The potential exploitation of the Antarctic reflects sadly on the myopic vision of the human race. It is a unique wilderness which belongs to no-one and should be preserved untainted for the benefit of all future generations.

So much for investing in non-fossil fuel technology. The plundering of the Antarctic for oil and gas reserves shows that no-one is willing to give it up.

Can I just agree with #1! I'm not sure what was said but I'd rather agree than disagree incase they find out where I live! Antarctica will soon be the new "Middle East" wiyh all kinds of nations laying claim to various parts of it for all kinds of reasons-most of them "Bogus"! Pretty soon we'll have Muslims and even Buddhist claims in the name of various deitys fighting over "Their wee bit hill n glen" Maybe Opera, oapra oopra you know who I mean could just buy it? And set up a new school there?

I would also agree with #1.
And everyone else. It just seems we have all the GlobalWarming "hot air" spouted by Govt. Green taxes, increased this...decreased that but the bottom line is still, and always will be, "do as we say, not as we do"

Maggie Broon has obviously been having another chat with his heroine Maggie Thatcher, and decided to go all the way with her imperialist dreams, even if it means throwing over an internationally agreed treaty. The British Raj is not dead, not, at least, as long as Maggie Broon can ensure that the butcher's apron waves limply in the breeze.

What are you on about (or just on) #6? Do you live in a fantasy world?

Thatcher didn't have an imperialist project. The British Raj was India. The Antarctic Treaty isn't being 'thrown over', Britain is simply laying the groundwork of a territorial claim before someone else does - and they certainly will if we don't. I'd hate to see Antarctica sullied, but all the high minded ideals in the world will count for nothing when the oil taps start drying up; and in that situation, who would you prefer ended up owning the rights to the area in question? Because someone will...

And what's that about a butcher's apron? Bloody silly.

#7 The British Raj may have been India, but it is used to signify all the imperialist attitudes of the colonial power. Obviously your fantasy world doesn't include simple history lessons.

I presume you too ignorant to know what the butcher's apron is. why don't you ask the oh so British Maggie Broon.

Which part of the colonial power do you live in?

A plausible account of the reasons for the Falklands' war may be:

The vast potential wealth of resources around the Falklands, in terms of oil and fish, was revealed in a report in 1976. Having sovereignty over the Falklands also makes much easier claims for Antarctica and surrounding seas.

At that time Britain was involved in lengthy negotiations with Argentina intended to lead to the eventual transfer of sovereignty to Argentina.

Suddenly, the 1976 report revealed the huge wealth of resources that Britain was about to give up. Rather than simply withdraw from the negotiations, which would be bad form, Britain feigned lack of interest by leaving the Falklands almost unprotected. At the same time Britain stalled the negotiations, knowing that Argentina was ruled by an unpopular and unstable military government in economic trouble, looking for a nationalistic cause to unite the country.

True to form, the Argentinian military government ordered an invasion of the Falklands. Having repelled the invasion, Britain could then "honourably" declare that, "well, if that's the way you are going to behave then the negotiations are finished and the Falklands (oh, and by the way the vast wealth in the seas around them) will remain British for ever!"

Perhaps it was also thought that a decent period - say 25 years? - should elapse before any formal claim should be made concerning the resources.

After all, Britain wouldn't want to be thought to be sticking its snout into the trough with undue haste, after the nasty business of the war, would it?

You're all nuts, especially Nr 1. I sometimes despair of the so-called intelligentia.

Is this all you've got to do with your lives?

9 Slioch

What is this but the constructing of revisionist history ?

The Argentine had been looking for an opportunity to reoccupy the Malvinas for decades. The invasion was launched as a last desperate throw by the hugely unpopular Junta, in an attempt to devert Argentine public Opinion away from failings at home.

