Oil 1 Peak Oil 21
Download 9.54 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Nuclear War
Nuclear Power Bad ModuleB. Prolif causes extinction. Taylor, former nuclear weapons designer and chairman of NOVA, ‘1 [“Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons”] Nuclear proliferation – be it among nations or terrorists – greatly increases the chance of nuclear violence on a scale that would be intolerable. Proliferation increases the chance that nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of irrational people, either suicidal or with no concern for the fate of the world. Irrational or outright psychotic leaders of military factions or terrorist groups may decide to use nuclear weapons under their control to stimulate a global nuclear war, as an act of vengeance against humanity as a whole. Limited nuclear wars between countries with small numbers of nuclear weapons could escalate into major nuclear wars between superpowers. For example, a nation in an advanced stage of “latent proliferation”, finding itself losing a nonnuclear war, might complete the transition to deliverable nuclear weapons and, in desperation, use them. If that should happen in a region, such as the Middle East, where major superpower interests are at stake, the small nuclear war could easily escalate into a global nuclear war. C. Terrorism causes extinction. Jerome Corsi, PhD in Political Science from Harvard University, Expert in Antiwar Movements and Political Violence, ‘5 (Atomic Iran, p. 176-8) The United States retaliates: 'End of the world' scenarios The combination of horror and outrage that will surge upon the nation will demand that the president retaliate for the incomprehensible damage done by the attack. The problem will be that the president will not immediately know how to respond or against whom. The perpetrators will have been incinerated by the explosion that destroyed New York City. Unlike 9-11, there will have been no interval during the attack when those hijacked could make phone calls to loved ones telling them before they died that the hijackers were radical Islamic extremists. There will be no such phone calls when the attack will not have been anticipated until the instant the terrorists detonate their improvised nuclear device inside the truck parked on a curb at the Empire State Building. Nor will there be any possibility of finding any clues, which either were vaporized instantly or are now lying physically inaccessible under tons of radioactive rubble. Still, the president, members of Congress, the military, and the public at large will suspect another attack by our known enemy–Islamic terrorists. The first impulse will be to launch a nuclear strike on Mecca, to destroy the whole religion of Islam. Medina could possibly be added to the target list just to make the point with crystal clarity. Yet what would we gain? The moment Mecca and Medina were wiped off the map, the Islamic world – more than 1 billion human beings in countless different nations – would feel attacked. Nothing would emerge intact after a war between the United States and Islam. The apocalypse would be upon us. Then, too, we would face an immediate threat from our long-term enemy, the former Soviet Union. Many in the Kremlin would see this as an opportunity to grasp the victory that had been snatched from them by Ronald Reagan when the Berlin Wall came down. A missile strike by the Russians on a score of American cities could possibly be pre-emptive. Would the U.S. strategic defense system be so in shock that immediate retaliation would not be possible? Hardliners in Moscow might argue that there was never a better opportunity to destroy America. In China, our newer Communist enemies might not care if we could retaliate. With a population already over 1.3 billion people and with their population not concentrated in a few major cities, the Chinese might calculate to initiate a nuclear blow on the United States. What if the United States retaliated with a nuclear counterattack upon China? The Chinese might be able to absorb the blow and recover. The North Koreans might calculate even more recklessly. Why not launch upon America the few missiles they have that could reach our soil? More confusion and chaos might only advance their position. If Russia, China, and the United States could be drawn into attacking one another, North Korea might emerge stronger just because it was overlooked while the great nations focus on attacking one another. So, too, our supposed allies in Europe might relish the immediate reduction in power suddenly inflicted upon America. D. Insert meltdown/nuclear power bad impacts. Nuclear WarPeak oil will spark an intense bidding war over oil that could turn nuclear. Richard Heinberg, Senior Fellow at the Post Carbon Institute, ‘5 (The Party's Over : Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies, p. 105) [Bozman]
