Why doesn't the US seize Antarctica?

Question

This would be the perfect solution to our oil problem. Seize Antarctica and let American oil companies start drilling and only let them sell the oil to America (maybe a few others). To quell international resistance we could also sell this oil to our friends who have claims to Antarctica (like Australia and others). To those who say this is a crazy idea; think about it. Eventually, drilling IS going to happen in Antarctica. Why dawdle and let others (probably China) get the upper hand?

Couple points,

I believe that the treaty saying Antarctica should be neutral is not permanent (this is why Britain fought so hard for the Falklands back in the 80's. This is also why none of the nations with claims to Antarctica have renounced them.

Second, Antarctica can't disappear due to global warming; its a continent; its land (with ice on top).

Third, the US has the only "blue-water" navy in the world. This means we are in a unique position to defend Antarctica militarily.

Answer 1

We the US don't go around taking land from no body. We are a country of laws and we respect other land laws and treaties.

Answer 2

First, international treaties state that Antarctica is everyone's. No country can claim it.

Second, if we did claim it, it would verify what everyone in the world has been saying about us lately. We would further alienate ourselves, and most likely instigate a war.

Third, Antarctica is a wasteland. Even if there were natural resources there (buried under a mile of ice) they'd be difficult to extract. Combine this with the extreme weather and darkness for 6 months out of the year and you've got a lot more cost and trouble than it's worth.

The US isn't into empire building, and usually isn't in the habit of disrepecting the agreements forged by the international community or members of that international community.

If you want to do things "just because you can", then you're no better than the likes of Stalin or Hitler.

We're better than that...or at least we used to be.

~X~

Answer 3

I have a lot of reservations, but this is a very interesting idea. Drilling in Antarctica wouldn't make us "energy independent". I haven't seen any estimates high enough to suggest that it would sufficiently satisfy our oil demands, if you have some cites on that please share. Aside from that, we aren't energy independent just by being safe from other countries holding their energy supplies hostage during wars. We are only energy independent when we have control over the energy resources we need. Antarctic drilling doesn't give us that, because we can't permanently project our military power in the Antarctic Sea. We can't effectively defend those drilling sites or the supply line from being attacked. So for most enemies, this would actually be sufficient, since not many countries can get their military resources to the Antarctic Sea. But any war where we're that concerned about energy independence will probably be against someone who can deploy to the AS, and against them we wouldn't be energy independent because the supply would still be vulnerable. Another reason this wouldn't be energy independence is that equipment failures and thus production halts would be much more frequent, severe, and harder to repair in that climate. Not a major factor, because technology can overcome more of that barrier faster than it can overcome the others, but still signficant.
It would take a long time before anybody else tried to take control of Antractic resources like that. You say China specifically is likely, but that doesn't make sense because China would much sooner start drilling in the ... is it South China Sea?? Somewhere out there with reserves and disputed claims to the drilling rights. Anyway, China would much sooner drill there and incur international wrath close to home than it would drill in Antarctica and incur international wrath to far from home for it to power project. In general, the international community is happy with joint sovereignty over Antarctica and no use of it for economic exploitation. It doesn't seem a credible claim that "people" are going to start drilling, unless you have specific people. And China doesn't make sense, because they have resources so nearby.

Your suggestion of selling the oil to quell resistance is reasonable, that's essentially what OPEC did in establishing itself as a price-setter for oil - they divided the rest of the world into embargoed countries, limited supply countries, and normal terms countries, and there wasn't organized resistance because everyone else was divided into these silly groups.

Answer 4

It would start World War 3

Answer 5

well australia owns something like 40% of Antartica, so we would allow america to do anything with our half! lol

It would be drilled however the technology to drill antartica is not feasible, according to my old geography teacher

Answer 6

... why doesn't the United States steal land from another country? Because that would make us thieves? Are you a thief? I'm sure as hell not.

Answer 7

Hey nikblade...what does Antarctica's flag look like? How many citizens does it have? There IS no country in Antarctica, you twit.

Answer 8

Brilliant!

Answer 9

Global warming will reduce it to nothing in 2 years

Answer 10

Because the penguins would come across the border and take US jobs.