bin Laden is dead

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarMan

The Savage Wars of Peace, sounds interesting. Whose point of view is it?

---

It's a reasonable question, and one that I was concerned about, at first, but I would say that there really isn't one. I found the book a bit academic in tone, such as you might find from a professor writing for a class, but there wasn't too much about that until the end. I would say that the author was a military historian trying to make the case that we spent a couple centuries learning how to do 'small wars', then shelved all that knowledge over the course of the two HUGE wars, and we really need to dust off all that learning for the modern world.

Along the way, it discussed several actions that have been largely forgotten by Americans, and several individual characters who shaped the military (mostly the Marine Corps, but also the early Navy and Army). It was also the second book that I have read in the last three months that made reference to an undeclared naval war between the US and France at the end of the 18th century, without describing it at all. That one doesn't make the history books.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

Now take that Scenario and insert it into years of military invention, and add a sprinkling of religion and bake until it reaches the right temperature.

---

That's the problem: Too much of it is only half-baked.

So what you guys are saying is we need to use better ovens.

Bin Laden's War Against the US Economy

An interesting perspective that is often overlooked.
Not sure how accurate it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarMan

I am more interested in truth.

---

There is no such thing as truth. It's always one viewpoint against another. Before labelling someone as violent or distorting the truth, or whatever else you call others, please bear it in mind. Also learn to respect someone else's viewpoint even if you may not like it.

While you are right about people who don't know what bin Laden did calling his elimination as a bad deed, you must also understand that you need to look at the deeds of the US too to see if it really is such a heroic and great act. After all the US actively fostered bin Laden and Taleban so they could fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. So kindly enlighten yourself a little on the history.

And while you are at it, you may perhaps understand why the US isn't liked by all. It's not because it's the land of the free, but it's because all the 'evil' people right from Saddam to Gaddafi and bin Laden were helped and funded by the US when they were working to achieve the US objectives.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

That one doesn't make the history books.

---

No wonder, everyone has got closets with skeletons they want to hide.

.

I'd have thought the REALLY obvious war the US was involved in before the War no Terror was the cold one. It might not have been a hot conflict with troops firing at each other on a daily basis but it saw massive military expenditure, propaganda, proxy wars... It also neatly represents the percieved external threat which I believe Honeybee was imlpying the US would now lack.

It also rather neatly explains why America's international reputation has been declining for the last 20 years. Prior to 1989 the US could be portrayed as the good guys protecting the western world from the evil Russians, bent on domination. The rest of the world was ready to forgive the American tanks and missiles that were parked in their back yards because they saw those as tools of protection. Since the USSR collapsed those tanks and missiles have been increasingly seen as tools of occupation because it's hard to see what other purpose they might serve. With nobody to protect the world from, the US, with it's overwhelming military might, gets left looking like a bully.

The US, of course, doesn't see itself as a bully and continues to take considerable (and quite justified) pride in having used that overwhelming military to try and protect others. Despite the way the US is often portrayed I do believe that it's governments have almost always been motivated by pretty benign motives in it's foreign policy. What the US fails to see, though, is that just about every empire in history has been built on the basis of deploying it's troops abroard to defend the interests of itself and others rather than through outright agression. The US doesn't intend to build an empire but it is happening anyway. The rest of the world is better placed to spot that phenomenon than the US is so the resentment grows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

There is no such thing as truth. It's always one viewpoint against another. Before labelling someone as violent or distorting the truth, or whatever else you call others, please bear it in mind.

---

@Honeybee, When someone spreads disinformation and you do not correct them you are just as bad as the speaker of untruths. If you do not know something, that doesn't mean it is not true, it just means you are not as informed as the source. And I rarely label people, so your imagination is making assumptions that do not exist. I don't know why you can not understand simple sentences without adding your own spin on it. Are you running for a political office? There is no supporting evidence to any of your claims. So why would you do such a thing? Perhaps you are having a difficulty understanding English? I can help you if you are having trouble understanding some words, all you need to do is ask.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

While you are right about people who don't know what bin Laden did calling his elimination as a bad deed, you must also understand that you need to look at the deeds of the US too to see if it really is such a heroic and great act. After all the US actively fostered bin Laden and Taleban so they could fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. So kindly enlighten yourself a little on the history.
.

