Let's Consider Something Really Important

[Guest]

Some of you may remember in the summer of 2007, the Russians announced that they had planted their flag on the seafloor under the North Pole, claiming that the 1,100 mile long ridge under the pole was an extension of the Russian continental shelf. Essentialy, Russia has claimed about half the circumference of the world in the Arctic as their sovereign territory. Since then, we've heard nothing about this curious event.

Why is this important?

For whatever reason (global warming possibly) the amount of Arctic ice had been reduced to the least experienced in the last century. By the summer of 2007, the ice had retreated so far beyond all expectations that experts were stunned. The meltdown had proceeded to where it was projected to be in 2030.

This is important for three major reasons--
The huge amount of natural resources which will become accessible within a few years. Estimates indicate that the Arctic contains 586 billion barrels of oil. By comparison, all of Saudi Arabia's current reserves amount to only 260 billion barrels. In addition there are trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, enough to heat the world for years.
Secondly, the melting of the Arctic ice cap will soon open shipping routes between Europe and Asia that are as much as 40% shorter than using the Panama or Suez canals.
Lastly, there are potentially devastating issues of national security to Canada and the U.S. and the potential for environmental catastrophes that would make the Exxon Valdez accident look like a simple oil puddle. I'll spend no time here discussing those issues, but there has been lots written about terrorists and drug smugglers accessing North America thru Canada or Alaska, both of which are virtually unsecured. This access will become more viable as the Arctic ice sheet shrinks and exposes northern Canada to open Arctic water.


The Russians are decades ahead of the other eight nations that border the Arctic (the U.S., Canada, Greenland, Norway, Iceland, Russia, Sweden and Finland). In 2007, then President Vladmir Putin formed the state-funded United Shipbuilding Corporation with the objective of "exploiting hydrocarbons beneath the Arctic seabed". Immediately, he announced plans for that company to build ten new Arctic-class icebreakers (adding to their fleet of 14 already in service), 40 ice-resistant oil drilling platforms, 55 ice-resistant oil tankers and 20 ice-resistant gas tankers, all to be completed by 2030. Russia has already signed agreements with China to supply them with gas and oil in exchange for Chinese funding of the production of ships and platforms.

What are we doing, you might ask? The U.S. has only two aging ocean-going ice breakers, both of which have already exceeded their 30-year service life. Congress has refused to fund the Coast Guard's request for two new ice breakers for more than a decade. The U.S. Navy has no capability whatsoever for surface operations in icy Arctic seas. We can't depend on the Canadians either--the Canadian Navy has not operated in the Arctic since the 1950's. There are no plans by the U.S., public or private, to explore the Arctic seabed for natural resources. There are increasing numbers of foreign ships that are attempting the new navigational routes around the Arctic ice shelf and thru the Northwest Passage bordering Alaska and Canada. Canada claims the Northwest Passage as part of its territorial waters, but that has been disputed by the U.S. and the European Union. The number of attempts to navigate this route is expected to increase dramatically as the Arctic ice shelf continues to shrink in size. However, none of the eight countries bordering the Arctic have any naval capabilities to deal with security, accidents at sea, environmental disasters or the national security of any of the countries. There is a reason for the Russians large lead in the race for the "holy grail" of natural resources, as the Arctic has been described by the U.S. Geological Survey, which we should all understand.

The only governing body of the Arctic beyond the 200-mile economic zone bordering each of the eight countries is 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) treaty. Seven of the eight bordering countries has ratified UNCLOS--only the U.S. has refused to ratify the treaty. The only explanation I've been able to find on why we have refused to ratify is our unwillingness to agree with decisions made by the UNCLOS committee set up to adjudicate claims and counter-claims between the eight Arctic-bordering countries. Our refusal to ratify or re-negotiate the treaty places us on the sidelines with regard to the Arctic as opposed to having any sort of ability to effect UNCLOS decisions. UNCLOS provides for the resolution of boundary claims beyond the 200-mile limit by a 21-member UN "court". Appeals to decisions by that court can then be filed with either the Law of the Sea Tribunal or the International Court of Justice. The U.S. refusal to ratify UNCLOS not only eliminates our ability to file our own claims as well as counterclaims to those already filed by Russia, Canada, Denmark and Norway, and we don't even have representation on the UNCLOS tribunal that will make the decisions on claims already filed. The claims by any of the eight countries must be filed and will be adjudicated within a ten-year period. Russia will have it's claims for about half of the Arctic seabed adjudicated this year. Claims by Canada and Denmark will be settled in 2013 and 2014, respectively.