But while the British dismissed the possibility, not even maintaining any serious MI6 presence or networks in south America in the late 1970's , the Junta had done their home work. They had noted that thanks to the defence cuts in the Labour years through the 1960's and 1970's Britain was judged to be quite incapable of projecting its defence effort into the South Atlantic . Submarines had been mothballed, and the fleet slimmed down. Fleet sized Aircraft Carriers had been scrapped, aircraft had not been uprated or replaced, procurement programs had been cancelled and the one remaining dedicated carrier Hermes was almost at the end of its commission. Regiments had been dsibanded, and helicopter and armament procurement had been neglected.

The Argentine Junta got their sums right . The one factor they overlooked was the capability of the British Armed forces to improvise.

I feel your idea that the British somehow allowed the Falklands to be occupied as part of some long term power game is a bit wide of the mark. Of course the present geographical reality is most convenient ...and I would not argue with that.

#10 Wood Head. Welcome to the world.

Increasing populations, desertification & sea-leavel rise allied with decreasing fossil fuel outputs mean that there will be plenty of food, water, land and fuel wars to go around. Preparing for hellish wars in Antarctica rather than investing in renewables appears short-sighted folly.

11. Upbeat

You may well be right Upbeat - you will note that I merely stated that the scenario I painted might be plausible. I agree with your assessment in your paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 and generally regard cock-up as far more likely than conspiracy, particularly with respect to foreign relations.

But, on the other hand, I remember the 1976 report and wondering at the time what on earth the British government was doing apparently turning its back on such resources whilst scrabbling around to develop the North Sea. Then, at the time of the 1982 war, I do not recall any mention of the 1976 report by the media: it seemed to have been completely forgotten.

On the whole, as far as I can judge, I would come down on the side of gross incompetence and short-sightedness on the part of the British government, as, apparently, do you.

But I am interested to see if anyone can shed any light on the possibility of a more conspiratorial explanation.

The Antarctic is an almost pristine wilderness and possibly contains large quantities of various natural resources - which to governments and businessmen means just one thing - potential PROFIT!! Have we not learned yet that the only way we can profit from the goodness of the planet is by taking care of it? How much longer can we continue to take with no thought of returning anything?
Unfortunately the concept of "sovereignty" much loved by governments the world over still holds massive sway over the correct concept which we ought to have of the Earth and it's resources, namely that of Stewardship. We are here to look after, tend and nurture the Earth, not to loot, pillage and destroy it.

I wish I shared your optimism, #16.

Sadly, I fear that once the resources of minerals and oil dry up in the rest of the world, attention will shift to Antarctica.

And as overpopulation continues unabated, so the resources are used up at an ever faster rate.

something not related to this but the tragedy of the people drowned trying to save their children in Portugal,

this really upsets me for two reasons the loss of un-nesessary life and the fact that i do have the patent on a device that in an amergency like this would greately help But NO company would even talk with me,

it concist of a metalised radar reflective ballon in bright visible colours that will in an emergency inflate with helium n rise above the casualty's head emmiting a visible SOS signal to aid recovery

GB 2383778 is the uk patent

if i was at sea in an emergency i would feel a lot happier with one on me than without, YET not one manufacturer has yet decided to take it on, and i just wonder WHY????

Am not suggesting it will save everybody in trouble at sea But am sure it will help in many situations

I suppose the argument is that if someone is going to take it, it might as well be us, rather than another nation, or, shock! Horror! An oil company.

Perhaps a different solution would be for all nations to club together and offer fiscal terms for oil companies collectively. Any government take money can be funnelled into environmental research/politicians lunches.

The hulabalu about antartica is not so much fossil fuels but the vast net-work of sub ice lakes. The Russians have discovered massive one which they have named Vostok, the same as the station which is on top of it.

It is believed that there is life in the waters of these lakes. The russians, with the help of the Brittish and Americans have managed to drill out a core and (almost to the bottom of the ice) found living organizams in it.

It is being researched how to actually take a sample of the water without contaminating it with exotic particles off the drill itself.