---

I probably know more history than you do. That is a poor judgement to make. Why? Because I do not know what history you know. While it may be true, I only said it to show you what you sound like. Because explaining has no effect, I thought if I showed you how it sounds you may stop making that error. You may not however.

What you state is completely irrelevant. You are reaching for negativity. Why? Maybe you like to be negative, I do not know. No country is perfect. how much money did your country give for foriegn aid? Not as much as the US. We help more people around the world than any other country. We sent one of the worlds biggest cement pumps to Japan to help them. So whether you realize it or not, the US is one of the most helpful countries in the world. You are just in denial about it or purposfully ignoring the facts. And you are also complaining because we helped osama when his country was being invaded? I think it is a nice thing to help someone who is being invaded. Then he turned traiter, and you blame the US? Your thinking is completely illogical. Again, I think you have some deep down anger that you are repressing so it is emerging in silly ways that make no sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

And while you are at it, you may perhaps understand why the US isn't liked by all. It's not because it's the land of the free, but it's because all the 'evil' people right from Saddam to Gaddafi and bin Laden were helped and funded by the US when they were working to achieve the US objectives.

---

It is easy to figure out why the US is not liked by all. First of all, you will not like someone who bombs you, that is to be expected. That is logical, then you have the illogical. It is very similar to how famous or rich people get treated sometimes. Some people do not like the richest/most famous/strongest people. Sometimes it is fear, jealousy or selfishness. Then tend to see only what they want and ignore anything that goes against what they want to believe. No one can be friends with everyone in the world. I accept that. there are reasons to like the US and there are reasons to hate the US. So what? That's life. I'm fine with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

I'd have thought the REALLY obvious war the US was involved in before the War no Terror was the cold one. It might not have been a hot conflict with troops firing at each other on a daily basis but it saw massive military expenditure, propaganda, proxy wars... It also neatly represents the percieved external threat which I believe Honeybee was imlpying the US would now lack.

It also rather neatly explains why America's international reputation has been declining for the last 20 years. Prior to 1989 the US could be portrayed as the good guys protecting the western world from the evil Russians, bent on domination. The rest of the world was ready to forgive the American tanks and missiles that were parked in their back yards because they saw those as tools of protection. Since the USSR collapsed those tanks and missiles have been increasingly seen as tools of occupation because it's hard to see what other purpose they might serve. With nobody to protect the world from, the US, with it's overwhelming military might, gets left looking like a bully.

The US, of course, doesn't see itself as a bully and continues to take considerable (and quite justified) pride in having used that overwhelming military to try and protect others. Despite the way the US is often portrayed I do believe that it's governments have almost always been motivated by pretty benign motives in it's foreign policy. What the US fails to see, though, is that just about every empire in history has been built on the basis of deploying it's troops abroard to defend the interests of itself and others rather than through outright agression. The US doesn't intend to build an empire but it is happening anyway. The rest of the world is better placed to spot that phenomenon than the US is so the resentment grows.

---

Well said. I would just like to pint out what NeeSomeAnswers said earlier.

The US is not run by a dictator. It has a president that must answer to a building full of other politicians. Some may have poor intentions, some may have good ones. There is no word that anyone can say that the US wants/does/behaves like because it changes every few years and by whoever wins the vote (not for election, but for legislation).

And every empire/world power goes down eventually. It is only a matter of time before the US crumbles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

No wonder, everyone has got closets with skeletons they want to hide.

.

---

I don't think that is the reason, in this case. The time period would have been before the US had a navy, and the war was never declared, nor even acknowledged (the French had helped the US win independence only a couple decades earlier). I would guess that it was an inconsequential set of skirmishes that were caused by something minor and resulted in nothing, so I think it has been forgotten simply because of its staggering irrelevance in the face of world events.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

... so I think it has been forgotten simply because of its staggering irrelevance in the face of world events.

