Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Info from Ralph Sawyer re his history of warfare in China

Expand Messages
  • dej2_
    Thank you for the post! I see that Dr Sawyer recommends we prepare for the worst.. preparing for war despite working and hoping for peace. At this point it
    Message 1 of 9 , Jun 4, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Thank you for the post!

      I see that Dr Sawyer recommends we prepare for the worst.."preparing
      for war despite working and hoping for peace."

      At this point it could be a repeat of the USSR/US cold war, it esclated
      untill one side could not economically cope. Can the US accomplish this
      again??? I think we disparately need an alternative fule source to
      accomplish this. To get away from the dependance on Middle East oil
      would free the United States to ensure economic survival in the second
      cold war.

      http://www.jmss.org/2007/2007winter/articlesbody7.htm
    • Wil
      The US dependence on foreign oil does not pose a strategic threat to the USA over the long term. We have a huge, technologically advanced economy that can very
      Message 2 of 9 , Jun 5, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        The US dependence on foreign oil does not pose a strategic threat to the USA over the long term. We have a huge, technologically advanced economy that can very rapidly deploy any alternative fuel that becomes economically feasible. The consumption of oil is more of a threat to countries who are allowing the resource to be drained from their country without establishing a diversified economy. How will they compete economically and militarily when it runs out?
         
        In the short term any country that attempts to deprive the US of oil rapidly is committing an act of war which we have the most technologically advance military to deal with them.
         
        I have not read the article you reference, but for the vast majority of human history, China and India have had the largest economies in the world. It is only recently that they have lost that role but are now rapidly regaining some footing.


        dej2_ <dej2_@...> wrote:
        Thank you for the post!

        I see that Dr Sawyer recommends we prepare for the worst.."preparing
        for war despite working and hoping for peace."

        At this point it could be a repeat of the USSR/US cold war, it esclated
        untill one side could not economically cope. Can the US accomplish this
        again??? I think we disparately need an alternative fule source to
        accomplish this. To get away from the dependance on Middle East oil
        would free the United States to ensure economic survival in the second
        cold war.

        http://www.jmss. org/2007/ 2007winter/ articlesbody7. htm




        Thanks,
        Wil


        Got a little couch potato?
        Check out fun summer activities for kids.

      • able2010
        ... worst.. preparing ... esclated ... this ... second ... After reading that article, I didn t get that impression at all. The article talks about possible
        Message 3 of 9 , Jun 21, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "dej2_" <dej2_@...> wrote:
          >
          > Thank you for the post!
          >
          > I see that Dr Sawyer recommends we prepare for the
          worst.."preparing
          > for war despite working and hoping for peace."
          >
          > At this point it could be a repeat of the USSR/US cold war, it
          esclated
          > untill one side could not economically cope. Can the US accomplish
          this
          > again??? I think we disparately need an alternative fule source to
          > accomplish this. To get away from the dependance on Middle East oil
          > would free the United States to ensure economic survival in the
          second
          > cold war.
          >
          > http://www.jmss.org/2007/2007winter/articlesbody7.htm
          >


          After reading that article, I didn't get that impression at all. The
          article talks about possible guerilla style warfare by China either
          against Taiwan and/or the U.S.

          Wars have often been fought over resources:

          http://securityinnovator.com/index.php?articleID=11366§ionID=43

          In some ways, I can see that the current China-U.S. situation is
          similar to the situation between that of Japan and the U.S. prior to
          world war II. However, neither article refers to the issue of
          alliances. If China was to go to war with the U.S., it wouldn't be
          impossible to go it alone, but China would most likely need the
          support of Russia and/or other countries, one way or another, before
          conflict started.

          Rodney
        • realitytd
          I m not sure how we could recover from the loss of imported oil. We are very dependant on it and becoming more so each day. We are less diversified then we
          Message 4 of 9 , Jun 21, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            I'm not sure how we could recover from the loss of imported oil. We
            are very dependant on it and becoming more so each day. We are less
            diversified then we used to be and we are becoming less diversified
            each day as industry leaves the country.

