As some of those you just pinged to this thread already know, I have been a long-time staunch defender of Palin from unfair and dishonest attacks, and I will continue to do so. And, when I disagree with her, I have always done so respectfully.
For the issue at hand, you have done a good, even-handed job laying out what is more or less the current establishment pro-LOST case/storyline/sales pitch. From various entities across a broad spectrum there are some valid arguments made, some plausible objections are duly noted, and Reagan's conceptual legacy is acknowledged (selectively) and his "seabed concerns" addressed (ostensibly), with the claim that Reagan would now support it (his own diary notes state otherwise).
It all sounds so reasonable, the need is so great, and after all we simply must have a seat at that table...
However, there are other perspectives and alternatives that are just as much "real world" as the above scenario. Just a cursory search revealed a great deal of useful information, including the link above from the Heritage Foundation. Just for starters, here are a couple more from Heritage:
The Top Five Reasons Why Conservatives Should Oppose the U.N.Convention on the Law of the Sea
There are plenty of other resources on this subject - I urge everyone to do their own homework so they can effectively evaluate the players, factors and options which will be involved in this ongoing issue.
The real world encompasses more than just Alaska, vast as it is, and the ramifications of the LOST will affect more than just the exploitation of resources under the Arctic sea. As important as those are, there is a bigger picture at stake, and we face some hard choices which will determine whether or not we will continue to be a free and sovereign nation and people.
I never said you did, but others have and they will continue to do it because it's easy to use this issue to do exactly that. If you took offense, I apologize.
I was aware of Ronald Reagan's diary notes and I'm also aware that he was philosophically opposed to the treaty.
Speaking of implications, your assertion that I am claiming that Reagan would have supported the treaty with the seabed modifications is just plain false.