Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jakeroot]

Pfft.  I used to live in Wisconsin and flew into Minneapolis or Duluth often.  No big deal.

Tell that to Buddy Holly fans. (I also grew up in Green Bay. I know very well what airport conditions in winter weather can be like.)

Right. Because there has been no advancement in aviation technology since 1959.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

Where would you put them?

In the water.

 Hard disagree. I would put my islands on land.

How about we have Islands in the Stream? We can name them Kenny Rogers & Dolly Parton.

[Road Hog]

Where would you put them?

In the water.

 Hard disagree. I would put my islands on land.

How about we have Islands in the Stream? We can name them Kenny Rogers & Dolly Parton.

Or Dolly could just lie on her back in the stream.

[skluth]

Where would you put them?

In the water.

 Hard disagree. I would put my islands on land.

How about we have Islands in the Stream? We can name them Kenny Rogers & Dolly Parton.

Or Dolly could just lie on her back in the stream.

Those aren't islands, son. Those are mountains.

[Big John]

Where would you put them?

In the water.

 Hard disagree. I would put my islands on land.

How about we have Islands in the Stream? We can name them Kenny Rogers & Dolly Parton.

Or Dolly could just lie on her back in the stream.

Those aren't islands, son. Those are mountains.

I-65 bridge NE of Mobile AL.

[Poiponen13]

Islands off the coast of:
Jacksonville
Savannah
Charleston
Myrtle Beach
Wilmington
Virginia Beach
Boston


would be useful.

"I told him we already got one."

Which one?

[Poiponen13]

Canada could also build islands on its coast.

[Max Rockatansky]

Canada could also build islands on its coast.

They “could,” but why would they?

[Poiponen13]

Canada could also build islands on its coast.

They “could,” but why would they?

Have more cities.

[Max Rockatansky]

Canada could also build islands on its coast.

They “could,” but why would they?

Have more cities.

Why would they do that when the rest of the Canadian mainland has more room than almost every country on Earth?

[Bruce]

Canadian cities have plenty of room to build up. Vancouver's outer ring of neighborhoods are very low density, while downtown and the suburban clusters around SkyTrain have plenty of high-rises.

New islands in the area would suffer the same fate as Richmond: unstable ground in an earthquake-prone region makes for awful building conditions. Their development has to be capped due to how hard it is to build in a liquefaction zone.

[kirbykart]

Canada could also build islands on its coast.

They “could,” but why would they?

 The correct response to literally everything this user posts.

[Poiponen13]

Canada could also build islands on its coast.

They “could,” but why would they?

Have more cities.

Why would they do that when the rest of the Canadian mainland has more room than almost every country on Earth?

No islands in Canada. Canada could build new city to Arctic (north of Arctic Circle).

[Max Rockatansky]

Canada could also build islands on its coast.

They “could,” but why would they?

Have more cities.

Why would they do that when the rest of the Canadian mainland has more room than almost every country on Earth?

No islands in Canada. Canada could build new city to Arctic (north of Arctic Circle).

But why when there is so much non-Arctic space available to build upon?

[1]

I mentioned this before but nobody seemed to notice. Does my idea about "3 nautical miles out = outside the jurisdiction of any state" actually work? Or would it immediately become part of the state, and if so, would making it a ship or huge raft rather than an island prevent such from happening? I know we have a few lawyers on this forum.

[skluth]

Canada could also build islands on its coast.

They “could,” but why would they?

Have more cities.

Why would they do that when the rest of the Canadian mainland has more room than almost every country on Earth?

No islands in Canada. Canada could build new city to Arctic (north of Arctic Circle).

Much of the last north of the Arctic Circle is controlled by First Nations peoples and they also have a lot of political influence regarding land usage in that region even when they don't control it. I doubt they'd permit it in such an environmentally sensitive area.

[Poiponen13]

Canada could also build islands on its coast.

They “could,” but why would they?

Have more cities.

Why would they do that when the rest of the Canadian mainland has more room than almost every country on Earth?

No islands in Canada. Canada could build new city to Arctic (north of Arctic Circle).

But why when there is so much non-Arctic space available to build upon?

Because there are no major cities north of Arctic Circle in North America, compared to Europe. This city would have over 100,000 people.

[Max Rockatansky]

Canada could also build islands on its coast.

They “could,” but why would they?

Have more cities.

Why would they do that when the rest of the Canadian mainland has more room than almost every country on Earth?

No islands in Canada. Canada could build new city to Arctic (north of Arctic Circle).

But why when there is so much non-Arctic space available to build upon?

Because there are no major cities north of Arctic Circle in North America, compared to Europe. This city would have over 100,000 people.

Why would people move to the Arctic Circle en mass when they haven’t done so already through the entire course of Canadian history?

Edit:  I made the following catch all thread for you, go nuts:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=32507.msg2791715#msg2791715

[Poiponen13]

Canada could also build islands on its coast.

They “could,” but why would they?

Have more cities.

Why would they do that when the rest of the Canadian mainland has more room than almost every country on Earth?

No islands in Canada. Canada could build new city to Arctic (north of Arctic Circle).

But why when there is so much non-Arctic space available to build upon?

Because there are no major cities north of Arctic Circle in North America, compared to Europe. This city would have over 100,000 people.

Why would people move to the Arctic Circle en mass when they haven’t done so already through the entire course of Canadian history?

Have new point of view on life beacuse this city would see midnight sun and polar night which only very few North American populated places see - in Europe, places such as Tromso in Norway see both.

[skluth]

I mentioned this before but nobody seemed to notice. Does my idea about "3 nautical miles out = outside the jurisdiction of any state" actually work? Or would it immediately become part of the state, and if so, would making it a ship or huge raft rather than an island prevent such from happening? I know we have a few lawyers on this forum.