Even if the U.S. were to ratify the UNCLOS treaty in 2009 and immediately filed its claims, they would not be decided until 2019. Russia has said they will not wait to begin to explore and drill in areas awarded to them by UNCLOS even though the U.S. would clearly counter-claim soverign rights to major parts of the underwater archipelago which Russia claims is an extension of their continental shelf. Should Russia proceed as they have expressed an intent to do, the U.S. will have virtually no naval capability to resist or interfere with Russian activities. The same type of problem would exist with the world's use of the Northwest Passage. There would be no means to fund the security or navigation of the passage, with the shortest route through the Passage going right through McClure Sound and down the western border of Alaska, just beyond the 12-mile limit of U.S. territorial waters.

So, rather than everyone getting excited about far less meaningless political issues, we might all be better served by reading up on the Arctic, the shrinking ice cap and UNCLOS. Then, if you come away as alarmed as I did--write as many elected representatives and media people as you can think of. If there isn't a groundswell of concern expressed by the electorate, we have a couple of decades of experience indicating that we're not going to get any news coverage of this issue and certainly no action by our Congress.

Your guess is as good as mine on why "drill baby, drill" was a more important issue than this during the recent election campaign. But then, a lot of stuff political candidates and elected politicians do leave me guessing.

[Guest]

Some of you may remember in the summer of 2007, the Russians announced that they had planted their flag on the seafloor under the North Pole, claiming that the 1,100 mile long ridge under the pole was an extension of the Russian continental shelf. Essentialy, Russia has claimed about half the circumference of the world in the Arctic as their sovereign territory. Since then, we've heard nothing about this curious event.

Why is this important?

First, for whatever reason (global warming possibly) the amount of Arctic ice had been reduced to the least experienced in the last century. By the summer of 2007, the ice had retreated so far beyond all expectations that experts were stunned. The meltdown had proceeded to where it was projected to be in 2030.

This is important for three major reasons--
The huge amount of natural resources which will shortly become accessible. Estimates indicate that the Arctic contains 586 billion barrels of oil. By comparison, all of Saudi Arabia's current reserves amount to only 260 billion barrels. In addition there are trillins of cubic feet of natural gas, enough to heat the world for years.
Secondly, the melting of the Arctic ice cap will soon open shipping routes betwen Europe and Asia that are as much as 40% shorter than using the Panama or Suez canals.
Lastly, there are potentially devastating issues of national security to Canada and the U.S. and the potential for environmental catastrophes that would make the Exxon Valdez accident look like a simple oil puddle. I'll spend no time here discussing those issues, but there has been lots written about terrorists and drug smugglers accessing North America thru northern Canada, which is virtually unsecured. This access will become more viable as the Arctic ice sheet shrinks and exposes northern Canada to open Arctic water.


The Russians are decades ahead of the other eight nations that border the Arctic (the U.S., Canada, Greenland, Norway, Iceland, Russia, Sweden and Finland). In 2007, then President Vladmir Putin formed the state-funded United Shipbuilding Corporation with the objective of "exploiting hydrocarbons beneath the Arctic seabed". Immediately, he announced plans for that company to build ten new Arctic-class icebreakers (adding to their fleet of 14 already in service), 40 ice-resistant oil drilling platforms, 55 ice-rsistant oil tankers and 20 ice-resistant gas tankers, all to be completed by 2030. Russia has already signed agreements with China to supply them with gas and oil in exchange for Chinese funding of the production of ships and platforms.

What are we doing, you might ask? The U.S. has only two aging ocean-going ice breakers, both of which have already exceeded their 30-year service life. Congress has refused to fund the Coast Guard's request for two new ice breakers for more than a decade. The U.S. Navy has no capability whatsoever for surface operations in icy Arctic seas. We can't depend on the Canadians either--the Canadian Navy has not operated in the Arctic since the 1950's. There are no plans by the U.S., public or private, to explore the Arctic seabed for natural resources. There are increasing numbers of foreign ships that are attempting the new navigational routes around the Arctic ice shelf and thru the Northwest Passage bordering Alaska and Canada. The number of attempts is expected to increase dramatically as the Arctic ice shelf continues to shrink in size. However, none of he eight countries bordering the Arctic have any naval capabilities to deal with security, accidents at sea, environmental disasters or the national security of any of he countries. There is a reason for the Russians large lead in the race for the "holy grail" of natural resources, as the Arctic has been described by the U.S. Geological Survey.

