Iraqi Oil

[SevenMass]

There is actually not enough uranium in nature usefull for nuclear plants, to fuel all our energy needs.
So an other type of uranium, wich is more abundant, needs to be transformed into the type that can be used to fuel power plants.
The Plants who do this are called (uhm, unfortunately i don't know the name in english) and they house very complex technology and these plants are essential for creating A-bomb's. They also preduce radio active waste that needs to be safely stored away somewhere, and although it may not seem much, it takes a very long time before this waste can be considered "safe" so it will eventually build up into huge amounts! Witch can't be dumped just anywhere, but need to be protected by expensive guards etc. etc.

So the whole nuclear issue isn't as easy as you guys make it seem like!

But why build our own nuclear plants if mother earth alreaddy has one! In the core of our planet! There is enough energy out there to fill all our needs for at least 10.000.000. years! Deep down, rock melts! so it certainly can heat up some steam to drive a steamturbine! All that needs to be done is finding out a way to make this energy useable. is any research being done here? I don't know about any.

On the war issue:
It may be, that the US his actions are in the interest of many ppl, among witch the commen ppl who live at the places that are effected. But don't be so naive to think that the US does anything just for charity.
The US is not better than France, its all about selfish needs!

[kandrathe]

There is actually not enough uranium in nature usefull for nuclear plants, to fuel all our energy needs.
So an other type of uranium, wich is more abundant, needs to be transformed into the type that can be used to fuel power plants.

All uranium in nature is not suitable for fission, and needs to be refined and manufactured into fuel capable rods. IIRC, there is evidence of a naturally occuring pocket of enriched uranium ore in Africa that with the aid of rain water became naturally fissile. That pocket entirely transformed itself into plutonium, which then decayed, and so on, and so on, until it became a lead deposit. Your general point "not enough uranium in nature" is wrong, and you can learn about it here: Uranium Facts Page

The plants who do this are called (uhm, unfortunately i don't know the name in english) and they house very complex technology and these plants are essential for creating A-bomb's. They also preduce radio active waste that needs to be safely stored away somewhere, and although it may not seem much, it takes a very long time before this waste can be considered "safe" so it will eventually build up into huge amounts! Witch can't be dumped just anywhere, but need to be protected by expensive guards etc. etc.

Uranium enrichment facilities. I believe you are thinking of weapons grade U-235, which can be used to make bombs. A gas cetrifuge spinning at very, very high speeds separates the U-235 from the U-238. That is not neccesary for uranium used to fuel power reactors. The uranium ore used for fuel needs to be separated from the rocks, and its concentration of U235 is about 4%. The ore waste is usually put back into the holes it was taken from with much of its radioactive content removed. Actually, waste is a misnomer for spent nuclear fuel. The rods can be cooled, and then reprocessed to remove the new isotopes for nuclear medicine, and the plutonium (Pu-239) can be reused as nuclear fuel for breeder reactors.

You might also be concerned about Radioactive Elements in Coal and Fly Ash, not to mention the cadmium, arsenic, mercury, lead, etc., etc.

But why build our own nuclear plants if mother earth alreaddy has one! In the core of our planet! There is enough energy out there to fill all our needs for at least 10.000.000. years! Deep down, rock melts! so it certainly can heat up some steam to drive a steamturbine! All that needs to be done is finding out a way to make this energy useable. is any research being done here? I don't know about any.

Yes, it is called geothermal. It might be viable in places where there is a magma chamber close to the surface (why you might want to live above one is another question), but for most of the places on the planet it is not feasible.

But don't be so naive to think that the US does anything just for charity. The US is not better than France, its all about selfish needs!

The US has clearly stated that its concern in Iraq is for national security reasons, those include defense (from WMD proliferation), and economic (destabilization of the nations who own the middle east oil fields). If that is selfish, then so be it. But, I am one who thinks that the US government is doing their job by looking out for my interests. But, I also think they are being a bit coarse in their methods.

[--Pete]

Hi,

A lot of this has been covered in other posts on the thread. You should really read a thread in its entirety before answering. However, I'll reiterate some points here.

There is actually not enough uranium in nature usefull for nuclear plants, to fuel all our energy needs.

This is not true. There is not enough uranium in the places where it has already been found to supply our energy needs if we continue the "use once and throw away" practice. However, no one has been exploring for uranium for about forty years, so no one can say how much uranium is out there that has not been found. But as you point out, uranium can be used to generate more fuel.

So an other type of uranium, wich is more abundant, needs to be transformed into the type that can be used to fuel power plants.

Since the first nuclear pile was made before the process for separating uranium isotopes was developed, I believe any naturally occurring uranium is sufficient for powering a reactor. I am not sure about depleted uranium (uranium where the 235 mass isotope has been removed), but I suspect that it is not sufficiently active.

The Plants who do this are called (uhm, unfortunately i don't know the name in english) and they house very complex technology and these plants are essential for creating A-bomb's.

