[Tyler_JC]

There is a lot of talk on this and other websites about the coming resource wars. A resource war is defined as any nation attacking another unprovoked for the sake of taking something of value from the defeated country. In a Peak Oil scenario, powerful countries (US, China, Europe...) could use their might to force oil producing nations to "give" oil to the invader. This reasoning makes sense when taken at face value, but what about the details?

Let's say the US has a draft, gets 5 million men with guns, and takes over S A, Iran, and Iraq. Using all of oil production of these countries and using a completely mobilized economy, America still runs short of sweet, sweet crude. I doubt any other country would sell enough to us to make up the difference if they see us bombing Muslims "willie-nillie." If the purpose of a resource war is to capture a resource, why bother having a war that convinces other producers not to sell to you?

How could tanks and planes be fueled if all of the captured oil is going to support the "American Dream" at home? The short answer is, they can't. Fueling the "American Dream" and fueling an A1 Abrams tank can't be done on the same barrel of oil.

The "justification" for the war is resources, but resources for what? Why, the war of course! The purpose of the war changes as soon as it becomes apparent that the suburbs are doomed. War for oil won't change the outcome if a 3%+ depletion is in store for us. If the government of any nation mobilizes completely for war and shows no benefit whatsoever for its citizens, the support for the war will collapse. If I work in a bullet factory and I'm producing bullets with no benefit to me, I'm not going to work that hard. After even a few years of pointless wars, the war machine can break down.

Without some sort of popular mandate, even Authoritarian regimes will crumble. Maintaining a 1984 society requires a LOT of energy. Martial law isn't an option if too few police show up for work. I don't believe that people are sheep to the point of their own complete destruction. We step off the Force Continuum at some point. I think this is the basic arguement for the Head-For-The-Hills crowd. The world is heading for war, war will destroy the governments that start it, local anarchy will take hold, head for the hills.

[maverickdoc]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', '
')Without some sort of popular mandate, even Authoritarian regimes will crumble. Maintaining a 1984 society requires a LOT of energy. Martial law isn't an option if too few police show up for work.

[savethehumans]

If those other nations' governments finally get a backbone, and refuse to give the US any oil/gas/energy because of its "resource war diplomacy," your argument would have some basis, Tyler_JC.

Unfortunately, backbone is not something governments--which tend to love business-as-usual economics--are prone to exhibit. And with the extra-added bonus pressure of realizing that the US (or one of its puppet nations) might start the NEXT resource war in their country...well, you can see what the US government is hoping will happen.

Of course, the US could over-extend itself militarily and economically--which is what the rest of the world (and a LOT of us Americans!) hope will happen. Then again, there's always the "cooperate, or we'll embargo/nuke you" threats....One would like to think that THAT would steel the world's backbone, at least! But that's betting the planet that the world WOULD stand fast, and the USA WON'T embargo/nuke.

Anyone here wanna take that bet? No, I didn't think so. You're smarter than that....

[Chocky]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ithout some sort of popular mandate, even Authoritarian regimes will crumble. Maintaining a 1984 society requires a LOT of energy. Martial law isn't an option if too few police show up for work.

[seahorse]

Klare's book "Blood and Oil" is pretty convincing that the United States, the West, and China all view oil, energy, as a national security interest, and will, and are, doing everything they can, political, economic, and militarily, to protect the flow of oil.

The future will be no different than the past, if a powerful country wants/needs something, whether Inca gold, Brazilian Rubber, African jewels, it will be taken, and the populations always seem to support the fight to do so.

As Goebels said, just give the people an enemy, and they will fight. We have the enemy "terrorist." Plus, in the 70s when Americans had to ration gas, they were ready to fight, and the president everyone says was a pacifist, Carter, was ready to go to war to secure the oil, initiating the infamous "Carter Doctrine." There's no question in my mind that Americans would support a war, they hate Saudi Arabia already for all kinds of reasons, and hate the a lot more now than they did in the 70s.

I'm not saying its right, I'm just saying I can easily see it happening.

Plus, America still produces a lot of oil, so I may not have gas to drive, but rest assured, there will be plenty of fuel for the tanks, humvees, planes etc. The war machine will go on. I may not be able to get to work, but that's how you lose a democracy - in "national emergencies."

[TrueKaiser]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Chocky', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ithout some sort of popular mandate, even Authoritarian regimes will crumble. Maintaining a 1984 society requires a LOT of energy. Martial law isn't an option if too few police show up for work.

[Wildwell]

A fuel crisis situation is easier to break at home, provided it's done in a measured way. Governments have learnt a lot from the fuel crisis situations in Europe in 2000 and have enacted law and measures to deal with it.

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/20040036.htm

One of the meanings of emergency is:

(e) disruption of a supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel.

