Is the Antarctic Treaty Unfair?

[Australian rePublic]

A) I feel there is a disadvantage to signatories. If, for example, a nation who is not a signatory wanted to take Australia's territory, or nuke Australian Antarctic Territory, Australia would be disadvantaged in that we (Australia) aren't allowed to stop it with military intervention
B) We (Australia) can't claim sovereignty over the claims, which means that we, Australia, can't build cities there right? but if a non-signatory nation wanted to build a city in our (Australia's) claim, there in every legal right to?
Am I correct with everything that I'm saying? What benefits do the signitories get? I feel the signatiry nations are getting the bad end of the deal here
C) The USA and Russia have the right to establish a claim whenever they want, correct? Does this mean that other nations have to forego their claims, or that they get to claim the un-claimed part? Are they under different rules?

This all seems unfair
A) Why do non-signatories get special treatment?
B) Why do non-signatories get special treatment?
C) Why do the USA and Russia get special treatment?

What is your opinion?

[Insaeldor]

Who would want to even claim Antartic territory? Not like these much in the way of productivity there and it's nearly impossible to set up a continuously inhabited settalment in the area. So who going to go to war over useless territory and at that why against Australia?

[Estado Nacional]

Why would someone want to nuke Antarctica in the first place?

[Olthar]

Why would someone want to nuke Antarctica in the first place?

To keep the world safe from the Old Ones, if course. They're down there, you know, hiding behind the mountains.

[Insaeldor]

Why would someone want to nuke Antarctica in the first place?

Obviously the illuminati *nods*

[L Ron Cupboard]

Why would someone want to nuke Antarctica in the first place?

To create mutant penguins with superpowers.

[Fortschritte]

Why would someone want to nuke Antarctica in the first place?

To further melt some of Antarctica's ice sheets, which would speed up the process of sea levels rising? *insert evil laugh here.*

[Olthar]

Why would someone want to nuke Antarctica in the first place?

To further melt some of Antarctica's ice sheets, which would speed up the process of sea levels rising? *insert evil laugh here.*

It would be counterproductive. That much nuking would lead to nuclear winter and cause global temperatures to drop.

[Ceannairceach]

Why would someone want to nuke Antarctica in the first place?

To keep the world safe from the Old Ones, if course. They're down there, you know, hiding behind the mountains.

"That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons even death may die."

[Laerod]

Why would someone want to nuke Antarctica in the first place?

It's about as far removed from permanent populations as you can get, apart from the Pacific. If you wanted to test bombs, it would perhaps be the "safest" area to do so from certain perspectives.

[Olthar]

Why would someone want to nuke Antarctica in the first place?

It's about as far removed from permanent populations as you can get, apart from the Pacific. If you wanted to test bombs, it would perhaps be the "safest" area to do so from certain perspectives.

That's what deserts or remote islands are for. No need to go all the way Hel's ass crack to do it.

[Ethel mermania]

To further melt some of Antarctica's ice sheets, which would speed up the process of sea levels rising? *insert evil laugh here.*

It would be counterproductive. That much nuking would lead to nuclear winter and cause global temperatures to drop.

NNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[Scepez]

Establish Kingdom of Antarctica.
Make the rulers King Penguins (I believe that's what they're called).
Achieve World domination.

[Lalaki]

For question C, it is because the United States and the former Soviet Union were the most powerful nations on Earth back then. Russia is legally the successor state for the USSR, and therefore inherited the claim.

[Laerod]

It's about as far removed from permanent populations as you can get, apart from the Pacific. If you wanted to test bombs, it would perhaps be the "safest" area to do so from certain perspectives.

That's what deserts or remote islands are for. No need to go all the way Hel's ass crack to do it.

I think it's a terrible idea for a good number of reasons. I'm just pointing out why anyone might be interested in doing it.

[The Sotoan Union]

I'm getting this feeling that most of your questions can be answered with google.

[Liberated Duloc]

Because if technology improved enough to make antarctic colonization possible, the treaty prevents signatories from using up Antarctica's resources, or preventing any other country from going there for science.

[The Sotoan Union]

Hey I was right. Google does answer your questions OP.

A) Why do non-signatories get special treatment?
B) Why do non-signatories get special treatment?
C) Why do the USA and Russia get special treatment?

A) The treaty simply says that member nations agree not to interfere with the environment of Antarctica, to allow scientific testing there, and not to have a military presence there. Otherwise the countries still have sovereignty there. So a nation can't just come in and claim the land because that land still belongs to another country.
B) Wait isn't that the same question?
C) They really don't actually. All of the countries that originally signed the treaty already had significant interests in Antarctica. Russia and America reserve the right to make a claim if they want, but other countries actually have claims recognized by the treaty. These countries include Norway, France, and Australia. Where in the treaty does it say that the US and Russia can override existing claims?

[Margno]

Why would anyone want to build a city in Antarctica or nuke it? And what would it hurt Australia if they did?

[Kratu]

Why would anyone want to build a city in Antarctica or nuke it? And what would it hurt Australia if they did?

Why not, who wouldn't want to proclaim themselves King of the Penguins if given the chance?

[Revanchism]

Establish Kingdom of Antarctica.
Make the rulers King Penguins (I believe that's what they're called).
Achieve World domination.

The Third Antarctic Empire has no interest in the savage lands beyond.

[The All-Natural Future]

Humans should not be allowed to be south of 60S, the treaty us too lax and is not strict enough. The antartcic must remain free of the fascisk of human "civilization".

[Shofercia]

A) I feel there is a disadvantage to signatories. If, for example, a nation who is not a signatory wanted to take Australia's territory, or nuke Australian Antarctic Territory, Australia would be disadvantaged in that we (Australia) aren't allowed to stop it with military intervention
B) We (Australia) can't claim sovereignty over the claims, which means that we, Australia, can't build cities there right? but if a non-signatory nation wanted to build a city in our (Australia's) claim, there in every legal right to?
Am I correct with everything that I'm saying? What benefits do the signitories get? I feel the signatiry nations are getting the bad end of the deal here
C) The USA and Russia have the right to establish a claim whenever they want, correct? Does this mean that other nations have to forego their claims, or that they get to claim the un-claimed part? Are they under different rules?

This all seems unfair
A) Why do non-signatories get special treatment?
B) Why do non-signatories get special treatment?
C) Why do the USA and Russia get special treatment?

What is your opinion?

Pretty sure that if someone nukes your territory, you are allowed a military response. If you're not, than your government that signed the treaty are a bunch of idiots. Or they live in Chico

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-sta ... ia?page=20

[Archeuland and Baughistan]

I think we should give control of Antarctica to the United States.

[Kratu]

I think we should give control of Antarctica to the United States.

Why?