The next World War: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » Science » The next World War » The next World War

The next World War
Russia, China, USA, Britain, etc.

The next World War

Onyx
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 24, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 7

Posted 09/24/07 - 09:20 PM: Subject: The next World War	#1
First and foremost, my theory of the Final World War is derived from the Discovery Channel's episode of "2057". If you do not feel like reading the detailed post, scroll down to the bottom of the page and read the CliffNotes My Theory: I believe that the next world war will take place in the next 50 years and include a power struggle between supernations to dominate much of the energy resources in the world. Let me explain. The US, as well as the rest of the world, is addicted to oil (there is no doubt about it, we've seen, and are currently seeing wars based around oil). Also note, that China is rapidly growing, so fast that in 50 years, Therefore, China will have to produce 2 mid-sized energy plants a week to keep up with the country's energy demand (information extracted from the documentary "2057"). With such a high demand in China for energy resources, China will aggressively invade Russia and take hold of Russia's oil plants. American and British intervention will soon follow in favor for the Russians. With all the supernations are engaged in a war, casualties will be astronomical. The use of nuclear weapons may also be implemented by either side due to the severity/rarity of energy supplies in 50 years. As time goes on, and casualties pile up, the Americans and British will slowly beat back the Chinese and protect the Russians. In response for the American and British sacrafices, the two nations will claim territory in the war-torn Russia. With a depleted army, Russia will not be able to continue fighting and will have to submit to both America and Britain. From there on, there is a possibility that, as resources continue to further decrease, Britain and America will become enemies and possibly destroy each other so much that there will be an open throne for a new super power. That is the end of my theory. CLIFF NOTES: Russia, America, Britain vs. China in energy/power struggle. America and Britain claim rights to wartorn Russia for defending it, which in turn will create another power/energy struggle between the supernations. Both countries will once again suffer huge loses which will, in turn, decrease the power of both nations, leaving room for a new supernation to arise

Onyx
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 24, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 7

Posted 09/24/07 - 09:22 PM:	#2
btw, I figured this might be under the science section because it deals with energy and fuel consumption. If the admins deem this as a more political-based theory, feel free to move the thread to the politics section. Thank you

perseus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 516

Posted 09/29/07 - 01:58 PM:	#3
The problem that I can see with this theory is that all these countries have access to vast energy resources. Everyone assumes energy is going to suddenly run out, it isn't. Liquid petroleum products will gradually become more expensive until it becomes economical to refine petroleum from oil shale or coal of which the US and China have vast resources. That is what Germany and South Africa did when they were cut of from the outside world. There are also other sources of hydrocarbons from the Methane hydrates on the sea floor, virtually enough to cook the planet. A more probable conflict is if the effects of global warming become as dire as the worst estimates, how do we get countries to cooperate and stop burning coal and cutting down forests? Should the countries who cooperate impose an embargo or tariff on imports from those that don't ? Would this work, perhaps they could trade in isolation. If countries still pump out greenhouse gases perhaps they should be forced to stop, but how? Would an armed conflict make things worse? Interestingly Russia and Canada have got most to gain from global warming and they have access to substantial resources of energy. "About 643 million people, or one-tenth of the world’s population, who live in low lying coastal areas are at great risk of oceans-related impacts of climate change...The 10 countries with the largest number of people living in this vulnerable, low-elevation zone, include in descending order: China, India, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Indonesia, Japan, Egypt, the United States, Thailand and the Philippines." http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/03/28/15...
_____________________ The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

Onyx
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 24, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 7

Posted 09/30/07 - 09:41 AM:	#4
I see your point about the increasing expense of oil. However, it is cheaper to continue to use oil then switch over to alternative fuels right now (I heard this statement from Exxons CEO a few months ago, I dont have the link so forgive me). Plus, the companies who dominate the energy market (i.e Oil companies) will use up all the oil to their advantage before they look elsewhere. The only companies that will most likely serve alternative fuels are the current major oil companies, so why would they undermine themselves by offering cheaper alternatives? I guess the point that I am trying to make is that Oil companies will most likely be the future of alternative fuel companies, however, they are going to milk the earth dry of every last drop of expensive oil first before they offer cheaper alternative fuels.

perseus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 516

Posted 10/03/07 - 01:15 PM:	#5
Onyx, you may be interested in this link about the oil peak. http://www.ukwatch.net/article/oil_on_the_slide This mentions the possibility of coal to oil technology, but uses the GW argument against this, which doesn't exactly address the point which I make. What if a big state such as China, India or the US just aren't bothered about GW? It seems the carbon capture route for coal based plants is the most likely route. I doubt if the 15-20 year development gap is seriously problematic. The price of oil will simply increase in the meantime as they extract the presently uneconomic oil from the wells. In fact CO2 sequestration can actually aid extraction if it is pumped down a well. However, they do need to build plants that can be easily retrofitted with CO2 capture technology on sites near suitable mineral deposits or used coal, oil and gas fields that can potentially sequester the CO2. This is perhaps the most important practical decision politicians can make for the time being. Edited by perseus on 10/03/07 - 03:27 PM. Reason: grammar
_____________________ The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

Chops
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2005
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 108

Posted 10/03/07 - 01:37 PM:	#6
We should also remember that, while the Oil companies dominate the energy market, they no longer have a monopoly on information relevant to the development of alternative energy sources. Governments, the Academy, Venture Capitalists trying to invent a new market to dominate... there are groups out there that have a stake in developing alternatives to oil and since communication now offers the means for broader collaborative efforts (especially within the Academy) the technology may well be developed regardless of what said companies have to say about it.