---

Maybe I was wrong in this context. I have gone through some 'memoirs' written by people up close to people in power, and what amazes me is the amount of information which has been kept hidden from the general public or even the politicians. Which is probably one of the main reasons people write memoirs.

We have had examples of regulatory bodies trying to change the contents of textbooks which are assigned for school studies. Since at that level the kids would usually not know better, once such knowledge is ingrained in them, it's bound to stay with them for a long long time. The worst way to do this is to record opinions and judgements instead of simply events.

@FD you have captured some of my initial question in your post, wrt the military might. With no cold war, no Russia and now no bin Laden, the military engine might run out of steam. And when you have suddenly realized your objective for many years, you are going to be in a vaccuum. My original question in this thread was and is, what can fill this vaccuum? Will it be some other external objectives such as eliminating all the Al Qaeda and Taleban members, or will it be some internal objective such as restructuring the economy or something else?

.

Quote:

---

what can fill this vaccuum?

---

Of course, there's always the option that the vacuum will collapse. No further threat, military expenditure cut right back and funds freed up for social programs like health care for all guaranteed at the point of delivery... Actually scratch that, it's a silly idea. The Americans'd never go for it.:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

With no cold war, no Russia and now no bin Laden, the military engine might run out of steam. And when you have suddenly realized your objective for many years, you are going to be in a vaccuum. My original question in this thread was and is, what can fill this vaccuum? Will it be some other external objectives such as eliminating all the Al Qaeda and Taleban members, or will it be some internal objective such as restructuring the economy or something else?

---

The military engine restructuring the economy? That's a good one!!! LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by New military

You will create new jobs or be shot!!

---

Quote:

---

The military engine restructuring the economy? That's a good one!!! LOL


Quote:
Originally Posted by New military
You will create new jobs or be shot!!

---

:lol:

To be fair, I don't think HB ever meant that the military would be doing the restructuring. The point he's been trying to make is that a government's position is often strengthened by the problems it faces. If a government has no problems to face it's kind of redundant.

There are many who think that the war on terror was an example of this phenomenon. Some go as far as saying the CIA were responsible for 9/11 but most just believe that the Bush government took advantage of it to ramp up the percieved threat - allowing them to appear 'Strong' in responding to it. Personally I think there's alot of truth in that latter position. I certainly believe that the Blair government was exagerating the hell out of the terrorist threat. The Cameron government has continued in the same vein.

Where HB was coming from with the economy is that, from a government's point of view, a failing economy serves the same purpose. It represents a threat and allows the government to be seen to be doing something.

HB, sorry if I've put words into your mouth here but I think that's basically where you were coming from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

We have had examples of regulatory bodies trying to change the contents of textbooks which are assigned for school studies.

---

Pffft. You guys are SO behind the times. In the US, we have been doing that for decades. The most current one has been the attempts to remove evolution, but there have been others. One of the more notable was that Texas bought so many textbooks that they had an inordinate influence on what went into them. If they decided not to use a certain book, that could drive the publisher out of business, so there was a strong incentive to mold the textbooks to the dictates of the Texas board. I don't think that is the case anymore, but the attacks on evolution are still happening in plenty of states.

yea, I see that too in South Africa - There are so Many things that were left out of the history books, especially the history of our own country. Those books made me feel bad for being white.

well another chance of showing some evidence, any evidence at all, that they actually shot anyone, let alone bin laden, is gone. "We're not releasing any photos to anyone at all". They are supposedly afraid that muslims hold him in the same regard as mohommad, which we all know is unlikely at best. (take this and make what you will of it)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and...sama-bin-laden
there's the announcement video, if no one has bothered to post it. I find it interesting how muslim-like his pronunciation of pakistan is. (not really)

I think they are right in that action. They would get blasted for either course of action, so the more modest one seems best, to me. Plenty of people would object to some kind of gory "trophy" shot. I guess they could have taken the time to set him up like those old west photos where they propped up dead bandits and photographed them. Kind of an odd custom, and one that has long since gone out of style. Furthermore, everybody understands that pictures can be photoshopped, so they are no longer proof of anything. No matter what you do, if a person wants to believe that the photo was faked, they will do so.

