Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Will America be caught with her pants down with no working alternative energy supply as China consumes ever more oil? Will war over oil be a possible outcome?
"If you want to know which way the global wind is blowing (or the sun shining or the coal burning), watch China. That’s the news for our energy future and for the future of great-power politics on planet Earth. Washington is already watching -- with anxiety.
Rarely has a simple press interview said more about the global power shifts taking place in our world. On July 20th, the chief economist of the International Energy Agency (IEA), Fatih Birol, told the Wall Street Journal that China had overtaken the United States to become the world’s number one energy consumer. One can read this development in many ways: as evidence of China’s continuing industrial prowess, of the lingering recession in the United States, of the growing popularity of automobiles in China, even of America’s superior energy efficiency as compared to that of China. All of these observations are valid, but all miss the main point: by becoming the world’s leading energy consumer, China will also become an ever more dominant international actor and so set the pace in shaping our global future."
Will America be caught with her pants down with no working alternative energy supply as China consumes ever more oil? Will war over oil be a possible outcome?
Why do you think the US is in Iraq and Afghanistan?
I've only been discussing this a few years, since 1997. Go read the "white papers" (published and unpublished papers presented at foreign policy and strategy symposiums and professional journals) since 1976.
The end goal is the resource rich eastern Russian republics (which are full of oil, natural gas, coal, timber, metal ores and minerals yet to even be explored).
To get that, the US has to Serbicize Russia, and to do that the US needs control of Central Asia.
In order to control Central Asia, the US has to control Iran/Afghanistan and to control that the US needs forward operating bases in Iraq and in the Black Sea Region (which they now have with military bases in Bulgaria and Romania).
Maybe one day y'all will figure it out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antlered Chamataka
Nostradamus, the US is already working towards alternate fuel. Did you get the memo?
Less than 3% of oil is used for electrical energy in the US (and all of that is in Hawaii which uses oil powered electric generation from California Heavy and Prudhoe Bay Heavy).
You can build all the windmills you want, but it won't solve your dependence on foreign oil.
Now, if you're willing to give up your life-style and go back to something like in the mid-1970s, then you wouldn't need foreign oil.
However, something tells me you lack the intestinal fortitude and courage to simply just walk away from all the pharmaceutical drugs that have come on the market since 1994 courtesy of foreign imported light crude oil.
Also something tells me you wouldn't care for the rather dull color of your clothing with all that foreign imported light oil used in the dyes to get all of those rich luxuriant colors (and sorry but windmills just don't provide any petro-chemical stocks).
And how would you eat? I mean if you can't microwave something then you'd have to actually cook real food, instead of the foreign imported light oil laden goo you call food that's sitting in the frozen food section.
The only reason you eat that stuff is because of the artificial colorings and artificial flavorings and artificial preservatives all made from foreign imported light oil, like Bonny Light (Nigeria), Arabian Light (Saudi Arabia) and of course the dreaded Tia Juana Light (from those bastards in Venezuela).
Unless the US is willing to eventually surrender both total political and economic control of this country to China--and I don't think that the people of the US would stand for that anymore than they would have stood for surrendering such control to the Axis powers before World War II--then I think we are very likely headed for a Third World War, with China as our adversary. Like the last one, WWIII will be fought over access to natural resources, oil being at the top of the list. Unlike WWII, the US will not have the advantage of massive natural resource reserves of its own upon which to rely, nor will it have the manufacturing base to support a protracted conventional war. So, the US's only strategic alternative to win a war with China will be the massive use of this country's nuclear weapons--and they will have to be used unmercifully to destroy both as much of China's manufacturing capability as possible, and to kill as many of its citizens as possible. There is no other way that the US could win such a confrontation.
The one big question is what countries will ally with which in that coming conflict. A lot of supposed US allies could defect to China' side if they sense that China is the stronger adversary. Hell, it wouldn't surprise me to see even neighboring Mexico swing over to China if they thought China offered a better economic future than would allying with the United States.
It's all a very scary thought, but no one should be deluded that China's ultimate ambitions are anything less than control of all necessary natural resources to insure their continued growth and prosperity.
The storm clouds of the next World War are gathering and the signs are as obvious to see now as they were before the last World War, when the Axis powers began their conquests of resources they needed for their economic and war machines. The fact that we are trading with China (and giving them access to some of most precious industrial and military secrets and technology in the process) should fool no one. Remember, up until the brink of World War II, we were selling all kinds of scrap iron to the Japanese--only to having it ripping through our ships, our airplanes, and our men a few months later.
Unless the US is willing to eventually surrender both total political and economic control of this country to China--and I don't think that the people of the US would stand for that anymore than they would have stood for surrendering such control to the Axis powers before World War II--then I think we are very likely headed for a Third World War, with China as our adversary. Like the last one, WWIII will be fought over access to natural resources, oil being at the top of the list. Unlike WWII, the US will not have the advantage of massive natural resource reserves of its own upon which to rely, nor will it have the manufacturing base to support a protracted conventional war. So, the US's only strategic alternative to win a war with China will be the massive use of this country's nuclear weapons--and they will have to be used unmercifully to destroy both as much of China's manufacturing capability as possible, and to kill as many of its citizens as possible. There is no other way that the US could win such a confrontation.
Whoever used nuclear weapons first would instantly lose the war as the entire world will oppose the first strike.
Barring nuclear weapons, the US would lose a total war with the modern China. China before WWII wasn't even a single country (think Ottoman Empire), the Chinese spoke dozens of separate languages and couldn't even understand each other. The average life expectancy in China before WWII was 37 years old and 90% of the population were illiterate. The Japanese, being the first Asian nation to modernize, was able to take advantage of China's sorry situation then. But today? China is highly nationalistic with four times the population of the US, has 99% literacy among its youth, massive industrial infrastructure and legions of underemployed engineers looking for a break. To poke China would be the equivalent of the Japanese poking a much bigger America in Pearl Harbor. It's asking for an asswhuppin' of epic proportions.
The only solution is to mutually cooperate and let the free market dictate oil prices.
The only solution is to mutually cooperate and let the free market dictate oil prices.
Ah, yes, nothing like the Neville Chamberlain method of foreign relations--that would be the one what worked so well against Hitler (sarcasm).
There is going to be no mutual cooperation with China. We are already at war with them--we just haven't figured it out yet. The Chinese are already working to take us over. Consider this:
First, we are buying billions upon billions of dollars of goods from China, while dismantling our own productive capability, not to mention transferring much of our critical industrial and military technology to them.
They are then lending a lot of the money back to us, effectively gaining more and more control over both our government and our economy. Eventually, they will be able to call any tune they like in the United States.
Finally, China also is using a lot of the wealth we are transferring to them to either use up or to gain control of the natural resources critical to our survival.
What the United States is currently doing is effectively ceding control of our own country and its destiny to a ruthless, brutal dictatorship without that country, China, even having to fire a shot--the Chinese government has got to be absolutely loving that.
If you want something to keep you awake at night, ask yourself what would happen if our current completely corrupt, incompetent, and clueless President and Congress (not to mention the largely apathetic and ill-informed US population) would do if faced with the decision to either surrender entire control of the United States to China or to enter an all-out war (including the "nuclear option") to prevent that. On our present course, we will likely face that choice in a decade or less, in my opinion.
Ah, yes, nothing like the Neville Chamberlain method of foreign relations--that would be the one what worked so well against Hitler (sarcasm).
There is going to be no mutual cooperation with China. We are already at war with them--we just haven't figured it out yet. The Chinese are already working to take us over. Consider this:
First, we are buying billions upon billions of dollars of goods from China, while dismantling our own productive capability, not to mention transferring much of our critical industrial and military technology to them.
They are then lending a lot of the money back to us, effectively gaining more and more control over both our government and our economy. Eventually, they will be able to call any tune they like in the United States.
Finally, China also is using a lot of the wealth we are transferring to them to either use up or to gain control of the natural resources critical to our survival.
What the United States is currently doing is effectively ceding control of our own country and its destiny to a ruthless, brutal dictatorship without that country, China, even having to fire a shot--the Chinese government has got to be absolutely loving that.
If you want something to keep you awake at night, ask yourself what would happen if our current completely corrupt, incompetent, and clueless President and Congress (not to mention the largely apathetic and ill-informed US population) would do if faced with the decision to either surrender entire control of the United States to China or to enter an all-out war (including the "nuclear option") to prevent that. On our present course, we will likely face that choice in a decade or less, in my opinion.
You've been reading way too much Tom Clancy. The Chinese haven't been in a war since 1978 (against the Vietnamese, a war that was clandestinely supported by the US). A country of mostly only-childs is not going to go into war for an unjust and unprovoked cause. Coincidentally the only-child policy started in 1978.
If you are worried about "ceding control" and sovereignty, you ought to be more concerned about the demographic invasion of Mexicans from south of the border.
It's true that someday China will surpass America without firing a shot, but most of the blame should be directed to complacent American citizens, not the Chinese for aspiring to a better life.
You've been reading way too much Tom Clancy. The Chinese haven't been in a war since 1978 (against the Vietnamese, a war that was clandestinely supported by the US). A country of mostly only-childs is not going to go into war for an unjust and unprovoked cause. Coincidentally the only-child policy started in 1978.
If you are worried about "ceding control" and sovereignty, you ought to be more concerned about the demographic invasion of Mexicans from south of the border.
It's true that someday China will surpass America without firing a shot, but most of the blame should be directed to complacent American citizens, not the Chinese for aspiring to a better life.
You just made my case with the last sentence. When Chinese's "desire for a better life" demands that they lay claim to diminishing resources that the US desperately needs just to maintain its own material lifestyle, then the stage will be set for that inevitable conflict, whether it involves all-out war or not. Either way, there will be a winner and a loser.
As to Mexico, the invasion of illegal aliens into the US from there is only going exacerbate the problem of too many people competing for too few resources--it only increases the US dependence on foreign natural resources that the US and China will have to compete over. As for Mexico itself, it has already begun leaning more toward China in the last few years.
You are right about Americans being complacent. We need to wake up and recognize that we have very real threats to our national security, well-being, and survivability lurking out there. The world is a very dangerous place, probably more so than any time since the darkest days of the Cold War.
Whether we like it or not just the fact that we have become a consumer of oil and less and less a prodcuers means that we will be exporting more and more of our wealth. Demand isn;t the porblem really has it not gwoing that much domestically any more evn i a noraml economy.China and inida will be thr drivers of energy cost as well as otehr comodies with their growing demand that far out stripes any other counties. We will just pay the cost for decades to come.Even with teh alternatives being driven all fail to veen approch 1% o their own of energy needed. Its likely that we will first go to natural gas and coal as enrgy becomes more and more costly to import and the cost of exporting wealth to get it. At the same time this administration is shutting down oil production in the deep Gulf. But at the same time they are supporting it i the same area by loans to mexico and brizil in even deepr waters.That just exports more welth to other countires as well as jobs of blue collar workers to support the demands of their energy special interest groups.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
