Natural resources would not be evenly distributed if horizontal political boundaries were drawn across vertical geographic boundaries in North America. This potential predicament could lead to a general dispute, regarding who owns what, and other disagreements about location, environment, capital, and assets.
All around dissagreemetn and war. This is so because when people try to out do nature, the truth of the matter is that it never works. So when there are vertical natural bounderies, making horizontal political boundries would totally mess things up because countries and governed differently based on the natural geography of the land. So in general this is not a smart idea and the world needs to use common sense.
Drawing horizontal political boundaries, such as the US-Canadian border, across vertical geographical boundaries, like the many mountain ranges, would go against the natural order. The boundaries would be less obvious, and, especially on the intersection of the political and geographical boundaries, borders could be disputed. For instance, if I am climbing the Rocky Mountains on the border between the US and Canada, how will I know when I am in Canada? Now, since that border is mostly unguarded, this is not a huge issue currently. However, suppose our northern border became as strict as the southern border with Mexico. Could the Border Patrol watch every part of the border if it is crossing rugged terrain with snow and such? It would obviously be very difficult. We should make sure our relationship with Canada remains friendly so as not to cause such issues.
Responding to Becca. Initially I did not think that your argument made much sense, but as i did more research it turns out that many other people feel the same way you do about this..Thanks for helping be realize this :]
Responding to Priya: I agree with you, however, I'm not entirely sure you realize that we have already done just that. Are you suggesting we change our borders with Canada to fit the three or more large mountain ranges? This would obviously not work very well. Could you describe in more detail exactly what kind of problems could occur because of the different governments? It seems you are on to something interesting.
Responding to Tommy; I agree with your statement with the Rocky Mountains, and issues with the "intersection of the political and geographical boundaries". Thanks for the insight.
I'd also like to add something else; I'm not sure if this makes any sense, but there might also be problems with different time zones?
If horizontal political boundaries were drawn up againt vertical geographical boundries it would be harder to tell where once place ends and the other begins. Say for example if America were divided into the "western empire" and the "eastern empire" with the separating boundary being either the Mississippi river, or the Rocky Mountains. It would be extremely easy to tell where each empire ends and the other begins. Also, drawing boundaries like this would make your country undefensible in times of war. Say if the United States went to war against Canada, but faced a massive shortage of troops on the west coast. To reinforce the west coast the army would have to be sent across the Rocky Mountains, an ardous undertaking, for though troops can be airlifted through vehicles, and artillery cannot,though if they were it would be extremely expensive. If tanks are driven through the Rocky Mountains, they would face mechanical failure, something no army wants to have in an inhospitable wilderness. The Canadians would be free to invade in such a scenario. Let us take a look at the Western and Eastern Empires, lets say their political boundary is at the Rocky Mountains. If the empires go to war there is an easily defensible position at their border. A tiny well-armed force stationed in the Rocky Mountains could hold off a large army for a significant amount of time. The only ways through the Rocky Mountains are through a small amount of Mountain Passes, and if troops were positioned in such a way to rain artillery fire upon the invading army, the invaders would face a massive slaughter. While the invading army is held up by the defending force, a larger force can be sent from the military reserves to reinforce the pass that is being attacked. Thus, setting political boundaries on geographical boundaries is a good idea both strategically, and diplomatically.
Many potential problems are created when horizontal political boundaries transverse vertical geographic boundaries. To explain it the easiest, I will fabricate a fictional country titled “Voskhod”. Hypothetically, this country would be located in the middle of Russia near the Ural Mountains. A rendition of this fictional country is located at the internet address below. I apologize for my crude computer graphics skills.
http://tinyurl.com/8f6vqq
Now as you can see, this fictional country intersects horizontally with a mountain range and many small rivers. Having another country share geographic boundaries can lead to international disputes.
Take for example the Ural Mountains. The Ural Mountains are plentiful in gold, platinum, coal, iron, nickel, silver, and oil.
Perhaps the government of Voskhod begins drilling for oil on the Ural Mountains. Even if they are drilling within their boundaries, the oil field that they are tapping into may stretch into another country, in this case Russia. Russia could then argue that Voskhod is stealing Russia’s natural resources. Now the reverse may happen as well. Russia could drill into a Voskhod oil field. This small dispute may lead into a further conflict such as the Persian Gulf War, a war in which Saddam Hussein accused Kuwait of stealing oil through the process of directional drilling.