Slightly OT from the current line of discussion, but what the hey ...

Anyone know the particulars regarding the "lost" helicopter?
They came in 2 helicopters, and trashed one that had mechanical problems ...

SO .. how did they leave?

All in the one remaining one?
Did another come in?

Spoo, I believe there must have been more choppers than just two. Maybe four. Some news reports put the size of the strike team to be close to 60. While I don't know if that's true, even a 40-ish team would be claustrophobic in a single chopper. But again, that's just my guess.

FD, you are more or less right. I would equate it to a company that's facing a crisis. All the employees unite to tackle the crisis. The moment the crisis is over, the company must replace it with another equally strong objective where the employees will unite and try and achieve it. The war on terror has been the problem that everyone (almost) in the US has been supporting (if not in action then at least in thought). Maybe that's one of the reasons they finally found and eliminated bin Laden, I don't know.

However the US now finds itself in a position where there's no visible/tangible threat to it anymore. Cold war is long over, bin Laden is gone, Saddam is gone, Gaddafi hasn't yet reached the US Enemy No. 1 status. So there's a vaccuum as far as military actions abroad are concerned. How do you get the people to rally behind something so it can be achieved? What is there to achieve?

Economic problems are a good alternative. However as with most internal problems, everyone perceives such problems to have been caused by others' mistakes. For e.g. the bankers will blame the government, the public will blame the bankers and the government blames something else. So the measures to tackle such problems would also be different, in everyone's mind.

Whereas in case of bin Laden, everyone could agree that he should be eliminated, in case of healthcare reforms, you won't have the same agreement on whether the government should manage healthcare directly or leave it in the hands of private companies. This is just one example.

@Shaggy Hiker, yes, I forgot religion is still very dominant and very much part of the state there. We have been kinda lucky in this respect as the books have so far remained free from religious zealots trying to manipulate history. Sometimes I find it interesting that issues like abortion can be debated much more rationally in India than in the US where religion takes the issue to a different plane.

.

To quote Henry Ford "all history is bunk". And that's a prime example because he actually said "history is more or less bunk".

It get's twisted for all sorts of reasons. The quote above got twisted because the former phrase is snappier. The fact that Ford tends to be viewed in the US as a great industrialist and pillar of American History while evryone conveniently forgets he was a raving anti-semite who supported the American Nazi movement during WW2 is because the latter is uncomfortable for the American coonciousness to remember.

It should be noted that, in the above two examples, there has been no concious effort to rewrite history - it just happened organically. That's how most history becomes innacurate. History isn't usually rewritten by the victor - merely miss-remembered.

Quote:

---

However the US now finds itself in a position where there's no visible/tangible threat to it anymore. Cold war is long over, bin Laden is gone, Saddam is gone, Gaddafi hasn't yet reached the US Enemy No. 1 status. So there's a vaccuum as far as military actions abroad are concerned. How do you get the people to rally behind something so it can be achieved? What is there to achieve?

---

HoneyBee why do you think they need one ? maybe less Military action is exactly what America needs right now.

Has anyone else noticed that wars are bleeding expensive, and in the end it is the tax payer that foots the bill, eventually the tax payer finds that they dont want to fund that much military action any more and would rather the money was spent on something more tangible.

Also China who is rolling in Money, is doing it's very best to stay out of any conflicts that are not on it's own doorstep and i think that the sheer cost is one of the reasons.

I don't see any vacuum. The cold war, saddam, many other things that seem to be "perceived" as uniting everyone really don't. There are all kinds of threats in the universe. Terrorists, bad people, natural disasters on earth or from space. osama actually did kill, and kill many. he did unite everyone. Nothing really has before him in a long time. People are happy to go back to doing what they want to do. There is no need for some type of vacuum filling thing, nor is one wanted. Unless you are making twinkies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

HoneyBee why do you think they need one ? maybe less Military action is exactly what America needs right now.