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004
Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 1090

Posted 10/09/07 - 09:39 AM:	#7
I agree with perseus and Chops. Although world poltics are greatly influenced by oil, people are begining to come up with alternative ways to create energy so we do not have to have wars just to be able to continue our way of life. In part we have the secound Iraq war to thank for this. In order to have another world war you need to have two powers that have enough power so that they both have a great influence the rest of the world and are able stand a chance in a fight against the other. That usually means that they have NBC weapons, hundreds of thousands of troops if not millions, and a powerful air force and navy. The last world war caused enough damage to make people think twice about starting another over something as trival as oil. Before China, Russia, the US or anyone else would start such a large war over oil, they would try to other find ways to gain access to it. Although the US did invade Iraq largely due the oil there, Iraq did not have the ability to inflict huge losses. Another way to think of it is it more viable to spend billions of dollars in a war so you get more oil or instead invest the money in another way that can prove you energy through an alternative means. Most of the time if you are willing to spend a couple extra bucks per gallon or barrel of oil you can get someone to sell it to you. Buying the oil at a higher price is an easy way to get oil instead of going to war. If the price of oil becomes twice or three times what it is now there are companies that provide alternative energy that could easy start stepping in and providing energy. As far as I understand it, even oil companies do not want the price of oil to get too high. The reason for this is the more expensive oil is, the stronger the arguement and efforts for alternative energy become. If there is going to be another world war it has to be over something very important. The only way I see this happening is that other coutries wish to undermine the US and weaken our power. In ways this this is already happening, but it is unknown whether anything will become of it. When Britain was a superpower, they had more issues since they were an small island country. Without their navy and control of the sea ways and the wealth from the commerce it produced, they were lost. Although Britain didn't lose in the World Wars, the cost of of the wars made it difficult for them to continue. Right now the US is having trouble with both being the biggest military superpower and having the strongest economy to support it. After 9/11 this became even worse since now we have increased spending for the military and more security while at the same time decreased spending on domestic programs. We also are increasing our trade deficit and are borrowing money faster than we did before. In the next few years the surplus taxes from social security are going to no longer exist and the money we borrowed from it are going to be needed to pay for people that are retiring. If things do not improve we could have economic problems like they did in Russia after the end of the Cold War. We were kind of lucky in he 90's that the first Iraq war actualy help make the US money and improve our standing in the world and we had an economic boom that helped get rid of some of the problems we had so the same thing didn't happen to us. I think that people that planned the secound war hoped that things would turn out just as good, but they didn't. In the future the US can not afford to fight wars that cost us too much money without anything to gain from it. This is also true of other countries. The more costly a war is, the more power you will lose. Unless you are fighting a war without a care to your loses, then there is no reason to get into any war that will put you into a weaker state.
_____________________ No, you don't get it, thats why I'm telling you. You think you get it, which isn't the same as actually getting it. Get it?-Kakashi Hatake Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied, And vice sometimes by action dignified-Friar Lawrence The state of mind that questions is much more important than the question itself.Any question may be asked by a slavish mind, and the answer it receives will still be be within the limitations of its own slavery...Freedom of desire for an answer is essential for the understanding of a problem-Krishnamurti

Abdul-fattah
a.k.a Steve

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 21, 2007
Location: Belgium
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 144

Posted 10/12/07 - 06:34 AM:	#8
I agrea with the slow end due to rising prices. The last few gallons will sell a lot slower due to high prices. And yes the higher demand and rising prices will also make new sources available, not only alternative sources, but also known oilsources that are currently not drilled because of high maintanancecosts (like drilling on sea). However, I don't think that these few extra's really put significant weight on the scale. Some alternatives that I do see working rendably in the future are projects like seville's solar tower. It uses solar power not with photocells, but simply with heat, and they estimate that 10 such towers could generate enough electricity (trough steam-turbines) to provide for the whole city of seville day and night. http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=2120 On the other hand I disagree with the prediction of a chinese demand to. Yes, there will be a huge market for oil in China, but the question is, which will hapen first, the filling of that market, or the oil running out? If the oil runs out before the market gets filled, the market simply won't get filled, and the demand won't be that high. I also don't think that China will just invade Russia for oil. There's a difference between invading Iraq, and invading Russia. I don't think they'd be willing to go that far. I also doubt that the demand will be upheld, when the demand is to high, it will simply drop! People will find other ways, people will adapt to different lifestyles. They'll have to. I do think there will be wars though, like Micheal More said as he was misquoting George Orwell: "It's not a matter of whether the war is not real, or if it is, Victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia but to keep the very structure of society intact."

moonlight
Lunatic

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 10, 2005
Location: stuck on earth
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 496

Posted 10/18/07 - 07:01 AM:	#9
You're all wrong. People talk of oil becoming rare, but forget that about 75% of the Planet's surface area has not yet been explored for oil: every water covered bit of it basically. There is still plenty of oil to be found. Let alone the rest of the hydrocarbon family members, like natural gas. The stone age didn't end because there were no more stones. It ended because humans figured out some better technology. Same thing for coal. Same thing for oil and everything else. As to a 3rd World War, Einstein once said: I don't know who will win it, but if it occurs then the 4th one will be fought with stones and sticks. A nuclear war between Russia, China and the USA would bring humanity back to the stone age. Not because there won't be any nuclear bombs left once again, but because everyone will have figure out that stones and sticks, are in fact, a better technology for the suicidal prone species that we are. Cordially, moonlight.
_____________________ All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher. - Ambrose Bierce -

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.