Home    General Stuff    General Chat
#1

Frightening at the least

Archive: 14 posts

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6283130.ece


Russia raised the prospect of war in the Arctic yesterday as nations struggle for control of the world?s dwindling energy reserves.

The country?s new national security strategy identified the intensifying battle for ownership of vast untapped oil and gas fields around its borders as a source of potential military conflict within a decade.

?The presence and potential escalation of armed conflicts near Russia?s national borders, pending border agreements between Russia and several neighbouring nations, are the major threats to Russia?s interests and border security,? stated the document, which analysed security threats up to 2020.
?In a competition for resources it cannot be ruled out that military force could be used to resolve emerging problems that would destroy the balance of forces near the borders of Russia and her allies.?

The Kremlin has insisted that it is not ?militarising the Arctic? but its warnings of armed conflict suggest that it is willing to defend its interests by force if necessary as global warming makes exploitation of the region?s energy riches more feasible.

The United States, Norway, Canada and Denmark are challenging Russia?s claim to a section of the Arctic shelf, the size of Western Europe, which is believed to contain billions of tonnes of oil and gas.

An earlier Kremlin document declared the Arctic a strategic resource for Russia and said that development of its energy reserves by 2020 was a vital national objective. It set out plans to establish army bases along the Arctic frontier to ?guarantee military security in different military-political situations?.

The strategy published yesterday was approved by President Medvedev and drawn up by the Russian Security Council, which includes the Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, and heads of the military and intelligence agencies.

Mr Putin accused the West last year of coveting Russian energy reserves, saying: ?Many conflicts, foreign policy actions and diplomatic moves smell of oil and gas. Behind all that there often is a desire to enforce an unfair competition and ensure access to our resources.?

Nikolai Patrushev, who heads the Security Council, once flew to the North Pole to plant a Russian flag. He was in charge of the FSB, the federal security service, when Mr Putin was President and created a special Arctic Directorate in 2004 to advance Moscow?s interests in the region. Dmitri Rogozin, the Russian Ambassador to Nato, warned the military alliance in March not to meddle in the Arctic, saying that there was ?nothing for them to do there?.

The Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, also criticised Norway, a Nato member, over military exercises based on ?a conflict over access to resources?. Norway responded that Russia was expanding its military presence in the region.

A team of explorers led by Artur Chilingarov, the Kremlin?s special representative to the region, used mini-submarines to plant a titanium flag on the Arctic seabed in 2007 to stake Russia?s claim to the massive Lomonosov Ridge.

Russia argues that the ridge is an extension of its territory, which justifies its ownership of 1.2 million sq km (465,000 square miles) of the Arctic. It plans to stake its claim in a submission to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The strategy document predicted that the struggle over energy resources would increasingly dominate international relations. It identified the Barents Sea and Central Asia, where Russia and China are vying for influence, as further areas of friction.

The Caspian Sea is critical to the European Union?s hopes of breaking its dependence on Russian gas by building export routes for alternative supplies from Central Asia. Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Iran are locked in talks on dividing the seabed and its energy riches.

The strategy paper also condemned as unacceptable threats to Russian securityAmerican plans for a missile defence shield in Eastern Europe and the expansion of Nato into the former Soviet republics of Ukraine and Georgia.		2009-05-14 21:55:00

Author:
Code1337
Posts: 3476

Wow, it's a lot like something Tom Clancy would write.


It plans to stake its claim in a submission to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

I suppose we'll just have to hope that this goes well, though I can imagine the debate getting very heated with little progress made.		2009-05-14 22:01:00

Author:
Killian
Posts: 2575

Dont use molotovs on ice. It's bad enough having pollution melting it...

I havent read the article thourorly yet, but didnt they put the flag two miles underwater?		2009-05-14 22:29:00

Author:
moleynator
Posts: 2914

CoD7: Arctic Warfare Because The Russians Want Oil ... anyone? no? ok then...2009-05-14 22:31:00

Author:
Unknown User

Wow, that is pretty frightening. This certainly doesn't sound like it will end well. Can deffinitley be the source of a war. I'm sure everyone will want it for themselves and join up and fight eachother.

Instead of coming up with alternative and artificial energy and working together to progress that. Typical stupid people.		2009-05-14 22:37:00

Author:
Hamsalad
Posts: 2551

Wow, that is pretty frightening. This certainly doesn't sound like it will end well. Can deffinitley be the source of a war. I'm sure everyone will want it for themselves and join up and fight eachother.

Instead of coming up with alternative and artificial energy and working together to progress that. Typical stupid people.