Like Mrs. Kiser explained in class, water is a very valuable resource. In this fictional country multiple rivers are shared. Now if the country of Voskhod were to pump water from river tributaries, would they have the right to empty the rivers? Many different countries depend on these waters for drinking and fabrication.
These same principles and factors apply to other countries, including the United States, Canada, and Mexico. In the United States, both Mexico and the US share the Rio Grande. The United States also shares many different rivers and lakes with Canada. Rivers such as the Colombia extend both into the US and Canada. An example of a lake would be any Great Lake that extends into Canada.
When the principles of political and geographic boundaries are combined the usual result is many international disputes, which can eventually result in violent wars.
Responding to what Tommy said, if the Canadians became hostile toward the United States, I don't think they would illegally immigrate to the United States. For example, the living conditions of an average Canadian citizen is on par with the average American citizen. Also, if you were an illegal immigrant why would you cross the Rocky Mountains to get to the United States, it doesn't make any sense. Why risk death by frostbite, when there's a million other discreet places. Furthermore, if we became enemies with Canada I think it would be the Canadians who would be afraid of us, not the other way around. Our population is many times greater than the Canadians. And, no invading army in their right mind would attack across the Rockies when theres a much larger percentage of unfortified land to cross. The United States Army would find it highly difficult to fortify a few thousand miles of undefended, fairy easily crossed border. It would also be a logistical nightmare for the United States to do that. Thus, the Canadians are more likely to impose economic sanctions against us. Also, the Rocky Mountains are extremely defensible. We could position long range artilly, near the crossing of the rockies. Have satellites monitor it for troop movement, and place ballistic missiles near the border. We could also use our unmanned predator drones to patrol the skies. Canada also doesn't have nuclear capabilities. We do, making us the more dangerous neighbor. Imagine if your neighbor had a boatload of machine guns, swat gear, and a rocket launcher, would you attack him/her? Of course you wouldn't that is precisely the kind of situation Canada would face, if they turned hostile towards the United States.
In response to Rebecca, Yes, geography does affect timezones.
Astronomy would teach us that because we have 24 hours, the Earth should be divided into 24 equal parts.
This however is not true. If you closely study a timezone map you will notice certain timezones are formed around country boundries.
The reason for the unusually shaped timezones is convenience. People like their entire country or state to share one timezone to avoid confusion.
This however does not work out perfectly all the time. The northeast corner of Arizona observes daylight savings time while the rest of Arizona does not observe DST.
Tommy was just simply stating that we do not currently have an immigration problem with Canada. Mexico is a 3rd world country. Canada in its current state is a 1st world country. In a 1st world country with a stable government emmigration levels are low.
Several potential problems could arise from horizontal political boundaries drawn across vertical geographic boundaries. Land ownership and resources could come into question, and this in turn could cause conflicts between countries. In addition, guarding the border between countries is much harder without natural boundaries obstructing illegal immigration and/or troop movement.
@Tommy: I found your example very interesting. I would also like to add that if countries were to go to war, drawing boundaries against geographical boundaries could make it easier for enemy troops to move in.
Responding to Brandon who commented to my previous comment: Oh okay. I wasn't so sure if my "time zone" statement was legitimate or not. I understand now; merci beaucoup.
Responding to what Brandon said, what I am saying to Tommy is simply that illegal immigration from Canada is highly improbable. Canada is a first world country, why would its citizens want to come here? But, even if it was a third world country we would need to patrol the Rocky Mountains because nobody in their right minds would cross there. Theres over 2000 miles of border only a small part of which is taken up by the Rockies. Why would somebody cross there?
@Ajay: I completely agree with you. I had not realized that resources and boundaries could be disputed when political boundaries crossed physical boundaries. I suppose its the classic story: if a river runs through your property, and onto someone else's property, can you build a dam, therefore preventing the other person from receiving as much water?