Well, they are called "breeder reactors". They do not transform one type of uranium to another. Mostly they transform U-238 to Pu-239 (plutonium) which is another very good nuclear fuel. And the *existing* supplies of uranium if used in a breeder first, will generate enough nuclear fuel to take us well into the future. Some of the numbers I've seen is 1000 years at ten times the present usage, replacing *all* other sources including hydro.

The technology is only complex if compared to, say, making fire by rubbing two sticks together. Compared to a cracking plant, or many other chemical or mechanical plants, it is about average, maybe a bit simpler. Don't confuse the total complexity of a generating plant with the relatively small part that is the power source. And there are a number of types of breeders, some simpler, some safer, etc.

As to being "essential for creating A-bomb's", so what? The piss of cows is essential for creating black powder (it was from manure piles that the potassium nitrate used in making black powder was extracted). Should we then ban cows? This is a red herring, a typical tactic used by the anti-nuclear power people to substitute fear and doubt for fact.

They also preduce radio active waste that needs to be safely stored away somewhere, and although it may not seem much, it takes a very long time before this waste can be considered "safe" so it will eventually build up into huge amounts! Witch can't be dumped just anywhere, but need to be protected by expensive guards etc. etc.

Again, pure crap. I addressed the question of waste elsewhere. It is true that radioactive waste straight from a reactor is very active ("hot"). It is equally true that that waste will be radioactive above background level for a long time. But it is a fallacy, spread by either ignorance or malice, that there is waste that is both very active and lasts a long time. Radioactive waste is a mixture. A relative small part of it is very active. This means that it has a short half life. That, in turn, means that it will not last long. So, even if it were to all be stored, it would mean relative short term storage of a small amount. And even that amount is greatly reduced since much of this material is reusable as fuel or has other radiological uses. The bulk of the material is low activity long half life. While this stuff does need to be stored somewhere, there are a lot of simple solutions. One developed mostly by the French is to make ceramic bricks of the material and dump them either in deserts or in the ocean. Since the bricks are almost totally inert and have reasonably low activity (about the same as naturally occurring uranium), they don't need to extensive care.

The "it's gonna fry you forever" lie is, again, mostly just the propaganda of the anti-nukes. As is the "you gotta have guards". Why do you need guards if you've removed and are reusing the usable fuel? It is just this fuel that is the weapons grade material. and it will be in the power plants which already have security. The small amounts of "hot" material might be a threat, so put them on some remote corner of a military base -- plenty of security at no extra cost. The low activity stuff isn't worth stealing, not even a terrorist can do much damage with it.

So the whole nuclear issue isn't as easy as you guys make it seem like!

The only thing making the nuclear issue not easy is the ignorance and stupidity of the majority of the population and the propaganda of a few loud liars. The technical and safety issues are pretty damned simple, and mostly solved.

But why build our own nuclear plants if mother earth alreaddy has one! In the core of our planet! There is enough energy out there to fill all our needs for at least 10.000.000. years! Deep down, rock melts! so it certainly can heat up some steam to drive a steamturbine! All that needs to be done is finding out a way to make this energy useable. is any research being done here? I don't know about any.

Your ignorance is no indication that no research is done. If you had spent the time to do a simple search on "geothermal energy" you would have found hundreds of hits, many of them from organizations that either are using this type of energy or are researching it. If you had gone to just one of those sites, say http://www.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/ and looked around, you would have found many examples of people doing what you are proposing. You would also have found an answer to the question of why this cannot be *the* primary source of energy, at least for the foreseeable future. For now, geothermal energy is only feasible in areas where there is geo heat close to the surface. Both the regions of that heat and the amount of flow of that heat are limited. And the technology to drill deep enough to make geothermal available anywhere is in the research phase with no guarantee that it will ever work.

So, once again, your argument is "let's wait for this fantastic potential form of energy". Sorry, but first it is a gamble for the future and people need clean energy *now*. Second, *all* technology looks like it is perfect before it is developed. The problems aren't discovered until it gets out of the lab and into the real world. And, third, a large percentage of development programs fail. To depend on the success of one for something as important as energy is optimistically stupid.

On the war issue:

Since you said nothing, I have nothing to reply.

--Pete

[Zenda]

Hello Pete,

Despite the risk to be clueless again, I will reply to some points here.

My problem was that you insulted those who protested against this war, by calling Most (are) too stupid or ignorant to think. Are you saying you didn't? Anyway, I still don't see why those against this war have to present explanations that can withstand any form of debate or judgment. If they could do so, we wouldn't have this war, or would we?

So, you are afraid that Hussein will develop methods to blackmail the world. Ofcourse. In a few years time, he will threaten to drop an 'dirty' bomb on New York, and because the USA will be unable to stop him, you will have to pay a billion dollar ransom. After that, he will threaten to attack Europe with biological weapons, and I will have no other choice then to pay. Or worse, he could blackmail the West into lifting the 'Free Market' limitations, so that all countries in the world would have equal chances at prosperity. Or is he just evil, skipping the blackmail, and simply trying to destroy us all?