Has anyone else noticed that wars are bleeding expensive, and in the end it is the tax payer that foots the bill, eventually the tax payer finds that they dont want to fund that much military action any more and would rather the money was spent on something more tangible.

Also China who is rolling in Money, is doing it's very best to stay out of any conflicts that are not on it's own doorstep and i think that the sheer cost is one of the reasons.

---

I am not passing judgement on whether the US should engage in more military conflicts or not. I am merely contemplating what the lack of a singlemost important objective might do and will there be another objective (military or non military, external or internal) to replace it so everyone rallies behind it to achieve it, and what it could be, under the current circumstances.

The taxpayer must pay for each and everything. That's democracy.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

I am not passing judgement on whether the US should engage in more military conflicts or not. I am merely contemplating what the lack of a singlemost important objective might do and will there be another objective (military or non military, external or internal) to replace it so everyone rallies behind it to achieve it, and what it could be, under the current circumstances.

---

Not EVERYONE wishes to rally, be patriotic nor even work together. There are a huge variety of people in the US. To group them like you are doing will start you down a path with no correct answer. You wanna talk about culture? In the US there are more than most places in the world. So you get more different reactions than most other places. Being attacked can, and did unite all those different cultures (did you see the sales on red, white and blue turbans?:lol:). Once the attack is over, people are more than happy to go their separate ways. Because of the different cultures, there is NO singlemost objective because everybody wants something different.

some ideas: militarize the war on drugs... militarize the borders... militarize airport security

-tg

The interesting point isn't whether the people of the US want another cause to rally behind. It's whether the government want a cause to rally the people for them.

All governments (not just the US) have a habit of exagerating the size of any problem that comes along because 1) it tends to pull the public onto their side (everybody likes a protector) and 2) If they solve the problem it makes them look good. Nobodies impressed when you solve an insignificant problem.

Quote:

---

wanna talk about culture? In the US there are more than most places in the world

---

:eek:

Quote:

---

There are a huge variety of people in the US. To group them like you are doing will start you down a path with no correct answer.

---

What quite funny about that in India it is even more varied !

Quote:

---

militarize the war on drugs

---

I thought you were already doing that in Mexico and failing !!!!

Quote:

---

militarize the borders

---

The Mexico Border right (so this is part of the same larger problem), or do you want to keep the Canadians out as well ?

Quote:

---

militarize airport security

---

They did that in the UK, after the liquid bomb plot. Police armed with the biggest machine guns i have ever seen were walking round the airport when i was travelling a few years back, by common consent all it did was inconvenience legitimate passengers rather than catch any actual terrorists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

The interesting point isn't whether the people of the US want another cause to rally behind. It's whether the government want a cause to rally the people for them.

---

I have this (conspiracy) theory that the Bush Administration knew where Bin Laden was all this time... but they peretuated the "we're looking for him" (and the war on terrorism) myth in an effort to keep the war machine humming along.

-tg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

What quite funny about that in India it is even more varied !

---

I am not an expert on this subject, so I may be wrong. But as far as I can tell, the proportion of native Indians from the western hemisphere to the population of the US is much smaller than the proportion of native Indians from the eastern hemisphere to the population of India. And I have seen nationalities from Europe, Asia, Africa, Middle East, Central America, South America and Australia. And more than one country from each (except Australia:)). And I am sure there are many I missed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

The interesting point isn't whether the people of the US want another cause to rally behind. It's whether the government want a cause to rally the people for them.

All governments (not just the US) have a habit of exagerating the size of any problem that comes along because 1) it tends to pull the public onto their side (everybody likes a protector) and 2) If they solve the problem it makes them look good. Nobodies impressed when you solve an insignificant problem.

---

You forgot to mention they always try to blame the problems on to the previous governments of the opposite parties.