Everyone wants a piece of this. It is about science....NOT OIL people!!!

is it really, well I'll be a oil slicked wiped out beta particle, I don't know what I'm talking about either but neither does anyone above.

-14.

If you are looking for a conspiracy a better one might be the global warming scam. seen David Bellamy's article in yesterday's Times along these lines?

Regarding the Falklands the man in charge was a certain Douglas Hurd. He has had a long track record of incompetence, before and since the Falklands War - e.g. Maastricht was going to be the "last treaty"

Go away! It's ours

Look, friends, you're blaming all the wrong people here. Sure, nobody wants to see the antartic stained with oil, or any of that - but the problem is the UNCLOS III treaty structure that requires all claims to be filed now or forever lost. No one - repeat, no one - has the technology to even verify the presence of oil in this part of the ocean right now, it's far too deep. Everyone knows it'd be better to wait ten, twenty years - hopefully by then we will all have cleaner technologies and won't need the oil - rather than having a squabble right now that none of us can afford, but the treaty says use it or lose it. And if you lose it, someone else is going to use it; someone who's going to be far less concerned about the environment than you are. Is that really what you want?

Forgive me if I misquote another American: "It's the [treaty that is] stupid."

#25: Yes, it will require high technology. It will also require a Big Stick brandished threateningly for countries to defend their stakes, and perhaps worse. So once again developed First World nations will be the only ones to benefit, while the developing world loses out. Africa and Asian countries such as Bangladesh will look on while the obese First World stuffs cake into its always-gaping mouth, once again. Little Tim looks wonderingly and desperately into the grocer's shop window dressed for Christmas...

A certain tinglishy Englishy bloke by the name of Ranulph Fiennes was down in Antarctica not so long ago. I was in a packed audience in a lecture theatre that viewed slides taken by members of the South African National Antarctic Expedition, showing the rubbish that Ranulph left behind. The South Africans had to clean up the muck Mr Fiennes left behind, while he returned to the UK to preach about preservation of the beautiful pristine continent. Of course Mr Fiennes has not paid a cent towards cleaning up, either. (Sorry Mr Fiennes, I don't recognize knighthoods. Especially not for self-serving glory-seekers.)

If the average Englishman still hasn't been potty-trained, and Mrs Elizabeth Windsor continues to approve of such dissolute behaviour, then the continent will be doomed if the British claim is approved.

For God's sake leave place alone! There will iinevitably be an international bunfight to further carve up the place which will only end up destroying this almost pristine wilderness. Do we have to stuff Antarctica up, too?

Better still let's hope that by 2048 we will have a less destructive energy source at our disposal than oil which has caused quite a few recent international conflagrations.

Upbeat is right. When I was in Argentina in 1972 they had negociated for the islands for 17 years. The people donated money in a telethon to get the islands back. Britain invaded Argentina right after they won independence and it took the beleagered revolutionary army 10 years to recoup enought to fight them off. Then they spend billions of dollars buying back the telegraph and train track the English built in an attempt to show legitimate claim. There has been a UN resolution for at least 2 years for Britain to give the islands back. They refuse to negociate. Britain's claim to Antartica is just as dispicable as the way they got the Falklands in the first place and they should be laughed out of court.

I repeat , Go away it's ours!!!!

McHoot - It's ours. There is irrefutable proof that scientists have found Canadian moose droppings encased in centuries old ice.

MANKIND , WE ARE NOTHING BUT PARASITES ON THIS PLANET, GREED, GREED, GREED, IT IS ALL WE KNOW; WE ARE A DESPICABLE SPECIES UNWORTHY OF THIS BEAUTIFUL GIFT, WHEN WILL WE EVER LEARN.

It's all about GLOBAL WARMING, what a cash cow this scam is, in the last 400 years there is nothing to prove that today is any different to yesterday, we are now in one of the coldest periods in the last 100 years, if this trend continues we will need all the oil we can get to heat the summers, the only good news is that the world is still full of idiots, and I only want one to enter into my shop every day!