Is dying for oil the right thing to do?

[Disturbed]

Amerika needs oil. The U.S. troops in Iraq and Afganistan are dying and
getting maimed for the cause. Is that a good enough reason instead of the
"spreading freedom" lie?

[BlueEyedSon]

1. I would rather our gubmint assemble an army ready to die for

WORKABLE, ABUNDANT SOLAR ENERGY

[Radio_Rick]

3. Check out Goodstein's book "Out of Gas"

There is only a finite anount of UV (the band gap of the photodiodes in photovoltaic cells) -- we will be going nuclear as "Peak Oil" bites. This is only the geological begining.

[BlueEyedSon]

4. BTW, "solar" includes wind & hydro

you should check out the solar chimney in Australia which runs on IR.
I guess i should add tidal to solar

[Radio_Rick]

8. Some academicians in Michigan -

with a Siemens contract - also built one.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

2. No, it's wrong and can NEVER be justified!

[Disturbed]

5. Aren't the troops dying and getting maimed

for the survival of Amerika?

Seems to me that this reality should be thought through.

[CindyDale]

6. If it were the right thing to do, Bush would have said

"We are invading Iraq for money: oil, arms and other industries. We will make it up to the Iraqis, though."

Obviously, it is not the right thing to do.

[Strelnikov_]

7. No. And Here’s Why By The Numbers

$1 B/week In Iraq / 7 = $142.8 M/dy US oil imports ~ 10.8 M bar/dy

Therefore, $13.2/bar being spent on Iraq alone, to secure oil supplies from one country, in a (so far) losing cause.

Alternately, we could be getting a good head start on energy self sufficiency. Also, we would simply be fighting over something that will be running out in 20-40 years anyway.

What could we buy for our $300 B spent on the ‘Catastrophic Success’ so far?

U.S. Energy Consumption by Source

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0103.html

2000 data, all in Quadrillion Btu (Quads)

.....................Quads...% Total
Coal.................22.65....23.1
Natural Gas (Dry)....23.92....24.1
Petroleum............38.40....38.8
Nuclear Electric......7.86.....7.9..103 plants
Renewable.............6.16.....6.2
......................====....====
.....................98.99...100.0

For nuclear, to replace the energy from petroleum (would have to be converted to a carrier for transportation), we would need 503 addl. plants to replace the 38.40 Quads of petroleum based energy. In the 70’s, I seem to remember then costing $1-2 B, so let’s say $4 B/ea. Therefore, we would need $ 2,012 B (I recognize that next gen nuclear plants would be smaller than the current high pressure water plants of today, but for the purpose of exercise, it should get us in the ballpark).

How about wind? Per Heinberg, wind power potential in the US is 60 Quads. Let’s say we install 24 Quads of wind power to replace the 23.9 Quads of natural gas. This would require 667,000 turbines at $600,000/turbine, or $400 B. For wind, lets throw in $150 B of pumped hydro to store the wind power.

Also, we probably need to figure in $300 B in power grid improvements.

So, from the above, we spend $2,012 B + $ 400 B + $150 B + $ 300 B = $2,862 B to build the energy generation capacity to replace the energy from petroleum and natural gas.

So for $300 B, we could replace 10% of our petroleum and natural gas energy, or 30% of our imported petroleum energy. Not a bad start.

And Boosh wants to spend $2,000 B to ‘reform’ social security over the next 10 years.

How’s that for leadership.

Maybe we should just free the top petroleum producing country in 2002 from the tyrants that currently run it.

[leesa]

9. So stealing other people's resources is A-OK with you?

I don't get it.

If I need your wallet is it then OK to shoot you and steal it?

[wuushew]

10. Actually the whole concept of "vital American interests" is bullshit

Current American foreign policy is essentially the Texan you can shoot a burglar to defend your property approach. The problem is two fold. Firstly we don't own any of those resources we seem to feel entitled to and secondly the value of a human life is infinite and exceeds and any amount of oil.

A simple demonstration of rhetorical logic shows that in large part American foreign policy weighs bodies vs. money. Take any given two conflicts, say Iraq vs. Darfur or perhaps the Balkans vs. any other given African crisis. If one was to accept the naive notion that Amerika is a benign global cop then our mission should clearly be using our power(which can be projected anywhere on Earth) to maximize the utilitarian benefit to the victims. Hypothetically a tie of two equal disasters could be broken by the economic gains of each situation. The fact that the United States has never done this shows the degree to which material wealth counteracts genuine humanitarian needs.

Its certainly interesting to observe the great admiration Americans feel being charitable with force while at the same time being the stingiest per capita donors of foreign aid among developed nations. Given that such aid solves such problems as disease, terrorism and civil strife far more effectively than any other use of money one can only come to the conclusion that the Amerikan psyche and body politic suffers from severe psychological problems. That and such uses are not profitable for defense contractors, their lobbyists and the swine at the trough.


The United States needs to return to era of isolationism in the spirit of Washington's Farewell Address. World War Two was the last the of wars fought over resources and blatant colonialism. In the succeeding years the integration of world markets has generally meant that the repercussions of military action are outweighed by the negative economic and political effects of being a pariah. Wars will always be fought over religion and ethnic strife, but the era of powerful nation states butting heads is over. There is no threat in China where some see one.

We within our own continent have all the resources necessary for a viable economy. Iron ore still exists with great abundance in Minnesota. Bauxite needed for aluminum production can be found in Arkansas. Coal and Uranium exist in sizable quantities, and the remaining metallic ores necessary for industry can be obtained from our normally good friend Canada. With rationing our transportation infrastructure could run off of synthetic and bio-fuels.

The amount of energy that falls on a single acre of crop land in the tropics at noon is about a 1,000 kw, enough for a city of a million inhabitants. To say that America "needs" foreign oil is a blatant lie. Who needs it are corrupt crony capitalists who will stop at nothing to prevent needed radical and redistristrubtionist policies from being enacted at home.

To many our current goals are possible and desirable because our polices affect OTHER people not ourselves. Primitive group thinking always has made it easier to do unethical actions to those who do not share your culture or language. This is not helped by the fact that the media is complicit with other business interests and no longer capable of doing its job. Amerika has done similar things in the past and will continue to do so in the future. The only salvation as economically detrimental as it may be is the onset of peak oil.


/rant