The Resources War

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

Wars have been fought over many things, but generally, territory, power, money, revenge or religion.

Forget about all of that, the next cause of major wars will be resources, natural resources. As the world population grows and the finite available resources decline, the most powerful nations will seek their own preservation in any way they can.

With luck, that may be finding replacements to what we call natural resources, but in the absence of that what will be the alternative?

Russia is flush with natural gas and coal, the U.S. with coal and some natural gas, China needs more and more, Europe is dependent, India who knows. Some small countries hold a good hand a the moment, some friendly to the US, others not so much.

The conditions are developing for a global crisis based on the ever growing appetite for all the stuff that makes things work.

[Bryn Mawr]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;984533 wrote: Wars have been fought over many things, but generally, territory, power, money, revenge or religion.

Forget about all of that, the next cause of major wars will be resources, natural resources. As the world population grows and the finite available resources decline, the most powerful nations will seek their own preservation in any way they can.

With luck, that may be finding replacements to what we call natural resources, but in the absence of that what will be the alternative?

Russia is flush with natural gas and coal, the U.S. with coal and some natural gas, China needs more and more, Europe is dependent, India who knows. Some small countries hold a good hand a the moment, some friendly to the US, others not so much.

The conditions are developing for a global crisis based on the ever growing appetite for all the stuff that makes things work.


Fresh water is likely to be high on the list.

[gmc]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;984533 wrote: Wars have been fought over many things, but generally, territory, power, money, revenge or religion.

Forget about all of that, the next cause of major wars will be resources, natural resources. As the world population grows and the finite available resources decline, the most powerful nations will seek their own preservation in any way they can.

With luck, that may be finding replacements to what we call natural resources, but in the absence of that what will be the alternative?

Russia is flush with natural gas and coal, the U.S. with coal and some natural gas, China needs more and more, Europe is dependent, India who knows. Some small countries hold a good hand a the moment, some friendly to the US, others not so much.

The conditions are developing for a global crisis based on the ever growing appetite for all the stuff that makes things work.


It's always been about resources and control of them. Economics is just warfare without the bullets. Economic factors have been at the heart of just about every conflict in history right from the first cave man clubbing someone to get their food for himself or one tribe dislodging another from their hunting grounds or rome and carthage squabbling about trade. Wars over territory are about resources, religion has been used as excuse since constantine grabbed it as a way to manipulate people.

As the world population grows and the finite available resources decline, the most powerful nations will seek their own preservation in any way they can.


The only way they can is warfare, or is it? only if we let our leaders get away with it. The running out of oil is not a big surprise, neither is the coming shortage of water in the states and elsewhere.

The conditions are developing for a global crisis based on the ever growing appetite for all the stuff that makes things work.


I would agree with you and we either find peaceful means to solve these things or we are all up **** creek.

[gmc]

Scrat;984831 wrote: If I may I'd like to inject into this thread just who the major powers will be. My list is going to be China, Russia, America, Brazil and India. I don't know about Europe though, what do you think? Where is Europes place in this?


Good question. I don't have a short answer though. We'll still be there though. Our economies are still big enough to matter and don't forget to factor in the former eastern bloc countries in to it they are going to become stronger as well, Peace in europe is the exception in our history when push comes to shove europeans are very warlike if they want to be. In common with russia we share an experience of total war america has never known and while that was three generation ago it's still in our memory. People confuse a preference for not going to war with the inability to do so. Russia has more to gain by being at peace than going to war, we don't really need to provoke them with daft missiles in Poland. The bulk of UK trade is with europe and perhaps recent events will make those who think we can survive on our own economically think again. The EU will grow stronger but not the paneuropean government critics worry about. You live in europe (Ihink)have you ever met a european that wasn't nationalistic?

I reckon India and Pakistan will come to blows especially if pakistan goes to the fundamentalist camp. Economically india willl be the stronger. China and Russia will watch each other. I think the days of open warfare between them are past.

The assumption that the old aggressions will rise to the fore is a false one IMO. I think Russia was quite restrained in georgia, realistically if they just rolled it over no one could stop them and I don't think they refrained from doing so because they were afraid of the west.

You can almost see george orwell's prediction of three power blocs, oceania, (and I can't remember the other two and I'm too lazy to look it up)

[gmc]

posted by scrat

England is like America, fearing potential irrelevance in the whole thing. Both Britain and America are taking very contrarian stands to anything between Russia and Europe, trying to get in between and playing the spoiler. Why put the missile shield in Europe? To impede the relationship of Russia and Europe.


Ouch, :-5 please remember britain and england are not synonymous. It's like me calling a texan a yank.

I think you read too much in to this trying to impede the ralationship of russia and the eu. The americans might have a vested interest is blocking it but the UK doesn't. Unfortunately in the UK politicians hang on to this daft illusion that we are still a world superpower and the "special" relationship with the US actually means something to the US. Maybe all the recent turmoil will discredit that viewpoint and we can stop being so linked to the US. If the london stock market loses it's dominant position to zurich or somewhere a major chunk of our economy is screwed. Having a service economy is all very well but we built it up on the back of being an industrial powerhouse, banking and the like are always going to be symbiotic/parasitical in a way, we need them but they are not the host and if you give let them have too much their own way they destroy the host. (I just made that analogy up but I rather like it). I think you read too much in to the siting of the missiles in Poland. I think it's just Bush is an idiot that thinks the cold war posturing is the thing to do.

