Water, Energy, Land and War
GreyFlcn
Join Date: 2006-12-19 Member: 59134Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2006-12-19 Member: 59134Members, Constellation
Contrary to Mel Gibson,
I believe nearly all the fighting over the last century or so have been fought primarily over Resources.
Nuclear
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6350007.stm" target="_blank">N Korea talks 'stall over energy' </a>
<a href="http://english.people.com.cn/200702/11/print20070211_349165.html" target="_blank">Putin warns against "cornering Iran" over nuclear crisis </a>
Water
Gulf War (Turkish Dams)
Iraeli/Palastine (Golgan Heights Dams)
Pakistan/India (Kashmir Dams)
Oil
Iraq
Coup de Etat Dictator gets to call the shots on liquidating the countries labor and natural capital
Africa and South America in general
Whats you're oppinion?
I believe nearly all the fighting over the last century or so have been fought primarily over Resources.
Nuclear
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6350007.stm" target="_blank">N Korea talks 'stall over energy' </a>
<a href="http://english.people.com.cn/200702/11/print20070211_349165.html" target="_blank">Putin warns against "cornering Iran" over nuclear crisis </a>
Water
Gulf War (Turkish Dams)
Iraeli/Palastine (Golgan Heights Dams)
Pakistan/India (Kashmir Dams)
Oil
Iraq
Coup de Etat Dictator gets to call the shots on liquidating the countries labor and natural capital
Africa and South America in general
Whats you're oppinion?
Comments
<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />
...
<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />
I guess that could be considered control over your People.
And I don't see that as a driving cause of invading other nations.
_
Ah yes, tack on Manchuria/Japan
And the Korean war into the Oil category.
Contrary to idiots, I believe all wars have been fought over power and the control of power.
<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Controling strategic resources means power.
The relevant recourses have varied thoughout history (large animals, fertile land, spices, copper alloys, iron, coal, uranium, oil .... ) but never the simple equation of "ressources=power".
--Power is the prime driving force behind wars
--Control of resources directly contributes to control of power
--However, there are also other means to control power, which can also contribute to wars without being directly linked to control of resources.
I'll take that a step further and say this:
--However, there are also other means to control power, which can also contribute to wars without being directly linked to control of resources.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For instance?
And, for instance, look at the Crusades. The whole reason why Urban II declared a Crusade was because he wanted to consolidate the Papacy's <b>power</b> over the feudal lords.
The USA went to war over Korea and Vietnam as part of a strategy of containment. That goal was to prevent communists from taking <b>power</b> in those countries.
Control of resources means control of a base of power. Control over people means control of a base of power. Control over ideology means control of a base of power.
WWI was the classic example of fighting over the merest abstract idea of power. There was no material advantage for Britain to go to war over Germany, in fact, they were each their best trading partners. But the British had to uphold their commitments and make sure the balance of <b>power</b> wasn't disturbed.
All wars are fought over power and the control thereof. It just depends on what is considered power of the time and place.
/topic
For instance?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rapier said it better than I could, so I'll go with his answer.
WWI was the classic example of fighting over the merest abstract idea of power. There was no material advantage for Britain to go to war over Germany, in fact, they were each their best trading partners. But the British had to uphold their commitments and make sure the balance of <b>power</b> wasn't disturbed.
/topic
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To take on that particular example of yours:
Britains economy was dependant on seatrade since centuries and the empire has maintained its supremacy due to means of war.
You are arguing over whether the egg or the chicken comes first.
Britain has wresled the status of the leading colonial power in the 16th century from the spain and its allies. This was achieved by a mixtuire of piracy, agressive <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism" target="_blank">trade</a>, open war on land and sea and satelite warfare (like the support of dutch against the Spanish, supporting protestants in Europe, the 30 years war etc. )
From then on, The British used their military power to maintain their status quo. The British sea power was used to ensure the flow of ressources to fuel the british economy.
This became more and more essential after the industrial revolution. In the end of the 19th century, a nations power was measured in its industrial capacity. Britains involvement in WW1 was due to both major colonial powers (France and Germany) ambitions to rival the british sea power.
At that time a run for important industial ressources lead to war. The point is not merely controlling ressources but being able to cut off your rivals and thus cripple their industry. Trade interdiction warfare became very important in both WW1 and WW2.
