Nequa

What do think will happen to the Middel East if oil is replaced by alternative fuels?

▼

What do think will happen to the Middel East if oil is replaced by alternative fuels?

from GalCiv2 Forums
As frontlines fuel of war, and Tom clancys EndWar show what happens to the world when oil in the middle east is gone, it goes to hell. But what will happen when oil is no longer needed? The middle east would have major changes easily predicted some we will find out when it happens (and it will happen). What can be easilly prdicted is the major spending by oil rich countrys (like saudi arabia) will stop, before oil saudaia arabia was a backwards kingdom, but with oil it went going forward fast, with oil importence gone it is going to make cutbacks, which is not going to go well. Another thing is them using control of oil as a political weapon, people rember when oil when saudi arabia cut of are oil. The middle east can stop oil when they want to, like if they dont like what we are doing in Iraq. but with out oil the rest of the world will find it easy to exert thiert infulence on it. Middle east military power is a joke (except for Iserial, which is one of the best, but is diffrent from the rest of the middle east), look at what America did to Iraqs army during desert storm and the invasion of Iraq, Iraq had one of the largest armys in the world when sadduam was in charge. It only took the U.S three weaks to defeat them. terriost will still play a key part but without oil they would need to do more drastic actions for prees coverage, and funding. I have convered the basics. Do you guys have anything to add? 
off-topic
165,636 views 70 replies
Reply #51 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Who cares what happens in the Middle East.When a country that thinks "Death to America" is a reasonable expression of their foreign policy, I care that they are trying to build a bomb. Call me silly, but I get the feeling they might just want to use it.As for the uranium supply and radioactive waste issues, creating technology to separate wastes would be the best possible solution. A high percentage (50%+ IIRC) of a "waste" fuel rod is still usable uranium. Separating waste by isotope would let us recover that, and allow for safer disposal of the rest.


Good for them, Build a bomb. Now build a way to deliver it. Now wait for the world to retaliate. Only the Naive would think that some backwards 3RD world country would try some sort of misguided attack on a Superpower or its Allies.
Reply #52 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Who cares what happens in the Middle East.When a country that thinks "Death to America" is a reasonable expression of their foreign policy, I care that they are trying to build a bomb. Call me silly, but I get the feeling they might just want to use it.As for the uranium supply and radioactive waste issues, creating technology to separate wastes would be the best possible solution. A high percentage (50%+ IIRC) of a "waste" fuel rod is still usable uranium. Separating waste by isotope would let us recover that, and allow for safer disposal of the rest.


Good build a bomb. Now build something to deliver it. Now wait for world retalition. Only the Naive would think that some Backworld 3RD world country would do a premptive Nuclear strike on a Superpower or its Allies.
Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #53 from Sins Forums Top
T- Why should they have to justify having a nuclear power program to the US AT ALL? the US didnt ask anyone if it was okay to develop a bomb, AND THEN USE IT, nuclear power was an afterthought. Its the same damn thing, why do the US think it has the moral justification to dictate this (moral justification), what because youre the "GOOD" guys, bullshit there arnt good guys or bad guys there are just people. Its just one group of people telling the other what they cant have, this is the natural point of view the ordinary person in Iran has, just as it would obvious to me or any of us if we'd been born there. By the way im white, western and actually relatively pro US (relatively).I believe in nuclear disarmament, something the US and my native UK signed up to long ago and then have disregarded, scandalous why oh why, the world does not need nuclear weapons, think about it you can annihilated a country without them (if you were so disposed). People actually forget what its like to use these weapons on people, any people, take a minute to think about it.



If I had to chose between the two I would chose the US. I don't trust Iran as far as I can throw it. Does that mean I agree with everything we, the US, do? No, but in the end we ARE the "Good guys." Iran doesn't have a very good record overall as opposed to the US overall.
Reply #54 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Good build a bomb. Now build something to deliver it. Now wait for world retalition. Only the Naive would think that some Backworld 3RD world country would do a premptive Nuclear strike on a Superpower or its Allies.

IF you seriously think AQ wouldn't set off a bomb if they had one, you need to have your head examined. Likewise, if you think Iran (or various other countries) wouldn't supply said bomb if they thought they wouldn't be caught.