Indeed, it also surprises me that they're focusing more ion fighting to get oil reserves than trying to find an alternate energy source....
Yet again, most people in the upper seats are either bloodthirsty or just want all the money they can get, which is why things are how they are...		2009-05-14 23:11:00

Author:
Silverleon
Posts: 6707

Indeed, it also surprises me that they're focusing more ion fighting to get oil reserves than trying to find an alternate energy source....
Yet again, most people in the upper seats are either bloodthirsty or just want all the money they can get, which is why things are how they are...

You hit the nail on the head with that one friend. It's blatantly clear the over-whelming majority of people in charge (A.K.A. the people with the most money.) Are always doing things to benefit themselves and to keep getting their greedy hands on more and more money.

And quick oil / gas like that is going to make them a ton of money especially when demand shoots up and supply is going down. And not to mention the money they'll make on wars that can/probably will start over it		2009-05-14 23:34:00

Author:
Hamsalad
Posts: 2551

Know what's frightening? How very soon, in about 50 years, the world will be vastly overpopulated. Then a pandemic will hit and wipe out probably half the population. But that's how the world regulates population.2009-05-14 23:41:00

Author:
qrtda235566
Posts: 3664

Know what's frightening? How very soon, in about 50 years, the world will be vastly overpopulated. Then a pandemic will hit and wipe out probably half the population. But that's how the world regulates population.

On the same note we could say; in about 3 years the worlds magnetic poles are going to shift and cause the world to go crazy with tidal waves and earth quakes / volcano explosions. Sure the population problem is very probable; but I'd say there's good evidence out there backing up the fact of an inevitable polar shift. and also probably another ice age / mass flooding. Considering the rates that the polar caps are diminishing at I don't see them stopping for no reason and reverting to their original form.

I do personally feel that that is kind of a natural cycle of the earth the more I think about it. It freezes (ice age), warms back up until it freezes again. But the caps melting is just going to cause global waters to rise pretty dramatically.		2009-05-15 00:07:00

Author:
Hamsalad
Posts: 2551

I'd love to see alternatives to fossil fuels, and I'm in no way supporting aggressive / military action over them, but they are too essential in modern times.

I watched an episode of Horizon (excellent UK science documentary) a couple of months ago focussing on research into fusion as a power source. The most interesting part of it to me was an interview with an american physicist, who advocates fusion, is pro renewable energy resources etc. etc. He did the maths on what it would take to replace fossil fuels with anything else in the next 30 years. None of it adds up, fossil fuels are so unbelieveably powerful that we don't have the means to replace them and there is no viable alternative right now. All the best wishes in the world will not change that. That is why things are the way they are.		2009-05-15 00:14:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

Wow that is an unbelievably sad realisation. To just know that theres not anything we can do to completely eliminate them. I know we started experimenting with putting wind power generators out at sea. And at extremley high altitudes, because wind is MUCH MUCH stronger up there =a lot more power. So some guy pretty much invented a giant kite generator, it was a pretty excellent idea.

but kind of sad to know unless they can't come up with a giant break through theres not much we can practically do. I still wish we all came together in the realization that sure we can fight and kill over fossil fuels, sure someones going to win and end up with them all. But what happends when they run out? They arn't thinking about that; they are just thinking about living one more day.

We all really need to come together and start implementing those high altitude wind power generators and other means to reduce fossil fuel needs as much as possible. and also try to come up with something as a practical artifical replacement		2009-05-15 00:20:00

Author:
Hamsalad
Posts: 2551

Know what's frightening? How very soon, in about 50 years, the world will be vastly overpopulated. Then a pandemic will hit and wipe out probably half the population. But that's how the world regulates population.

that mightn't happen because as poorer countries move through the stages of the population cycle, population increase will start to fall and eventually their will be a small decrease.
i'm more worried about climate change and a large-scale possibly nuclear war (well atleast ireland's neutral)		2009-05-15 09:57:00

Author:
Don Vhalt
Posts: 2270

Know what's frightening? How very soon, in about 50 years, the world will be vastly overpopulated. Then a pandemic will hit and wipe out probably half the population. But that's how the world regulates population.
I tend to disagree, China has 800 million men yet only about 400 million women because the male inherits everything in Chinese society so when people have their one kid, if it's not a boy, they might throw it on the street or something. So when this generation dies off, China's population will go crashing down. Also, take a look at this: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/08/0806_population.html

and

http://www.overpopulation.net/slowing.htm		2009-05-15 12:47:00

Author:
Code1337
Posts: 3476

Oh, well that KINDA brightened my day up!

Oh and for all of you out there worried about global warming, they've now found that the world is actually getting colder, so instead of global warming now it's called Global Climate Change, which I think a lot of us thought it was all along.		2009-05-15 21:55:00

Author:
qrtda235566
Posts: 3664


LBPCentral Archive Statistics
Posts: 1077139    Threads: 69970    Members: 9661    Archive-Date: 2019-01-19

Datenschutz
Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.