            We have a lot of rules and red tape and we couldn't do anything
            quickly let alone change our energy system and, at that, we are
            nowhere near to an alternative fuel.

            Our political climate is such that we would have a difficult time
            punishing anybody for anything, the military might be very capable
            of doing it but they don't have free rein. Can you imagine getting
            anything done with the Clintons in charge?

            Tim


            --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, Wil <wilm123@...> wrote:
            >
            > The US dependence on foreign oil does not pose a strategic threat
            to the USA over the long term. We have a huge, technologically
            advanced economy that can very rapidly deploy any alternative fuel
            that becomes economically feasible. The consumption of oil is more
            of a threat to countries who are allowing the resource to be drained
            from their country without establishing a diversified economy. How
            will they compete economically and militarily when it runs out?
            >
            > In the short term any country that attempts to deprive the US of
            oil rapidly is committing an act of war which we have the most
            technologically advance military to deal with them.
            >
            > I have not read the article you reference, but for the vast
            majority of human history, China and India have had the largest
            economies in the world. It is only recently that they have lost that
            role but are now rapidly regaining some footing.
            >
            >
            > dej2_ <dej2_@...> wrote: Thank you for the post!
            >
            > I see that Dr Sawyer recommends we prepare for the
            worst.."preparing
            > for war despite working and hoping for peace."
            >
            > At this point it could be a repeat of the USSR/US cold war, it
            esclated
            > untill one side could not economically cope. Can the US accomplish
            this
            > again??? I think we disparately need an alternative fule source to
            > accomplish this. To get away from the dependance on Middle East
            oil
            > would free the United States to ensure economic survival in the
            second
            > cold war.
            >
            > http://www.jmss.org/2007/2007winter/articlesbody7.htm
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Thanks,
            > Wil
            >
            > ---------------------------------
            > Got a little couch potato?
            > Check out fun summer activities for kids.
            >
          • Wil
            It would appear we have very different views of the world. I agree with you that we are dependent on imported oil, but the strategic question is “of what
            Message 5 of 9 , Jun 22, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              It would appear we have very different views of the world. I agree with you that we are dependent on imported oil, but the strategic question is “of what consequence is our dependence, and how do we deal with it?”
               
              Assume the loss of oil is from some natural disaster that strikes the Middle East and wipes out world oil supply. All the nations in the world will gear up to control what remains, the USA and its allies would still hold its advantage. The same would apply if through acts of terrorism or any other means the world oil supply becomes restricted beyond the ability of the economy to adjust to the effects. Of what strategic threat is it then if the USA and its allies along with every other nation on the plant suffer a sudden loss of oil? Importing oil is economically the same as importing any other low skilled product.
               
              The statement about the USA becoming less diversified I just don’t understand.  According to the CIA World Fact Book, The Economist, and pretty much every economist and economic analysis I’ve viewed points to the USA being the most diversified economy on the planet. We don’t just make one thing we make the widest variety of any nation.
               
              As far as manufacturing is concerned I think you may also be mistaken.  Yes, low technology and labor intensive manufacturing jobs are going to less developed countries, but by far leading edge technologies and manufacturing are developed in the USA .
               
              In terms of economics and technology you should not base your strategic analysis on the state of technology but it must be based on the dynamics of technology. I would rather loose jobs in a technology that is becoming diffused throughout the world economy in exchange for new technologies and advance manufacturing methods that provide me with advantage other countries do not have.
               
              Your not suggesting that we should have fought tooth and nail to keep VHS tapes or eight track tape production in the USA are you? The shifting of jobs is a natural occurrence in economics and those civilizations better able to adapt quickly to new technologies have survived and thrived. Witness the Romans. If I were you I would not try to stifle a natural economic occurrence or you are bound to usher in the decline of your country, witness the Chinese and the result of their experiment into walling off their country and forbidding foreign commerce, they are only now trying to come out of those centuries of decline.
               
              As far as bureaucracy is concerned I can only say bureaucracy is bureaucracy, and every civilization has one. Ours seems to be doing pretty well compared to North Korea ’s. Its even doing pretty well compared to France and Germany .  In any case I’m not sure if you are posing a strategic issue here, perhaps you could clarify that.
               