Measures:

(1) A Minister of the Crown may by order require a person or body listed in Part 1 of Schedule 1 to perform a function of that person or body for the purpose of-

(a) preventing the occurrence of an emergency,

(b) reducing, controlling or mitigating the effects of an emergency, or

(c) taking other action in connection with an emergency


By any means necessary as required as specified provided certain laws are not breached.

Nuclear weapons are strategically useless, in the respect that they provide a status quo rather than a solution. Sure you can nuke another country, but expect to get nuked back.

Invading another country requires a large ground force presence. How on earth do you protect long pipelines or shipping routes and do it effectively without mass manning of strategic points?

Wars also create a drain on fuel, resources, will, manpower and so on. You can send a whole country to war, but someone has to remain at home to run essential services, keep business and commerce ticking over and trade. Most of the time it would be easier to contain civil emergencies at home then deal with a resource problems by strategic planning, law and enforcement.

[GD]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Permanently_Baffled', 'H')as Iraq been profitable?

[pea-jay]

I am going to chime in on this thread. I missed it the first time around.

I see one of three explanation for this nation's participation in a "resource war" in Iraq

1. Gain control of Iraq's oil reserves (by proxy or stooge local governance) and ensure the oil is sold in dollars only. Preferably sell it to US companies. If you believe this theory, the logical explanation why it hasn't turned out as expected was the fact the US tried to do it on the cheap. The military stated the need for twice as many soldiers and the previously used soldier to occupied population rate was tossed out of the window during the occupation. The result was a snowballing of violence that cut short any US hopes of gaining resources. Ideally you would have gone in with overwhelming force and then flooded the country with dollars and projects to keep folks busy. Employed people are less inclined to want to hurt you than idle individuals. Bad planning botched this operation from the git go. I can buy this theory. This administration has a track record of grand ideas and poor follow through.

2. To hell if it helps this country or hurts our enemies. Rebuilding contracts are worth a fortune. Political control is fleeting under even good circumstances, so if "our man" is in office, he can help us secure favorable contracts before he is out. Political control waxes and wanes so maximize your earning potential during favorable times. Theory sounds plausible on the surface, but contracts have been risky for the companies involved and some have even opted out after being involved.

3. Jesus is coming back. Let's speed his arrival by hastening the apocolypse with war in the middle east. Possible...

[shortonoil]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '3'). Jesus is coming back. Let's speed his arrival by hastening the apocolypse with war in the middle east. Possible...

[julianj]

Despite screwing up Iraq, I think its very much odds-on that they're going to invade or attack somewhere else during the next Bush term, probably Iran. The spying, air incursions, threats, and neo-con position papers seem to me to strongly suggest that is their inclination.

I agree with general line of the argument here that war is extremely counter-productive. But Bush & co are so detached from reality that I feel they don't listen to reason. (Marek for Pres I say! Give Shannymarra Condi's job )

But I've got a bad thought for you:

If there is a UK general election in May, and Tony Bliar (sic) gets back in, perhaps with a reduced, but still unassailable majority, what's to stop him dragging us into the next neocon military mess?

Eh?

I know pundits have said, Britain won't do it and TB would have to resign, but he ignored the anti-war movement last time, the Labour party and MPs have not shown any backbone, and despite ImpeachBlair.org if he has a large enough majority he can do anything he likes. Another war would make a round half dozen during his premiership, so why not?

{Iraq air strikes 1998, Kosovo,Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Iraq again}

I hope nobody's going to tell me just because they've made a few denials pre election that there won't suddenly be some WMDs to find somewhere which changes the situation....

[Permanently_Baffled]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Maybe not to the US treasury, but to Halliburton & co – yes it has – very much. This is the right wing way. Do not be under any illusions that they have the best interest of the nation as a whole in mind. They do not care about the small person.

[Permanently_Baffled]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
') if he has a large enough majority he can do anything he likes.

[maverickdoc]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Permanently_Baffled', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
') if he has a large enough majority he can do anything he likes.

[julianj]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')t least I hope you are wrong as I have bet this site that if the US/UK go into Iran within the next two years I will post a piccy of my naked body on this forum! Confused (now there is confidence for you! Smile )

[airstrip1]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('julianj', '
')
I know pundits have said, Britain won't do it and TB would have to resign, but he ignored the anti-war movement last time, the Labour party and MPs have not shown any backbone, and despite ImpeachBlair.org if he has a large enough majority he can do anything he likes. Another war would make a round half dozen during his premiership, so why not?

{Iraq air strikes 1998, Kosovo,Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Iraq again}

[GD]

Oo ar PB! (can I call myself permanently baffled 2?) lol
Right, here goes another rant...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'w')hy the hell would he take part in a invasion which would prevent the Euro becoming the world fiat currency and all the advantages it brings?

[maverickdoc]

Well?

[chris-h]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('maverickdoc', 'W')ell?

[alpha480v]

F:Not happen at all unless the draft is brought back(can't invade other countries without sufficiant troop strength.).