quote:Experts assessing the dangers posed to civilisation have added climate change to the prospect of nuclear annihilation as the greatest threats to humankind.
As a result, the group has moved the minute hand on its famous "Doomsday Clock" two minutes closer to midnight.
The concept timepiece, devised by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, now stands at five minutes to the hour.
The good news is that I think this means that nuclear threats, although real and significant, are no longer solely setting the "time". The bad news is that we now have significant threats from two sources.
quote:Some scientists - even climate scientists - may not support the comparison of global warming to the catastrophe that would follow a nuclear engagement.
I think that combining the two does bring up some issues. All out nuclear war could be so destructive in a short space of time that all/most life could find itself on the brink of extinction in a matter of months. (Nevil Shute's 'On the Beach'. Most depressing book ever.) Or at least end up with remaining humans facing serious survival issues.
However, global warming, although it could probably cause mass chaos, and conceivably mass death- animal and human- from famine and confusion, does give us time, which is sort of at odds with the point of the clock.
However, I personally think that putting the global warming aspect on the clock is important because I think 'having time' is part of the major problem to do with acting. All procrastinators know the rules: you never do anything until you're on the brink of having to do it or face major consequences. Sadly, I don't think this works with the environment.
Therefore, I think seeing it on the clock is important to bring home how much time we have.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I personally find climate a much more likely scenario then war.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I agree.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I don't see any way that society as a whole will recognize the dangers posed by climate change until it's too late.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Maybe next year's season of 24 will have Jack Bauer fighting climate change.
My money's on Jack.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
We've successfuly not used nuclear bombs for over 51years. Excess production of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use by humans was first recognised by governments as the probable driver of GlobalWarming in 1988. Despite calls for lessening of carbon emissions by that TorontoConference on ClimateChange, all nations which participated continued to increase per capita use of fossil fuels in contradiction to their signing of the 1997KyotoProtocols to reduce carbon emissions up until at least the 2001BonnConference when "mechanisms for working towards Kyoto targets" were finally agreed upon.
How much the mechanisms actually work is debatable, eg: The UK is replacing all single-thickness windows with insulating windows; which sounds good until one considers that the energy used to create and emplace those new windows won't be made up for 10to20years. Carbon sequestering through reforestation sounds good until one considers the extra forest lands in Indonesia being burnt down to supply the increased world demand for palm oil (also being touted for "greener" biodiesel) and the extra forestland being burned down in Brazil to supply the increased world demand for soy (also being touted for biodiesel). Etc ad nauseum. Then one must consider Europeans who have traditionally avoided air conditioning are rapidly converting toward air conditioner use. And that will take a LOT of energy; especially if the recent unusually hot European summers become the norm or even hotter under GlobalWarming.
Even if we assume that treaty signers will meet their Kyoto targets, the US alone will eat up their decreased usage. The USgovernment is strongly encouraging increased use of fossil fuels: 'Green'er energy production receives a tiny fraction of the subsidies provided to the oil&coal industries. Most of that "alternative energy" subsidy is going toward indirect subsidies for corn growers via increasing demand for corn by ethanol"fuel"producers; even though corn production uses such a high amount of fertilizer&water&etc that corn-to-ethanol production uses more fossil fuels than just using fossil fuels directly for energy. The small partial subsidies for hybrid automobile purchasers is used up by February. Meanwhile year around, the government will subsidize users for the full purchase price of the most fuel-inefficient over-powered SUVs, limousines, and top luxury cars such as the Maybach and the Phantom (other models if custom armored) as long as they weigh over 3tons/2.72tonnes. The USgovernment mandate to replace old tv receivers with new digital receivers has driven the sales of large screen television sets, which use ~3times more power than the sets they replace. Etc ad nauseum. Nor is the US alone in its attitude. eg Germany is going nuts at the EnvironmentalMinister's suggestion that the speed limit be reduced. Even though it would decrease fuel consumption by as much as 30%, Germans are outraged at the idea of the imposition of a true* speed limit of 130kilometres/81miles per hour on the Autobahn as an attack on their rights.**
While people have dithered, China has gone from producing around 20% of the carbon emission of the US to more than the EU. Similarly though not as intensely, India and other rapidly industrializing nations have increased their carbon emissions.