              As far as Clintons and strategy I can say that during his entire administration they managed to keep North Korea from building a nuclear bomb. He at least slowed them down… I believe President Bush made them shift to high gear along with Iran . We all know under whose watch North Korea detonated a nuclear device.
               
              Wil

              realitytd <timojona@...> wrote:
              I'm not sure how we could recover from the loss of imported oil. We
              are very dependant on it and becoming more so each day. We are less
              diversified then we used to be and we are becoming less diversified
              each day as industry leaves the country.

              We have a lot of rules and red tape and we couldn't do anything
              quickly let alone change our energy system and, at that, we are
              nowhere near to an alternative fuel.

              Our political climate is such that we would have a difficult time
              punishing anybody for anything, the military might be very capable
              of doing it but they don't have free rein. Can you imagine getting
              anything done with the Clintons in charge?

              Tim

              --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups .com, Wil <wilm123@... > wrote:
              >
              > The US dependence on foreign oil does not pose a strategic threat
              to the USA over the long term. We have a huge, technologically
              advanced economy that can very rapidly deploy any alternative fuel
              that becomes economically feasible. The consumption of oil is more
              of a threat to countries who are allowing the resource to be drained
              from their country without establishing a diversified economy. How
              will they compete economically and militarily when it runs out?
              >
              > In the short term any country that attempts to deprive the US of
              oil rapidly is committing an act of war which we have the most
              technologically advance military to deal with them.
              >
              > I have not read the article you reference, but for the vast
              majority of human history, China and India have had the largest
              economies in the world. It is only recently that they have lost that
              role but are now rapidly regaining some footing.
              >
              >
              > dej2_ <dej2_@...> wrote: Thank you for the post!
              >
              > I see that Dr Sawyer recommends we prepare for the
              worst.."preparing
              > for war despite working and hoping for peace."
              >
              > At this point it could be a repeat of the USSR/US cold war, it
              esclated
              > untill one side could not economically cope. Can the US accomplish
              this
              > again??? I think we disparately need an alternative fule source to
              > accomplish this. To get away from the dependance on Middle East
              oil
              > would free the United States to ensure economic survival in the
              second
              > cold war.
              >
              > http://www.jmss. org/2007/ 2007winter/ articlesbody7. htm
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Thanks,
              > Wil
              >
              > ------------ --------- --------- ---
              > Got a little couch potato?
              > Check out fun summer activities for kids.
              >




              Thanks,
              Wil


              Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.

            • realitytd
              Mornin Wil, ... with you that we are dependent on imported oil, but the strategic question is of what consequence is our dependence, and how do we deal with
              Message 6 of 9 , Jun 29, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Mornin' Wil,

                --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, Wil <wilm123@...> wrote:
                >
                > It would appear we have very different views of the world. I agree
                with you that we are dependent on imported oil, but the strategic
                question is "of what consequence is our dependence, and how do we
                deal with it?"
                >
                ***That question is one that our "leaders" should be asking. Right
                now we just are not dealing with it.

                > Assume the loss of oil is from some natural disaster that strikes
                the Middle East and wipes out world oil supply. All the nations in
                the world will gear up to control what remains, the USA and its
                allies would still hold its advantage. The same would apply if
                through acts of terrorism or any other means the world oil supply
                becomes restricted beyond the ability of the economy to adjust to the
                effects. Of what strategic threat is it then if the USA and its
                allies along with every other nation on the plant suffer a sudden
                loss of oil? Importing oil is economically the same as importing any
                other low skilled product.
                >

                ****That is only one of many possible scenarios. While our allies are
                powerfull many of our enemies control the oil. Our lives and the
                economy are very disrupted if there's just a small change in the oil
                supply, we are so dependant on the oil supply a major change might be
                catastrophic. And, seeing as our preparedness level is nil, even a
                slow change in the oil supply might hurt us.

