Braddock wrote:
So who does 'own' it? The Eskimos should start developing nukes now before the US are on to them.
as far as I know, no one "owns" the territory between the internationally agreed upon 200-mile-zones of USA/Canada/Denmark and Russia.
According to the BBC,
"The North Pole is not currently regarded as part of any single country's territory and is therefore administered by the International Seabed Authority."
look at the map at the bottom of this article for further info:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6927395.stmFrom the same article:
"Moscow argued before a UN commission in 2001 that waters off its northern coast were in fact an extension of its maritime territory.
The claim was based on the argument that an underwater feature, known as the Lomonosov Ridge, was an extension of its continental territory, but it was rejected and Russia told to resubmit with more evidence.
Several countries with territories bordering the Arctic - including Russia, the US, Canada and Denmark - have launched competing claims to the region.
The competition has intensified as melting polar ice caps have opened up the possibility of new shipping routes in the region.
Current laws grant countries an economic zone of 200 nautical miles beyond their land borders.
This zone can be extended where a country can prove that the structure of the continental shelf is similar to the geological structure within its territory."
In the end, I don't think we will be facing another "cold" war. It is more likely that the nations will split the "unowned" territory between them.
Then again, who knows what the ISA will decide, once the cases have been made.
Personally, I think that russia has a case. Just look at the map. If you extend the existing border lines from above the pole down to the border lines of denmark and norway, you'll see that the territory russia is arguing about is exactly on "their" side of that imaginary border.
The flag on the seabed is only a publicity stunt. The mission was done mainly to find new evidence for russian claims before the ISA. As long as they'll respect the ISA's decision ( whenever that may come ), we should be fine.