AHC: A country on Antarctica

Hmmmm, not really. It depends on how much damage you're willing to do to the Antarctic environment and how much you're willing to disregard the Antarctic Treaty. Food could be resolved through whaling, fishing, and other forms of harvesting sealife as well as greenhouses for growing plants during the summer, fuel--well, there is oil and coal in Antarctica, they're just trickier to get at because of the environment. Income could be obtained through exporting seafood, minerals (besides oil and coal Antarctica has a number of other mineral deposits), and tourism. Most of this would require a flagrant disregard for the Antarctic Treaty, an equally flagrant disregard for environmental damage, and quite a lot of capital that might be hard to get, but it's possible, at least.
I agree, I think if CalBear is very intent on strangling my Otto idea, the second possibility is this: a longer world war or some other conflict that guzzles oil and coal and accelerates global warming by multiple decades, creating a livable-ish arctic that Chile and Argentine settlers take an interest in, civil war back home, bingo bango independent Antarctica (please don't kill this one too o_O)
 
AFAIK the first molecule of fullerene wasn't manufactured until 1985 (the cut-off date from the OP).
I take "fullerene" in this context to mean geodesic domes, since that's where the name came from after all.

As far a complex of domes, the same basic issues comes up, just on a slightly smaller scale, namely it is an engineering impossibility to construct and maintain sustainability. McMurdo Station manages to house about 1,200 personnel. It requires EVERYTHING to be shipped in from elsewhere (the U.S. military ships 6.6M gallons of fuel and 11 million pounds of supplies to support those 1,200 people). Now multiply both of those figures by 40. Now find a way to pay for it as an independent country that has no resources.
That's mostly necessary because the federal government has no intention or desire to make McMurdo an independent settlement and also no desire to violate the Antarctic Treaty to make it self-sufficient. If you don't care about either of those then there are options, as I sketched above. You're going to be eating a LOT of fish and whale, and probably burning a LOT of coal and crude oil, but it's just about possible to sustain an Antarctic colony mostly on Antarctic resources, instead of needing EVERYTHING to be shipped in.
 
I take "fullerene" in this context to mean geodesic domes, since that's where the name came from after all.


That's mostly necessary because the federal government has no intention or desire to make McMurdo an independent settlement and also no desire to violate the Antarctic Treaty to make it self-sufficient. If you don't care about either of those then there are options, as I sketched above. You're going to be eating a LOT of fish and whale, and probably burning a LOT of coal and crude oil, but it's just about possible to sustain an Antarctic colony mostly on Antarctic resources, instead of needing EVERYTHING to be shipped in.
You left out another plentiful food source.

endurancehoriz-5.jpg
 

nbcman

Donor
According to this Smithsonian article, they taste like:

a piece of beef, odiferous cod fish and a canvas-backed duck roasted together in a pot, with blood and cod-liver oil for sauce

And apparently, penguins prefer the music of a cornet or a banjo over bagpipes:

At meal time, a cornet is used to call the men together, and the penguins, it seems, also like the music; for when they hear it they make directly for the ship, and remain as long as the music lasts, but leave once it ceases. In this manner we have only to wait and seize our visitor to obtain penguin steaks, which are, just at present, the prize of the menu.

One of his men pulled out a banjo and began playing “It’s a Long Way to Tipperary,” which, as Shackleton recounts in South, “The solemn looking little birds appeared to appreciate.” The bagpipe, however, was another story, and when a Scottish member of the expedition began to play the national instrument, the Adelies “fled in terror and plunged back into the sea.”
 
I read a novel on this idea back in the 80s.... a 'colonization' attempt to settle Antarctica, sponsored by a bunch of oil companies who thought there was a lot of oil there. So basically, 'everything was shipped in', although they did make use of native coal. Can't recall exactly where they were living... underground IIRC. In the end, Chile got pissed at them and massacred them all.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I read a novel on this idea back in the 80s.... a 'colonization' attempt to settle Antarctica, sponsored by a bunch of oil companies who thought there was a lot of oil there. So basically, 'everything was shipped in', although they did make use of native coal. Can't recall exactly where they were living... underground IIRC. In the end, Chile got pissed at them and massacred them all.
Well, that isn't quite the ending I was anticipating.
 
Chile is much more aggressive building scientific bases.