Nuclear WarPeak oil will spark a pre-emptive strike on Iran by Western powers for control of remaining supplies-the result is full out Middle Eastern war and nuclear strikes. Andrew McKillop, Analyst for Energy Bulletin, 7-17-08 (http://www.energybulletin.net/node/45944) [Bozman] The now accelerating countdown to Peak Oil marking the ultimate peak of world production – with a faster fall-off in net export supplies than total production under several logical scenarios - can only aggravate existing global and regional tensions, especially in the Mid East. Any decline in global export supply (currently running at about 51 million barrels/day (Mbd)) will be catastrophic for attempts at maintaining flagging credibility in ‘market supply/demand balance’ and open market price setting. The date at which this will happen, without war accelerating the process through destroying oil infrastructures is of course disputed. Several studies indicate likely date could be 2012-2013. When we arrive at permanent undersupply, prices will explode. This will be the end of market trading. Bilateral country-to-country arrangements will replace open market trading – returning world oil commerce to pre-1990s structures and arrangements, best suited to opaque and complex supply deals. Moving on from oil-for-food, supply deals will be dominated by weapons-for-oil, and support for using them. This was a key part of supply deals operated by major powers with Iraq, including third party supply of oil from Iraq’s Sunnite-ruled GCC neighbor countries, during the 1980-88 war. The run-up to this vast shift in how oil is supplied and paid is likely imminent. When oil prices surge through the price range around 150 USD/barrel, for any reason including simple undersupply of markets with the north hemisphere’s seasonal bulge of demand, in late summer 2008, Iran war posturing will receive additional credibility. Repeating the run-up to the first Gulf War of 1990-91, oil market trader reflex action, bidding up prices through successive ‘psychological ceilings’, will be another strand in the war rationale. Unlike 1991, however, knocking Iran out of global supply systems will tilt world market supply/demand balance heavily into deficit. We will have accelerated into Peak Oil by several years, making it unlikely supply can ever again match world demand unless this demand continually falls at least at the rate of Peak Oil decline (perhaps 2%pa in first 3 years of decline). Enter the past, present and future Great Powers Rising tension with Iran is presented as only due to its ‘nuclear ambitions’, which if true should apply with even more force to non-signatories of the NPT (non-proliferation treaty) which have developed atomic weapons – Israel, Pakistan and India. In the case of Pakistan and India, these are de facto and self-proclaimed atomic weapons powers. Israel has recently claimed, or confirmed in an aside from a speech by Prime Minister Olmert, that it does possess atomic weapons. This fact is unsurprising given the age and size of its nuclear installations and facilities! North Korea likely still possesses rudimentary atomic weapons, but has such small economic, military or geopolitical significance it is in no way a serious contender for ‘Great Power’ status. This prized status could be defined as having big geographic size, large populations, large or growing economies, large armies and military clout including ballistic missile and atomic or thermonuclear weapons capability, national pride, and powerful media or public opinion forming structures. In the coming oil wars the ‘natural candidates’ will be those Great Powers with the highest dependence on imported oil, the fastest-growing demand for oil, and greatest belief they can act and win. Like tiny Israel, the demographic giants Pakistan and India are extremely dependent on oil imports, but these powers are well behind the world’s biggest importers which by rank are: USA, Japan, China. The Big 3 have combined oil imports totaling about 22 Mbd depending on time of year, economic output, and oil stocks. Their combined demand is growing, mainly due to domestic oil depletion in the US, and fast-growing demand plus domestic oil depletion in the case of thermonuclear-armed China. Coming quite close behind (more than 1.6 Mbd net imports, each) we have the Big 6. These are India, Germany, South Korea, France, Italy and Spain. All are major economic powers. France has both atomic and thermonuclear weapons, while India at present only has atomic weapons. Apart from India, all the Big 6 have extreme high oil and energy-intensive economies, like the USA and Japan. Thermonuclear-armed UK, due to extreme-rapid extraction and depletion of its North Sea oil reserves is now again a net importer, but presently at small day average volumes (about 0.3 Mbd). Nuclear know-how All of the undeclared nuclear powers in the Big 9 importer countries have nuclear installations and know-how, in several cases obtaining large amounts of their national electric power supply from nuclear power. In some cases, Japan for example, its quick capability of producing nuclear weapons when or if needed, is openly declared as its response to nuclear threat by North Korea. All of the Big 9 presently without nuclear weapons can be considered ‘two screwdriver turns’ from having them. Most also have extensive ballistic missile capabilities, or access to these through regional alliance (European space agency for France, Germany, Italy and Spain). Taking the first 3 and second 6 most oil import-dependent countries, their combined import demand stands at about 38 Mbd in 2008, a very big chunk of world total oil import demand, noted above, of about 51 Mbd. Other importers total about 150 countries. Exporters including OPEC-13 and thermonuclear-armed Russia count only about 25 countries able to export more than 50 000 barrels/day (0.05 Mbd). As we noted above, the writing is on the wall. Who will act first? On a highly logical basis, one or more of the Big 9 importer powers should either directly, or indirectly, either alone or in alliance with other big importers take strong action to assure its oil import supplies at the slightest sign of physical decline in world export supply. Europe’s big oil importers with present or past claims to the status of “Great Power”, Germany, France, Italy and Spain, will likely or almost certainly take concerted, EU-brokered action to assure import supplies. [Next Page] Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 9.54 Mb. Share with your friends:
|