<DrumBeat: May 9, 2007The Oil DrumDrumBeat: May 10, 2007>

45 comments on Wildcats & Tigers: China's Oil Acquisition Strategy

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

memmel on May 9, 2007 - 2:13pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

A blue water navy today only works if their is one.
Two simply destroy each other and quickly. Outside of subs.
A modern ship cannot survive long in a naval battle the question is only if you can keep some ships afloat but one of the navies is assured of utter destruction down to its submarines.

Better to think of them as mobile bases for a single world power to manage its assets during the cold war the navies in a sense ignored each other.

Its interesting that you bring it up since a gentleman's agreement to share the declining resources is needed in the past we had the cold war but thats not easily done when your facing ever declining resources.

In the future I think that anyone that threatens MAD will simply get hit with a first strike we won't fight another cold war so I think that your left with the worlds super powers having to divide the world first and then its a tenuous game if everyone keeps their side of the bargain.

Say the US/Europe/Japan gets Iraq China gets Iran etc etc.
And India cannot be ignored they have nuclear weapons or maybe they are who knows and of course some of the "gifts" are temporary for example China is sticking its head in a noose by having close ties with Venezuela since its trivial for us to control being so close. But since they are the weaker partner with only the threat of nuclear war as a bargaining chip it makes sense that they get the most troublesome and least defensible resources.

Outside of MAD America is still in control we have won the prime position for the coming resource wars now its a matter of elimination of our own democratic government so we can clean out the pesky natives living on top of our oil.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
davebygolly on May 9, 2007 - 9:36pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

China is sticking its head in a noose by having close ties with Venezuela since its trivial for us to control being so close.

Will Venezuela be as trivial to control as, say, Iraq?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
memmel on May 9, 2007 - 9:49pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

No doubt in my mind as a American that has lived all over the US when push comes to shove and its a issue of keeping the SUV and the McMansion and killing millions for oil or withdrawing to put our house in order the vast majority of Americans will agree with killing. We are the biggest bastards on the planet it would be wise not to forget it. The current holding pattern in Iraq is simply caused by the fact we can't at this movement call in the B52's and level Baghdad and any other problematic city without oil. Its a temporary condition.
And it will be resolved. Bush is well aware of the fact that we either need to leave or wipe out the insurgency in Iraq and further they understand full well this means basically wiping out the Iraqi population. They may be arrogant but they are not fools. We need either the civil war to spin out of control so we can restart a real war or have it resolve or wait until the public voluntarily gives up enough right to allow our foreign to proceed unimpeded.

Don't consider the current state of the US military playing the gentle giant to persist. And never underestimate the US military when the job is destruction. We are the best in the world at killing people in large numbers. The only thing we are waiting for is a flimsy excuse to crank up the war.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
nelsone on May 9, 2007 - 10:04pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

memmel,
It's possible that the current mess is exactly on-plan, keeping the pot boiling there without costing too many GI's per week. The US needs a pretext for its fourteen huge, permanent bases in Iraq, with the key word being permanent.

The destabilizing effect of the occupation on Saudi, the brinksmanship with Iran, even the control of pipeline routes through Afghanistan, it all works to the same end, creating and maintaining the pretext for a permanent and expanding occupation.

At least I find such grim, conspiratorial machinations more comforting than chalking this fiasco up to the "banality of evil."

But I have to disagree with you about the US Navy. Submariners are fond of saying that there are only two types of ships, subs and targets, but the planners don't agree. In war gaming, the Nimitz-class carriers are just about invulnerable, positioned as they are in the center of the battle-group bubble. But their game changes completely the instant the first nuke detonates.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Oil Watcher Named Ed on May 9, 2007 - 11:02pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Part of the plan of 14 large bases requires the reinstatement of the draft. That draft may be the deciding question. Will American voters okay this?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
NASAguy on May 10, 2007 - 12:05pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I doubt it (the draft). Maybe in the future sometime, but it is not in sight yet.

On the Iraq war and the U.S. military, it's probably useful to keep in mind where the U.S. has been successful and where it has been unsuccessful. As long as the focus of the military was on killing enemies and blowing things up, as in the initial conquest of Iraq, the U.S. military was very successful. When the mission switched to a policing action, the U.S. military has had trouble. In a policing action, it is a bad day when a lot of Iraqis die, because they are no longer an enemy. In order to think clearly about the situation, the change in the mission is important.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
memmel on May 9, 2007 - 11:04pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I agree about the subs I thought I basically said the same thing. I guess I was misunderstood.
Also its really hard for me to set up china as a real military threat esp post peak. China will be facing serious internal problems that will make it hard for them to push outward.

If you look at China and India's and even Europe's internal problems have repeatedly ripped apart all attempts at world domination. Many people don't realize that China is just as polyglot as Europe with probably more languages. They do share a written language and a official language but at a regional level the local languages and identity are very strong in China.

America has finally managed to be the effective rulers of the world the problem is nobody wants it.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
alistairC on May 10, 2007 - 4:57am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

China doesn't have to be a superpower on a level with the US to be the effective hegemon.

Even a second-rate blue-water navy will be good enough to play gunboat diplomacy with Angola or Nigeria, should it prove necessary.

Who will stand up to them?

The USA? The Iraq adventure will have castrated the US for a couple of decades at least : not in terms of military capability, but in terms of public will for imperial adventures. I doubt if they could even sustain an occupation of Venezuela, politically.

Russia? The Chinese will carve out an entente with them.

Europe? Har.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.