                > The statement about the USA becoming less diversified I just
                don't understand. According to the CIA World Fact Book, The
                Economist, and pretty much every economist and economic analysis I've
                viewed points to the USA being the most diversified economy on the
                planet. We don't just make one thing we make the widest variety of
                any nation.
                >
                ****No way. And, we make less and less every day. As president
                Clinton said when faced with the loss of manfacturing (and jobs) in
                the country: "The service economy will carry us through". If faced
                with a loss of imported goods we couldn't even make an auto today.

                I used to travel nationally and internationally and the lack of the
                duralable goods coming from this country is very noticeable. I
                presently work at a large particle accelerator at a National
                Laboratory and we regurally have to locate sources for things that
                aren't made in this country any more. For instance, vacuum tubes. We
                use a lot of large ones (1 Mw) and large or small there aren't any
                made in the US any more. From machine tools to electronics to talent
                in general we are in decline.

                We might be diversified as long as we have the wealth and sources to
                buy imported but it isn't a healthy situation.

                > As far as manufacturing is concerned I think you may also be
                mistaken. Yes, low technology and labor intensive manufacturing jobs
                are going to less developed countries, but by far leading edge
                technologies and manufacturing are developed in the USA.
                >
                ******Less so every day.

                > In terms of economics and technology you should not base your
                strategic analysis on the state of technology but it must be based on
                the dynamics of technology. I would rather loose jobs in a technology
                that is becoming diffused throughout the world economy in exchange
                for new technologies and advance manufacturing methods that provide
                me with advantage other countries do not have.
                >
                *****True. but we are loosing both.

                > Your not suggesting that we should have fought tooth and nail to
                keep VHS tapes or eight track tape production in the USA are you? The
                shifting of jobs is a natural occurrence in economics and those
                civilizations better able to adapt quickly to new technologies have
                survived and thrived.

                *****I wouldn't argue with you on that. Except that too many times
                instead of letting the obsolete evolve it just dies and the
                replacement is overseas.

                Witness the Romans. If I were you I would not try to stifle a
                natural economic occurrence or you are bound to usher in the decline
                of your country, witness the Chinese and the result of their
                experiment into walling off their country and forbidding foreign
                commerce, they are only now trying to come out of those centuries of
                decline.
                >

                ****Good example. Like the Romand we grow decadent and decline but
                like everything else now, faster.

                > As far as bureaucracy is concerned I can only say bureaucracy is
                bureaucracy, and every civilization has one. Ours seems to be doing
                pretty well compared to North Korea's. Its even doing pretty well
                compared to France and Germany. In any case I'm not sure if you are
                posing a strategic issue here, perhaps you could clarify that.
                >

                ****You're right bureaucracy is bureaucracy and the best thing you
                can do is to limit it. But with the US creeping closer to Socialism
                (Marxism, Liberalism) the US is becoming more bureaucratic and less
                flexible.

                > As far as Clintons and strategy I can say that during his entire
                administration they managed to keep North Korea from building a
                nuclear bomb. He at least slowed them down… I believe President Bush
                made them shift to high gear along with Iran. We all know under whose
                watch North Korea detonated a nuclear device.
                >

                ****Clintons "strategy" was to throw money at them to keep them
                quiet. Under whose watch did they build the bomb? The Clintons
                accomplished very, very little (positive) and it looks like they will
                be back.

                > Wil


                Well, everything is cyclic and perhaps it will take some hard times
                to turn the US around.