The only governing body of the Arctic beyond the 200-mile economic zone bordering each of the eight countries is 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Seven of the eight bordering countries has ratified UNCLOS--only the U.S. has refused to ratify the treaty. Our refusal to rtify or re-negotiate the treaty places us on the sidelines with regard to the Arctic as opposed to having any sort of ability to effect UNCLOS decisions. UNCLOS provides for the resolution of boundary claims beyond the 200-mile limit by a 21-member UN "court". The claims by any of the eight countries must be filed and will be adjudicated within a ten-year period. Russia will have it's claims for about half of the Arctic seabed settled this year. Claims by Canada and Denmark will be settled in 2013 and 2014, respectively. The U.S. refusal to ratify UNCLOS not only eliminates our ability to file counterclaims to those already filed by Russia, Canada and Norway, but we don't even have a seat on the UN tribunal that will make the decisions on claims already filed.

Even if the U.S. were to ratify the UNCLOS treaty in 2009 and immediately filed its claims, they would not be decided until 2019. Russia has said they will not wait to begin to explore and drill in areas awarded to them by UNCLOS even though the U.S. would clearly counter-claim major parts of the underwater archipelago which Russia claims is an extension of their continental shelf. Should they proceed as they have expressed an intent to do, the U.S. would have virtually no naval capability to resist or interfere with Russian activities. The same type of problem would exist with the world's use of the Northwest Passage. There would be no means to fund the security or navigation of the passage, with the shortest route thru the Passage going right thru McClure Sound and down the western border of Alaska, just beyond the 12-mile limit of U.S. territorial waters.

So, rather than everyone getting excited about far more meaningless political issues, we might all be better served by reading up on the Arctic, the shrinking ice cap and UNCLOS. Then, if you come away as alarmed as I did--write as many elected representatives and media people as you can think of. If there isn't a groundswell of concern expressed by the electorate, we have a couple of decades of experience indicating that we're not going to get any substantial news coverage of this issue, and certainly no action by our Congress. Your guess is as good as mine on why "drill baby, drill" was a more important issue than this during the recent election campaign.


VK...good post...great food for thought !!!

HOWEVER...

Let me say that your reference of "rather than everyone getting excited about far more meaningless political issues, we might all be better served by reading up on the Arctic," I gotta tell you that I do not think this current financial stituation MADE POLTICAL needs to be discarded at all....it is VITAL.

Having said that, if you think that the Artic is important and it is...consider that in 2007 China shot down a satellite....NOBODY ever did that before. They said it was all in peace. So, it is not just the Artic to be concerned about.

I will be curious to see how President Obama handles the budget for defense. He was rather non committal during the campaign and now is committing troops to the hell hole of Afghanastan....he needs to submit his budget by Feb 26.....lets hope he stays in WASH long enough to work on it.....

VK..one thing we agree on is that there are a lot of issues let to hang by the current Congress and instead of continuing the campaign they need to shut up and get to work.

If they treat the Artic, space or defense like they treated the on coming financial crisis two years ago and more we are really in trouble !

PS: Not sure how to take your thread title....I hope it does not mean you consider the current financial boondogles unimportant !

[Guest]

No, Bucco, I agree that the financial crisis, the stimulus and all of the financial issues are of critical importance. I was referring more to some of the stuff discussed in this forum. While some items might be titillating, they don't rise to a level one could call "important" from a political point-of-view--in my opinion anyway.

I'll feel I'll have "done my job" here if I can get forum participants to think about issues objectively and participate in a dialog on what the issue really is, what the alternatives are for addressing the issue, and how as individuals or as a group we might encourage our elected representatives to do something--or do nothing, I suppose.

[Guest]

No, Bucco, I agree that the financial crisis, the stimulus and all of the financial issues are of critical importance. I was referring more to some of the stuff discussed in this forum. While some items might be titillating, they don't rise to a level one could call "important" from a political point-of-view--in my opinion anyway.

