• mwguy@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    At what point will a naked war for resources with Saudi Arabia make sense? Like if a leader went to the EU/America/Japan/Korea and said, “we’re gonna take the Saud’s oil and sell it for $25/barrel to everyone that helps us for 25 years.” And then we went to the public and said, “25 years to get off oil for good” when does that ship?

    • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Turns out people really don’t like being ruled over by nakedly colonialist regimes, and when people really don’t like things they tend to blow stuff up, and when people blow stuff up, it hurts the bottom line of oil companies, i.e. the only thing you care about for some reason.

      Do you want to create a second Iran? Because that’s what happened there.

      • mwguy@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        That’s why we don’t take all the oil, just the offshore oil. It’s significantly more difficult to conduct terrorism when you have to swim to it.

        • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Ah yes, the sea, a place famous for how difficult it is to get away with crimes. I see no flaws in your plan. The seas around the Arabian Peninsula specifically haven’t had any notable activity from anti-Western rebel groups in 2024.

          Here’s a completely unrelated graph:

            • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Well, let’s see, they’ve been fighting the Saudis (backed by the US) for the last 20 years, and your brilliant plan to subjugate the region involves attacking their main enemy, so I would say, a pretty long-ass time.

      • mwguy@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 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.

          • mwguy@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 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@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 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
                0
                ·
                5 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@feddit.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 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
                    ·
                    5 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.