I agree that the world would be a far better place without Hussein, and without many other people, for that matter. However, removing them all would be a long and truly costly process, and it could eventually arrive at our own door. If this was a reason to go to war, we would never again know peace. Luckily for us, most politicians realize this.

No, instead of making Hussein the target, many politicians claim to rescue his subjects. By bringing war to their country. Without being certain it will make a difference. But being very certain it will be good for the economy, so why look for other options. Yes, I'd rather glorify the peace protesters with "they cared about the wellfare of other humans". You remember it was actually a good thing, to care about others, years ago? Or was it crap, also?

As for alternative energy sources, there are plenty of those. The only problem is that they are currently not cheap enough to compete with other sources, which makes large scale use of them harmful to economic growth. Another 'problem' is that those methods would be durable. You can't make much money with a product that could be nearly costless and available in unlimited quantity, so how can you expect people to invest money in the exploitation of it? Regarding the people in the developing countries, who will increase the need of energy because they want the same gadgets as we have, how about meeting them halfway? Or is that too much cutting down? I don't think it is fair to blame those people for our current shortages, wouldn't you agree?

[--Pete]

Hi,

Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. All you did in this post is reiterate your first post, completely ignoring or not understanding anything in my reply. If you actually have something new to contribute, do so. If you don't, shut up.

--Pete

[Roland]

...but, is it just me, or have you been unusually harsh these past few weeks? I don't know, maybe I'm just sticking my head in where it doesn't belong. Just seems you're trigger finger is a bit itchier than normal. ;) Mayhap a cold beer would help? I'm sure Occhi would agree. ;)

And before you say it: Yes, I know, another worthless post. But what do I have to add? Everything that I would, or even could, say in this thread has been said already. I have nothing to add. :)

[--Pete]

Hi,

As usual, most of my posts have answered questions and clarified subjects. I have only treated a few people like the idiots they are, or rather post as. So, no, I have not been any harsher than normal. However, there has been a more than normal level of stupidity shown on the Lounge recently. I don't know if that is because of the world situation or if a lot of new people are signing up and posting. Not that new people are necessarily bad, but most people, new or old, wouldn't recognize a logical argument if it bit them. The old timers, however, have learned not to push too much BS or someone here will call them on it.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Despite the risk to be clueless again, I will reply to some points here.

He who will not risk, cannot win. ==John Paul Jones==

My problem was that you insulted those who protested against this war, by calling Most (are) too stupid or ignorant to think. Are you saying you didn't? Anyway, I still don't see why those against this war have to present explanations that can withstand any form of debate or judgment. If they could do so, we wouldn't have this war, or would we?

The problem with many protestors is that they use single issue appeals, or beg for peace
a: without looking long term
b: without coming up with an alternative to aggression and risks that poses
c: without make a parody of their protests with their focus on the sound bytes.

What's not to hold in contempt? When protesting a serious and deep issue, more than soundbytes are necessary. The same is true when presenting complex policy. :o

So, you are afraid that Hussein will develop methods to blackmail the world. Ofcourse. In a few years time, he will threaten to drop an 'dirty' bomb on New York, and because the USA will be unable to stop him, you will have to pay a billion dollar ransom. After that, he will threaten to attack Europe with biological weapons, and I will have no other choice then to pay. Or worse, he could blackmail the West into lifting the 'Free Market' limitations, so that all countries in the world would have equal chances at prosperity. Or is he just evil, skipping the blackmail, and simply trying to destroy us all?

1993, some men tried to blow up the WTC with a truck bomb. They screwed up, it did not work.
2001, tried with an airplane loaded with gas. Ah, it worked that time.

1948, 1956 Iraq in two wars attacks Israel with other allies and loses.
1967. Iraq and Arab League fight Israel again, lose.
1973 Arabs attack Israel and lose again.
1978 IIRC, Israel bombs Iraqi Nuclear Power plant, French Built.
1980-88. Iran invaded by Iraq. During this war, gas used on Iranian troops. Ballistic missiles of modest rante, Scud, Frog, et al, used to attack cities.
1990 Kuwait invaded and occupied by Iraq.
1991. Iraq tossed out by US led UN coalition
1991 to present Iraq rearms and continues to pursue WMD development

Now, what should the world do? Wait until a WMD attack happens? Or, what I think Pres Bush fears, wait until a WMD made in Iraq is to a proxy, like Abu Nidal or Al Qaeda operatives who did the little number on the WTC, and hope not too many thousands die? Relying on your enemy to be nice to you is a bankrupt policy.

What sane person waits for their enemy to attack them when there is every reason to believe they will? Note the French in 1940. They waited all through 1939, not helping Poland, who got squashed . . . and then they too ate it.

The very real possibility that attacks on US and our allies will happen again?

1982 Beirut Truck Bomb
1993 WTC
Lockerbie Bombing (Forget the year.)
1998 Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania bombed
1998 USS Cole
2001 WTC

Just a sampler, there have been others.

Do you see a pattern here? Some folks do. Is there any reason to wait for more to happen?