Getting the supplies to build a bomb is the hard part. Actually building a low-yield weapon is not that hard, if you have the supplies. Delivering such a bomb would be the job of a "martyr" who drives a delivery truck instead of strapping on a bomb-vest.
Reply #55 from Sins Forums Top
Also, for the question in the subject line, I'm sorry to say that I seriously doubt that oil will ever be replaced by alternative fuels. It's a pipe dream, and one that too many people seem to share.Why is it a "pipe dream"? There are plenty of alternative fuel sources out there, its just that no ones spent the money to develop them from prototype to full scale development.
Alternative...like what? overpriced ethanol (yay tree hugging, democrat hippies, you ****ed up again!)Ethanol's "overpriced" nature might have more to do with lack of demand than anything else -- its not a "major" fuel yet, so we aren't producing as much as we might. Ergo the overhead to keep it in stock is split up amongst a much smaller group of people.Oh, and ethanol is hardly the only proposed alternative fuel (and concerns over driving up food prices are exaggerated as well, food prices are already artificially high because the government set a floor for the buy price and buys up the excess). One in particular that I've studied is called OTEC -- ocean thermal energy conversion. It used the difference in temperature between surface water and water 30 feet or more down to drive generators, with no known environmental effects. In addition to producing electricity, you can use that electricity to generate ammonia which would also work as a fuel source (you'd have to redesign engines, though -- its octane rating is through the roof! Compared to gasoline anyway...)


ethonal costs about 12$ a barrel to produce. America is the only country in the world that uses their food as fuel. Millions are starving in africa because of ethanol. SOLAR POWER
Reply #56 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Sorry Willy, But AQ is not a country, That is a terrorist group. NO COUNTRY would launch a Nuke.
But if you want Plan B....
Reply #57 from Sins Forums Top
WIllythemailboy: Why would Shi'a Iran give Sunni Al-Qaeda a nuclear weapon? Following FOX News a little too closely?
Reply #58 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Convergent goals. I'm not saying they're the best of friends, but both of them would like to see.. well basically the whole western world taken down a few notches. Iran MIGHT do it, if they thought giving it to AQ would be less traceable to them. Using AQ, Hezbollah, or another group could lend a critical amount of plausible deniability. Frankly, I'm not confortable with "might", and I'm glad my government (including its Clinton-led predecessor, btw) isn't either.
Reply #59 from Sins Forums Top
Opinions of Ahmadinejad aside, he's not an idiot, and he's not suicidal. Despite his attempts at distancing himself from Sunni secularist Saddam, they're vastly less nuts than Osama. Ahmadinejad and co want to see an Islamic world, sure, but I'm sure they understand that launching a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. would quickly lead to no world ;)

Really, I think relations between Iran and any terrorist group, leftist or rightist, with possible exception of FARC, are strained enough without adding millennium-old religious rivalries to it. Al-Qaeda has a better shot waltzing into the multiple rusty-chain-fence decommissioned nuclear reactors in Russia and walking out with some weapons-grade uranium/plutonium than asking Iran for assistance.
Reply #60 from Sins Forums Top
Opinions of Ahmadinejad aside, he's not an idiot, and he's not suicidal. Despite his attempts at distancing himself from Sunni secularist Saddam, they're vastly less nuts than Osama. Ahmadinejad and co want to see an Islamic world, sure, but I'm sure they understand that launching a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. would quickly lead to no world



Ahmaddinejad has called for bringing about the end of the world , so yes he would launch, knowing the end result. That end result is to him a victory for Islam.

No one thought Hitler would do what he did but everything Hitler did was spelled out by him in Mein Kampht. He did just what he said he would do! So, when Someone like Ahmadinejad states what he would do, listin and listen hard cause it is most likly what they would really do if they could
Reply #61 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Ahmaddinejad has called for bringing about the end of the world , so yes he would launch, knowing the end result.


Citation please.

For your information, he didn't even call for the destruction of Israel, which was essentially a misquote. You can read more about that here:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14733.htm

I find it rather odd that every time this is mentioned, what he is supposed to have said becomes even more outrageous than the last erroneous claim. Now he wants to destroy the world, apparently... ohnoes!... it would almost be funny if this kind of BS weren't being used as a justification to murder millions of Iranians, many of whom would agree with you that their president is an idiot (as do I, for that matter).

I mean, yeah, it's probably true that he has some stupid opinions about the Holocaust--like many people in that part of the world--but that's hardly reason to bomb his country to smithereens.
Reply #62 from Sins Forums Top
Ahmaddinejad has the popular vote, but not all of it. Even though crazy things like homosuxuality is banned in that country and yes, the president does not believe in the haulocaust. But the country still has democracy and conflicting opinions.

Iran is a little similar to us actually(in a sick, sadistic way). We both have tyrant presidents. But Bush is at least a puppet, not a muslim fasict. And our president can golf!
Reply #63 from Sins Forums Top
And our president can golf!


What? are you nuts? that has got to be the most insane thing I have ever heard!!! you sir, I am sure have never even seen a golf ball! :) 

Reply #64 from Sins Forums Top
a gigantic shadow will appear, and a pink pony will darken the sky, lift up its tail and brown rain shall fall for many, many years.

And shit shall be had by everyone.