A nuclear war will directly kill tens-to-hundreds millions in cities of nuclear power states as a side-effect of possible targeting of military-production capabilities. The expectable human lifetimes might be somewhat shortened in regions not targeted. With a large enough nuclear exchange, a short nuclear winter might occur in the NorthernHemisphere: possibly affecting the harvest for a growing season or two, and possibly causing some human famine (Mostly cuz the better-off people would let other people starve rather than give up their beef.) As proven by the Chernobyl/Hanford/Savannah*** experiences, wild life will thrive in regions avoided by humans.
GlobalWarming is already driving severe depletions of species, though extinctions have yet to occur inregard to a scientific consensus on the cause.
Life has survived the 51+years of the nuclear era, with only a few extinctions and severe depletions caused by other problems of modern technology and modern lifestyles. I'd be extremely pleased to see as little GlobalWarming-caused damage by the year 2039, the 51st anniversary of the TorontoConference. I wouldn't be surprised to see a human death toll of over a billion, and lots of extinctions.
* The "no speed limit" zones of the Autobahn have a "highly suggested" speed limit of 130kph/81mph. ie One can legally be held partially or totally responsible for an accident at above that "highly suggested" speed, even if the other driver(s) would have been held totally responsible if one had been driving below that "highly suggested" speed. ** But then Hatrackers went nuts when I suggested that a maximum-speed governor is the only way to keep people driving at or below the speed limit rather than at the usually significantly higher natural comfort zone speed of a stretch of road.
*** And in the Korean DeMilitarizedZone and CampPendalton MarineBase, though for other reasons.
[ December 18, 2007, 01:08 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: I personally find climate a much more likely scenario then war.
Unfortunately, climate (as a problem) is very likely to lead to war. If problems caused by climate change are sufficiently significant, they will probably lead to wars on a massive scale.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: I personally find climate a much more likely scenario then war.
Unfortunately, climate (as a problem) is very likely to lead to war. If problems caused by climate change are sufficiently significant, they will probably lead to wars on a massive scale.
I was actually thinking about that. Resources are the leading cause of war. What happens when the Middle East runs out of oil, and global warming heats them up even more?
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
It's commonly said that resources are the leading cause of war, but how often does it actually happen?
In the past 50 years Korean war -- no Vietnam war -- no Six Days War -- no Russia in Afghanistan -- no China v. Vietnam -- no Persian Gulf 1.0 -- maybe, from Hussein's POV Kosovo -- no Rwanda civil war -- no Ethiopia v. Eritrea -- no Congo-Kinshasha -- yes US in Afghanistan -- no US in Iraq -- no
Even if a few of these are wrong, there's a clear trend. Most wars are not fought over resources, at least in the past 50 years.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I stopped liking the minutes-to-midnight clock a while back. Real clocks move _forward_ in time. This clock bounces around. Doesn't seem like a very reliable timekeeper.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Ah, but it's a metaphorical clock. Now if only I were metaphorically late for my appointment...
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
Most wars in the future will be over resources. I think most people can agree on that.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Phanto: Now if only I were metaphorically late for my appointment...
Correct use of subjunctive!
*swoons*
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
While nobody will (still) argue that "getting oil" was the main justification for Gulf Wars I and II, I think it's very important to note that the region's vast reserves are a major reason why the west remains involved to this day. And of course, the civil strife in Iraq right now is in large part to disagreements regarding who gets the oil revenue.
(Of course if you add Congo, that's still only four "kind-of-sort-ofs" out of over a dozen conflicts. I think it's more interesting that most of those remaining are clashes of ideology, particularly when you have nations fighting on foreign territory.)
--j_k
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
I remember growing up in the cold war when the clock was like 30 seconds from midnight. 5 minutes to isn't that bad.