When Pinchche takes over the several bases declare themselves indepent, which is quickly recongized by the Soviets
 
Alright, alright, slow your roll.
Normal colonization might be impossible, but perhaps Frei Otto's Antarctic City get's built. It was planned to house 40,000 people. Say it's built sometime in the 70s. Now, say some internal strife in that nation occurs during the 80s, prompting said city to declare its own government and govern itself independently as a city-state-republic until said home conflict ends.
Just a thought.
Icon131_Arctic-City-inside1.jpg

What an intriguing idea, although I think we will inhabit the 'seas' before antarctic, much more accessible. Regardless of sea or Antarctic the amount of money required to build such a structure is unimaginable. Plucking a sum out of the air between 1-5 trillion. I think it's possible but not our century or the next but maybe post 2200 and that's a maybe!! It would not be a government-funded investment either, they don't have that amount of money. We are talking about Quadrillionaires or someone with at least 10-15 Trillion in net worth, we see it now with Elon Musk. We have definitely got to become a type 1 civilization before we could build such things and we are only at 0.72. We'll have colonized the moon and be mining asteroids for their resources and we'll be trading it. Simply put the technology to build such a city does not exist but colonizing the moon would assist in that development.

Mind Blown...
 
Zesamoedepast wrote:
  • With a PoD of any point after January 1 1900, there must be a fully independent sovereign state with its center of population on the Antarctic continent by at least 1985.
    [*]No ASBs or Antarctic thawing allowed.
As written probably not possible despite some of the suggestions. In general you can’t have the needed technology to survive let alone prosper till the late 50s which only leaves about 30 years to become an “independent sovereign state”. Worse keep in mind that said state needs to have the population, resources and infrastructure to defend itself from anyone who might wish to dispute its
sovereignty

The key is energy and frankly prior to the late 1950s we didn’t the technology to access in any realistic way the resources of Antarctica that could be used to produce energy there. And it takes massive amounts of energy to keep people alive in a place like that.

Take the only probable source between 1900 and about the mid-50s which is coal. Here’s the current best information on where coal is on the continent and most of it is buried under a LOT of ice:
https://www.worldcoal.com/coal/14032016/mapping-antarctica-coal-coal2016-388/

(and for some other reference the profile in this one shows how MUCH ice)
https://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica fact file/science/threats_mining_oil.php

And the stuff that's isn't covered in ice is still frozen pretty solid. And to even find the oil you have to drill through the ice and frozen rocks to get a good idea of where any oil might be. Offshore? Possible but again you have to do a lot of exploration and it still might not be much and that’s a mid-60s to late-70s tech level in and of itself.

The key to note here is you have to get the mining equipment to Antarctica, you have to support miners and construction workers and you have to spend a huge amount of time, effort, resources and money and your production will likely be small. And then you have to also build processing facilities and power plants there as well. And everything has to be imported to keep people alive while all this is going on. Now assume you have electric lights and heaters, (and of course steam) which will allow people to keep warm and grow food, (hydroponics is questionable but it’s a known method of growing experimental plants for science by the first part of the 20th century, but let’s say it’s available for argument) and keep in mind you have to grow food to feed to animals as well as keep them warm and process them and their waste eventually.

Once nuclear power is available you can install a reactor and get all the heat and power you need. (Both Camp Century and McMurdo Station had nuclear reactors but they weren’t GOOD nuclear reactors :) ) And there’s some geothermal available in some areas but again you have to get through a lot of ice to even begin to get to it.

(https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1974/0705/report.pdf)

And all this costs somebody a HUGE amount, for which there is no justifiable return. Nothing you ship north is going to be able to recoup this massive investment. And unless they don't care about money or investment they are not going to let someone, who btw greatly depends on outside help and effort to even survive, walk away with it. This would be very much NOT a "colony" but a resource extraction effort so likely this whole operation can't survive more than a few weeks on it's own in any case.

Now let me point out I’m not saying that Colonization of Antarctica is impossible just highly improbable. LuckyLuciano touches on this concept with Frei Otto's Arctic City (https://www.iconeye.com/architecture/features/item/10164-frei-otto-s-arctic-city *) in that you don’t “plan” to follow the more ‘conventional’ colonization concepts because the environment won’t let you do so. You have to start with and plan for being essentially a near-self-supporting colony from the very beginning.

This is; “Mars Colonization” Conundrum: The Prequel! In a nutshell. In that if you start OUT with the idea of colonization, not exploitation or really utilization past basic needs and you have to have the technology and infrastructure base installed and have it up and running before the majority of your colonists arrive. And no you won’t be making money by exporting resources, (it’s barely possible to make the ‘exchange’ economically viable using a lot of brute nuclear power and that assumes the power plants were written off or maybe bought used from the military) and stripping the environment which won’t leave a very desirable ‘environment’ for any colony.