This is a complicated question. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) allows territorial claims within 12 NM (about 22 km or 14 miles) from the coastline. The coastline itself can be tough to determine, especially in those areas with significant tidal variations. There is also a thing called archipelagic waters where a baseline can be drawn between two coastal points and territorial waters being anything inside that line; Qaddafi did this back in the day to claim the entire Gulf of Sidra which didn't work out too well for him. There are also the 200 NM Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) and special continental shelf rules which can extend a country's influence far beyond the 200 NM EEZ.

Chances are that any new island will be difficult to build outside of all the above zones. You'd need to find a shallow enough area of the sea that is outside all claims as any attempt to build an island will probably fall within some country's EEZ and continental shelf claims. (If you build inside the EEZ, the country can claim your entire island as a resource. It could also probably then extend its EEZ using your island.) Next, you'd also have to guard/man it constantly while building to avoid any person or country claiming it as their own. There may be other problems, but I only know of the UNCLOS issues since it was something my old office frequently dealt with. 

It should be noted that the US has not ratified the UNCLOS but general follows the rules.

[1]

I mentioned this before but nobody seemed to notice. Does my idea about "3 nautical miles out = outside the jurisdiction of any state" actually work? Or would it immediately become part of the state, and if so, would making it a ship or huge raft rather than an island prevent such from happening? I know we have a few lawyers on this forum.

This is a complicated question. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) allows territorial claims within 12 NM (about 22 km or 14 miles) from the coastline. The coastline itself can be tough to determine, especially in those areas with significant tidal variations. There is also a thing called archipelagic waters where a baseline can be drawn between two coastal points and territorial waters being anything inside that line; Qaddafi did this back in the day to claim the entire Gulf of Sidra which didn't work out too well for him. There are also the 200 NM Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) and special continental shelf rules which can extend a country's influence far beyond the 200 NM EEZ.

Chances are that any new island will be difficult to build outside of all the above zones. You'd need to find a shallow enough area of the sea that is outside all claims as any attempt to build an island will probably fall within some country's EEZ and continental shelf claims. (If you build inside the EEZ, the country can claim your entire island as a resource. It could also probably then extend its EEZ using your island.) Next, you'd also have to guard/man it constantly while building to avoid any person or country claiming it as their own. There may be other problems, but I only know of the UNCLOS issues since it was something my old office frequently dealt with. 

It should be noted that the US has not ratified the UNCLOS but general follows the rules.

When I said 3 NM, that number was for outside any state but still inside the United States. I wasn't planning on putting any islands outside the United States (the 12 NM limit).

[skluth]

I mentioned this before but nobody seemed to notice. Does my idea about "3 nautical miles out = outside the jurisdiction of any state" actually work? Or would it immediately become part of the state, and if so, would making it a ship or huge raft rather than an island prevent such from happening? I know we have a few lawyers on this forum.

This is a complicated question. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) allows territorial claims within 12 NM (about 22 km or 14 miles) from the coastline. The coastline itself can be tough to determine, especially in those areas with significant tidal variations. There is also a thing called archipelagic waters where a baseline can be drawn between two coastal points and territorial waters being anything inside that line; Qaddafi did this back in the day to claim the entire Gulf of Sidra which didn't work out too well for him. There are also the 200 NM Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) and special continental shelf rules which can extend a country's influence far beyond the 200 NM EEZ.

Chances are that any new island will be difficult to build outside of all the above zones. You'd need to find a shallow enough area of the sea that is outside all claims as any attempt to build an island will probably fall within some country's EEZ and continental shelf claims. (If you build inside the EEZ, the country can claim your entire island as a resource. It could also probably then extend its EEZ using your island.) Next, you'd also have to guard/man it constantly while building to avoid any person or country claiming it as their own. There may be other problems, but I only know of the UNCLOS issues since it was something my old office frequently dealt with. 

It should be noted that the US has not ratified the UNCLOS but general follows the rules.

When I said 3 NM, that number was for outside any state but still inside the United States. I wasn't planning on putting any islands outside the United States (the 12 NM limit).

The US still claims its EEZ. Any new island off US shores would need to be built at least 200 NM out.

[Scott5114]

Canada could also build islands on its coast.

They “could,” but why would they?

Have more cities.

Why would they do that when the rest of the Canadian mainland has more room than almost every country on Earth?

No islands in Canada. Canada could build new city to Arctic (north of Arctic Circle).

But why when there is so much non-Arctic space available to build upon?

Because there are no major cities north of Arctic Circle in North America, compared to Europe. This city would have over 100,000 people.

Why would people move to the Arctic Circle en mass when they haven’t done so already through the entire course of Canadian history?

Have new point of view on life beacuse this city would see midnight sun and polar night which only very few North American populated places see - in Europe, places such as Tromso in Norway see both.

Tromsø is populated because it has the North Atlantic Current off its coast regulating its climate. Arctic North America doesn't have any equivalent to that, which is why there are no cities the size of Tromsø in Arctic North America.

[Poiponen13]

Or a Norilsk-like city in middle of nowhere in Canada or Alaska. Norilsk is in middle of nowhere, as it does have road or rail connection to other parts of Russia.

[Max Rockatansky]

Or a Norilsk-like city in middle of nowhere in Canada or Alaska. Norilsk is in middle of nowhere, as it does have road or rail connection to other parts of Russia.

Soviet Era mining cities don’t exactly have great track records for human rights violations.  But sure, forcing people to experience something new (AKA Gulags) in building an Arctic mining city is one way to go.