Alternative History
Register
Advertisement

I like this! It's a perfect "scale-down" of the original Rhodesian expansion ideas. There are also a number of formerly British, far southern islands that NB could be interested in:

  • St. Helena (aybe)
  • Tristan da Cunha
  • Gough Island
  • Bouvet Island (mentioned on the Nordic Union page, but I bet they don't care much about them)
  • Prince Edward Islands
  • South Georgia, South Sandwich, South Shetland, and South Orkney Islands (may have been merged with the Falklands in the meantime, but maybe not)

Benkarnell 18:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Are there fossil fuels in Antarctica? Mitro 20:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
O there is fossil fuels.And not just hydrocarbons, there is nickel, iron, platinum, copper, chromium and gold. In short enough minerals to fuel a Second Industrial Revolution. Bob 10:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
In the most inhospitable environment on the planet that was sufficient to kill any number of expeditions, and given the fact that most of any effort along this line will be boot-strapped, I don't know how successful the Brits will be. Louisiannan 13:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
At this stage it might just be a lot of expeditions and flags - mineral exploitation could be in the works, though. Benkarnell 13:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Nothing like the cunning use of flags, what? Sail 'round the world and stick a flag in! Louisiannan 15:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Ha! Missed that joke when you made it. Between this and your Lehrer video link (which had me watching Lehrer videos for almost an hour a few days ago), I'm having a ball. Benkarnell 04:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with Louis and Ben. Antarctica is really difficult to live in and I doubt it would become the next jewel in the British crown. Plus a lot of their resources will be put into defending their territory in war torn South Africa, so any Antarctica colony would just be the place to dump the rejects of the military and other organizations. Mitro 14:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
If you read it, the Brits control only a small town of barely 500 people. They claim the rest but don't control it. Nobody else is waving their arms around and pointing AK-47s at each other over it so why not Britain having a tiny colony...for now. Bob 14:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
That's all well and good -- I'm just commenting that any sort of effort that way will likely end up being a money drain -- and I think Mitro's right -- it's got a great potential as a goulag for undesireables. Louisiannan 15:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
There have been a lot of proposed plans for colonizing Antarctica and most have failed due to the difficulty in making a living there (hell it might be easier and more profitable to live in space). The number you suggest living there would not be enough to turn a profit but just be money down the drain. Mitro 15:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Location of the settlement[]

Can I suggest S. Georgia Island rather than the Antarctic mainland, or is that even more inhospitable? The latitude seems a bit more friendly, but I don't know a thing about the actual island. Benkarnell 04:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems that South Georgia is indeed a viable choice for further development. Check out the wikipedia article on the islands in question. If you consider the effects of climate change, things might be a bit more hospitable even in the antarctic. --SouthWriter 19:58, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
South Georgia is claimed and mostly likely controlled by the United American Republic like the Islas Malvinas. No, it's certainly not an alternative for the New British Antarctic colonisation. --Grand Prince Paul II. 14:27, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
I concede to that established fact. However, I had to search for the record. It helps to put it in a link to the article that supports your argument. I had to go to the wikipedia article to link "the Falkland Islands" to South Georgia Island. SouthWriter 17:50, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought it was not necessary after you already stated the right wiki-articel. --Grand Prince Paul II. 19:18, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

Adoption[]

I'd like to adopt this article. Mscoree (talk) 23:22, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

Not happening. Same objections as with all the others you've tried. Lordganon (talk) 12:41, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

Advertisement