And keep VERY much in mind building the ‘colony’ is going to be both tough and easy. Tough because it has to withstand the Antarctic weather and conditions. Odds are a ‘dome’ won’t work btw as, (this may surprise you) it snows in the Antarctic and this builds up unless regularly swept or blown off. (To the point the base of the dome over the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station broke from the pressure after only 13 years of use) Easy because it’s been found that rather than burying in the ice pre-made structures on skids elevated above the ice seem to work well. Tough again because those shelters need to be heavily braced and anchored to the ice, be super-insulated because they are constantly exposed to the weather and bleeding heat due to wind loss, (temperature differences of over 140 degrees between the outside surface and inside surface of a structure are around the average down there) and even so still take a lot of energy to maintain.

Now interestingly enough while looking for information on Project: Habakkuk and its construction material Pykrete-ice, I ran across this interesting item:
http://www.rael-sanfratello.com/media/teaching/TM_Draft_rael.edit.pdf

The general idea isn’t new, in that the proposed system tries to ‘layer’ the protection AND provide exterior separate zones so as to moderate temperature in the interspatial zones and attempts to reduce the overall energy burden. The general concept is the “Skybreak” (B. Fuller) or “Double-Shell” building concept where you essentially build an outer building inside which you build another (or more) buildings. Oddly enough it’s one of the suggested methods of building a colony on another planet such as the Moon or Mars (as well as on Earth) since the “outer” layer is the toughest layer allowing you to build somewhat less tough inside with a greater flexibility of design since they don’t have to handle the higher stress.

Unfortunately this one still runs afoul of the problem of buildup stress on the outermost layer but at least actually tries to use ‘local’ materials for some construction. (And I cannot disagree with the suggestion that pykrete would be a fantastic building material in a place like the arctic/Antarctic) I also don’t see why you really need ‘light transmission quality’ since a more obvious choice would be to install some clear ice non-loadbearing ice ‘windows’ or ‘lens’ sections if you need to bring ‘natural’ light inside. (https://www.open.edu/openlearn/scie...e/physics-and-astronomy/physics/make-ice-lens) I’ll also point out you don’t have to make pykrete with blocks but can ‘spray’ it like spray concrete. (https://research.tue.nl/en/publicat...-spraying-of-water-and-wood-fibers-to-reinfor, https://gizmodo.com/a-bizarre-wwii-era-supermaterial-made-of-ice-is-making-1588892440, I’ll note they “oopsed” and removed the form before the ice had fully settled meaning the dome collapsed prematurely but well after it was closed anyway)

The problem is mobility. You tend to have it whether you want it or not when you build on the ice since for the most part it’s in motion towards the sea. (LuckyLucianon’s “Arctic City” picture would be IN the water of that bay in probably less than a couple of decades unless It’s mounted on skies and can be towed which I doubt. Looked at the concept, no it wasn’t) Even in Antarctica the ice is moving or in the process of building-up or reducing and anything on or under the surface has to deal with the process. (Some current stations move around on giant skis and some simple jack themselves up as the snow and ice builds up some are in fact on sections of actual rock/ground but there's not a lot of it)

Now I agree with Grand Duke of Austria when he says he’s sees colonies on the ocean before we’d see the colonization of Antarctica. In fact I could see off-shore Antarctica being a place to build such ocean colonies at least as a starter/seed colony. Artificial Ice Islands are in fact a “thing” and have been since the 70s, (https://www.boem.gov/BOEM-Newsroom/Library/Publications/2005/c_core468.aspx, https://www.scientific.net/AMM.725-726.245, https://patents.google.com/patent/US4373836A/en)

Randy
*=He wasn’t the first or the last either;
https://medium.com/predict/domed-ci...buckminster-fullers-wildest-ideas-672b9b6a0b0
http://socks-studio.com/2015/10/03/the-artic-city-a-project-by-frei-otto-and-kenzo-tange/
http://socks-studio.com/2014/03/16/first-city-in-antarctica-a-1980-83-study-by-amancio-williams/[/quote]
 
And all this costs somebody a HUGE amount, for which there is no justifiable return. Nothing you ship north is going to be able to recoup this massive investment. And unless they don't care about money or investment they are not going to let someone, who btw greatly depends on outside help and effort to even survive, walk away with it. This would be very much NOT a "colony" but a resource extraction effort so likely this whole operation can't survive more than a few weeks on it's own in any case.

And keep VERY much in mind building the ‘colony’ is going to be both tough and easy. Tough because it has to withstand the Antarctic weather and conditions. Odds are a ‘dome’ won’t work btw as, (this may surprise you) it snows in the Antarctic and this builds up unless regularly swept or blown off. (To the point the base of the dome over the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station broke from the pressure after only 13 years of use) Easy because it’s been found that rather than burying in the ice pre-made structures on skids elevated above the ice seem to work well. Tough again because those shelters need to be heavily braced and anchored to the ice, be super-insulated because they are constantly exposed to the weather and bleeding heat due to wind loss, (temperature differences of over 140 degrees between the outside surface and inside surface of a structure are around the average down there) and even so still take a lot of energy to maintain.
The obvious answer is having this be a Chilean or Argentinean effort, since they've shown more interest than anyone else in colonizing Antarctica. That means that (like most of their bases, and especially the ones that approach being colonies) the base would be located in the Antarctic Peninsula, which greatly reduces many of the challenges you've identified (much less ice and warmer, for one). The profitability of the colony wouldn't be an issue, because the point would be to establish Chilean/Argentinean claims to the region, not making money. As for how it could be independent, I suppose you could posit some kind of Taiwan-type scenario, or maybe a nuclear war or something to make them "independent" in practice, if only for a little while.

So, a sketch: For some reason or another, the Antarctic Treaty never gets established, and so the territorial claims never get put into abeyance. While not a particularly intensive region of conflict, there is some Soviet interest in laying claim to parts of Antarctica, and the United States responds, including by supporting the claims of its allies. This leads to a program of Antarctic development in Chile and Argentina, especially, culminating in Argentina constructing a "colony" on the Antarctic Peninsula in the 1970s--basically a few hundred people living there "permanently" in a heated dome, maybe powered by an Argentinean nuclear reactor (they were developing that technology at the time). After the Falklands War, the military regime collapses on the mainland but briefly holds out in the base, staffed after all mostly by military personnel, before surrendering to the mainland after it becomes obvious that they can't survive otherwise.

So for a few weeks there's a quasi-independent state on the Antarctic Peninsula encompassing basically one dome and a few hundred to maybe a thousand or so people. Not exactly fulfilling the OP, but about as much as I can plausibly imagine.
 
...perhaps a conflict between Chile and Argentina following some spur of interest in exploring the peninsula results in a protectorate or local-rule type system on the peninsula where either Argentina or Chile is the protector...

Argentine/Chilean radicals in the military (probably navy) land themselves and their families at a base in Antarctica and expand it a bit.

Perhaps Pinochet is able to use penal labor to expand the infrastructure in Chilean Antarctica. It would not necessarily need to be a gulag of sorts, but something more low-key, like the Colonia Dignidad. Or perhaps certain prisoners could receive reduced sentences for taking a two year construction job in Antarctica. If Pinochet is not careful, and stocks the camp with political prisoners, it is possible that the prisoners could revolt and form a radical left-wing government that seeks Soviet protection. If the colony is not primarily staffed by left-wing dissidents, it might end up seceding and seeking British protection.

If the Panama Canal suffers some sort of attack during the cold war, or there is a substantial fear that it is vulnerable to an attack, the US might turn a blind eye to Antarctic penal camps, as it means stronger control of Drake's Passage. Obviously the US would use the Strait of Magellan, but they would want to be able to prevent others from using Drake's Passage. Here's some info I found about Chile's thoughts on the passage:
DrakesPassageStrategicImportance.JPG
 

Attachments

  • Augusto-Pinochet.jpg
    Augusto-Pinochet.jpg
    131.2 KB · Views: 65
  • chile-general-pinochet-visit_1_1e71460dad89d7553536416fa6eec122.jpg
    chile-general-pinochet-visit_1_1e71460dad89d7553536416fa6eec122.jpg
    50.9 KB · Views: 125
Workable Goblin wrote:
The obvious answer is having this be a Chilean or Argentinean effort, since they've shown more interest than anyone else in colonizing Antarctica.

Which is why everyone else is so opposed to them doing so after all :)

That means that (like most of their bases, and especially the ones that approach being colonies) the base would be located in the Antarctic Peninsula, which greatly reduces many of the challenges you've identified (much less ice and warmer, for one).

Not so much of the resources though which is a reason no one disputes their actual claims. So while it reduces some of the challenges it also presents new ones. Still in general they’ve got the easiest spots to work with probably.

The profitability of the colony wouldn't be an issue, because the point would be to establish Chilean/Argentinean claims to the region, not making money.

But barring a ‘flash-in-the-pan’ independence as suggested below it DOES make a huge difference to being able to stay independent. The whole ‘claims’ issue has been going back and forth for most of a century anyway. To the point Argentina airlifted a 7 month pregnant woman to one of the bases to allow the first “child” to be born there on the continent to give depth to the claims. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emilio_Palma, not his stepbrother A. Baur was born there 12 years later as well) This was done specifically to reinforce sovereignty claims over the region. Chile has done the same and so far about a dozen kids have been born there mostly between the nations actively seeking sovereignty rights on the continent.

And this is actually another reason profitability is important because with sovereignty comes the ability to deal in the extraction and exploitation of local resources and that’s exactly what those seeking ‘colonization’ want to be able to do. The main problem is those ‘resources’ are not verified and a major question is how much if any and were exactly they might be at. Worse to make any such extraction at all economical those resources have to be pretty massive sources otherwise only local extraction and use is plausible. (And that still takes a major investment to do. Note I’ve seen several mentions that there actually ARE a couple of oil and gas extraction operations being done that were supposed to cut the overall requirements but no hard evidence of such and it would be in the more “likely” Ross Sea area if so)

Something to keep in mind is that while the Antarctic Treaty is restrictive it doesn’t really exclude “economic activities” such as resource extraction and processing, (and granted this is mostly aimed towards fishing and whaling concerns it is not explicitly stated what “economic” resources are involved) the problem is those resources have not been adequately identified or explored. Coal and Iron have been identified in the Transantarctic Mountains and Prince Charles Mountains The Peninsula has always been seen as likely having deposits of copper, molybdenum, lead, zinc, tungsten and other minerals but to date (and keep in mind Argentina and Chile specifically have been actively looking for decades) exploitable deposits have not been found. And there’s a difference between “locally” and “trade” economically exploitable deposit sizes, the former is vastly smaller than the latter but in both cases the needed extraction and processing infrastructure is pretty huge.

As for how it could be independent, I suppose you could posit some kind of Taiwan-type scenario, or maybe a nuclear war or something to make them "independent" in practice, if only for a little while.

In essence a “major” player or two have to agree and support such independence with major financial and military aid which is how Taiwan survives currently. (Due to early US and western support Taiwan is difficult for China to project power to and would be difficult to take. They can of course do so at any point where doing so it advantageous to them but it’s not likely to be feasible currently) Similar Antarctica is difficult to reach and would be expensive to project major military forces to and to support for any lengthy operation. Then again the same was/is said of the Falkland Islands so…

So, a sketch: For some reason or another, the Antarctic Treaty never gets established, and so the territorial claims never get put into abeyance.

Crazy as it might seem today Argentina and Chile among other South American nations were actually supportive of the Antarctic Treaty originally because the actual post-war power struggle in Antarctica was likely to be unfavorable to their claims there. Keep in mind that ‘officially’ the UK (at the time including Australia and New Zealand claims) claimed most of the continent with the second biggest claim being Norwegian. The US didn’t officially have an actual claim and the treaty is what gave the USSR/Russia any authorization to be there. No treaty and the ‘conflict’ is going to be between the UK and Norway mostly with France arguing around the margins :) And yes the US would have ‘pressed’ some claims and had the power to back it up but we’d have likely set up in the less “claimed” areas, which is essentially what we did OTL anyway. Chile and Argentina would have been allowed or not allowed by sufferance of these other nations, (and British claims directly overlaid theirs anyway) and likely NOT been allowed to exploit or tender any official claims of territory without the treaty.

http://www.antarctica.gov.au/__data...rctic-Territorial-Claims-map-13111_300dpi.pdf

How ‘enforceable’ this all would have been is questionable but post-WWII it’s likely that without a treaty both Chile and Argentina would have been squeezed out by the bigger powers. If the USSR had made any claims they might have been allowed in the “unclaimed” territory but it’s unlikely it would have been worth the effort considering the distance, logistics and fact they would be outnumbered by NATO members.

While not a particularly intensive region of conflict, there is some Soviet interest in laying claim to parts of Antarctica, and the United States responds, including by supporting the claims of its allies. This leads to a program of Antarctic development in Chile and Argentina, especially, culminating in Argentina constructing a "colony" on the Antarctic Peninsula in the 1970s--basically a few hundred people living there "permanently" in a heated dome, maybe powered by an Argentinean nuclear reactor (they were developing that technology at the time).

Why Chile and Argentina when Australia, Britain and New Zealand have larger official territorial claims? Heck Chile had a larger claimed ‘territory’ which included the area claimed by Argentina! (Heck France’s territorial claim in right in the middle of what Australia claims!) Really in a timeline with no Antarctic Treaty even if the USSR is allowed to make a claim they’d be pushed off into “Unclaimed” area and the rest of the continent would be divided among Britain, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, the US and France.

I can see the US, and Britain, (includes Australia but they might try it themselves) or maybe France or Norway being willing to expend money on a prestige project like a semi-self-sufficient ‘colony’ in about that order. If allowed to stake a claim the USSR may try a prestige project but its questionable given the circumstances. Note that at no point during this period will any South American nations claims be vigorously supported unless pushed into the ‘unclaimed” territory to try and keep the USSR out. In this case the Peninsula will be strictly British territory with all that implies.