Posted by Eduardo St. Elmo (Member # 9566) on :
"Niemand weet hoe laat het is."
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
BTW: The negative effects of anthropogenic forcing of the climate are already appearing.
The $0.51 per gallon subsidy of ethanol to gasoline producers has already increased corn prices to ~$3 per bushel up from ~$2. And it appears that there is nothing to stop price increases until the corn reaches $4.
And the global wheat shortfall is in part due to Indian smog causing premature nucleation of water vapor over the IndianOcean, leading to rain falling upon the ocean and the coast rather than being carried farther inland, creating near-drought over the traditional wheatlands of India. ie The extra pollution caused by rapid industrialization is rolling back the GreenRevolution. After years of being a net grain exporter, India has once again become a wheat importer. Too small a time frame to say whether crop shortfalls are going to become a trend or worsen, but the rapid reduction in grain reserves bodes ill for people on the lowest economic rung. May well be a harbinger of a truly MASSIVE famine in the near future.
[ February 08, 2007, 01:14 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: BTW: The negative effects of anthropogenic forcing of the climate are already appearing.
The $0.51 per gallon subsidy of ethanol to gasoline producers has alreadyincreased corn prices to ~$3 per bushel up from ~$2. And it appears that there is nothing to stop price increases until the corn reaches $4.
Yes, ok, I'm not saying this is a good thing by any means, but it also doesn't seem that you can strictly speaking blame it on climate change, as such. This is an effect of politicians trying to respond to climate change, which is rather different. I think that to claim "Climate change causes price rises", you'd have to have bad harvests due to temperature or weather changes. Price rises due to the government interfering with the market doesn't cut it, in my opinion.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
Past my bedtime then. Goodnight. Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Added that because of previous mention of the corn/ethanol subsidy without giving the costs to taxpayers/consumers. However, the subsidy and price rise is not "an effect of politicians trying to respond to climate change" but rather of politicians pretending to care about citizens' GlobalWarming concerns by pretending that corn/ethanol is a solution, when it is nothing more than yet another taxpayer-funded welfare payment to heavy polluters. Of politicians trying to avoid any meaningful response: Porsche's...Cayenne Turbo S SUV...generates 520 horsepower, more than twice as much as some 18-ton delivery trucks...it also produces 378 grams of CO2 a kilometer. "Why does an SUV need 500 horsepower?" [CEO] Wiedeking said, reading a question from a shareholder. "Because it's a blast."
[ February 09, 2007, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: Most wars in the future will be over resources. I think most people can agree on that.
Why would most people agree that something that rarely happens will be the rule in the future? There'd have to be a reason other than observation!
It would have to be because most people have faith in principles laid down in the 1970's by Paul Erlich (who told us that we would have massive population dieoffs from famine -- even in the US -- before 1980), and the Club of Rome (which told us we'd be running out of industrial materials in the 1980's -- materials that instead became much cheaper). These predictions failed completely, but they did make their way into our culture.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
This was old news about the clock. Including Climate change is just plain alarmist. Accepting for a moment that the world's temp is rising, whether or not because of human actions, there are many reasons to assume that a temp increase is a positive thing and just as likely to free up resources and make the world better. The Little Optimum, that period during the 9th through 13th Centuries when temps were at leaset as warm as they were today, was generally considered as good for humans in terms of food availability and growth. The Norsemen discovered and prospered in Greenland, for example, during this period before the temps dropped again for the 600 years of the Litte Ice Age and Greenland stopped being so green, which led to crop failures and famine. God examples: warmer whether means less need for winter fuel for heating, and longer growing seasons.
The Earth's temp has never been stable for more than a few decades at a time. Given the alternatives, global warming is a good thing. (With that I mind, I think I load my big SUV with Premium tonight. You know, just to do my part.)