I'll feel I'll have "done my job" here if I can get forum participants to think about issues objectively and participate in a dialog on what the issue really is, what the alternatives are for addressing the issue, and how as individuals or as a group we might encourage our elected representatives to do something--or do nothing, I suppose.

This may be my only visit to the political forum, so I'll risk posting what I think the critical issue is. The earth tilts ~23 1/2 degrees on its axis. If the ice at the poles were to melt completely, there is the possibility that the earth could "flip" on its axis. North could be the new South or the new West; South could be the new East. The flooding from the polar melting would inundate more than only the coastlines -- it could cause worldwide flooding and devastation rivaling Noah's flood. Now THAT's what I consider a critical issue.

Unfortunately, I have no idea what alternatives there might be for addressing the issue, and I have no idea what I could encourage my elected representatives to do. So far their response has been, "Oh boy! The polar ice caps are melting! Let's break them up so they melt faster!"

Thanks for listening. I'll leave now to go build my ark...

[Guest]

Another Al Gore invention.:pepper2::pepper2:

[Guest]

is all consuming for most of us. And of course it is the current "bone" the media will not let loose of.

I totally agree there are major issues that are all back burner (if not for real it sure appears as such).

The terrorists and what to do unfortunately will seek it's own priority...as we all fear...there will be another attack on American soil.

The energy crisis should hope to get the same attention one day that the economic crisis is getting. But it won't. Not until such time as there is an economic immediacy as a result. The very big difference in solving the energy crisis is the required lead time for results/benefits to impact the existing problem. There is no short term fix.

We can only hope if we can get enough of the silent majority to start raising :cus: with their representatives we may get the point across.

The economic crisis has over 90% of us still able to live life as we have earned....it is a function of one's financial bearing, status, accomplishment/etc.

On the other hand...an energy crisis will affect 100% of us. When the gas is not available...when the lights go dim...when the shelves are empty...how non comforting will it be to know the fix is 5-10 years away.
This scenario could be triggered any day of our lives...and we are not prepared for the ultimate crisis. What we have are more of the feel good words.

How about a multi billion dollar program for energy independence? The resultant new jobs would pale any of the phony-hollow rhetoric currently being mouthed.

So why are some of these cataclysmic realities not worthy of our attention? The administrations attention? Because it is not on the agenda of the POTUS....nor the media...certainly not Congress...and because it is not burning around our ankles yet. When it does it will be too late.

BTK

[Guest]

Another Al Gore invention.:pepper2::pepper2:

Oops! I stuck my toe in the Political waters, and I'm in over my head!

Actually, GatbTester, I had no clue the idea of a polar axis shift had anything to do with Al Gore; I thought it was all about science. I'm probably the only person on the planet who hasn't seen his movie. I learned about the possibility of an Earth axis shift way back in the 1970's in a class on physical geography.

Back to the shallow end for me,
Judy
And I haven't seen Titanic, either

[Guest]

is all consuming for most of us. And of course it is the current "bone" the media will not let loose of.

I totally agree there are major issues that are all back burner (if not for real it sure appears as such).

The terrorists and what to do unfortunately will seek it's own priority...as we all fear...there will be another attack on American soil.

The energy crisis should hope to get the same attention one day that the economic crisis is getting. But it won't. Not until such time as there is an economic immediacy as a result. The very big difference in solving the energy crisis is the required lead time for results/benefits to impact the existing problem. There is no short term fix.

We can only hope if we can get enough of the silent majority to start raising :cus: with their representatives we may get the point across.

The economic crisis has over 90% of us still able to live life as we have earned....it is a function of one's financial bearing, status, accomplishment/etc.

On the other hand...an energy crisis will affect 100% of us. When the gas is not available...when the lights go dim...when the shelves are empty...how non comforting will it be to know the fix is 5-10 years away.
This scenario could be triggered any day of our lives...and we are not prepared for the ultimate crisis. What we have are more of the feel good words.

How about a multi billion dollar program for energy independence? The resultant new jobs would pale any of the phony-hollow rhetoric currently being mouthed.

So why are some of these cataclysmic realities not worthy of our attention? The administrations attention? Because it is not on the agenda of the POTUS....nor the media...certainly not Congress...and because it is not burning around our ankles yet. When it does it will be too late.