I agree that the world would be a far better place without Hussein, and without many other people, for that matter. However, removing them all would be a long and truly costly process, and it could eventually arrive at our own door. If this was a reason to go to war, we would never again know peace. Luckily for us, most politicians realize this.

Whether this latest drive to a war is 'the answer' is anyone's guess. In war, the outcome is never final. :)

No, instead of making Hussein the target, many politicians claim to rescue his subjects. By bringing war to their country. Without being certain it will make a difference. But being very certain it will be good for the economy, so why look for other options. Yes, I'd rather glorify the peace protesters with "they cared about the wellfare of other humans". You remember it was actually a good thing, to care about others, years ago? Or was it crap, also?

OK, about imposing Democracy at the point of a bayonet. I suggest that Iraq is as likely to evolve into as Islamic Republic, per the Iran model, as any other direction should Saddam and his power elite be dispatched.

As for alternative energy sources, there are plenty of those. The only problem is that they are currently not cheap enough to compete with other sources, which makes large scale use of them harmful to economic growth. Another 'problem' is that those methods would be durable. You can't make much money with a product that could be nearly costless and available in unlimited quantity, so how can you expect people to invest money in the exploitation of it? Regarding the people in the developing countries, who will increase the need of energy because they want the same gadgets as we have, how about meeting them halfway? Or is that too much cutting down? I don't think it is fair to blame those people for our current shortages, wouldn't you agree?

Politics is the art of the possible. Alternative energy has been steam rolled by both parties over the past 30 years, and by such interests as the Virginia coal lobby. Alternative energy is not the answer to the Middle East crisis in the short term, and we have seen how badly the long term has been screwed by 30 years of Congressional buggery.

[kandrathe]

I didn't understand a bit of what your are getting at at the top of your post.

but,

As for alternative energy sources, there are plenty of those. The only problem is that they are currently not cheap enough to compete with other sources, which makes large scale use of them harmful to economic growth. Another 'problem' is that those methods would be durable. You can't make much money with a product that could be nearly costless and available in unlimited quantity, so how can you expect people to invest money in the exploitation of it? Regarding the people in the developing countries, who will increase the need of energy because they want the same gadgets as we have, how about meeting them halfway? Or is that too much cutting down? I don't think it is fair to blame those people for our current shortages, wouldn't you agree?

What are the plenty of alternatives? The biggest problem with alternatives that people often cite, is that they are usually so dilute as to require more energy to construct and maintain the collectors than they can typically pay back in the device lifetimes.

A solar panel facing the sun in near-Earth space receives about 1400 watts of sunlight per square meter (130 watts per square foot). On Earth, the day-night cycle cuts this in half. The oblique angle of the sun's rays with respect to the ground (except at noon in the tropics) cuts this in half again for a typical spot on the Earth. (Solar panels on the ground can be angled upward to circumvent this, but they must then be spread out over more ground to avoid casting shadows on each other.) Clouds and atmospheric dust cut the available sunlight in half again.

So, 1400 watts/square meter divided by 8 is 175 watts/square meter, and new break throughs in solar cell efficiency now boast of just over 32%. That brings us to 55 watts/ square meter, assuming you live where the sun shines quite alot your 1 square meter would produce 55*12 hours /day = 660 watts/day. The local nuclear plant near me has two reactors, of which the smallest produced 3.35 billion kWh in 2001, or 9,178,082,192 Watts/day. So the equivalant solar panel farm would need to cover 13,906,185 Square meters, or 3436.29 Acres. But remember the panels cannot shade each other, so you would need at least double that, so practically somewhere between 10 and 20 square miles.

[Chaerophon]

Pete,

Before spouting your nonsense, read the history of the intra war period. Of how the people who wanted peace at any price gave us WW II.

Right, and overly zealous (vindictive, really) reparations on the part of allied countries had nothing to do with it. Inaction was a dire mistake that stalled our reaction to WWII and weakened our position as we entered into it. It did not start it. If we had reacted sooner to Germany's vigorous military program and responded to their attacks on neighbours rather than "giving" them Czechoslovakia, we certainly could have helped our cause in the war. However, the processes that actually led to the German desire for conflict and the initiation of WWII were set in motion years earlier at the conclusion of the First World War; a horrifying affair that, to contradict your "revisionism", as Occhi would classify it, left a lot of people praying that never again would they have to send their sons into combat. God forbid that emotion should taint their judgement.

By the way, I have chosen to pretty much ignore your statements addressing Roland further down the thread, but, for the record, if you'd like an example of your ignorance, I'd be more than happy to provide one for you in private. A few days ago, it seems that idiocy was rampant and that its source was none other than an exalted "old hand" who claims to partake in a good deal of correcting. If you have anything further to say, perhaps you could address it to me in PM rather than attempting to publicly backstab me once the evidence has been erased.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Inaction was a dire mistake and stalled our reaction to WWII. It did not start it.

What "started" WW II? The treaty of Versailles? The unresolved issues from WW I? The Serbian desire for independence from the Empire? The founding of the Empire with the coronation of Charlemagne? You can push it back as far as you want, with each effect having a cause.