I think that these leftist alarmists and so-called scientist are a punch of chicken littles who'd rather ignore history and rational analysis so they can make their little political jabs.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Will B,
quote:Korean war -- no Vietnam war -- no Six Days War -- no Russia in Afghanistan -- no China v. Vietnam -- no Persian Gulf 1.0 -- maybe, from Hussein's POV Kosovo -- no Rwanda civil war -- no Ethiopia v. Eritrea -- no Congo-Kinshasha -- yes US in Afghanistan -- no US in Iraq -- no
Korean War: Territory is a resource, a bigger and more powerful country from a N Korean perspective is certainly a resource.
Denying that to our enemies is denying a resource to communism.
Vietnam War: Same.
Six Days War: Territory and control over territory.
USSR in Afghanistan: Territory
Persian Gulf 1.0: Undeniably over resources from Hussein's PoV, strongly arguable over resources from an American PoV.
--------
A lot of those are wrong, unless you somehow discount territory and power over people as a resource.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The Six Days War was also heavily about Israeli access to imported oil.
The USSR wasn't after Afghanistan for territory, though. There's a common theory that they invaded Afghanistan to obtain a warmwater port; of course, Afghanistan has no warmwater ports, and there were no plausible invasion targets from Afghanistan that would supply one. A better theory, now supported by internal soviet documents (which do not support the warmwater port theory), is that the USSR was trying to prevent the communist regime there from falling due to ideological beliefs (about the inevitability of communism) and fears of political repercussions (because it might make communist ideology seem weak).
One could argue it was about a political resource, but there was no physical resource the USSR needed out of Afghanistan. They had plenty of empty land much like Afghanistan right next door, for one thing.
And political resources at least are not part of the common usage when one brings up resource in the context of oil/land/water/et cetera.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I don't count territory as a resource, because I don't think that when people say, "all wars about resources," they mean that wars are about territory. (Territory has been a major motivator of war, although much less so in our lifetimes.) They mean oil, minerals, etc. -- things we almost never go to war over.
In what way was the Six Days War about Israel importing oil?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Added that because of previous mention of the corn/ethanol subsidy without giving the costs to taxpayers/consumers. However, the subsidy and price rise is not "an effect of politicians trying to respond to climate change" but rather of politicians pretending to care about citizen's GlobalWarming concerns by pretending that corn/ethanol is a solution, when it is nothing more than yet another taxpayer-funded welfare payment to heavy polluters.
Ok, fair enough; the point is, the effects of politician interference cannot be considered a direct effect of global warming, whatever the motivation. Your data on India is a much better argument for that.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
While territory is a resource, I don't think it's one that can be considered so scarce as to be a direct cause of wars. After all, if North Korea had conquered the South, they would presumably have had to use a large amount of grain and whatnot to keep the restive population there under control; it's not obvious that they would have been any better off. I think both Korea and Vietnam should rather be considered as ideological wars, fought to bring more people under the banner of a particular kind of economy; it's a bit of a stretch to say that they were about territory, and another stretch to say that territory was a resource. Increasing the size of the country was a means to an end, not an end in itself.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Egypt had recently closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping (including the shipment of imported oil, notably that from Iran, on 3rd party ships; it was never figured out before the issue came to a head and Israel conquered the Sinai, which was Egypt's hold on Tiran).
OK, I learned about the Six Days War (wikipedia). Looks like resources were used in this war: a blockade, and an attempt to cut off Israel's water.
This seems to be more a case of resources being denied as *part* of a conflict, rather than the conflict being caused by the resources. That is, Egypt didn't blockade Israel's shipping because it needed the ocean space for itself, and Israel had every reason to think this was part of an imminent attack.
I would note that blockade has certainly been an important part of other wars fought for a variety of reasons. For example, the US blockade of the CSA in the US Civil War was an important factor, although the war was not over access to sea lanes.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The blockade was arguably intended to be a permanent feature (assuming Israel wasn't conquered), and the plan to block off Israel's water was not a part of the war offensive.