                Tim
                >
                > realitytd <timojona@...> wrote:
                > I'm not sure how we could recover from the loss of
                imported oil. We
                > are very dependant on it and becoming more so each day. We are less
                > diversified then we used to be and we are becoming less diversified
                > each day as industry leaves the country.
                >
                > We have a lot of rules and red tape and we couldn't do anything
                > quickly let alone change our energy system and, at that, we are
                > nowhere near to an alternative fuel.
                >
                > Our political climate is such that we would have a difficult time
                > punishing anybody for anything, the military might be very capable
                > of doing it but they don't have free rein. Can you imagine getting
                > anything done with the Clintons in charge?
                >
                > Tim
                >
                > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, Wil <wilm123@> wrote:
                > >
                > > The US dependence on foreign oil does not pose a strategic threat
                > to the USA over the long term. We have a huge, technologically
                > advanced economy that can very rapidly deploy any alternative fuel
                > that becomes economically feasible. The consumption of oil is more
                > of a threat to countries who are allowing the resource to be
                drained
                > from their country without establishing a diversified economy. How
                > will they compete economically and militarily when it runs out?
                > >
                > > In the short term any country that attempts to deprive the US of
                > oil rapidly is committing an act of war which we have the most
                > technologically advance military to deal with them.
                > >
                > > I have not read the article you reference, but for the vast
                > majority of human history, China and India have had the largest
                > economies in the world. It is only recently that they have lost
                that
                > role but are now rapidly regaining some footing.
                > >
                > >
                > > dej2_ <dej2_@> wrote: Thank you for the post!
                > >
                > > I see that Dr Sawyer recommends we prepare for the
                > worst.."preparing
                > > for war despite working and hoping for peace."
                > >
                > > At this point it could be a repeat of the USSR/US cold war, it
                > esclated
                > > untill one side could not economically cope. Can the US
                accomplish
                > this
                > > again??? I think we disparately need an alternative fule source
                to
                > > accomplish this. To get away from the dependance on Middle East
                > oil
                > > would free the United States to ensure economic survival in the
                > second
                > > cold war.
                > >
                > > http://www.jmss.org/2007/2007winter/articlesbody7.htm
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > Thanks,
                > > Wil
                > >
                > > ---------------------------------
                > > Got a little couch potato?
                > > Check out fun summer activities for kids.
                > >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Thanks,
                > Wil
                >
                > ---------------------------------
                > Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
                >
              • wilm123
                The effects of imported oil on America s political, economic, social, and military systems has been asked and addressed repeatedly from many different
                Message 7 of 9 , Jul 9, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  The effects of imported oil on America's political, economic, social,
                  and military systems has been asked and addressed repeatedly from
                  many different perspectives. The conclusion repeatedly made is that
                  there is no strategic issue with importing oil and the economic
                  advantages associated with importing the commodity far out way any
                  disadvantage. Political mileage gained by stoking fears about the
                  issue, and national security are two different issues, which are you
                  trying to address with your argument?

                  Yes we are exchanging manufacturing for service jobs but again, of
                  what consequence is it. I believe you are stating observations about
                  our economy in a fashion which portrays them as economic bads when in
                  fact they are economic goods.

                  Sun Tzu makes several statements about the use of your competitors
                  resources and their value, aren't your arguments directly counter to
                  his advice?