Some problems created are that one side could have a mountainous region full of minerals and resources, and the othside could have a large plain full of nothing but grass and shrubs. Also, the population of each side could lead to overpopulation and lack of jobs on one side, and an underpopulation and too many jobs to fill on the other side.
@Frank: I think Tommy was trying to say that if a boundary was drawn along geographical features, border patrol would not need to cross rugged terrain to defend their country.
There are many potential problems in drawing horizontal political boundaries across vertical geographic boundaries in North America. A few are that with a mountainous region you would not be able to tell where a political border was. Also if the border is guarded then it is very difficult for countries to guard it. Another issue would be that one part of a mountain could contain a volcano and the other side could not. With a political boundary one country might think the received an unfair part of the mountain range.
some potential problems created bydrawing horizantal political boundries across vertical geographic boundries in North America are that it would be really hard to protect all of the boundries. and for example if we ever got in a fight with canada, we would have a very hard time protecting every little area in the rocky mountains. also when boundries are across landforms, then it is harder for people to tell what land belongs to what country.
rachel :) i did not think about the countrys feeling that they recieved an unfair part or portain of the mountain. this is a good point. becasue one sid of the range might be rich in minerals, and the other side could contain nothing but limestone. this could casue dispute between two countries.
@ Becca: I totally agree with you that when placing political boundaries there is a chance disputes will be made over how one side of the boundary is wealthier or has more land and that can lead to an argument over the boundary line.
@Aaryn: that was the point I was trying to make. If a country receives a portion of the mountain that contains nothing but limestone or a volcano or has frequent rockslides and the other side does not and is full of minerals then the country is going to care about the portion of the mountain they got. It could cause a dispute.
By drawing horizontal political boundaries across a vertical geographic boundaries in North America some problems are often faced. Personally, I believe the most serious problem is the possibility for war and other forms of disagreement. In addition, this could become a problem because since natural resources that are necessary for survival are not evenly distributed amoung areas, dividing these areas up could end up resulting in one side having more resources than the other.
Aaryn- I agree with what you said about us not being able to control and protect ourselves or vise-versa if we ever got into a fight with Canada, or even Mexico. This makes complete since due to the fact that there is nothing (such as an ocean, etc) that is an official "boundary" between us and other countries in North America.
Responding to Rachel. I agreee with you for the most part, but I am a little unsurure about what you mean about the whole volcano thing. That is a very rare case, but yes, it is ture that it still must be considered. Why does it matter what countries think? there is no way to keep everyone happy..right? But then again some countries break into war when they're not happy.
There are various potential problems that are created by drawing horizontal political boundaries across vertical geographic boundaries in North America. For instance, Vancouver (which is in Canada) has more in common with Seattle (which is in the United States) than it has with other locations in Canada due to the fact that they are separated by geographical features such as mountains. In addition, you would not be able to easily distinguish between where the United States ends and Canada begins when hiking the Rockies, which, although Canada seems to be known as the “silent neighbor,” could cause strife over who possesses what portion of the feature.
Responding to Rachel’s first comment. Thank you for pointing out that countries might believe that they received an unfair fraction of a feature. Yes, this could become an issue if countries were to argue over that they received less of the feature in question (though, in my opinion, this would most likely be a very minor problem). Though this issue is not major, it is true that this situation would be interesting if one portion of the feature (a mountain for example) contained more resources. In addition, like Priya asked previously, could you please elaborate on the volcano idea?
If horizontal political boundaries were drawn up against vertical geographical boundaries it would be harder to tell where one place ends and the other place begins.
Responding to Brandon, I completely agree with your first answer. I really like your example with your fictional country "Voskhod" and its possible dispute with Russia.
@Priya: The volcano was just an example. You could think of it as who has more minerals on their portion of the mountain. I thought of it in terms of what would happen if there was something dangerous on one side and nothing but minerals on the other. Obviously the government is going to care that they did not get minerals and other such resources which can lead to war and disagreements with the other country.
lauren :) your point about seatle and vancouver being alike is very true, and i did not think of that. like locations on the boarder of counrties can be similar to places in other countries that are close by to it. like nogales az, and nogalas mexico are very similar. also even though canada and the US are getting along now, you never know what could happen... :)
I believe that if you were to draw horizontal political boundries across vertical geographic boundries war would brake. This might happen because resources and how they will not be evely distributed throughout the land.