I said "gave us WW II". The peace movement gave us WW II because they failed, over and over, to restrict Hitler. First by not enforcing the limitations on German armament (which, unlike the economic points of the treaty were *not* punitive, merely precautionary). Then by following a policy of appeasement when Nazi Germany was still weak enough that its expansionist policies could still be contained. That in spite of the repeated speeches by Hitler in which he detailed the plans for lebensraum. Speeches which were distributed throughout the world in newsreels. And the influence of the peace movement is seen in the lack of military buildup of the Allies in spite of the demonstration of what Germany's new forces were capable of in the Spanish Civil War.

What "started" WW II? In Europe, the invasion of Poland, September '39. In Asia, the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, started almost exactly 8 years earlier and pretty well ignored throughout Europe. The causes are many, and different for different nations (after all it was *World* War II -- although WW I was pretty much a European skirmish). But the failure to stop it can be laid to a bunch of people lacking foresight or courage. Or both.

God forbid that emotion should taint their judgement.

You say that in sarcasm, but indeed, if there is a god, may he indeed forbid emotion overruling judgment. For emotion is seldom right and *always* wrong when it goes against judgment. That's why rational thought and not irrational feeling should be the guide in affairs between people.

As to the rest of the your post, you flatter yourself. You weren't the specific idiot I was thinking of when I answered Roland. But if it makes you feel good to think so, by all means go ahead.

--Pete

[Chaerophon]

I'm sure you've heard this before...

What "started" WW II? The treaty of Versailles?

To my mind, yes. Essentially, it created the economic conditions under which the Weimar government failed and armed Hitler and the Nazis with the polarization of the German people against those nations who had, through economic reparations, essentially crushed them.

From the Treaty of Versailles:

The Allied and Associated Governments... require, and Germany undertakes, that she will make compensation for all damage done to the civilian population of the Allied and Associated Powers and to their property during the period of the belligerency of each as an Allied or Associated Power against Germany by such aggression by land, by sea and from the air, and in general all damage as defined in Annex l hereto.

The view of Germany (as they presented their own suggestions at Versailles):

In spite of such monstrous demands the rebuilding of our economic system is at the same time made impossible. We are to surrender our merchant fleet. We are to give up all foreign interests. We are to transfer to our opponents the property of all German undertakings abroad, even of those situated in countries allied to us. Even after the conclusion of peace the enemy states are to be empowered to confiscate all German property. No German merchant will then, in their countries, be safe from such war measures. We are to completely renounce our colonies, not even in these are German missionaries to have the right of exercising their profession. We are, in other words, to renounce every kind of political, economic and moral activity.

But more than this, we are also to resign the right of self-determination in domestic affairs. Dictatorial powers are conferred on the International Reparation Commission over our whole national life in economic and cultural matters, its power by far exceeding those ever enjoyed within the German Empire by the Emperor, the German Federal Council and the Reichstag put together. This Commission has the unrestrained power of disposal over the economic system of the state, of the municipalities and of private individuals. All matters of education and public health likewise depend on it. . . . The Commission . . can, in order to augment the payments of Serfdom, inhibit the whole system of social care for the working classes in Germany.

Also in other respects Germany's right of sovereignty is abrogated. Her principal rivers are placed under international administration, she is obliged to build on her own territory the canals and railways desired by the enemy, she must, without knowing the contents, assent to agreements which her adversaries intend concluding with the new states in the East [i.e., Poland and the Baltic states] and which affect Germany's own boundaries. The German people is excluded from the League of Nations to which all common work of the world is confided.

Thus a whole nation is called upon to sign its own proscription, yea, even its own death warrant.

And yet, the League of Nations didn't see the writing on the wall. The Germans seemed to make some very generous concessions that were never accepted...

1. Germany offers to take the lead before all other nations in disarming herself, in order to show that she is willing to help them in bringing forth the new era of the Peace of Right. She will give up compulsory service and will . . . diminish her army to 100,000 men. She is even prepared to surrender the battleships which her opponents intend leaving her. But she hereby acts on the assumption that she will be immediately admitted, as a state with equal rights, into the League of Nations. . . .

2. In territorial questions Germany unreservedly endorses the Wilson program. She renounces her sovereignty in Alsace-Lorraine, desiring, however, a free plebiscite to be carried through there. . . . [here follow a description of the further concession Germany is willing to make: cession of territory indisputably inhabited by Poles and Danes; a free port in Danzig and Polish access to the sea; submitting her former colonies to the administration of the League of Nations, with mandatory rights for Germany. All this is coupled with a 'demand' that the right of self-determination be respected also in favor of the Germans in Austria and Bohemia.]

3. Germany is prepared to make the payments incumbent on her . . . up to the maximum amount of 100 billion marks gold, namely, 20 billion marks gold until May 1, 1926, and the remaining 80 billion marks gold afterwards, by annual installments bearing no interest . . . In conceding this, Germany acts on the assumption that she will have to make no further sacrifices of territory beyond the above mentioned ones, and that she will again be granted freedom of action at home and abroad.