                  Wil
                  --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "realitytd" <timojona@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Mornin' Wil,
                  >
                  > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, Wil <wilm123@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > It would appear we have very different views of the world. I
                  agree
                  > with you that we are dependent on imported oil, but the strategic
                  > question is "of what consequence is our dependence, and how do we
                  > deal with it?"
                  > >
                  > ***That question is one that our "leaders" should be asking. Right
                  > now we just are not dealing with it.
                  >
                  > > Assume the loss of oil is from some natural disaster that
                  strikes
                  > the Middle East and wipes out world oil supply. All the nations in
                  > the world will gear up to control what remains, the USA and its
                  > allies would still hold its advantage. The same would apply if
                  > through acts of terrorism or any other means the world oil supply
                  > becomes restricted beyond the ability of the economy to adjust to
                  the
                  > effects. Of what strategic threat is it then if the USA and its
                  > allies along with every other nation on the plant suffer a sudden
                  > loss of oil? Importing oil is economically the same as importing
                  any
                  > other low skilled product.
                  > >
                  >
                  > ****That is only one of many possible scenarios. While our allies
                  are
                  > powerfull many of our enemies control the oil. Our lives and the
                  > economy are very disrupted if there's just a small change in the
                  oil
                  > supply, we are so dependant on the oil supply a major change might
                  be
                  > catastrophic. And, seeing as our preparedness level is nil, even a
                  > slow change in the oil supply might hurt us.
                  >
                  > > The statement about the USA becoming less diversified I just
                  > don't understand. According to the CIA World Fact Book, The
                  > Economist, and pretty much every economist and economic analysis
                  I've
                  > viewed points to the USA being the most diversified economy on the
                  > planet. We don't just make one thing we make the widest variety of
                  > any nation.
                  > >
                  > ****No way. And, we make less and less every day. As president
                  > Clinton said when faced with the loss of manfacturing (and jobs) in
                  > the country: "The service economy will carry us through". If faced
                  > with a loss of imported goods we couldn't even make an auto today.
                  >
                  > I used to travel nationally and internationally and the lack of the
                  > duralable goods coming from this country is very noticeable. I
                  > presently work at a large particle accelerator at a National
                  > Laboratory and we regurally have to locate sources for things that
                  > aren't made in this country any more. For instance, vacuum tubes.
                  We
                  > use a lot of large ones (1 Mw) and large or small there aren't any
                  > made in the US any more. From machine tools to electronics to
                  talent
                  > in general we are in decline.
                  >
                  > We might be diversified as long as we have the wealth and sources
                  to
                  > buy imported but it isn't a healthy situation.
                  >
                  > > As far as manufacturing is concerned I think you may also be
                  > mistaken. Yes, low technology and labor intensive manufacturing
                  jobs
                  > are going to less developed countries, but by far leading edge
                  > technologies and manufacturing are developed in the USA.
                  > >
                  > ******Less so every day.
                  >
                  > > In terms of economics and technology you should not base your
                  > strategic analysis on the state of technology but it must be based
                  on
                  > the dynamics of technology. I would rather loose jobs in a
                  technology
                  > that is becoming diffused throughout the world economy in exchange
                  > for new technologies and advance manufacturing methods that provide
                  > me with advantage other countries do not have.
                  > >
                  > *****True. but we are loosing both.
                  >
                  > > Your not suggesting that we should have fought tooth and nail
                  to
                  > keep VHS tapes or eight track tape production in the USA are you?
                  The
                  > shifting of jobs is a natural occurrence in economics and those
                  > civilizations better able to adapt quickly to new technologies have
                  > survived and thrived.
                  >
                  > *****I wouldn't argue with you on that. Except that too many times
                  > instead of letting the obsolete evolve it just dies and the
                  > replacement is overseas.
                  >
                  > Witness the Romans. If I were you I would not try to stifle a
                  > natural economic occurrence or you are bound to usher in the
                  decline
                  > of your country, witness the Chinese and the result of their
                  > experiment into walling off their country and forbidding foreign
                  > commerce, they are only now trying to come out of those centuries
                  of
                  > decline.
                  > >
                  >
                  > ****Good example. Like the Romand we grow decadent and decline but
                  > like everything else now, faster.
                  >
                  > > As far as bureaucracy is concerned I can only say bureaucracy
                  is
                  > bureaucracy, and every civilization has one. Ours seems to be doing
                  > pretty well compared to North Korea's. Its even doing pretty well
                  > compared to France and Germany. In any case I'm not sure if you
                  are
                  > posing a strategic issue here, perhaps you could clarify that.
                  > >
                  >
                  > ****You're right bureaucracy is bureaucracy and the best thing you
                  > can do is to limit it. But with the US creeping closer to Socialism
                  > (Marxism, Liberalism) the US is becoming more bureaucratic and less
                  > flexible.
                  >
                  > > As far as Clintons and strategy I can say that during his
                  entire
                  > administration they managed to keep North Korea from building a