Responding to Priya’s first comment. I definitely agree with your statement about countries governing “differently based on the geography of the land.” I find this fascinating because you could be correct when you said that the governments could be diverse after drawing horizontal political boundaries across vertical geographic boundaries. Thank you for giving me this incredible realization (I never thought of the additional boundaries impacting the government).
Ross I agree with you on your statement "This might happen because resources and how they will not be evenly distributed throughout the land". The only thing is that the countries that have access to the resources could sign an agreement about sharing the resources. But I don't think this would last long and would turn into war like you said.
Responding to Lauren. Thanks. If you research it online there is a lot more information on how governments choose to govern their specific countries based on the geographical conditions...
I think there would be many problems created if you drew political boundaries across vertical geographic boundaries, such as mountains and rivers. one possible problem might be lots of fighting over who gets what resources and just all around fighting cause there government would be different.
Responding to Tommy's first comment. when i originally posted i didn't realize that there already is one with Canada so far this is a good one and not to many problems, but i don't think we should try and make anymore. if something happens between us and Canada then it could be bad and cause lots of problems.
This could lead to problems because disputes could arise due to the unfair amount of land they receive because of the boundaries. The reason is because it goes against the natural flow of the way the Earth's natural resources move in that location. It is obviously going to cause problems because you cannot precisely measure what would be even and what wouldn't. You could do it but maybe one side of a mountain range has more value than the other. It will just causes disputes and makes transportation systems much more necessary.
I agree. I never looked at it that way. I never thought of the government being based on the geography of the land. That's really cool. I agree with you now that I think about it. I will be looking that up.
Elisa I agrre with you if that horizontal political boundries are draween across vertical geographic boundries more land might be in one area than in another.
Responding to Lauren and Priya's response to Lauren. I never really realized how the government did pick their placed to govern based on geography. Thanks for bringing that to by attention
44 comments:
Natural resources would not be evenly distributed if horizontal political boundaries were drawn across vertical geographic boundaries in North America. This potential predicament could lead to a general dispute, regarding who owns what, and other disagreements about location, environment, capital, and assets.
All around dissagreemetn and war. This is so because when people try to out do nature, the truth of the matter is that it never works. So when there are vertical natural bounderies, making horizontal political boundries would totally mess things up because countries and governed differently based on the natural geography of the land. So in general this is not a smart idea and the world needs to use common sense.
Drawing horizontal political boundaries, such as the US-Canadian border, across vertical geographical boundaries, like the many mountain ranges, would go against the natural order. The boundaries would be less obvious, and, especially on the intersection of the political and geographical boundaries, borders could be disputed. For instance, if I am climbing the Rocky Mountains on the border between the US and Canada, how will I know when I am in Canada? Now, since that border is mostly unguarded, this is not a huge issue currently. However, suppose our northern border became as strict as the southern border with Mexico. Could the Border Patrol watch every part of the border if it is crossing rugged terrain with snow and such? It would obviously be very difficult. We should make sure our relationship with Canada remains friendly so as not to cause such issues.
Responding to Becca. Initially I did not think that your argument made much sense, but as i did more research it turns out that many other people feel the same way you do about this..Thanks for helping be realize this :]
Responding to Priya: I agree with you, however, I'm not entirely sure you realize that we have already done just that. Are you suggesting we change our borders with Canada to fit the three or more large mountain ranges? This would obviously not work very well. Could you describe in more detail exactly what kind of problems could occur because of the different governments? It seems you are on to something interesting.
No problemo, Priya :)
Responding to Tommy; I agree with your statement with the Rocky Mountains, and issues with the "intersection of the political and geographical boundaries". Thanks for the insight.
I'd also like to add something else; I'm not sure if this makes any sense, but there might also be problems with different time zones?