Of course Egypt didn't blockade Israel because it needed the ocean space, it blockaded Israel because it didn't want Israel having the oil.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Korean War: The traditionally industrial North wanted its traditional imports from the traditionally agricultural South. Vietnam War: Southern rice and agricultural products were coveted by the industrial North; and access to potential offshore oil deposits were coveted by US companies. China v. Vietnam: China would not have minded controlling SoutheastAsia's "Rice Basket". Russia in Afghanistan: Strategic inregard to access to resources of surrounding states. Google "bear trap" brzezinski US in Afghanistan: If fighting ceased, the easiest pipeline route between the oil&gas fields of Iran, Turkmenistan, etc and consumers in China and India. Iran-IraqWar & PersianGulfWar & IraqWar : Prevention of a single state gaining regional control over oil. "The spice must flow." Kosovo: Tailend of a series of wars over Yugoslavian resources RwandaCivilWar: State in which population reached its Malthusean limits. Ethiopia v. Eritrea: Control over territory containing the oil fields: the reason why the Rockefellers encouraged&supported the Italian invasion of Ethiopia. Congo: Control of the most resource-rich state in Africa.
[ February 08, 2007, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I initially started a post saying I can't find evidence of these claims other than Congo (or evidence of Ethiopian and Eritrean oil fields) -- then I thought you were joking, and was going to recommend using smileys -- and, well, I'm just not sure how to take it.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Sorry, what I attributed to Ethiopia v Eritrea was the OgadenWar between Ethiopia and Somalia. Misjuxtaposed it with Mussolini launching his war from Italian Eritrea to take over Ethiopia's Fafan Valley. Rockefeller and Ethiopia Google: fafan ogaden harar
Also adding to the confusion are that: Eritrean (with Ethiopian) rebels did come close to taking over Ethiopia during Eritrea's war of independence. Up until 1999, the Anadarco oil consortium was sinking exploratory wells off the Eritrean coast. Amazingly, the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea ceased almost immediately after Anadarco came up with disappointing results. Agip, Amoco, Chevron, Conoco, Phillips, etc hold drilling leases off of Somalia. Petronas is doing exploratory drilling in western Ethiopia, which has been the relatively peaceful part of Ethiopia.
[ February 09, 2007, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
My point being that it costs money to have war. An assault rifle bullet costs ~$0.25 per round and a RocketPropelledGrenade costs ~$50 per round on the legal market, and more on the international blackmarket. Nobody is passing out free weaponry out of the goodness of their hearts. While wars often spin out of the realm of rational decision-making, nobody initiates war expecting to lose money in the long run. And nobody continues fighting in expectation that they will be worse off in the long run.
With only rare exceptions, ideological arguments such as nationalism/racism/classism/sectarianism/communism/etc are purely propaganda put out by those who expect to gain the most while risking the least to con the gullible into risking&giving their time, their health, their lives, and their souls in exchange for far too little.
[ February 09, 2007, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Maybe next year's season of 24 will have Jack Bauer fighting climate change.
My money's on Jack.
I just had to insert a mighty "HAHAHAHA!" for this comment.
Carry on. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: It's commonly said that resources are the leading cause of war, but how often does it actually happen?
In the past 50 years Korean war -- no Vietnam war -- no Russia in Afghanistan -- no China v. Vietnam -- no
This are all cold war battles. The central conflict in the Cold War, Communism vs. Capitalism, is a conflict over how resources should be distributed. Given that, only a fool could argue that resources didn't play a key factor in these wars.
quote:Six Days War -- no
The six days war started over access to the Suez canal (an important resource). It has lead to occupation of lands (another resources) for over 40 years.
quote:Persian Gulf 1.0 -- maybe, from Hussein's POV
Definitely from Hussein's POV. He invaded Kuwait because they were using Horizontal oil drilling to access oil fields on teh Iraqi side of the border. It also pretty clearly related to resources from a US and Saudia Arabia point of view as well.
