Keep off our tiny frozen island, Denmark tells Canada

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter fourier jr
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Canada
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the territorial dispute between Denmark and Canada over Hans Island, a small and uninhabitable island in the Arctic. Participants explore the implications of the dispute, including historical claims, military capabilities, and the potential for resource exploitation due to global warming.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the island has been claimed by both Denmark and Canada since the border was drawn in 1973.
  • Others express skepticism about the significance of the island, questioning the value of a territory that is less than 100 meters wide and uninhabitable.
  • A few participants humorously suggest that the dispute could lead to absurd military confrontations, referencing the idea of "invading" with frozen salmon.
  • Some argue that the real interest lies in fishing rights and offshore drilling potential rather than the island itself.
  • Concerns are raised about the long-standing nature of the dispute, with one participant highlighting that it has persisted for over 32 years.
  • There are discussions about the military capabilities of Denmark and Canada, with some participants providing comparative statistics on military expenditure and population.
  • One participant speculates on the potential for resource extraction in the region due to climate change, suggesting that the island's value may increase as conditions change.
  • Another participant humorously suggests that the island could become submerged due to rising sea levels, rendering the dispute moot.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit a mix of humorous commentary and serious inquiry, with no clear consensus on the significance of the island or the nature of the dispute. Multiple competing views remain regarding the implications of the territorial claim and the motivations behind it.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the actual value of the island and the potential for resource extraction, with some suggesting that the debate may be exaggerated given the island's size and conditions.

  • #31
Anttech said:
Did you rape and pilage there too? :-)
Nah, the monks hadn't arrived there yet.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
arildno said:
Actually, you can have Hans Island, as long as you take a reasonable position to the future status of Newfoundland (it was populated by Norwegians, you know..)
Look, if you claim Newfoundland ...YOU HAVE TO KEEP THE NEWFIES.

Other than that, I see no problem.
 
  • #33
The Smoking Man said:
Look, if you claim Newfoundland ...YOU HAVE TO KEEP THE NEWFIES.

Other than that, I see no problem.
We're already used to handle Laplanders and those insisting to speak the linguistic perversion called Neo-Norwegian (called Barn Latin among decent folk), so I can't see how we couldn't handle a few newfies as well.
 
  • #34
yeh in Norway you have 2 offical languages don't you? Just like where I live...
 
  • #35
Anttech said:
yeh in Norway you have 2 offical languages don't you? Just like where I live...
Eeh no, we have 4 official languages:
Norwegian, the-linguistic-perversion-known-as-Neo-Norwegian, northern laplandish/saami, southern saami. :blushing:
 
  • #36
arildno said:
We're already used to handle Laplanders and those insisting to speak the linguistic perversion called Neo-Norwegian (called Barn Latin among decent folk), so I can't see how we couldn't handle a few newfies as well.
Okaaaay ... just keep your hands by your sides and don't give them rum then. You should be okay.

An whatever you do, don't play Stompin Tom Connors albums.
 
  • #37
The Smoking Man said:
An whatever you do, don't play Stompin Tom Connors albums.
Shudder and horror.
I hope no one dares post an audio link; or I'll swear I'll get something even worse back at them.