4. Germany is ready to devote her entire economic power to the work of reparation. She is desirous of actively cooperating in the restoration of the devastated territories in Belgium and Northern France. . . .

9. The German Delegation again raise their demand for a neutral inquiry into the question of responsibility for the war and of guilt during the war. An impartial commission should have the right of inspecting the archives of all belligerent countries and examining, as in a court of law, all chief actors of the war. . . . . . The high aims which our adversaries were the first to establish for their warfare, the new era of a just and durable Peace, demand a Treaty of a different mind. Only a cooperation of all nations, a cooperation of hands and intellects, can bring about a permanent peace. We are not under a misapprehension as to the intensity of hatred and bitterness that is caused by this war; and yet the forces at work for the union of mankind are now stronger than ever. It is the historical task of the Peace Conference of Versailles to bring about this union.

He was right in his characterization of the reparations as unfair. In 1922, the Germans missed a payment and the French refused to believe that they couldn't pay. They invaded parts of Germany and took over control of coal mines, railways, factories and steelworks. The Weimars ordered the Germans to resist passively and the subsequent economic fall led to hyperinflation to a dramatic degree:

In 1918 a loaf of bread cost just over half a mark. By 1922 the cost had risen to 163 marks for a loaf of bread. By November of 1923 a loaf of bread cost 201,000 million marks.
Millions of people faced starvation as a result of the hyperinflation. People such as pensioners who were living on fixed incomes found that prices rose so much faster than their earnings. Even if they could afford to buy food they could not afford the gas to cook it.
It was at this time that Stresemann came to power as one of Germany's most able statesmen and Hitler lead the putsch in Munich.

Furthermore, the Weimar Republic was doomed to failure from the outset. As a result of the unfair conditions of the Treaty of Versailles, the economic lives of Germans had become wretched and the nation was poor, starving, and completely dispirited. Anything was better than starving, and when Hitler and the Nazis came along, the public was very susceptible to his propaganda, so long as he managed to once again instill some national pride into the failing republic with promises of economic prosperity and vengeance.

I don't think that it is at all unreasonable to argue that the Treaty of Versailles was, ultimately, the springboard that set off the events of the next quarter century. Despite Hitler's evident powers of charisma, the Nazis would have never been granted the opportunities that they were if it was not for the League of Nations' foolish decision to position themselves as scapegoats. While American isolationism and Europe's unwillingness to enter into war may have allowed the Nazi's to gain a military foothold, it was the foolish decision on the part of these nations to alienate the German people that led to the ideological entrenchment of Nazism.


As for the rest of your post: fair enough.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I implied as much when I said "First by not enforcing the limitations on German armament (which, unlike the economic points of the treaty were *not* punitive, merely precautionary)." It contributed to the conditions that led to the coming to power of the Nazi party. As did a world wide depression. As did a period of unusual weather.

The fact is that all these things contributed to the coming of WW II in Europe. One thing that you are totally ignoring, as have the Europeans all along, is that WW II was indeed a global war, and that the fighting started in 1931 in Manchuria. I believe that that predates the take over of Germany by the Nazis ('32 through '33 IIRC).

Thus, to say that "I don't think that it is at all unreasonable to argue that the Treaty of Versailles was, ultimately, the springboard that set off the events of the next quarter century." is Eurocentric. Indeed, even within Europe, it does not address the questions of Fascism in Italy and the clash throughout the continent of the socialists and the communists.

Even if one wants to make Versailles central to the events through '45, one still needs to ask why the treaty was so vindictive. The answer there, of course, is partially because of the cruelty of WW I and partially because of Germany's repeated attempts at expansion over the previous centuries. Indeed the whole feeling between France and Germany had built up from the days of the French king and the German emperor and their continuous struggle for European supremacy. A struggle that involved both national pride and religious difference. Versailles was the culmination of the hatred nursed and fanned for centuries.

So, as I said in my previous post, each event has a cause that preceded it and is a cause of events that followed it. To say that Versailles was "the" cause of WW II is false, for Versailles in turn had a cause and so back into the dim reaches of history. However, that Versailles was a major contributing factor is true. Had the victors of WW I helped to rebuild Germany rather than trying to further destroy it, the history of the world *might* have been much different. Might, because many of the things preached by the Nazis were already in German culture. Their "superiority" to the people of the East. Their claim to all the lands of Poland and the Ukraine. And a streak of antisemitism that goes back for centuries throughout Europe and was always close to the surface in Germany, especially in Prussia. So, even had Versailles been a rational document instead of the emotional one it was, history might not have been changed much. The depression, the droughts, the crop shortages would still have been there.

However, with either the historical Treaty of Versailles or with a hypothetical "enlightened" one, had the people of the world (and the isolationists of USA are very much at fault in this) enforced reasonable disarmament provisions, had they not engaged in a policy of appeasement, then WW II could very well never have happened. Or, rather, would have been but a minor and local affair.

