinn Féin and SDLP are Irish-republican, DUP and UUP are unionist. In the 1920's, two of the six Northern Irish counties already had a Catholic majority; now it's four, even though Protestants of various denominations still form at least a plurality overall:  Green is Catholic, orange is Protestant, the percentage refers to the difference between their respective shares of the population in a given district. I always thought the unionists would have been wiser to give up part of their territory a century ago, it looks like they're going to lose their majority in the coming decades.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
The British government even floated repartition of Ireland giving the South Fermanagh, Tyrone, and most of Derry. The IRA bombing of the Conservative Party Conference in Brighton effectively killed any chance of that happening even though there was little chance of it in the first place. In the 90s, the Ulster Defence Association resurrected the idea with a view of ethnically cleansing the rest of the Catholic population. It was well received by the unionist population, including several later DUP ministers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:And even though the USA is much younger, you can still see the legacy of the civil war, with most of the CSA in the hands of Republicans, and New England with the Democrats. Republicans and Democrats are a hell of a lot more complicated than you think. Mitt Romney (Republican nominee for president in 2012) was from Massachusetts, as an example.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:Republicans and Democrats are a hell of a lot more complicated than you think. Mitt Romney (Republican nominee for president in 2012) was from Massachusetts, as an example. Huh? I don't follow. Of course you cannot compare the political situation in the USA to states where the different communities don't even speak the same language. It was just an observation that political divides are often influenced by history.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
THis is what really bugs me about the latest Europa Universalis, you can totally assimilate a vast region into your country making them 100% your culture and a core part of your nation within a few years. Yet historically even the most brutal methods over centuries can still fail to stamp out ethnic nationalism/regionalism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 15:44 |
|
|
Baronjutter posted:THis is what really bugs me about the latest Europa Universalis, you can totally assimilate a vast region into your country making them 100% your culture and a core part of your nation within a few years. Yet historically even the most brutal methods over centuries can still fail to stamp out ethnic nationalism/regionalism. What you're talking about is more represented in the "Core" system where countries will have claims on provinces (even countries that don't exist anymore!) for several years after they lose ownership of them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 19:48
|
|