Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Protecting your Resources

  1. #1
    Kanto Kanrei Member Marshal Murat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Eye of the Hurricane (FL)
    Posts
    3,372

    Default Protecting your Resources

    As an interested .Orgah, I wanted to get the full-spectrum opinion on
    Protecting your Resources.

    I recently read a very informative book about the 'desperate scramble' for the last of the world resources (blah blah blah, that isn't what the thread is about).

    When does securing oil reserves and supplies, food, water, materials take precedence over 'sovereign national rights'?

    China currently works hundreds (thousands I think) of Africans, mining copper and ores in Southern Africa. This could be termed as
    1) Helping a struggling African nation prosper
    2) Taking advantage of poor conditions in the area, and using your full economic power to send your resources back to home base without giving anything to the locals.

    There are no doubt going to be resource issues in the future, where countries will struggle over natural resources. When does it cross over from a company outsourcing to 'imperialistic war-mongering'?

    A perfect example would be the 1st Iraq War. No one had to stop Saddam, the Saudi's could have done it (a bloody mess, but had they tried), or any other group (cough Iranians cough) but there was a global effort to secure the Kuwaiti oilfields from the greedy Saddam and secure the Saudi oil-fields. This wasn't 'imperialistic war-mongering' on either parties part. Saddam hoped to secure his countries future (and that of his people, no matter how many he killed, they were still the people) and the rest of the world wanted a stable oil supply.

    'Securing countries future refers to using any power necessary to secure materials and/or resources'
    'Future in this context should be defined having the means to provide for your people, and and have your nation be accepted as a prospering, fully-functional nation.'
    Saddam is always the 'bad guy' in this scenario, but are we the wrong-doers, preventing a nation from securing it's future?
    When does securing your countries long-term needs take precedence over laws and orders, and the accepted political status quo?
    Is securing your countries future a beneficial step, or 'imperialistic war-mongering' as your country stomps on the little guys?
    When is it acceptable to take military action for securing the safety and prosperity of your nation (present and/or long term future)?
    Last edited by Marshal Murat; 06-19-2007 at 17:27.
    "Nietzsche is dead" - God

    "I agree, although I support China I support anyone discovering things for Science and humanity." - lenin96

    Re: Pursuit of happiness
    Have you just been dumped?

    I ask because it's usually something like that which causes outbursts like this, needless to say I dissagree completely.

  2. #2
    Filthy Rich Member Odin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Just West of Boston
    Posts
    1,973

    Default Re: Protecting your Resources

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
    Saddam is always the 'bad guy' in this scenario, but are we the wrong-doers, preventing a nation from securing it's future?
    thats a twist I havent heard yet, bravo I thought I had heard it all in the backroom.


    When does securing your countries future take precedence over laws and orders, and the accepted status quo?
    This question has a lot of ambaquity built in and as such seems a trap. That said what future? the immediate? mid term? Long Term? What laws would be cast aside? Who's status quo?


    Is securing your countries future a beneficial step, or 'imperialistic war-mongering' as your country stomps on the little guys?
    It depends if your the little guy or the big guy, the answer is self evident.

    When is it acceptable to take military action for securing for your needs (present or future)?
    [/QUOTE]

    Again, "needs" is subjective and concensus on what one country or person needs as opposed to another is like a conversation of what came first the chicken or the egg, with a back drop of a dog chasing its tail.

    I understand the point of your post, its a good discussion to have because the future holds a lot of uncertainty as to what nations will require to ensure thier prosperity. But your questions seem far to unspecific. If this were a discussion about the U.S. need for oil security exclusively and whats justified, or china's need for materials that might work but in the broad context of the the global community your going to have a 100 different answers.

    Not here in the backroom though, you can rest assured the course this topic will take, so I encourage you to take a position on the questions you asked, with modern example and lets hash it out.

    There are few things more annoying than some idiot who has never done anything trying to say definitively how something should be done.

    Sua Sponte

  3. #3
    Kanto Kanrei Member Marshal Murat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Eye of the Hurricane (FL)
    Posts
    3,372

    Default Re: Protecting your Resources

    If there was a global oil-shortage.
    A petroleum-consuming bacteria that gives off rose-smelling waste consumes the world's current oil supply before scientist managed to annihilate it, would it be acceptable if your country began an aggressive foreign policy, expanding your boundaries to include several sites of oil-drilling interest, sending troops to secure oil prospects in the Caspian Sea region.