And finaly when star is wiped, the few people that still survive shall have fertile land for thousands of decades to come.....XD
Reply #65 from Sins Forums Top
a gigantic shadow will appear, and a pink pony will darken the sky, lift up its tail and brown rain shall fall for many, many years.And shit shall be had by everyone.And finaly when star is wiped, the few people that still survive shall have fertile land for thousands of decades to come.....XD


someday I will be able to stop laughing at that... Oh God my sides hurt

Reply #66 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Its more of a question of whether alternative fuels will ever be allowed to take over a huge chunk of the energy market.

Reply #67 from Sins Forums Top
politics is not about whats 'right' its all about interests.Do you really think its alright for a muslim fundamentlist country who's leaders constantly cuses the Wast and calls to wipe another nation from the map to have nueclear capabilities? the way i see it Iran is a potential threat even if they dont use them selves nuclear/dirtyweaposn they could make them availbale to terororists .. read the god damed Qran there you wil lfind some very interesting gods instructions about how should a true muslim treat pagons (aka ALL non-muslims).politics is not about whats 'right' its all about interests.Do you really think its alright for a christian fundamentlist country who's leaders constantly cuses the East and calls to wipe another nation from the map to have nueclear capabilities? the way i see it USA is a potential threat even if they dont use them selves nuclear/dirtyweaposn they could make them availbale to satellite states .. read the god damed Bible there you wil lfind some very interesting gods instructions about how should a true christian treat pagons (aka ALL non-christians).Edited for perspective.


You are both wrong. Most of both Christians and Muslims are good, law abiding, unfanatical people. However i am confused about you saying that western countries are talking about talking about "destroying the east" (except Hilary Clinton rofl). You guys both sound all pissed, so just chillax.
Reply #68 from Sins Forums Top
Actually Iraq has, or had one of the largest armies in the world. I would have to say Great Briton and Canada helped out the U.S. the most.


Well that's because not very many countries have a large army, really it's only the US, Briton, and Canada (don't quote me, I'm guessing which ones) so being number four is like having 3 sports cars, and then the next best thing on the lot is a station wagon. It's still the 4th best looking car!
Reply #69 from Sins Forums Top
Okay, you all need to take a deep breath. I mean a very deep breath :)

The world is no longer divided into countries my friends. Nation-state globalization has pretty much ensured that a nation state now has to operate on multiple levels, including ngo's and ingo's, not to mention such far-fetched concepts as global justice and global citizenship. Therefore, talking about which country is stronger, is completely and utterly ridiculous. You can never, ever prove that one country IS stronger than another. I will of course, give you an example.

Let us presume that the United States is currently the most powerful military force on this planet. In terms of military spending, its budget is about ten times higher than that of the next high-spending military nation (China). Does that mean that the United States is stronger than everyone else? Not at all. The US economy (the very same economy that funds the military) is highly dependent on overseas imports and exports. Even more detailed, the US is highly dependent on foreign investment. If you want me to put it bluntly - the United States would go under if it were not for rich mini-states. You all seem to forget that the United States was recently 'rescued' by foreign sovereign-wealth funds. For those of you who don't know - America was pretty buggered late 07, early 08. The credit crunch affected major US based investment banks, and here I'm thinking of Citi-group and Merrill Lynch. Their debt to private US-based investors came to around 21 billion dollars. Who provided the money that rescued those banks? Singapore. Kuwait. South Korea.

If foreign states did not provide that money, the US would have easily faced another great depression - but of course, it didn't. Because it is in no one's interest to see the US go under - it has too much financial promise and gain for it to be allowed to sink.

Now take that concept and apply it to the middle east. No, Iran isnt about to go and do something really stupid, because it would lose international support, and would be completely buggered. The same applies for the rest of the middle east.

In fact, I like to think that the people in charge of middle eastern states are a WHOLE lot smarter than most of us. Which is why of course, they're not just going to sit by and wait for the oil to die out. Instead, they have began investing the money obtained from oil into creating alternative sources of money. Best example is Dubai of course - most rapidly developing city in the world, with the highest rise in living standards and business potential. You just open up any issue of The Economist, and check out some of the employment ads. About half of them are for high-ranking managerial positions in universities, banks, and corporations being founded in the middle east. By the time the oil dies out, it won't matter anymore - because they will have switched their income sources to more 'renewable' ones.

:)
Reply #70 from Sins Forums Top
If you want me to put it bluntly - the United States would go under if it were not for rich mini-states. You all seem to forget that the United States was recently 'rescued' by foreign sovereign-wealth funds. For those of you who don't know - America was pretty buggered late 07, early 08. The credit crunch affected major US based investment banks, and here I'm thinking of Citi-group and Merrill Lynch. Their debt to private US-based investors came to around 21 billion dollars. Who provided the money that rescued those banks? Singapore. Kuwait. South Korea.


for anyone who is not sure, I vouch for this statement