If the people united behind a particular objective, it actually could be achieved. Look at Japan, the way it has reacted as a country to the disasters caused by the quake, tsunami and then the radiation leaks. It's much more than their fair share of troubles, but they have self-imposed power cuts so that the available power can be distributed better, they stand in lines in front of the supermarkets to buy whatever quantity is available, unlike in India where there would probably be riots, and hotels have halved their rates in the affected regions so that the survivors and others can afford the foods. On top of that they have also submitted their bid for the Olympics.

.

Here's another interesting angle. Some may find it far-fetched, but it's actually a good theory:

There was an article in the Sunday newspaper on the bin Laden assassination. The author has written quite a few interesting books on the Middle East politics and the importance of oil for all the different stakeholders. According to him, the sudden political unrest in the Middle Eastern countries which started a few months ago was the doing of the US and was done to ensure the rulers of these countries were busy saving their own seats of power, while the US planned the Laden assassination. As a result after Laden was assassinated, it's only Pakistan which's been protesting a little. There are no anti-US statements from other known anti-US countries like Syria or Libya.

While only Obama and probably God know if this theory is true, it does appear strange that all of a sudden so many countries have been seized by political unrest. The timing doesn't entirely appear to be a co-incidence. And if this theory were true, then hats off to Obama and others who thought of this. It was a brilliant strategy.

.

One thing I wish to point out is that OIL is much more important to the middle east than the US. So many people get hung up on oil they often neglect important facts. Nothing is as simple as people make things out to be. The reason they do that is because it is easy to understand the "trimmed down" version. There ARE alternate sources of energy than oil. If all the oil in the world disappeared right now the middle east would be much worse off then any oil using country in the long term. The oil USING nations would spend billions to adapt to new fuel sources. The middle east would be broke. It isn't so bad to be poor. It is much worse to be rich and end up poor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

Here's another interesting angle. Some may find it far-fetched, but it's actually a good theory:

There was an article in the Sunday newspaper on the bin Laden assassination. The author has written quite a few interesting books on the Middle East politics and the importance of oil for all the different stakeholders. According to him, the sudden political unrest in the Middle Eastern countries which started a few months ago was the doing of the US and was done to ensure the rulers of these countries were busy saving their own seats of power, while the US planned the Laden assassination. As a result after Laden was assassinated, it's only Pakistan which's been protesting a little. There are no anti-US statements from other known anti-US countries like Syria or Libya.
.

---

Waaaaaay too complicated. No rational person would propose that a series of countries should be destabilized as cover for a minor covert action (minor in terms of scope and timeline) in a different part of the world. This is the province of all conspiracy theories. Once your plan becomes too complex, and too interdependent, then Murphy becomes your pilot. After all, if that were true, would the operation against bin Laden not have happened if the Egyptian or Tunisian uprising had failed? That would be absurd in the extreme, as the operation had value regardless of the uprisings. Therefore, since the uprisings would not have been necessary prerequisites to the bin Lade operation, they were not related in any practical way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarMan

There ARE alternate sources of energy than oil. If all the oil in the world disappeared right now the middle east would be much worse off then any oil using country in the long term. The oil USING nations would spend billions to adapt to new fuel sources. The middle east would be broke. It isn't so bad to be poor. It is much worse to be rich and end up poor.

---

I thoroughly disagree. Of course you are being hypothetical, and oil will not 'disappear', but if it did, the US would be back in the stone age before those billions would come up with anything. The very existence of our society depends on oil. It makes everything we use and everything we do. There are NO viable alternatives currently known for most of the uses of oil. We might very well be able to come up with alternative energy sources in the short term, which would allow us to move around, but there is no alternative energy source in even theoretical form, which would replace the use of oil in the foundational industries of our country. We might have electric cars, but not electric harvesters, and without the latter we would not be able to produce sufficient food off of our croplands to feed our own population.

The use of oil for transportation is both the most visible, and least significant, contribution of oil to US society. We wouldn't be poor going to poor, we would be poor going to dead! Given enough time for a soft landing, we might be able to switch over to electric, hydrogen, natural gas, or some other thing which is currently on the dim horizon, but the Middle East will also have that time for a soft landing. Perhaps they are a one trick pony, or perhaps they can change, but one thing is true: An abrupt change would destroy us just as surely as it would destroy them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

We might have electric cars, but not electric harvesters

---

No, but easy to build.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

An abrupt change would destroy us just as surely as it would destroy them.