If horizontal political boundaries were drawn up againt vertical geographical boundries it would be harder to tell where once place ends and the other begins. Say for example if America were divided into the "western empire" and the "eastern empire" with the separating boundary being either the Mississippi river, or the Rocky Mountains. It would be extremely easy to tell where each empire ends and the other begins. Also, drawing boundaries like this would make your country undefensible in times of war. Say if the United States went to war against Canada, but faced a massive shortage of troops on the west coast. To reinforce the west coast the army would have to be sent across the Rocky Mountains, an ardous undertaking, for though troops can be airlifted through vehicles, and artillery cannot,though if they were it would be extremely expensive. If tanks are driven through the Rocky Mountains, they would face mechanical failure, something no army wants to have in an inhospitable wilderness. The Canadians would be free to invade in such a scenario. Let us take a look at the Western and Eastern Empires, lets say their political boundary is at the Rocky Mountains. If the empires go to war there is an easily defensible position at their border. A tiny well-armed force stationed in the Rocky Mountains could hold off a large army for a significant amount of time. The only ways through the Rocky Mountains are through a small amount of Mountain Passes, and if troops were positioned in such a way to rain artillery fire upon the invading army, the invaders would face a massive slaughter. While the invading army is held up by the defending force, a larger force can be sent from the military reserves to reinforce the pass that is being attacked. Thus, setting political boundaries on geographical boundaries is a good idea both strategically, and diplomatically.
Many potential problems are created when horizontal political boundaries transverse vertical geographic boundaries. To explain it the easiest, I will fabricate a fictional country titled “Voskhod”. Hypothetically, this country would be located in the middle of Russia near the Ural Mountains. A rendition of this fictional country is located at the internet address below. I apologize for my crude computer graphics skills.
http://tinyurl.com/8f6vqq
Now as you can see, this fictional country intersects horizontally with a mountain range and many small rivers. Having another country share geographic boundaries can lead to international disputes.
Take for example the Ural Mountains. The Ural Mountains are plentiful in gold, platinum, coal, iron, nickel, silver, and oil.
Perhaps the government of Voskhod begins drilling for oil on the Ural Mountains. Even if they are drilling within their boundaries, the oil field that they are tapping into may stretch into another country, in this case Russia. Russia could then argue that Voskhod is stealing Russia’s natural resources. Now the reverse may happen as well. Russia could drill into a Voskhod oil field. This small dispute may lead into a further conflict such as the Persian Gulf War, a war in which Saddam Hussein accused Kuwait of stealing oil through the process of directional drilling.
Like Mrs. Kiser explained in class, water is a very valuable resource. In this fictional country multiple rivers are shared. Now if the country of Voskhod were to pump water from river tributaries, would they have the right to empty the rivers? Many different countries depend on these waters for drinking and fabrication.
These same principles and factors apply to other countries, including the United States, Canada, and Mexico. In the United States, both Mexico and the US share the Rio Grande. The United States also shares many different rivers and lakes with Canada. Rivers such as the Colombia extend both into the US and Canada. An example of a lake would be any Great Lake that extends into Canada.
When the principles of political and geographic boundaries are combined the usual result is many international disputes, which can eventually result in violent wars.
Responding to what Tommy said, if the Canadians became hostile toward the United States, I don't think they would illegally immigrate to the United States. For example, the living conditions of an average Canadian citizen is on par with the average American citizen. Also, if you were an illegal immigrant why would you cross the Rocky Mountains to get to the United States, it doesn't make any sense. Why risk death by frostbite, when there's a million other discreet places. Furthermore, if we became enemies with Canada I think it would be the Canadians who would be afraid of us, not the other way around. Our population is many times greater than the Canadians. And, no invading army in their right mind would attack across the Rockies when theres a much larger percentage of unfortified land to cross. The United States Army would find it highly difficult to fortify a few thousand miles of undefended, fairy easily crossed border. It would also be a logistical nightmare for the United States to do that. Thus, the Canadians are more likely to impose economic sanctions against us. Also, the Rocky Mountains are extremely defensible. We could position long range artilly, near the crossing of the rockies. Have satellites monitor it for troop movement, and place ballistic missiles near the border. We could also use our unmanned predator drones to patrol the skies. Canada also doesn't have nuclear capabilities. We do, making us the more dangerous neighbor. Imagine if your neighbor had a boatload of machine guns, swat gear, and a rocket launcher, would you attack him/her? Of course you wouldn't that is precisely the kind of situation Canada would face, if they turned hostile towards the United States.