So maybe keep the AT and follow that progression, (the US had a nuclear reactor at McMurdo in 1962) Argentina installs one at their biggest base in the 70s and expands their ‘colony’ since arguably you can over-winter more people with nuclear power than conventional power. (And assuming they use a better design than the PM-3A the US had) So you could see either Esperanza or Marambio, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanza_Base, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marambio_Base) being expanded with more “permanent” residents assigned. So you could see a resident population on par with McMurdo (250) for either or both bases. It would give the following a better chance:

After the Falklands War, the military regime collapses on the mainland but briefly holds out in the base, staffed after all mostly by military personnel, before surrendering to the mainland after it becomes obvious that they can't survive otherwise. So for a few weeks there's a quasi-independent state on the Antarctic Peninsula encompassing basically one dome and a few hundred to maybe a thousand or so people. Not exactly fulfilling the OP, but about as much as I can plausibly imagine.

More correctly “Military personnel and their families” but the problem here is “technically” it’s British territory so who’d be willing to ‘recognize’ the hold outs call for independence in the first place? The USSR wouldn’t they didn’t recognize the military government in the first place and neither would the US or Norway so all it really is a ‘rebellious’ group dependent on others for vital support which means it’s very unlikely it would happen in the first place. Heck Argentina will fly in troops at the first sign of trouble anyway so it won’t even last a few days let alone a few weeks.

Now suppose we reverse that though? Instead of the military junta collapsing they violently resist being put out of power? And some of those who were pushing for democracy manage to get on a plane to one of those bases, (likely Marambio) where they manage a takeover and gain British support. Now Britain (possibly through Australia) and likely the US will have rush some military aid to support these holdouts. Which could make things a bit dicey do to the non-military clauses in the AT but circumstances and all that. The most likely outcome is nobody can get an armed team in to protect these folks and the Argentine s fly in a special forces unit and kill everybody but a lot depends on how fast everyone moves in a short period of time.

In any case I don’t see it as exactly fitting the OP requirements but again it’s probably about as close as we can plausibly get

Randy
 
Maybe you have some kind of Imperial Federation/Commonwealth that grants semi-autonomy to British Antarctica as the "Commonwealth of Antarctica."
 
Something to keep in mind is that while the Antarctic Treaty is restrictive it doesn’t really exclude “economic activities” such as resource extraction and processing, (and granted this is mostly aimed towards fishing and whaling concerns it is not explicitly stated what “economic” resources are involved) the problem is those resources have not been adequately identified or explored. Coal and Iron have been identified in the Transantarctic Mountains and Prince Charles Mountains The Peninsula has always been seen as likely having deposits of copper, molybdenum, lead, zinc, tungsten and other minerals but to date (and keep in mind Argentina and Chile specifically have been actively looking for decades) exploitable deposits have not been found. And there’s a difference between “locally” and “trade” economically exploitable deposit sizes, the former is vastly smaller than the latter but in both cases the needed extraction and processing infrastructure is pretty huge.
The Environmental Protocol basically bans mining, although granted that didn't exist until the 1990s.

Why Chile and Argentina when Australia, Britain and New Zealand have larger official territorial claims? Heck Chile had a larger claimed ‘territory’ which included the area claimed by Argentina! (Heck France’s territorial claim in right in the middle of what Australia claims!) Really in a timeline with no Antarctic Treaty even if the USSR is allowed to make a claim they’d be pushed off into “Unclaimed” area and the rest of the continent would be divided among Britain, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, the US and France.
Because Chile and Argentina care? The countries you mention have shown zero interest as far as I can tell in doing anything past the kind of scientific bases that anyone and everyone has put in Antarctica, whether or not they have any claims. If Australia, Britain, New Zealand, France, or Norway had done anything that indicated any actual willingness to try to claim Antarctica other than, well, making claims, then I would be talking about them; but they haven't, and the South Americans have. So they seem the most likely to actually try putting together something that could reasonably be described as a colony, out of everyone that might be able to do so.

As for the overlaps...well, yes. That would be why you might be interested in building a colony. This strengthens your claim (you have people living there permanently!) and weakens your opponent's (they don't!). This is, after all, their justification for Villa las Estrellas and Esperanza, and all I'm arguing is that you could have a super-Esperanza/Villa which is temporarily semi-independent in the right circumstances.