BTKSince apparently few, if any, read the now signed into law stimulus bill, does anyone know how much $$$$ has been designated to solar, wind, tide, nuclear, other alternative work to get to energy independence.... OR, will the $$$$ be used to furnish govt bldgs, build water parks in Florida, feed ACORNS.... The Obama administration had a golden opportunity to spend Federal dollars nationwide to free us from the bondage of foreign oil.... these federal dollars would stimulate the economy just like NASA dollars stimulate the Central Florida economy.... however the seconary gain, besides research, manufacturing (eg windmills, turbines) and construction jobs would be energy independence. Was any of this in the timulus package?

[Guest]

There easily could have been some monies provided to begin to take the actions that the Russians have been taking for 3-4 years now. I suppose there may be, but I doubt it. Of course, it has to begin with our ratification of the UNCLOS Treaty. Otherwise, we're no more than a bystander as the other seven nations bordering the North Pole split up the Arctic pie and its huge reserves of oil and natural gas. While Russia's planting of their flag on the seabed under the North Pole was greeted with curiosity for an instant, their claims for about half the Arctic, which will be settled within the jurisdiction of the UNCLOS Treaty later this year, are serious.

As far as GatbTester is concerned, did you read what my original post said? I have no idea how you jumped from the issues presented there to Al Gore. I'll simplify it for you...
There's no question that the Arctic polar ice cap is shrinking and shrinking quickly and dramatically, and has been for thirty years.
The newly exposed open water has exposed the Arctic seabed, which has huge and rich deposits of oil and gas, to exploration and drilling.
The new open water has also opened new and much shorter shipping routes between Europe and Asia. The traffic of foreign ships will pass within 12 miles of the U.S. landmass thru waters which we have considered our territory, the Alaskan Northwest Passage.
Neither the U.S. or Canada have any surface ships capable of navigating the open but ice-filled waters to assure the safety of shipping and the security of our northern borders.
The Russians and six other countries bordering the Arctic have entered into a treaty providing for splitting up the surface and underwater landmass, oil and gas resources, and the shipping lanes that until now we have considered our own. The U.S. has refused to enter into the treaty. Russia has already claimed about half the Arctic Ocean, above and below the surface, as their sovereign territory.
Russia has also begun an extensive program of producing ice breakers, drilling platforms, and oil and gas tankers capable of operating in the Arctic, being produced by a government-funded shipbuilding and construction company.
Russia has already entered into contracts with China to sell them oil and gas extracted from the Arctic seabed, from areas which the U.S. certainly would not agree belong to Russia. They would ship the oil and gas on their new Arctic-capable ships thru shipping lanes close to the Alaskan coastline, which we consider to be our own. We would have no jurisdiction over the movement of such vessels or establishing assurances that an environmental catastrophe could be avoided within sight our our shores. Moreover, we have no ships capable of operating in those waters to protect our interests anyway.
There is little the U.S. can do about the situation until it both ratifies the treaty with the other six bordering nations and makes the expenditures to produce both military and commercial ships, equipment and facilities to secure our interests in the oil and gas, and secure our northern borders from terrorists and smugglers, who have already been observed entering North America from the new, ice-free northern borders, and establish our "ownership" of the Northwest Passage.
If you think that has anything to do with Al Gore, GatbTester, drop in another moving icon and go on to another post. But if you feel there may be some things to be concerned about here, you might read up on the situation and possibly write your representatives in Congress with your opinion.

I hope the little summary helps differentiate this issue from anything having to do with Al Gore.

[Guest]

No, Bucco, I agree that the financial crisis, the stimulus and all of the financial issues are of critical importance. I was referring more to some of the stuff discussed in this forum. While some items might be titillating, they don't rise to a level one could call "important" from a political point-of-view--in my opinion anyway.

I'll feel I'll have "done my job" here if I can get forum participants to think about issues objectively and participate in a dialog on what the issue really is, what the alternatives are for addressing the issue, and how as individuals or as a group we might encourage our elected representatives to do something--or do nothing, I suppose.


You do a good job. I have taken on "The Read Only" role in the forum. But your post was good. Just out of my league on that issue. Something I need to check into. Let me get back with you on this issue.