quote:Kosovo -- no
Unless of course you consider land a resource. One of the key aspects of this conflict is that Serbia considers the land to be the historic center of a Serbian State. They are unwilling to permit secession of the Albanian majority because of their historic claim to the land.[/qb][/quote]
quote:Rwanda civil war -- no
A long drought in central Africa which has lead to severe water (an importan resources) shortages plays an important role in the Rwandan civil war[/quote]
quote:Ethiopia v. Eritrea -- no
In addition to on going drought that has caused conflict of food and water, Access to shipping ports on the Red Sea (an important resource) is a key factor in the on going conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea
quote:US in Afghanistan -- no
Even before 9/11, US was in conflict with Afghanistan over an oil pipeline. One of the first things that the US did after the invasion was to approve and begin construction on the pipeline.
quote:US in Iraq -- no
Does anyone sincerely believe that Iraq's stategic oil reserves didn't play an important role in our invasion. The US is currently building 14 military bases in Iraq all along the oil pipeline.
quote:Even if a few of these are wrong, there's a clear trend.
Agreed. Even though resources are not the sole factor in any one of these conflicts, they are an important factor in every one. To ignore the importance of resources and how they are distributed as a key factor in every modern war is to be ignorant of the facts.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I think we've just established that resources exist all over the world. However, neither the existence of resources nor the fact that wars require raw materials really establishes that "[r]esources are the leading cause of war," the statement that started this part of the discussion.
Every war in the past century was fought in the vicinity of telephone lines, and communications played an important role. Therefore the wars were fought not over oil, water, or minerals, but over telephones.
We can also similarly prove that all wars are fought over control of air, or the earth's magnetic field. That is not sound reasoning, not least because these conclusions can't all be true.
However, in regard to the name-calling -- your argumentation technique of calling anyone who doesn't realize how right you are a "fool" and "ignorant" -- this is not the sort of argument I choose to engage in.
[ February 09, 2007, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: Will B ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Will B. What we have established is that resources were a significant factor that has lead to each of the conflicts you've listed.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:This are all cold war battles. The central conflict in the Cold War, Communism vs. Capitalism, is a conflict over how resources should be distributed. Given that, only a fool could argue that resources didn't play a key factor in these wars.
Sign me up for a fool, then. Differences on how to distribute resources internally in a society does not fall under what reasonable men call "fighting over resources".
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
OK King of Men, What would you say the Russian peasants were fighting for in the Russian revolution? They said is was "Land, Peace, and Bread" (two out three resources). So if the Russian communists weren't fighting to get control of resources that had been controlled by the aristocracy, what were they fighting for?
The rest of the cold war conflicts follow the same line. The North Koreans and the North Vietnamese were fighting to get control of resources. We came in on the other side to defend the existing property owners. If that doesn't constitute "fighting over resources", what was it?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I fear both sides are over applying their premise. I don't think you can accurately say that all wars in the last 50 years, are at their cores, fights over resources. But I don't think you can say of any of the wars of the past 50 years that none had anything to do with resources either.
And just because resources are INVOLVED in the conflict does not mean thats what caused the war to happen. If a man beats me up because of my ethnicity, I will go to court and sue him for assault and battery. Does my desire to obtain monetary compensation make the fight about resources then at that point? If right after beating me up the man decides to take my wallet, do we say, "AHA! He wanted the man's wallet all along! It's all about resources!"
I don't have time to comment on the entire list but China Vs Vietnam was CERTAINLY about resources, what else could it have been about? North Korea VS South Korea was the same way. South Korea and Vietnam are bread baskets, North Korea and China are not (In China's case not a big enough basket for its population), and Vietnam at one point was the largest exporter of rice, even more so then China.
China assisted the North Vietnamese against the US and supplied billions of dollars arms, supplies and hundreds of thousands of men to help them. A few years later they turned around and invaded even though both were communistic states.
I seriously doubt an oil line in Afghanistan is what motivated us to go over there and steam roll the Taliban out of power. We are not getting Iraq's oil or resources either. Afghanistan and Iraq certainly have resources involved, but I think both are examples of a war caused by ideological differences.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I fear both sides are over applying their premise. I don't think you can accurately say that all wars in the last 50 years, are at their cores, fights over resources. But I don't think you can say of any of the wars of the past 50 years that none had anything to do with resources either. ... I don't have time to comment on the entire list but China Vs Vietnam was CERTAINLY about resources, what else could it have been about?