Our next election will be interesting to put it mildly. People are thoroughly pissed off with our politicians.

Ukraine and the Baltics? They are players but I do not think they are relevant, I do not think Ukraine will survive as a nation, it will split and there is a possible likelyhood of a very bloody civil war. The country will be split along the Dneiper and Kiev will not be a European city. Balarus? It is Russian in all but name and will probably be a rather large military base for missiles and some of those large cannons the Russian have in museums now. The one shot long range suckers that can lob a RA shell 100 plus miles.


Ukraine has the potential to be an economic powerhouse and the baltic ports have always been vital for trade. I will bow to your superior knowledge of the ukraine, I don't know enough to comment.

[gmc]

Scrat;986638 wrote: What is the difference? I'm ignernt in this.



I really believe that the UK and the USA does want to interfer as much as possible, look at the attiudes of the administrations. You can't miss it, Russia is the most evil country in the world. There is stuff going on in the Caucasus I hear rumors of that say nothing else. Divide and conquer, everybody knows who is behind it.


You may be right about the administrations, certainly the US one-not so sure about the UK, TB was an idiot that wanted to buddy up to gw, GB doesn't know what he's doing. But most people in this country IMO aren't buying this idea that we need to worry about russia exerting itself in the old way. Depends who you talk to of course but mostly of you bring up the war in Iraq people start getting angry about our involvement, even those who fell for it initially realise we were suckered.

What is the difference? I'm ignernt in this.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom

Basically the UK is four nations, england, wales, Northern ireland and Scotland. Great Britain is the name of the island we live on,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain

Great Britain" is the eastern island of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Politically, "Great Britain" describes the combination of England, Scotland, and Wales, and therefore also includes a number of outlying islands such as the Isle of Wight, Anglesey, the Isles of Scilly, the Hebrides, and the island groups of Orkney and Shetland, but does not include other outlying islands such as the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands.[citation needed]

Great Britain evolved politically into a union of England and Scotland from a personal union in 1603 with the Union of Crowns under James VI of Scotland, I of England. The political union that merged the two countries happened with the Acts of Union in 1707 which merged the parliaments of each nation and thus resulted in the formation of the Kingdom of Great Britain, which covered the entire island.

In turn, in 1801, an Act of Union between Great Britain and Ireland created the larger United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (UK). The UK became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1922 following the independence of five-sixths of Ireland as the Irish Free State.




Being scots it annoys (well not much really we are used to it so don't take me too seriously as you didn't actually cause any offence) when people talk about england when they mean the UK. We have a separate and very distinct legal and education systems and different attitudes about many things. We're all british but the only ones who have any claim to be descended from the original british are the welsh who got shoved in to a tiny corner of the place. I'm part celt, part viking and maybe a wee bit of pict in there somewhere, who knows.

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

The only way they can is warfare, or is it? only if we let our leaders get away with it. The running out of oil is not a big surprise, neither is the coming shortage of water in the states and elsewhere.


I'd sure like to hear a viable alternative. I know marching in the streets is not it, unless we can find a way for people in ALL countries to march at the same time and not just in the free countries of the world.

Humans have the ability to be logical, but we sure don't see to be able to use that very well do we? Or, perhaps that is all that we use.

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

gmc;985608 wrote: Good question. I don't have a short answer though. We'll still be there though. Our economies are still big enough to matter and don't forget to factor in the former eastern bloc countries in to it they are going to become stronger as well, Peace in europe is the exception in our history when push comes to shove europeans are very warlike if they want to be. In common with russia we share an experience of total war america has never known and while that was three generation ago it's still in our memory. People confuse a preference for not going to war with the inability to do so. Russia has more to gain by being at peace than going to war, we don't really need to provoke them with daft missiles in Poland. The bulk of UK trade is with europe and perhaps recent events will make those who think we can survive on our own economically think again. The EU will grow stronger but not the paneuropean government critics worry about. You live in europe (Ihink)have you ever met a european that wasn't nationalistic?

I reckon India and Pakistan will come to blows especially if pakistan goes to the fundamentalist camp. Economically india willl be the stronger. China and Russia will watch each other. I think the days of open warfare between them are past.

The assumption that the old aggressions will rise to the fore is a false one IMO. I think Russia was quite restrained in georgia, realistically if they just rolled it over no one could stop them and I don't think they refrained from doing so because they were afraid of the west.

You can almost see george orwell's prediction of three power blocs, oceania, (and I can't remember the other two and I'm too lazy to look it up)


Good points all, but don't you have to look at who needs what and who is most likely to be able to make changes in that dependency? The EU needs Russian natural gas right? The US needs oil mainly, but other raw materials as well. China needs lots of both and I don't know about India. Russia needs money and has not at least yet been able to effectively leverage the resources it has, but there is potential no doubt.

So it seems to me that who either is able to find alternatives or gets desperate because of shortages will blink.

Just to show you what some people think, the globe here was given to Hitler by Mussolini. It only has four countries on it Germany, Italy, Spain and Japan. I guess anything is possible.