• mwguy@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      The issue with the Gulf Wars is that we wanted to control the oil resources via local proxy. Honestly, we (the US, I realize this is on the Europe@) could use our Navy to directly control about half of Saudi Arabia’s oil and buy ourselves time to get off oil.

      • bacondragonoverlord
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Lol welcome to Afghanistan. It’s not armies marching in a straight line that will be the problem.

        • mwguy@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          The Saudis don’t have a Navy. About half their reserves and a massive chunk of Iran, Kuwait and the other Gulf State’s reserves are in the Gulf. We don’t have to set foot on the Peninsula.

          • bacondragonoverlord
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            Neither does Ukraine. Still decimated the russian navy.

            Also to nip this whole “argument” in the bud, and I’m not even going into how terribly colonialistic your proposal is, how many billions of euro would you propose to put into essentially propping up a already dead technology. Fossil fuels have to be eliminated by 2050. Why wage war for something we won’t even need in 25 years.

            We WANT to increase fossil fuel prices. To hasten the change to renewables, the higher the potential savings the better.

            • mwguy@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              Fossil fuels have to be eliminated by 2050. Why wage war for something we won’t even need in 25 years.

              I don’t think that fossil fuel usage will be eliminated in 25 years given the opposition to mass nuclear deployment. I think this would ideally be a carrot that dictates green energy buildouts in exchange for subsidized oil.

              • bacondragonoverlord
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                My dude, but essentially that’s whats already happening. No energy is cheaper than renewable energy. Every process we thus electrify and use renewables is not using fossile fuels.

                Thus we have less of a need for subsidized oil.

                • mwguy@infosec.pub
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  My dude, but essentially that’s whats already happening.

                  Yes but it’s happening with Natural Gas as the baseline power generation method. Which is much better than oil or coal for carbon emissions, but it’s not green.