The Czech Prime Minister Milos Zeman in a visit to Israel (Jerusalem Post 2/18/02) said that:

You cannot negotiate with terrorists because the single response of terrorists for fulfilling their demands is blackmail - new demands, nothing more...This was our experience with the regime of Adolph Hitler. In 1936 he could have been defeated by two French divisions during the occupation of the Rhineland, and there was no courage by democratic countries because of the appeasement policy.

So, I'm not denying the importance of Versailles. It opened the door. But I don't consider the existence of Versailles, nor its harshness, as absolutely leading to WW II -- many other factors contributed, and many of these factors were a lot more proximate to '39 than was a paper signed twenty years earlier. The failure of England, of France, and (yes) of the United States to act when action would have cost little is as much or more to blame. For when Versailles was signed, no one could with certainty predict the rise of Hitler. But by '36, Hitler was a reality, his intentions openly stated, his character clear. But the world gave him three more years to prepare. And payed horribly for those three years of peace.

--Pete

[Albion Child]

One would also predict, though I don't have the knowledge of economics to inteligibly explain how, that war to save some gas money is ridiculous because of the shear cost of such an operation!

[Roland]

I must admit, there has been a recent growth of both population and idiocy. All the more reason for me to keep my mouth shut! ;) I was just musing. I probably should have simply taken it to PM (this one, too).

At any rate, it's interesting how people stand in this war issue. Aggravating at times, but also interesting. A good case study for human behavoir and social interraction? I hear sociology students across the world gearing up for some great hands-on experience. ;)

Bleh. I'm so out of touch with current events. I haven't looked at any of the news on it in over a week. Has anything changed? Has anything been resolved? I mean, last I heard, it was going to be SETTLED at Friday's inspection committee, or whatever. And that was LAST Friday, if not the Friday before. So, what gives? What have I missed? (It's midnight. No news stations up right now, that I am aware of, and last few checks around the web have shown jack. Any good sites to look at?)

[Zenda]

Hello Pete,

Talking about brick walls ... I'll just wait till you crumble down, don't worry.

[Occhidiangela]

Which is why it is NOT about gas money.

[Fragbait]

Hi pals!

Sorry for bumping this, but I just found some nice researched information on the topic in a scientific magazine called 'Geographic Review', the 11/2005 issue:

Political and Territorial Transformations in the Persian Gulf region. From the Ottoman Empire to the Greater Middle East?
by Hermann Kreutzmann

Concepts of spatial perception vary over time and schools of thought. The Persian Gulf region has come a long way since the "age of discovery". When colonial experiments culminated in the Anglo-French domination after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire the imminent race for oil resources coincided with imperial designs. Interests of oil exploring companies and nation states were in tune for gaining concessions and spatial control. Nowadays, the Persian Gulf region seems to be one of the last and most valuable objects of imperial desire. Until today the perception of the region is very much linked to the mineral wealth, the effects of monopolistic structures, multinational companies' interests and autocratic regimes. Therefore the geopolitical focus has not principally changed during the 20th century. Nevertheless, the military intervention into Iraq and the forced occupation poses the first external domination since colonial times. Geopolitical thoughts and strategies for the future of a "Greater Middle East" are clearly centred in Iraq, their implications for neighbouring states and the region at large could be tremendous.

To back some of it up, before fellow lurkers cry blasphemia, here are some literal quotes of American lead politicians:

An attempt by an outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

- the Carter-Doctrine of 1980, quoted after Jhaveri, N.J.: Petroimperalism: US Oil interests and the Iraq War. Antipode 36 (2004), p. 4

and

It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does aquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction [...] a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will be put at hazard. [...] The only acceptable strategy is [...] to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now has to become the aim of American Foreign Policy.

- excerpt of a letter by Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle et al. to president Bill Clinton of March 8, 2001, quoted after Jhaveri, N.J.: Petroimperalism: US Oil interests and the Iraq War. Antipode 36 (2004), p. 2


Of course I know that this will not convince most of you, so here are some facts to back it up:


Among the 12 biggest industrial groups, there are 6 oil-multis: BP, Exxon, Royal Dutch Shell, Total, Chevron Texaco, Conoco Phillips. All others belong to the automobile industry with the exception of the mixed group General Electric. What's notable is, that the assets and turnovers of the oil-multis stand out clearly from the crowd of competitors. They yield significantly higher profits with on average a third of the employees of GM, Ford , DC, Toyota and VW. Among the 200 biggest groups of the world there are 9 in 7 states of the third world: With one exception they are state-run oil companies. In the VR China, the two most important groups are operating in the mineral oil branch, too. Among the 25 biggest industrial groups, the oil-automobile industry has further extended their lead position with three-fourths of the whole volume, in spite of increases in the communications- and data processing branch. States from the Persian Gulf region don't have any group centrals among the Global 500, the global interest in their resources and the protection of the absorption of the same keeps increasing.
- Source: before-mentioned issue of before-mentioned magazine

President Mossadegh put the rule to the test though 1951 in Iran, by nationalizing the oil companies operating in the country. [...] Initially the influential actors tried to push the withdrawal of this step by their boycott of Iranian oil: To no avail. What showed effect was a 1953 putsch for the downfall of the government, assisted by the CIA. The groups managed to realize an amicable solution with the successive government in the following year by generation of an international consortium, in which, for the first time ever, American oil groups were present, too.