Do you have any thougt on the Fair Tax Issue? Have been reading on that lately.

[Guest]

On a dark, snowy night in the fall of 1998, an enormous Russian cargo plane, larger than our own C-130 Hercules, flew into Canada over the North Pole and landed at the airport in Churchill, on the western shore of Hudson Bay. The pilot switched off his landing lights as soon as he landed, presumably to avoid detection from a satellite. In the morning, an unmarked Bell 206 helicopter arrived from the south. The Russian crew unloaded several large shipping containers from their cargo holds and loaded them onto the helicopter. The helicopter took off for the south and the Russian plane immediately took off and left Churchill. Canadian intelligence tracked the unmarked cargo plane until it landed in an airport in an area in Russia known to be controlled by Russian organized crime. The only security at the Churchill airport was an unarmed night shift watchman. The were no Canadian police or military units that could have gotten to Churchill in anything less than a matter of hours.

The following year, a Chinese research ship appeared to be en route to the North Pole, reportedly to study climate change. As the ship rounded the coast of Alaska, it became trapped in ice floes. With the help of both Canadian and U.S. ice-observing satellite networks, the captain of the Chinese ship was guided out of the ice floes into open water. But instead of heading towards the North Pole, the Chinese ship headed into an Intuit Indian village on the coast of the Canadian Northwest Territories. Before it was able to depart, a makeshift group of Canadian Mounties and local Intuit policemen boarded the ship and inspected it. They found a cache of weapons and ammunition, several opened but empty shipping containers, and at least one unaccounted for passport. The ship captain explained that they had stopped to meet with a Chinese tour guide who was supposed to be in the area. No one in the village had ever seen or heard of a Chinese tour guide or any tourism activity, particularly in the dead of winter. While suspicions were elevated, no laws had been broken, so the ship was permitted to depart. Interestingly, the coastal Intuit village was only a hundred miles or so from three of the richest and most productive diamond mines in the world in the Slave geologic province. Normally, those mines are only accessible during the winter months using ice roads and ice road truckers to provide supplies and bring out diamonds. Other than the terrain and weather, there is no security for the mines and none available within several hundred miles. There have been concerns that smugglers or Russian organized crime had an interest in the mines.
-------------------------------

This was ten years ago. Has much changed today? Reports are that conditions are essentially the same. And we're having a tough time getting a fence built to protect us from hordes of invading Mexicans!

Methinks we have no idea the seriousness of security risks we face.

[Guest]

On a dark, snowy night in the fall of 1998, an enormous Russian cargo plane, larger than our own C-130 Hercules, flew into Canada over the North Pole and landed at the airport in Churchill, on the western shore of Hudson Bay. The pilot switched off his landing lights as soon as he landed, presumably to avoid detection from a satellite. In the morning, an unmarked Bell 206 helicopter arrived from the south. The Russian crew unloaded several large shipping containers from their cargo holds and loaded them onto the helicopter. The helicopter took off for the south and the Russian plane immediately took off and left Churchill. Canadian intelligence tracked the unmarked cargo plane until it landed in an airport in an area in Russia known to be controlled by Russian organized crime. The only security at the Churchill airport was an unarmed night shift watchman. The were no Canadian police or military units that could have gotten to Churchill in anything less than a matter of hours.

The following year, a Chinese research ship appeared to be en route to the North Pole, reportedly to study climate change. As the ship rounded the coast of Alaska, it became trapped in ice floes. With the help of both Canadian and U.S. ice-observing satellite networks, the captain of the Chinese ship was guided out of the ice floes into open water. But instead of heading towards the North Pole, the Chinese ship headed into an Intuit Indian village on the coast of the Canadian Northwest Territories. Before it was able to depart, a makeshift group of Canadian Mounties and local Intuit policemen boarded the ship and inspected it. They found a cache of weapons and ammunition, several opened but empty shipping containers, and at least one unaccounted for passport. The ship captain explained that they had stopped to meet with a Chinese tour guide who was supposed to be in the area. No one in the village had ever seen or heard of a Chinese tour guide or any tourism activity, particularly in the dead of winter. While suspicions were elevated, no laws had been broken, so the ship was permitted to depart. Interestingly, the coastal Intuit village was only a hundred miles or so from three of the richest and most productive diamond mines in the world in the Slave geologic province. Normally, those mines are only accessible during the winter months using ice roads and ice road truckers to provide supplies and bring out diamonds. Other than the terrain and weather, there is no security for the mines and none available within several hundred miles. There have been concerns that smugglers or Russian organized crime had an interest in the mines.
-------------------------------

This was twenty years ago. Has much changed today? Reports are that conditions are essentially the same. And we're having a tough time getting a fence built to protect us from hordes of invading Mexicans!