                  > nuclear bomb. He at least slowed them down… I believe President
                  Bush
                  > made them shift to high gear along with Iran. We all know under
                  whose
                  > watch North Korea detonated a nuclear device.
                  > >
                  >
                  > ****Clintons "strategy" was to throw money at them to keep them
                  > quiet. Under whose watch did they build the bomb? The Clintons
                  > accomplished very, very little (positive) and it looks like they
                  will
                  > be back.
                  >
                  > > Wil
                  >
                  >
                  > Well, everything is cyclic and perhaps it will take some hard times
                  > to turn the US around.
                  >
                  > Tim
                  > >
                  > > realitytd <timojona@> wrote:
                  > > I'm not sure how we could recover from the loss of
                  > imported oil. We
                  > > are very dependant on it and becoming more so each day. We are
                  less
                  > > diversified then we used to be and we are becoming less
                  diversified
                  > > each day as industry leaves the country.
                  > >
                  > > We have a lot of rules and red tape and we couldn't do anything
                  > > quickly let alone change our energy system and, at that, we are
                  > > nowhere near to an alternative fuel.
                  > >
                  > > Our political climate is such that we would have a difficult time
                  > > punishing anybody for anything, the military might be very
                  capable
                  > > of doing it but they don't have free rein. Can you imagine
                  getting
                  > > anything done with the Clintons in charge?
                  > >
                  > > Tim
                  > >
                  > > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, Wil <wilm123@> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > The US dependence on foreign oil does not pose a strategic
                  threat
                  > > to the USA over the long term. We have a huge, technologically
                  > > advanced economy that can very rapidly deploy any alternative
                  fuel
                  > > that becomes economically feasible. The consumption of oil is
                  more
                  > > of a threat to countries who are allowing the resource to be
                  > drained
                  > > from their country without establishing a diversified economy.
                  How
                  > > will they compete economically and militarily when it runs out?
                  > > >
                  > > > In the short term any country that attempts to deprive the US
                  of
                  > > oil rapidly is committing an act of war which we have the most
                  > > technologically advance military to deal with them.
                  > > >
                  > > > I have not read the article you reference, but for the vast
                  > > majority of human history, China and India have had the largest
                  > > economies in the world. It is only recently that they have lost
                  > that
                  > > role but are now rapidly regaining some footing.
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > dej2_ <dej2_@> wrote: Thank you for the post!
                  > > >
                  > > > I see that Dr Sawyer recommends we prepare for the
                  > > worst.."preparing
                  > > > for war despite working and hoping for peace."
                  > > >
                  > > > At this point it could be a repeat of the USSR/US cold war, it
                  > > esclated
                  > > > untill one side could not economically cope. Can the US
                  > accomplish
                  > > this
                  > > > again??? I think we disparately need an alternative fule source
                  > to
                  > > > accomplish this. To get away from the dependance on Middle East
                  > > oil
                  > > > would free the United States to ensure economic survival in the
                  > > second
                  > > > cold war.
                  > > >
                  > > > http://www.jmss.org/2007/2007winter/articlesbody7.htm
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > Thanks,
                  > > > Wil
                  > > >
                  > > > ---------------------------------
                  > > > Got a little couch potato?
                  > > > Check out fun summer activities for kids.
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Thanks,
                  > > Wil
                  > >
                  > > ---------------------------------
                  > > Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
                  > >
                  >
                • Douglas Henderson
                  ... SNIP In the interest of economy, please take the time to remove everything from the previous post except what specific point you are replying to. Otherwise
                  Message 8 of 9 , Jul 10, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "wilm123" <wilm123@...> wrote:
                    SNIP

                    In the interest of economy, please take the time to remove
                    everything from the previous post except what specific point you are
                    replying to.

                    Otherwise the messages will just keep getting larger and larger, and
                    members can either view the previous posts in the thread if they
                    view the message online, or look back at the previous emails.

                    Yahoo does not represent the responses well, so it is somewhat
                    confusing to try to follow the argument in one message.

                    Thanks!

                    It's an interesting discussion though, contrasting theories of
                    comparative advantage with strategic weaknesses.

                    I wonder though if the power to withhold is as powerful as some
                    think. Unlike the US and Japan at the outbreak of war, one group
                    that could use natural resources withheld them from another group
                    that could also use them. Here the denying nations could not really
                    exploit what they withheld from others.

                    Are the oil producting nations also locked in to a relationship or
                    will ideology prevail? No oil sales, no income, and unless they
                    sealed off all sources of oil, the Oil dependent powers would still
                    have enough to seize what they need.

                    Even without military action, we have the odd situation of Iran
                    rationing gasoline because it lacks refinery capacity (a legacy
                    perhaps of old colonialist or imperialist policies, but still a
                    reality)

                    Regards
                    Douglas

                    Now feel free to snip my response <grin>
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.