- Geographic Review, issue 11/2005, p. 6

since the time of decolonization, now an arabian state has become conquered and occupied by an outer-regional power

- Perthes, V.: Greater Middle East. Geopolitical baselines in near and middle East. Sheets for German and international politics 6 (2004), p. 683

The uneven scale of evaluation remained contradictory in the statements of George W. Bush: Plaudit for autocrat gulf-monarchies like et al. Saudi Arabia as well as for Egypt and Morocco, while democracy was to be imposed on other states.

- Geographic Review, issue 11/2005, p. 11

Just thought this to be a marginally biased article and a nice read. Of course, as has become obvious already, the author Hermann Kreutzmann rather stands on a suspicious and mistrusting point of view towards the oil-exploitation-protecting measures of the U.S. (& the 'coalition of the willing'). The article is of course much longer (8 pages), and full of interesting and significant charts and pictures (i.e. a chart showing the portion that OPEC has of the world gas and oil resources), which are naturally very hard to depict in text form, I'm afraid. Also I should add that some quotes have been translated by myself to make them accesible to you lurkers. Not the letter of Rumsfeld, the initial statement and the Carter-Doctrine, though.

Greetings, Fragbait

[Occhidiangela]

Frag:

You will note that WJ Clinton was not president on 8 March 2001. What else do you have wrong in your citation? Not sure, a lot of it looks familiar, and none of it is news.

Carter Doctrine is not news, it is what created what is now Central Command, and was at the time "Rapid Reaction Force." This was an outgrowth of the 1973 Yom Kippur War and his own Camp David accords that got Israel and Egypt to stop fighting one another.

Oil is the necessary commodity for the International Economy. It has been made indispensible over the past 100 years, for better and worse. Blame "science and progress." Oil wealth has enabled two-bit potentates all over the Mid East to think they matter, and to influence some matters globally. Bully for them. The blatant slant that the US is the only nation backing the continued global addiction to oil is false, however, the world's addiction to oil is true.

If the Mid East were not so rich in oil, their political influence would be considerably less. Given the medeival nature of their societies, that might not be such a bad thing. One plays the hand one is dealt.

American foreign policy since the birth of our nation has been aimed at keeping freedom of the seas and generally continued access to international markets. We have grown from the age of sail to the age of oil. Or mutated, pick your poison. ;) But we were late comers to the Internatinoal Trade scene, following behind the Empires of Europe, the Ottoman Empire (Silk Road anyone?) and the Chinese.

If the supply of oil were to be significantly disrupted, the entire global economy would suffer a shock, which includes the American economy. It is logical and natural that American foreign policy take measures to proactively influence the unimpeded traffic in oil, globally, both for self interest and for the larger interest of facilitating international commerce. That does not necessarily mean taking over Iraq. "Working a deal" and dealing in coalitions is something we've been doing for decades, in Europe and Asia, why not in the Mid East?

I note that you don't comment on Central Asian oil, Russian Oil, Venezuelan and Canadian oil, nor France's multi billion dollar projects (ELF) in Iraq at and around 2003. It's a bigger picture than the Persian Gulf and Donald Rumsfeld.

Saddam Hussein tried to become John Galt in 1991. He failed. If you don't know who John Galt is, read Atlas Shrugged. Chavez of Venezuela thinks he can pull it off as well. If VP Cheney is trying to become John Galt, I think he too is doomed to fail.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

Let's defocus from oil. Oil is but one Strategically important import. Here's an old except from GlobalSecurity.Org WebSite that outlines other dependancies that are of National Security Interest.

  Just how dependent is the United States on foreign-supplied minerals?  The United States depends on imports of about one-hundred minerals, sixty-seven of which are used in the manufacture of defense-related equipment.  The remainder are used by the private sector in medicine, scientific research, space exploration, and household service products. There are no substitutes for some half-dozen of these one hundred minerals.

Four of these imports are generally recognized as critical strategic minerals:  manganese, essential to iron and steel production; cobalt, a superalloy  used in the production of F/14/15/16 jet engines; chromium, used in the metallurgical, chemical, and refractory industries; and platinum metal group (PMGs) minerals, used in the electronic, telecommunication, and aerospace industries.  Of these "Big Four", the United States is ninety percent dependent on imports (see table 1). Particularly ironic for the U.S. is the geographic location of these minerals.  South Africa and the (former) Soviet Union are the world's major suppliers of these minerals.  The United States and the (former) Soviet Union have been adversaries since World War II, and U.S.-South African relations have been deteriorating in recent years.

A relatively cheap, abundant source of energy is neccesary for world peace and global stability. Unfortunatly, the middle east is sitting on 1/3 of the worlds current energy supply. But, I'm confident that if any of the other strategically important import sources were threatened, the US would act to insure their availability. Would you expect them (or any nation) to act otherwise?