In response to Rebecca, Yes, geography does affect timezones.
Astronomy would teach us that because we have 24 hours, the Earth should be divided into 24 equal parts.
This however is not true. If you closely study a timezone map you will notice certain timezones are formed around country boundries.
The reason for the unusually shaped timezones is convenience. People like their entire country or state to share one timezone to avoid confusion.
This however does not work out perfectly all the time. The northeast corner of Arizona observes daylight savings time while the rest of Arizona does not observe DST.
Frank,
Tommy was just simply stating that we do not currently have an immigration problem with Canada. Mexico is a 3rd world country. Canada in its current state is a 1st world country. In a 1st world country with a stable government emmigration levels are low.
Several potential problems could arise from horizontal political boundaries drawn across vertical geographic boundaries. Land ownership and resources could come into question, and this in turn could cause conflicts between countries. In addition, guarding the border between countries is much harder without natural boundaries obstructing illegal immigration and/or troop movement.
@Tommy: I found your example very interesting. I would also like to add that if countries were to go to war, drawing boundaries against geographical boundaries could make it easier for enemy troops to move in.
Responding to Brandon who commented to my previous comment: Oh okay. I wasn't so sure if my "time zone" statement was legitimate or not. I understand now; merci beaucoup.
Responding to what Brandon said, what I am saying to Tommy is simply that illegal immigration from Canada is highly improbable. Canada is a first world country, why would its citizens want to come here? But, even if it was a third world country we would need to patrol the Rocky Mountains because nobody in their right minds would cross there. Theres over 2000 miles of border only a small part of which is taken up by the Rockies. Why would somebody cross there?
@Ajay: I completely agree with you. I had not realized that resources and boundaries could be disputed when political boundaries crossed physical boundaries. I suppose its the classic story: if a river runs through your property, and onto someone else's property, can you build a dam, therefore preventing the other person from receiving as much water?
Some problems created are that one side could have a mountainous region full of minerals and resources, and the othside could have a large plain full of nothing but grass and shrubs. Also, the population of each side could lead to overpopulation and lack of jobs on one side, and an underpopulation and too many jobs to fill on the other side.
@Frank: I think Tommy was trying to say that if a boundary was drawn along geographical features, border patrol would not need to cross rugged terrain to defend their country.
There are many potential problems in drawing horizontal political boundaries across vertical geographic boundaries in North America. A few are that with a mountainous region you would not be able to tell where a political border was. Also if the border is guarded then it is very difficult for countries to guard it. Another issue would be that one part of a mountain could contain a volcano and the other side could not. With a political boundary one country might think the received an unfair part of the mountain range.
some potential problems created bydrawing horizantal political boundries across vertical geographic boundries in North America are that it would be really hard to protect all of the boundries. and for example if we ever got in a fight with canada, we would have a very hard time protecting every little area in the rocky mountains. also when boundries are across landforms, then it is harder for people to tell what land belongs to what country.
rachel :)
i did not think about the countrys feeling that they recieved an unfair part or portain of the mountain. this is a good point. becasue one sid of the range might be rich in minerals, and the other side could contain nothing but limestone. this could casue dispute between two countries.
@ Becca: I totally agree with you that when placing political boundaries there is a chance disputes will be made over how one side of the boundary is wealthier or has more land and that can lead to an argument over the boundary line.
@Aaryn: that was the point I was trying to make. If a country receives a portion of the mountain that contains nothing but limestone or a volcano or has frequent rockslides and the other side does not and is full of minerals then the country is going to care about the portion of the mountain they got. It could cause a dispute.
By drawing horizontal political boundaries across a vertical geographic boundaries in North America some problems are often faced. Personally, I believe the most serious problem is the possibility for war and other forms of disagreement. In addition, this could become a problem because since natural resources that are necessary for survival are not evenly distributed amoung areas, dividing these areas up could end up resulting in one side having more resources than the other.
Aaryn-
I agree with what you said about us not being able to control and protect ourselves or vise-versa if we ever got into a fight with Canada, or even Mexico. This makes complete since due to the fact that there is nothing (such as an ocean, etc) that is an official "boundary" between us and other countries in North America.
