First, for background, I spent a year at the South Pole (winter 77-78) so I learned a lot about the program, cost, and effort required to support a base in Antarctica.
Second, a little history: The first ever expedition to reach the Geographic South Pole was led by the Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen. He and four others arrived at the pole on 14 December 1911, and planted the Norway flag.
That means Norway has the only real claim to the geographic South Pole. At the request of Norway, the US built the first station at the South Pole, in part to prevent the Soviet Union from building a station there. Americans have occupied the geographic South Pole continuously since November 1956. The US has no claim to the South Pole. According the the US State Department, "Seven countries (Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom) maintain territorial claims in Antarctica, but the United States and most other countries do not recognize those claims. While the United States maintains a basis to claim territory in Antarctica, it has not made a claim." See:
As a side bar, this statement is a little wishy washy as other nations, including Russia, had explorers there before the US, and planted flags as claim to various territory. According to wikipedia: "The first Soviet contact with Antarctica was in January 1947 when the Slava whaling flotilla began whaling in Antarctic waters." Russia maintains more bases there than the US. see:
That Russia wasn't there till 1947 is wrong... research Thaddeus von Bellingshausen antarctic expedition of 1819. This is a sad note that he is all but ignored.
Antarctica (the continent) doesn't belong to anyone. There is no single country that owns Antarctica. Instead, Antarctica is governed by a group of nations in a unique international partnership. The Antarctic Treaty, first signed on December 1, 1959, designates Antarctica as a continent devoted to "peace and science". All signatory nations that had a claim, basically gave up any claim as long as the treaty remains in effect.
The Antarctic Treaty (which became effective in 1961) has a specific provision that no action by any nation after 1961 can be the basis of a territorial claim on the continent." "Iran isn’t a signatory to the treaty and might try to do frisky things in Antarctica," Dyer noted. "Those things wouldn’t be recognized by other nations, at least as matters stand now."
If a non-signatory nation had the resources and desire to build a station anywhere in Antarctica, the signatory nations would have a tough time to stop it, other than military option or lengthly court action in an international court?. Current nations that have bases there are supported by the respective nations military due to the need for special resources: ships, planes, and other supply efforts. So some military action might be possible, but what would be the basis of the action?
In FY 2022, US Antarctic Facilities and Operations funding is increased by $8.72 million to $216.02 million.
BOTTOM LINE: (sorry for long winded response): It is too costly and requires vast resources. Iran is just sticking a needle in the eye of the US, basically saying they can spend the money given to them by the Biden administration any way and any where they feel. They are most likely not thinking of actually going to the South Pole, (or anywhere on the continent), but picking it, just shows that the "conditions" placed on the money is really stupid.
First, for background, I spent a year at the South Pole (winter 77-78) so I learned a lot about the program, cost, and effort required to support a base in Antarctica.
Second, a little history: The first ever expedition to reach the Geographic South Pole was led by the Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen. He and four others arrived at the pole on 14 December 1911, and planted the Norway flag.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amundsen's_South_Pole_expedition
That means Norway has the only real claim to the geographic South Pole. At the request of Norway, the US built the first station at the South Pole, in part to prevent the Soviet Union from building a station there. Americans have occupied the geographic South Pole continuously since November 1956. The US has no claim to the South Pole. According the the US State Department, "Seven countries (Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom) maintain territorial claims in Antarctica, but the United States and most other countries do not recognize those claims. While the United States maintains a basis to claim territory in Antarctica, it has not made a claim." See:
https://www.state.gov/key-topics-office-of-ocean-and-polar-affairs/antarctic/#:~:text=While the United States maintains,has not made a claim.
As a side bar, this statement is a little wishy washy as other nations, including Russia, had explorers there before the US, and planted flags as claim to various territory. According to wikipedia: "The first Soviet contact with Antarctica was in January 1947 when the Slava whaling flotilla began whaling in Antarctic waters." Russia maintains more bases there than the US. see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Antarctic_Expedition
That Russia wasn't there till 1947 is wrong... research Thaddeus von Bellingshausen antarctic expedition of 1819. This is a sad note that he is all but ignored.
Antarctica (the continent) doesn't belong to anyone. There is no single country that owns Antarctica. Instead, Antarctica is governed by a group of nations in a unique international partnership. The Antarctic Treaty, first signed on December 1, 1959, designates Antarctica as a continent devoted to "peace and science". All signatory nations that had a claim, basically gave up any claim as long as the treaty remains in effect.
The Antarctic Treaty (which became effective in 1961) has a specific provision that no action by any nation after 1961 can be the basis of a territorial claim on the continent." "Iran isn’t a signatory to the treaty and might try to do frisky things in Antarctica," Dyer noted. "Those things wouldn’t be recognized by other nations, at least as matters stand now."
If a non-signatory nation had the resources and desire to build a station anywhere in Antarctica, the signatory nations would have a tough time to stop it, other than military option or lengthly court action in an international court?. Current nations that have bases there are supported by the respective nations military due to the need for special resources: ships, planes, and other supply efforts. So some military action might be possible, but what would be the basis of the action?
In FY 2022, US Antarctic Facilities and Operations funding is increased by $8.72 million to $216.02 million.
For a detailed recap of what it took to build the new station, see:
https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/livingsouthpole/newstation.jsp#:~:text="And to pay our respects,support an array of scientific
BOTTOM LINE: (sorry for long winded response): It is too costly and requires vast resources. Iran is just sticking a needle in the eye of the US, basically saying they can spend the money given to them by the Biden administration any way and any where they feel. They are most likely not thinking of actually going to the South Pole, (or anywhere on the continent), but picking it, just shows that the "conditions" placed on the money is really stupid.
Excellent information. I agree with your Bottom Line. Thanks for sharing.