---

Like my previous post, I disagree. I think it is much eaiser (even though it is not easy, it is a lot of work) to incorporate existing technology in current tasks then to fabricate something out of nothing.

I once watched a show on national geographic Aftermath| world without oil that showed a potential future of America if there was no more oil.
basically there was chaos for decades and then It slowly started to get better

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarMan

No, but easy to build.

---

I don't think so. The problem is certainly not the motors. We have very good electric motors of all sizes. What we lack is a means to store sufficient energy to run something like a combine. Build a battery that has 1/10th the energy density of a gallon of gasoline and the gas engine will be a museum piece overnight. We could get VASTLY superior performance from electric motors than we can from a gas engine, but we can't store electricity with enough efficiency to allow us to cut the cord for transportation, except in specialized (and short range) cars largely due to the need to minimize weight to get the range up to the marginally useful level.

A large leap forward in battery technology would rock the world, yet I have never seen even a theoretical design for a battery that could work. I think we are likely to get some breakthroughs in electricity production that would revolutionize generation. Look up quantum photovolteics for an example of a technology that is both likely to arrive, and would have an enormous impact, but when you look at battery technology, there is nothing viable on the visible horizon. In fact, I haven't heard of any theoretical battery technology that would suffice in this thing, either. Without better batteries, heavy machinery, such as the combine, wouldn't really work.

The one alternative would be to come up with an alternative fuel to use for generating electricty, kind of like how a diesel-electric locomotive works. If diesel is an option, then all is well, but bio-diesel is certainly not an option on the scale that would be needed to maintain our food supply. What else is there? Perhaps there is something, such as bio-gasification, such as was used in the late stages of Nazi Germany.

But that is still only one use. Oil goes into virtually all plastics. Plastics go into virtually all products. Take away oil and we might find a replacement that could be turned into those plastics, but it is likely that the cost would be prohibitive. That would be the end of the US economy, if it happened fast.

Quote:

---

Like my previous post, I disagree. I think it is much eaiser (even though it is not easy, it is a lot of work) to incorporate existing technology in current tasks then to fabricate something out of nothing.

---

I agree with that statement in general. The one caveate I would suggest is that you can't make a cell phone out of wood and rock, no matter how hard you try. Just knowing the design would certainly be a major advantage, but if you lack the materials to make a functional unit, then it really doesn't matter whether you have that knowledge. Remove oil, and we would lose the materials. There may be alternatives to all of them, but they may be cost-prohibitive. We can certainly live without cell phones, but can we live without all the similar devices that the same rule would apply to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarMan

One thing I wish to point out is that OIL is much more important to the middle east than the US. So many people get hung up on oil they often neglect important facts. Nothing is as simple as people make things out to be. The reason they do that is because it is easy to understand the "trimmed down" version. There ARE alternate sources of energy than oil. If all the oil in the world disappeared right now the middle east would be much worse off then any oil using country in the long term. The oil USING nations would spend billions to adapt to new fuel sources. The middle east would be broke. It isn't so bad to be poor. It is much worse to be rich and end up poor.

---

If oil were to disappear from the face of the earth in a week, the oil producers would end up hoarding whatever stock they had (they do have stocks!) and the prices of oil would skyrocket to such proportions there would be another world war before you could think of any alternative means.

Of course the oil producers would suck away every penny in your pockets first, before declaring they had nothing more to deliver, leaving you poorer and without the means to carry out any researches.

Just see what happened to the electric vehicles launched by the GM and others a few years back.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

What we lack is a means to store sufficient energy to run something like a combine.

---

I just wanted to pinpoint a source of the disagreement. You assumed I wanted to use batteries. But that is not the case. That is only one way. There are many others. Yes if you limit yourself to one method, you will not get far. Thinking inside the box will also limit you. There are also other things in your post which are not accurate, but I do not have the time right now.