I can see the US, and Britain, (includes Australia but they might try it themselves) or maybe France or Norway being willing to expend money on a prestige project like a semi-self-sufficient ‘colony’ in about that order. If allowed to stake a claim the USSR may try a prestige project but its questionable given the circumstances. Note that at no point during this period will any South American nations claims be vigorously supported unless pushed into the ‘unclaimed” territory to try and keep the USSR out. In this case the Peninsula will be strictly British territory with all that implies.
As I said above, Britain, the United States, France, and Norway have shown absolutely zero inclination to try to press their claims on Antarctica, while the South Americans have. I can't see any of them doing anything that could vaguely come close to the borders of what the OP is looking for, whereas I could see Argentina or Chile giving it a go under the right circumstances.

More correctly “Military personnel and their families” but the problem here is “technically” it’s British territory so who’d be willing to ‘recognize’ the hold outs call for independence in the first place? The USSR wouldn’t they didn’t recognize the military government in the first place and neither would the US or Norway so all it really is a ‘rebellious’ group dependent on others for vital support which means it’s very unlikely it would happen in the first place.
I think you misunderstand me. The idea is that the people at the base don't recognize the new non-military government right away, not that they go crazy and declare independence. No one is "recognizing" them, they're just reluctant to immediately accept the new regime as their government and so become functionally semi-independent temporarily since they won't take orders from the government that exists. Like I said, a Taiwan situation. The main difference is that unlike Taiwan they can't realistically support themselves, so once they realize that the military junta isn't coming back and the new government wants to retake control they go ahead and come back under Argentinian control. Probably all that passes back and forth are telephone calls, more or less metaphorically speaking.
 
The Environmental Protocol basically bans mining, although granted that didn't exist until the 1990s.

"Basically" but it's been argued quite a bit since it can be interpreted if you squint enough :)

Because Chile and Argentina care? The countries you mention have shown zero interest as far as I can tell in doing anything past the kind of scientific bases that anyone and everyone has put in Antarctica, whether or not they have any claims. If Australia, Britain, New Zealand, France, or Norway had done anything that indicated any actual willingness to try to claim Antarctica other than, well, making claims, then I would be talking about them; but they haven't, and the South Americans have. So they seem the most likely to actually try putting together something that could reasonably be described as a colony, out of everyone that might be able to do so.

Well you started with that premise yes but then your supposition was based on this:
So, a sketch: For some reason or another, the Antarctic Treaty never gets established, and so the territorial claims never get put into abeyance.

Which means the nations that claim the most territory therefor would then press those claims. Note the nations WITH those claims have agreed to "put them aside" in favor of not allowing anyone to fully claim their territory. Note those nations are also the ones who quite obviously COULD push those claim both more aggressively and actively if they WANTED to do so and probably with vastly more vigor than any South American nations could. Hence actually WHY both Chile and Argentina DID care enough to back the treaty. They are well aware that the "treaty" enforced by the bigger nations is the only reason they are 'allowed' to keep playing at "colonization" of Antarctica.

As for the overlaps...well, yes. That would be why you might be interested in building a colony. This strengthens your claim (you have people living there permanently!) and weakens your opponent's (they don't!). This is, after all, their justification for Villa las Estrellas and Esperanza, and all I'm arguing is that you could have a super-Esperanza/Villa which is temporarily semi-independent in the right circumstances.

Population in place size doesn't really matter, (IIRC both the US and UK and I think Norway maintain a higher 'over-winter' population than either Chile or Argentina) it's what you can and are willing to back up when it comes to 'colonization' and nobody in South America can stand up to the 'big boys' should they take an active interest. Again, hence support for the AaT in South America even when they are 'claiming' territory. They can only get away wit has long as the treaty is in place.

As I said above, Britain, the United States, France, and Norway have shown absolutely zero inclination to try to press their claims on Antarctica, while the South Americans have. I can't see any of them doing anything that could vaguely come close to the borders of what the OP is looking for, whereas I could see Argentina or Chile giving it a go under the right circumstances.

Those 'circumstances' are the problem though. Both Argentina and Chile can and are trying, (hence the case of having "citizens" born there to bolster the claims) but are only going to get so far as long as the treaty exists and are pretty much shut out the moment it doesn't. (2042 is not that far into the future) The organizers and signatories of the AaT were already well aware that Antarctica had already become a point of contention prior to WWII and had no desire to see it become one again afterwards. (Norway has severe issues with Germany claiming 'chunks' of its territory pre-war and was very aggressive about reclaiming it post-war) At the same time the nations of South America whose claims were pretty much ignored were aware as long as there was no agreement meant they would inevitably be locked out of the continent so long as the bigger nations had any interest in the the place fully supported what would become AaT. Short of a nuclear war destroying the 'northern' nations and the South being left to pick up the pieces, (and praying Australia and Asia were caught up in the mess or it still wasn't possible) South America doesn't have the ability to enforce its claims. The only way to get anywhere near the needed circumstances is another "major" player backing the effort willing to go far enough to make the threat credible and even China and India aren't willing let alone Russia or the old USSR.