Responding to Rachel. I agreee with you for the most part, but I am a little unsurure about what you mean about the whole volcano thing. That is a very rare case, but yes, it is ture that it still must be considered. Why does it matter what countries think? there is no way to keep everyone happy..right? But then again some countries break into war when they're not happy.
this is a very complicated situation.
There are various potential problems that are created by drawing horizontal political boundaries across vertical geographic boundaries in North America. For instance, Vancouver (which is in Canada) has more in common with Seattle (which is in the United States) than it has with other locations in Canada due to the fact that they are separated by geographical features such as mountains. In addition, you would not be able to easily distinguish between where the United States ends and Canada begins when hiking the Rockies, which, although Canada seems to be known as the “silent neighbor,” could cause strife over who possesses what portion of the feature.
Responding to Rachel’s first comment. Thank you for pointing out that countries might believe that they received an unfair fraction of a feature. Yes, this could become an issue if countries were to argue over that they received less of the feature in question (though, in my opinion, this would most likely be a very minor problem). Though this issue is not major, it is true that this situation would be interesting if one portion of the feature (a mountain for example) contained more resources. In addition, like Priya asked previously, could you please elaborate on the volcano idea?
If horizontal political boundaries were drawn up against vertical geographical boundaries it would be harder to tell where one place ends and the other place begins.
Responding to Brandon, I completely agree with your first answer. I really like your example with your fictional country "Voskhod" and its possible dispute with Russia.
@Priya: The volcano was just an example. You could think of it as who has more minerals on their portion of the mountain. I thought of it in terms of what would happen if there was something dangerous on one side and nothing but minerals on the other. Obviously the government is going to care that they did not get minerals and other such resources which can lead to war and disagreements with the other country.
lauren :)
your point about seatle and vancouver being alike is very true, and i did not think of that. like locations on the boarder of counrties can be similar to places in other countries that are close by to it. like nogales az, and nogalas mexico are very similar. also even though canada and the US are getting along now, you never know what could happen... :)
I believe that if you were to draw horizontal political boundries across vertical geographic boundries war would brake. This might happen because resources and how they will not be evely distributed throughout the land.
Responding to Priya’s first comment. I definitely agree with your statement about countries governing “differently based on the geography of the land.” I find this fascinating because you could be correct when you said that the governments could be diverse after drawing horizontal political boundaries across vertical geographic boundaries. Thank you for giving me this incredible realization (I never thought of the additional boundaries impacting the government).
Ross
I agree with you on your statement "This might happen because resources and how they will not be evenly distributed throughout the land". The only thing is that the countries that have access to the resources could sign an agreement about sharing the resources. But I don't think this would last long and would turn into war like you said.
Responding to Lauren. Thanks. If you research it online there is a lot more information on how governments choose to govern their specific countries based on the geographical conditions...
I think there would be many problems created if you drew political boundaries across vertical geographic boundaries, such as mountains and rivers. one possible problem might be lots of fighting over who gets what resources and just all around fighting cause there government would be different.
Responding to Tommy's first comment. when i originally posted i didn't realize that there already is one with Canada so far this is a good one and not to many problems, but i don't think we should try and make anymore. if something happens between us and Canada then it could be bad and cause lots of problems.
This could lead to problems because disputes could arise due to the unfair amount of land they receive because of the boundaries. The reason is because it goes against the natural flow of the way the Earth's natural resources move in that location. It is obviously going to cause problems because you cannot precisely measure what would be even and what wouldn't. You could do it but maybe one side of a mountain range has more value than the other. It will just causes disputes and makes transportation systems much more necessary.
Responding to Priya's and Lauren's statements:
I agree. I never looked at it that way. I never thought of the government being based on the geography of the land. That's really cool. I agree with you now that I think about it. I will be looking that up.
I agree with Hannah that if you draw a horizontal political boundries across vertical geographic boundries war will brake out.
Elisa I agrre with you if that horizontal political boundries are draween across vertical geographic boundries more land might be in one area than in another.
Responding to Lauren and Priya's response to Lauren. I never really realized how the government did pick their placed to govern based on geography.
Thanks for bringing that to by attention
Ms Kiser,
Could you please put the next blog up? It's due in like 3 days...
Post a Comment