I agree with the first part. However, for China and Vietnam....not so much. Sino-Vietnamese War
quote: The Sino–Vietnamese War or Third Indochina War was a brief but bloody border war fought in 1979 between China and Vietnam. China launched the offensive largely in response to Vietnam's invasion and subsequent occupation of Cambodia, a war which ended the genocidal reign of Chinese-backed Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge. Chinese troops withdrew after a month-long incursion into northern Vietnam.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
BlackBlade, You will note that I never claimed that all wars in the last 50 year are at their cores fights over resources. Most wars, if not all are fought over a complex network of reasons.
My argument, and the argument that I believe is being made by the doomsday clock people, is that resources are one of the important factors that lead to wars. In the presence of resource shortages and/or unequal distribution of resources, wars are much more likely to happen.
At their core, I do believe that most wars are about who controls resources. Ethnicity, ideology and religion all contribute, but they rarely lead to war unless they are connected to the control of resources.
Every war in the past century has had a significant impact on who controls key resources. That isn't to say that those wars were solely over resource. What I am claiming is that the potential impact of war on the control of resources is one of the factors that people always consider before going to war.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Caveat, Blackblade: I didn't say that no war in the past 50 years had anything to do with resources. I disputed the view that "[r]esources are the leading cause of war" -- that's all.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I seriously doubt an oil line in Afghanistan is what motivated us to go over there and steam roll the Taliban out of power.
No thats far beyond what I'm claiming. Imagine for a moment that we had struck a pipeline deal with the Taliban before 9/11 and were cooperating with them on its construction at the time of the terror attacks. Do you think we would have proceeded in exactly the same manner after 9/11? The Taliban did offer to turn over Bin Laden after 9/11 on the condition that he be tried in an Islamic court. Would we have been more likely to negotiate with them on such a deal? Would we have been more likely to collaborate with the Taliban in eliminating Al Qaida?
Its all well and good to point out that the Taliban were nasty people, but we've collaborated with plenty of other nasty people when we felt it was in our national interest. Take for example Saudi Arabia.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
On a lighter note, until this thread was posted I hadn't connected the Heroes episode "Seven minutes to midnight" and the time we see on the face of Sylar's broken watch with the doomsday clock.
Its such a nice connection. Too bad its not longer correct.
It is just my speed to catch something like this once it has already become dated.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"Differences on how to distribute resources internally in a society does not fall under what reasonable men call "fighting over resources"."
A difference of opinion about internal distribution of property within a society is the sole reason that muggers exist.
And describing the SovietUnion as communist is at best misleading when the proper description is endstate capitalism: "What's good for GeneralMotors is good for America" taken to the monopolistic extreme of a single corporation controlling all resources within a sovereign state. With all of the extreme social and economic stratification which endstate capitalism implies.
[ February 09, 2007, 06:51 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:A difference of opinion in internal distribution of property within a society is the sole reason that muggers exist.
And perhaps the primary reason that police exist as well.
But muggings are about who posesses the property, wars are about who controls the resources. The two are not the same. If for example you control the police force and the courts, you may not own all the property but you have the ability to decide who does.
quote:And describing the SovietUnion as communist is at best misleading when the proper description is endstate capitalism.
I would argue that endstate capitalism is misleading with applied to the SovietUnion as well since Russia didn't go through a Capitalist phase prior to the revolution. But that is a full discussion in and of itself.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:And just because resources are INVOLVED in the conflict does not mean thats what caused the war to happen. If a man beats me up because of my ethnicity, I will go to court and sue him for assault and battery. Does my desire to obtain monetary compensation make the fight about resources then at that point? If right after beating me up the man decides to take my wallet, do we say, "AHA! He wanted the man's wallet all along! It's all about resources!"
But if the man who beat you for your ethnicity was poor, you wouldn't sue him for assault and battery. You would probably still press criminal charges but if he had no money, you'd be very unlikely to sue him. It wouldn't be worth your time and resources to fight that battle. (and you probably couldn't get a lawyer to take the case).