I think you misunderstand me. The idea is that the people at the base don't recognize the new non-military government right away, not that they go crazy and declare independence. No one is "recognizing" them, they're just reluctant to immediately accept the new regime as their government and so become functionally semi-independent temporarily since they won't take orders from the government that exists. Like I said, a Taiwan situation. The main difference is that unlike Taiwan they can't realistically support themselves, so once they realize that the military junta isn't coming back and the new government wants to retake control they go ahead and come back under Argentinian control. Probably all that passes back and forth are telephone calls, more or less metaphorically speaking.

No, I got that but was pointing out that its very much NOT a "Taiwan" situation as Taiwan HAD the recognition and backing of the US to remain "independent" even after the US normalized US/Chinese relations. Without it they never can be considered in any way (functionally or not, semi-or-not) "independent" let alone "sovereign" in anyway. And given the location and other issues they have to be a major 'sea' power able to project force or at least threaten to do so into the area. Which kind of significantly narrows your choices. And time-frame wise there's never a 'good' opportunity to do so which is why I suggested reversing the outcome so that the US-etc have incentive to both recognize AND support the 'government in exile' in Antarctica. NOW it's a "Taiwan" situation :)

Randy
 
Which means the nations that claim the most territory therefor would then press those claims. Note the nations WITH those claims have agreed to "put them aside" in favor of not allowing anyone to fully claim their territory. Note those nations are also the ones who quite obviously COULD push those claim both more aggressively and actively if they WANTED to do so and probably with vastly more vigor than any South American nations could. Hence actually WHY both Chile and Argentina DID care enough to back the treaty. They are well aware that the "treaty" enforced by the bigger nations is the only reason they are 'allowed' to keep playing at "colonization" of Antarctica.

Population in place size doesn't really matter, (IIRC both the US and UK and I think Norway maintain a higher 'over-winter' population than either Chile or Argentina) it's what you can and are willing to back up when it comes to 'colonization' and nobody in South America can stand up to the 'big boys' should they take an active interest. Again, hence support for the AaT in South America even when they are 'claiming' territory. They can only get away wit has long as the treaty is in place.
Fine. To be honest, I don't give a flip about whether the treaty stays in place or not, the only reason for getting rid of it was to give them some rationale for investing more heavily. I still think you're basically wrong about the willingness of any of the other countries to make any effort to colonize Antarctica, claims or no, but it fundamentally doesn't matter and I don't care enough to continue arguing with you about it. The point is just that one or the other of Chile and Argentina makes an even bigger effort to create a colony in Antarctica than they did IOTL. I suggested a rationale, you disagree with it. Feel free to suggest a substitute.

No, I got that but was pointing out that its very much NOT a "Taiwan" situation as Taiwan HAD the recognition and backing of the US to remain "independent" even after the US normalized US/Chinese relations. Without it they never can be considered in any way (functionally or not, semi-or-not) "independent" let alone "sovereign" in anyway. And given the location and other issues they have to be a major 'sea' power able to project force or at least threaten to do so into the area. Which kind of significantly narrows your choices. And time-frame wise there's never a 'good' opportunity to do so which is why I suggested reversing the outcome so that the US-etc have incentive to both recognize AND support the 'government in exile' in Antarctica. NOW it's a "Taiwan" situation :)
I think this is a matter of opinion, and we'll have to agree to disagree. I call it a "Taiwan situation" because there's at least nominally a government in place which has lost control of most of the territories it has originally controlled, or at least swears allegiance to a government that largely doesn't exist anymore, which I find to be analogous to Taiwan's situation, particularly directly after the loss of the mainland. And I call it "semi-independent" because for a brief period of time it operates without reference to any kind of higher authority, exactly like an independent government. It's only "semi" independent because it never makes any formal move to claim independence and quickly gives up its independence when pressed, but for that brief period of time it is functionally speaking a very tiny independent country.

The point, anyway, was that this kind of quasi-independence or semi-independence was about as far as I can see some kind of Antarctic settlement getting--it was supposed to illustrate about the closest you could plausibly come to the OP's desire, which is obviously not very close. The fact that this kind of independence is not really independence, and certainly isn't sustainable, is, well, kind of the point.

Incidentally, sovereignty is a garbage idea about as relevant to the world as the luminiferous aether, but this isn't relevant to this discussion.
 
Top