    Would you support this for the welfare of your nation and peoples?
    "Nietzsche is dead" - God

    "I agree, although I support China I support anyone discovering things for Science and humanity." - lenin96

    Re: Pursuit of happiness
    Have you just been dumped?

    I ask because it's usually something like that which causes outbursts like this, needless to say I dissagree completely.

  4. #4
    Filthy Rich Member Odin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Just West of Boston
    Posts
    1,973

    Default Re: Protecting your Resources

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
    If there was a global oil-shortage.
    A petroleum-consuming bacteria that gives off rose-smelling waste consumes the world's current oil supply before scientist managed to annihilate it, would it be acceptable if your country began an aggressive foreign policy, expanding your boundaries to include several sites of oil-drilling interest, sending troops to secure oil prospects in the Caspian Sea region.

    Would you support this for the welfare of your nation and peoples?
    Good question.

    Yes I would support it, it wouldnt be my first choice or my second but if it was the only alternative yep you bet. Under these conditions I suspect global war would ensue, but that aside, if its a matter of survival where there are no other options (alternative fuels etc) yep, kill em all.
    There are few things more annoying than some idiot who has never done anything trying to say definitively how something should be done.

    Sua Sponte

  5. #5
    The Black Senior Member Papewaio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    15,670

    Default Re: Protecting your Resources

    Do we need oil to survive? Really?

    What is the oldest developed oil field?

    IMDHO it might mean a lot of us have to hoof it or god forbid catch public transport... like an electric train powered by hydroelectic/sun/tidal/fission powerplants and probably get rid of all the air conditioners (not a nice thought on a train)... not just the ACs on the trains but ones on homes...
    But I don't think ease of life is the same as survival.

    That and the ability to project force. IFF oil is the only viable resource and it is diminishing to the point that force is required to secure it the return on the oil would have to be massive considering the amount of oil used to get equipment into the field and fight a battle and secure the oil in the long term. Doesn't take much for an oil line to corrode or be damaged on purpose. So return on investment would diminish rather quickly... particularly as troops might figure out that the best way to get maximum returns on the oil is to keep the troops in the field for longer and longer tours as flights home would become prohibative...
    Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
    Pape for global overlord!!
    Quote Originally Posted by English assassin
    Squid sources report that scientists taste "sort of like chicken"
    Quote Originally Posted by frogbeastegg View Post
    The rest is either as average as advertised or, in the case of the missionary, disappointing.

  6. #6
    Filthy Rich Member Odin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Just West of Boston
    Posts
    1,973

    Default Re: Protecting your Resources

    Quote Originally Posted by Papewaio
    Do we need oil to survive? Really?

    What is the oldest developed oil field?

    IMDHO it might mean a lot of us have to hoof it or god forbid catch public transport... like an electric train powered by hydroelectic/sun/tidal/fission powerplants and probably get rid of all the air conditioners (not a nice thought on a train)... not just the ACs on the trains but ones on homes...
    But I don't think ease of life is the same as survival.

    That and the ability to project force. IFF oil is the only viable resource and it is diminishing to the point that force is required to secure it the return on the oil would have to be massive considering the amount of oil used to get equipment into the field and fight a battle and secure the oil in the long term. Doesn't take much for an oil line to corrode or be damaged on purpose. So return on investment would diminish rather quickly... particularly as troops might figure out that the best way to get maximum returns on the oil is to keep the troops in the field for longer and longer tours as flights home would become prohibative...
    Yes this is a valid position, I personally would prefer to rid ourselves of oil consumption. I think Marshal is just trying to get at thoughts behind offensive war to support domestic need, and the variables you propose really arent in the equation.

    I think he is getting at the morallity of it, because its fairly straight forward what most people would do when given the "if i have to choose between me or them" argument.
    There are few things more annoying than some idiot who has never done anything trying to say definitively how something should be done.

    Sua Sponte

  7. #7
    The Black Senior Member Papewaio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    15,670

    Default Re: Protecting your Resources

    If one choses to see life as a win-loss scenario that would be the outcome.

    I'm more in the cooperative outsourcing partnership sphere, so win-win or no deal is where I try and operate. Emphasis on try...
    Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
    Pape for global overlord!!
    Quote Originally Posted by English assassin
    Squid sources report that scientists taste "sort of like chicken"
    Quote Originally Posted by frogbeastegg View Post
    The rest is either as average as advertised or, in the case of the missionary, disappointing.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO