The Utility of Force

[Katarn]

I find it funny how no one even mentions syria, the country that's closer to achieving nuclear weapons than iran is. The israelis fired missiles at a meeting between nuclear physicists from North Korea INSIDE syria, killing them.

[[R-DEV]Masaq]

Originally Posted by SiN|ScarFace

What would be worth escalation to WWIII? Not oil.

No? Really? You sure about that?

Global (worldwide, total) stocks of oil peaked last year. The world has now used over 50% of the available, accessable and *cheap* oil. From now on, year upon year, there can only be LESS oil available.

Until now, OPEC have been able (to a limited degree) to offset massively increasing demand by simply raising production. They obviously keep the two ticking along closely to keep prices nicely inflated, but the principal's there.

From now on, that is no longer possible. Supply can no longer rise far beyond its current rate to stay on track with rising demand.

Which means that over the next decade, oil is going to become more and more and more expensive. It's estimated (by bodies such as the UN, the London School of Economics, and others) that globally, oil stocks will be depleted within 60 years.

We have *THAT* long to find a reliable, consistent fuel source. Until then, the last drops of the black gold will become even more precious to those that rely to heavily on them - all of us.

[WNxLT7]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8ed_1194430852

[SiN|ScarFace]

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Masaq

No? Really? You sure about that?

Global (worldwide, total) stocks of oil peaked last year. The world has now used over 50% of the available, accessable and *cheap* oil. From now on, year upon year, there can only be LESS oil available.

Until now, OPEC have been able (to a limited degree) to offset massively increasing demand by simply raising production. They obviously keep the two ticking along closely to keep prices nicely inflated, but the principal's there.

From now on, that is no longer possible. Supply can no longer rise far beyond its current rate to stay on track with rising demand.

Which means that over the next decade, oil is going to become more and more and more expensive. It's estimated (by bodies such as the UN, the London School of Economics, and others) that globally, oil stocks will be depleted within 60 years.

We have *THAT* long to find a reliable, consistent fuel source. Until then, the last drops of the black gold will become even more precious to those that rely to heavily on them - all of us.

You are saying WWIII and the death of *illions of people is worth some oil. I disagree. I know what the situation is and my statement was oil is not worth the death of *illions of people in a modern world war. But at the same time you kill that many people the demand for oil goes way down, a win win for some.

[JohnnyPissoff]

Originally Posted by WNxLT7

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8ed_1194430852

Interesting ^

About reasons and need for War, you guys are forgetting or discounting Tribalism.

Two schools of thought on that:

- Nationalists argue that nations are a natural sociological evolution. This would eventually bring about one global tribe, ending all wars. (the European Union is a good example)

- Perennialists argue that nations have been around for a very long time, though they take different shapes at different points in history. Nations by that form necessitate creation of external enemies to bond the synthetic tribal state, thus Wars will never end.

Either way we're a long way for peaceful solutions seeing we "enjoy" both schools of tribalism presently.

So I wouldn't discount either scenario you guys are describing; a total thermonuclear hailstorm or an uneasy peace leading to eventual world harmony. Hell an all-out war would most likely clean the slate by dislodging those in power that think War is a solution to peak oil. Or the; "my flag is better then yours" mindset.

[Wasteland]

I think a very likely cause for escalation to WWIII would be the following scenario: though this would result in a "hot" war, not the much more likely scenario I see, which is another cold war.

1) Iran successfully tests a nuclear weapon.

2) Israel goes ape-shit (as would be rational) and conducts a preemptive attack. Iran possibly nukes a major Israeli city.

3) Most Arab countries attack Israel, and America moves to intervene on Israel's behalf, conducting open warfare.

4) Russia has already stated that they would view an attack on Iran as an attack on themselves (very similar to the start of WWI with Iran replacing Serbia). The entry into the conflict of the USA could bring in the Russians as op for. Assuming they do,

5) Terrorist cells across the Western world activate. A state of emergency is called and police-state-like measures enacted. The Chinese engage in massive cyber-warfare, crippling many emergency services systems, power stations, and possibly military networks.

6) China invades South Korea through the North, as well as Taiwan.

7) India and Pakistan pick sides and then move to open warfare. This conflict may not go nuclear.

8) Russia resumes control of Eastern Europe and presses deep into Western Europe. Both Russia and the USA attempt to seize vital Canadian resources.

9) Wasteland, who pretty much became a survivalist at step (1) detailed above, takes his family and friends into the Rockies to conduct guerrilla operations against whomever wins step (8).

10) Wasteland is conducting a routine ambush on the far vanguard of a Russian supply column when Russian artillery responds faster than he'd expected. He is fatally wounded and unable to create any further predictions.

[The_motivator]

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Wasteland

1) Iran successfully tests a nuclear weapon.

2) Israel goes ape-shit (as would be rational) and conducts a preemptive attack. Iran possibly nukes a major Israeli city.

now... I'm not calling the iranians irrational.. but i would see it very likely that they would use a larger than necessary yield nuke on the Israeli city. The blast and effects would hit arab/muslim nations nearby... Wonder how they would react... The Palestinians would be slaughtered... if not by the nuke, by the surviving Israelis... or so I'd think.

[SiN|ScarFace]

Collateral damage.

[JohnnyPissoff]

...and Iranians aren't Arabs and historically aren't defenders of Palestinian rights as the palestinians are Sunni. Also ironically if you google the historic relationship with Iran (Persia) and the Jews you'll be surprized to see they were actually defenders of the Jewish state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Jews
I used to live with an "Persian" woman that supports this view.
صلح وصفا، سلا متي ، اشتي ، صلح ، ارامش.

[SiN|ScarFace]

Not to mention there is a large population of Jews in Iran. Persians have fought Arabs for centuries and right up to the 1980s against Saddam. People think the middle east is black and white simple when it's really one of the oldest and most complex places on the planet.