Global Oil Demand Will Rise in 2012
Download 450.86 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- U.S. military power key to U.S. leadership and hegemony
- U.S. hegemony is key to prevent nuclear war and a global economic collapse.
- Hegemony Extensions
- U.S. military key to U.S. success, prevents war
- Projections Key to Hegemony
Heg impact turnHegemony TurnIncrease in oil prices weaken U.S. militaryRAND 09 (Rand Corporation, NoDate, a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world, 7-6-12, http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG838.pdf, GHK) A major national security concern for U.S. policymakers is the potential for an abrupt reduction in the supply of oil and a corresponding large increase in the price to result in a sharp fall in economic output. Such a decline would undermine U.S. national security, for example, by weakening U.S. global economic and political influence and the ability of the United States to pay for U.S. military forces. U.S. military power key to U.S. leadership and hegemonyKagan 12 (Robert, 2-22-12, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute, 7-6-12, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-importance-of-us-military-might-shouldnt-be-underestimated/2012/02/02/gIQAX5pVlQ_story.html, GHK) These are sensible arguments. Power takes many forms, and it’s smart to make use of all of them. But there is a danger in taking this wisdom too far and forgetting just how important U.S. military power has been in building and sustaining the present liberal international order. That order has rested significantly on the U.S. ability to provide security in parts of the world, such as Europe and Asia, that had known endless cycles of warfare before the arrival of the United States. The world’s free-trade, free-market economy has depended on America’s ability to keep trade routes open, even during times of conflict. And the remarkably wide spread of democracy around the world owes something to America’s ability to provide support to democratic forces under siege and to protect peoples from dictators such as Moammar Gaddafi and Slobodan Milosevic. Some find it absurd that the United States should have a larger military than the next 10 nations combined. But that gap in military power has probably been the greatest factor in upholding an international system that, in historical terms, is unique — and uniquely beneficial to Americans. Nor should we forget that this power is part of what makes America attractive to many other nations. The world has not always loved America. During the era of Vietnam and Watergate and the ugly last stand of segregationists, America was often hated. But nations that relied on the United States for security from threatening neighbors tended to overlook the country’s flaws. In the 1960s, millions of young Europeans took to the streets to protest American “imperialism,” while their governments worked to ensure that the alliance with the United States held firm. U.S. hegemony is key to prevent nuclear war and a global economic collapse.Ferguson 4 (Niall, Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, July/August, A World Without Power, Foreign Policy, Jul/Aug, Academic Search Elite) If the United States retreats from its hegemonic role, who would supplant it? Not Europe, not China, not the Muslim world--and certainly not the United Nations. Unfortunately, the alternative to a single superpower is not a multilateral utopia, but the anarchic nightmare of a new Dark Age. … So what is left? Waning empires. Religious revivals. Incipient anarchy. A coming retreat into fortified cities. These are the Dark Age experiences that a world without a hyperpower might quickly find itself reliving. The trouble is, of course, that this Dark Age would be an altogether more dangerous one than the Dark Age of the ninth century. For the world is much more populous-roughly 20 times more--so friction between the world's disparate "tribes" is bound to be more frequent. Technology has transformed production; now human societies depend not merely on freshwater and the harvest but also on supplies of fossil fuels that are known to be finite. Technology has upgraded destruction, too, so it is now possible not just to sack a city but to obliterate it. For more than two decades, globalization--the integration of world markets for commodities, labor, and capital--has raised living standards throughout the world, except where countries have shut themselves off from the process through tyranny or civil war. The reversal of globalization--which a new Dark Age would produce--would certainly lead to economic stagnation and even depression. As the United States sought to protect itself after a second September 11 devastates, say, Houston or Chicago, it would inevitably become a less open society, less hospitable for foreigners seeking to work, visit, or do business. Meanwhile, as Europe's Muslim enclaves grew, Islamist extremists' infiltration of the EU would become irreversible, increasing trans-Atlantic tensions over the Middle East to the breaking point. An economic meltdown in China would plunge the Communist system into crisis, unleashing the centrifugal forces that undermined