I've also noticed that a rich white guy is more likely to be assaulted when walking through a poor ethnic neighborhood than a poor white guy.
Even if you judge that these "fights' weren't motivated primarily by a conflict over money, it is evident that people consider the potential exchange of resources when they decide whether or not to fight. In that sense, resources are important because without them the fights are less likely to happen.
Most fights don't have a single cause. When groups of people decide to go to war its is usually for a complex assortment of reasons. Remove any one of those reasons and people might have chosen another response to the conflict. The fact that resources aren't the only cause for a war, doesn't mean that they aren't a cause. And the fact that wars are fought for many other reasons, certainly has no impact on whether greater competition for resources is likely to result in more wars.
[ February 09, 2007, 07:22 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: OK King of Men, What would you say the Russian peasants were fighting for in the Russian revolution? They said is was "Land, Peace, and Bread" (two out three resources). So if the Russian communists weren't fighting to get control of resources that had been controlled by the aristocracy, what were they fighting for?
But that's a completely separate war! You can't say that the Russian Civil War and the Cold War are the same thing, that's just silly.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I didn't say that the Russian civil war and cold war were the same thing. I said that the motives of people who fought in the Russian revolution are the same as the motives of those who fought in other marxist revolutions include those that became part of the cold war. Ergo control of resources was a motivating factor for at least one side in all of the cold war conflicts.
I also didn't say that we were "fighting over resources" in the cold war. I was responding to Will B's statement that
quote:It's commonly said that resources are the leading cause of war, but how often does it actually happen?
and I said
quote:Given that, only a fool could argue that resources didn't play a key factor in these wars.
So to summarize. I've claimed that the basis of the cold war was a fundamental disagreement in who and what principles should control the distribution of resources. In my mind, that makes "resources" a leading cause of the cold war.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I would like to add that my comments were made in the context of the doomsday clock.
The contention of the scientists who set the doomsday clock is that growing demand for a shrinking pool of natural resources will lead to more wars.
In that context, I understood Will B's post as an attempt to argue that conflicts over the control of resources haven't actually been important in most recent wars. I continue to maintain that this shows a very limited understanding for the multiple complex causes of these wars.
Although many of these conflicts are likely about more than the control of resources, they are all also about the control of resources at one level or another.
Given that conflicts over the control of resources are one of the causes of virtually every conflict, the proposition that shrinking resources in the face of growing demand will result in more wars is pretty much a no brainer.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
This article on the draft of the second of four documents to be released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change seems to be overly optimistic in the manner that the IPCC's "most probable" estimate of 0.3metres/1foot by the year 2100 is already being exceeded by actual sea-level rise measurements in the 17years since 1990 which show a trend of 0.9metres/3feet per century. ie If the trend found by measurement continues, what the IPCC predicts as "most probable" by 2100 will be exceeded before 2040.
Those measurements of the recent past don't take into account the ever increasing rate of CO2-increase and hence the temperature-rise expectable by 2040. Thus seawater expansion and ice-melting due to increased temperature should cause sea-level to rise even faster in the near future than current measurements indicate.
The IPCC report appears to be similarly pollyannaish on other points.
[ April 08, 2007, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
New support for the GlobalWarming-induced DoomsdayClock scenario.
quote:The Royal United Services Institute said...the world's response to the threats posed by climate change...had so far been "slow and inadequate"..."We're preparing for a car bomb, not for 9/11."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I didn't say that the Russian civil war and cold war were the same thing. I said that the motives of people who fought in the Russian revolution are the same as the motives of those who fought in other marxist revolutions include those that became part of the cold war. Ergo control of resources was a motivating factor for at least one side in all of the cold war conflicts.
Well, that would make a lot of sense if you believed the motives of the Kremlin elite were even remotely related to the motives of the peasants. Which they weren't, outside of the pages of Pravda.
Posted by LargeTuna (Member # 10512) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)