Methinks we have no idea the seriousness of security risks we face.

Those who mock our Homeland Security or our alerts, etc. are simply uninformed.

To validate this specific situation you describe, we (US Border Patrol) stopped a guy from Al Queda in 1999 with a car load of explosives who came in through the door you suggest (North).

We face a threat today that is real and does not WANT to negotiate...they want to kill.

Not exactly on point but in general it is....read a book a few years ago by David Kaplan titled "the Cult at the end of the World" or something similiar...anyway this cult who ended up gassing the subway in Japan an event I am sure we all remember spent much money and time prior to the actual event trying to purchase a nuclear weapon. It is chilling to find how close they got to obtaining it.

We have threats all over.....and not to sound hawkish, but negotiation and talking is not going to resolve that threat. We must be strong with anyone who harbors or is sympathetic to terrorists.

Yes, we AS CITIZENS, do not know the extent of threats but you mentioned the north.....but betting NORTHCOM knows and we need to support them and the others trying to make and keep us safe !

PS: For those who feel the need to call me a fear mongerer, I suggest that you do some reading and research first !!!

[Guest]

But that's a big area out there. The border between Canada and the U.S. is about 4,000 miles long, with all kinds of "drive across" unsecured routes between the two countries, let alone where that helicopter might have gone. Because the northern coastline of Alaska and Canada is so irregular, that border on the Arctic Ocean may be twice as long. Now for a part of each year that border is open water. Ten or twenty years from now, it may be open water all year long. That's a heck of a responsibility for any border security agency, however good they might be. A whole lot of terrorism could eminate from four guys in a van with the right kind of weaponry obtained from "somewhere".

All I'm saying is that assuring our national security is far from a sure thing, even worse when we're facing a period when our expenditures on such things are going to have to compete with other important priorities.

You are right--those guys out there don't want to negotiate, they just want to kill as many of us as possible.

(Although I don't know why. You and I at least are really nice guys, I think. I know I'll vouch for you, sight unseen!)

[Guest]

But that's a big area out there. The border between Canada and the U.S. is about 4,000 miles long, with all kinds of "drive across" unsecured routes between the two countries, let alone where that helicopter might have gone. Because the northern coastline of Alaska and Canada is so irregular, that border on the Arctic Ocean may be twice as long. Now for a part of each year that border is open water. Ten or twenty years from now, it may be open water all year long. That's a heck of a responsibility for any border security agency, however good they might be. A whole lot of terrorism could eminate from four guys in a van with the right kind of weaponry obtained from "somewhere".

All I'm saying is that assuring our national security is far from a sure thing, even worse when we're facing a period when our expenditures on such things are going to have to compete with other important priorities.

You are right--those guys out there don't want to negotiate, they just want to kill as many of us as possible.

(Although I don't know why. You and I at least are really nice guys, I think. I know I'll vouch for you, sight unseen!)



VERY big area...got to see much when in the Navy..from the Aleutian Islands east !!!!

I am anxiously waiting to see what this administration does with budgets for the military and national security...I hope what I heard during the campaign is tempered by what he has/will learn in the WH. We cannot allow ourselves to listen to those who feel the need to overzealously protect individual rights over the countries security.

Yes...they want to kill us...they said it before and continue to and we just pooh pooh it....fearmongering....politics...what have you. These are not nice people...they have lots of money.

Amnesty International today was all over Secy Clinton because she said on her trip to China human rights will not be on the agenda or at least on top of it. Human rights is important as long as their are humans around to excercise them....probably a bit dramatic but we have serious threats to our security. This administration has got to step up to the plate and face it !

PS....OK, I will vouch for you as well !!

[Guest]

Bucco's comment on human rights got me thinking--and writing. The product seemed to be much more the basis of a new thread than it was a continuation of this one. Check it out and join the discussion.