previous Chinese empires. Western investors would lose out and conclude that lower returns at home are preferable to the risks of default abroad. The worst effects of the new Dark Age would be felt on the edges of the waning great powers. The wealthiest ports of the global economy--from New York to Rotterdam to Shanghai-- would become the targets of plunderers and pirates. With ease, terrorists could disrupt the freedom of the seas, targeting oil tankers, aircraft carriers, and cruise liners, while Western nations frantically concentrated on making their airports secure. Meanwhile, limited nuclear wars could devastate numerous regions, beginning in the Korean peninsula and Kashmir, perhaps ending catastrophically in the Middle East. In Latin America, continue their deadly work. The few remaining solvent airlines would simply suspend services to many cities in these continents; who would wish to leave their privately guarded safe havens to go there? For all these reasons, the prospect of an apolar world should frighten us today a great deal more than it frightened the heirs of Charlemagne. If the United States retreats from global hegemony--its fragile self-image dented by minor setbacks on the imperial frontier--its critics at home and abroad must not pretend that they are ushering in a new era of multipolar harmony, or even a return to the good old balance of power. Be careful what you wish for. The alternative to unipolarity would not be multipolarity at all. It would be apolarity--a global vacuum of power. And far more dangerous forces than rival great powers would benefit from such a not-so-new world disorder. Hegemony ExtensionsHigh Oil Prices Hurt the MilitaryLaMonica, Reporter at CNET News & Journalist for 20 years covering the high-tech industry and green-tech startups, 2011 (Martin, 8-16-11, http://www.lexisnexis.com/lnacui2api/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T15077427604&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T15077427608&cisb=22_T15077427607&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=299488&docNo=4, GHK) The federal government is using the weight of the military to counter years of disappointment with biofuels and commercialize drop-in replacements for diesel and jet fuel. Three government agencies--the Departments of the Navy, Agriculture, and Energy--today announced a memorandum of understanding to spend $510 million over three years to scale up the industry for advanced biofuels. The agencies will put out a request for proposals to build commercial-scale biorefineries, called "pioneer plants," able to make diesel and jet fuel from non-food sources at prices competitive with fossil fuels. The biorefineries will aim to be built in different locations for a diverse feedstock supply and to encourage economic activity in rural areas. To participate, commercial companies will have to invest at least as much as the government puts in, said Navy Secretary Ray Mabus during a media call with Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Energy Secretary Steven Chu today. Funding for the program will be split equally among the three agencies and come from existing sources, they said. "I can think of nothing more vital to national security than to diversify our forms of energy," Mabus said. The Navy will act as a customer for production from these advanced biofuel refineries and define technical requirements for aircraft and boats. Mabus set an ambitious target of getting at least half of its energy from non-fossil fuel sources by 2020. Transporting fuel creates security vulnerabilities in areas of combat and the volatility of oil prices hurts the military, which consumes about 80 percent of all energy from the federal government. When the price of oil goes up one dollar, it costs the Navy an additional $30 million in fuel costs. The Navy has already successfully tested biofuels or a blend of biofuel and petroleum in aircraft, he added.
(Josef, NoDate, Council on Foreign Relations, “The Default Power,” http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/zselden/coursereading2011/Joffe.pdf, 7-9-12, GHK) Nor can any other great power boast the United States' naval strength, a measure of a state's ability to project power quickly and over great distances. In 2005, as Robert Work, a defense analyst and now undersecretary of the U.S. Navy, has shown, the U.S. Navy commanded a naval tonnage exceeding the world's next 17 fleets combined. This is a dramatic shift from 1922, when the Washington Naval Conference tried to set the rules for a balance of power at sea. The three top competitors -- the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan -- were allowed navies in the ratio of 5:5:3. At the time, the United Kingdom, the world's greatest maritime power, had a total naval tonnage of 525,000 tons. Germany, France, and Russia also had navies capable of fighting halfway around the world. Today, however, China, India, Japan, Russia, and the EU put together could not conduct a major war 8,000 miles from their shores, as the United States has done twice in Iraq and once in Afghanistan in recent years. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 450.86 Kb. Share with your friends:
|