sub-Antarctic waters with an effectiveness that was devas- 
tating, sinking or capturing several hundred thousand tons 
of shipping. Indeed, the first United States vessel to be 
sunk in the war — the City of Bayville — was a victim of 
German mines laid in Australian waters. One cannot dis- 
miss the fact that an unfriendly power today with long- 
range submarine fleets might find sub-Antarctic waters a 
safe place from which to operate. 
Clearly the Antarctic does not now nor can it ever possess 
the strategic military position which the Arctic will always 
have. Even if the empty areas of South America, Africa, 
and Australia be filled, the population will always be small 
as compared with that of the Northern Hemisphere or the 
circum-Arctic. Of course, there will one day be trans- 
Antarctic air routes but not on a scale with those that cross 
the Arctic. 
One might well ask why there should be so much con- 
cern on the part of so many nations about maintaining 
claims in Antarctica. Clearly there is no present and no 
probable immediate future for the exploitation of mineral 
resources. Only on the basis of the laws of probability may 
we even assume that such deposits will one day be dis- 
covered. However, such long chances seem to be one of the 
major reasons for great interest in the ownership of this 
bleak continent. But, even granting actual discoveries, the 
exploitation of minerals in this inhospitable continent 
would raise problems far more serious than those encoun- 
tered in the exploitation of the Arctic’s mineral resources. 
Of course, one of the chief reasons for Antarctic claims 
is the competitive element itself. No one wants to be left 
out whether such claims ever amount to anything or not. 
The possession of Antarctic claims means “‘a place in the 
22 