Edit: Text put in a new post
Your argument doesn't have any relevance whatsoever to the whole point of GOING TO WAR IN THE FIRST PLACE. Once war's been declared, all bets are off, and everybody is going to try and maximize their gain in both the conduct and aftermath of the war. There was no economic advantage for Britain to go to war with Germany, their best trading partner, and a serious military rival.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To explain it in simpler terms:
Power is achieved through diplomatic influence. Diplomatic influence is achieved by military capability.
For a strong army, you need wealth, which is the product of your economy for which you need ressources.
To have power, you need power. To gain power, you need money. To make money, you need something to earn it with.
I really don`t see where the problem is.
As for Britains involvement in the Great War .... Of course they had a reason. The same reason why they contested Napoleon. The so called "Balance of Power" means nothing more that keeping the continental forces fighting each other to maintain Britains "Status Quo". History shows us that the British were not picky about which side of the war they take, as long as no one unites continental Europe ....
I think what i'm trying to say is; yes, power is ultimately the catalyst for most, if not all conflicts. Resources are usually a big factor because more often than not control of a particular resource (food, water, oil, uranium, gold e.t.c) is key to ensuring your own level of power is higher than your adversary's. World War II is a good example of a conflict where there was no one single resource the factions were fighting over, but if you look though history a lot of conflicts have just one or two vital resources the two sides were fighing over.
While Britain's decision to go to war wasn't really motivated by resources in any way, Germany's invasion of Poland (which triggered Britain's declaration of war) certainly was. Does the term "Lebensraum" ring any bells to anyone? Although ultimately, yes, Hitler's goal (as far as can be told without going back in time with some kind of mind probe) was creating a new "Greater Germany" which i'm pretty sure falls under the heading of "power".[...]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's WW2 though. They were talking about WW1...
That's WW2 though. They were talking about WW1...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yep, but it would actually not matter much for the sake of the argument.
<!--quoteo(post=1605777:date=Feb 12 2007, 08:11 AM:name=Nil_IQ)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nil_IQ @ Feb 12 2007, 08:11 AM) [snapback]1605777[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
While Britain's decision to go to war wasn't really motivated by resources in any way, Germany's invasion of Poland (which triggered Britain's declaration of war) certainly was. Does the term "Lebensraum" ring any bells to anyone? Although ultimately, yes, Hitler's goal (as far as can be told without going back in time with some kind of mind probe) was creating a new "Greater Germany" which i'm pretty sure falls under the heading of "power".
I think what i'm trying to say is; yes, power is ultimately the catalyst for most, if not all conflicts. Resources are usually a big factor because more often than not control of a particular resource (food, water, oil, uranium, gold e.t.c) is key to ensuring your own level of power is higher than your adversary's. World War II is a good example of a conflict where there was no one single resource the factions were fighting over, but if you look though history a lot of conflicts have just one or two vital resources the two sides were fighing over.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would argue that any war is ultimately fough over supremacy of strategic ressources, which are changing variables over the course of history.
Lets take a pause and make up a definition of strategic ressources. What devides them from mere luxuries?
A ressource has to fulfill several criteria to be of such importance that you can convince people to fight over it.
Possible factors would be:
<b>- They are vital: </b> Water comes in mind. Or crops. In ancient and feudal ages, agricultural capacity was the measurement of a Nations wealth and power. Ancient Egypts power was founded on the rich harvest of the Nile delta, for example.
<b>- They are nessary for your economy to function</b>
Coal, iron, oil you name it. Most of those ressources were considered essential in their period. During the idustrial revolution, nations with such ressources and the technology to exploit them became the dominant powers we now know as the "civilised World". Imperialis was the ugly stepson of colonialism and had the same purpose: To tap as many sources as possibly and deny access to your competitor.
<b>- they are nessary for defense purposes</b>
The amount of steel a nation could produce was considered a measurement for a its power during the 19th and early 20th century. Go figure.
<b>- they are scarce and/or locally exclusive</b>
Self explanatory. If the sources are outside of your terriory, you have to expand or otherwhise reach and secure them. (By a large navy for example)
If a resource does not fulfill all or most of those critera, we can consider it indulgence rather than nessesity.
Now lets go back to WWII:
To assume that it was NOT fough over ressources seems not right to me.
The pacific theatre for example was very obviusly heated up because of Japans growing ambitions and belligerent tendencies on its quest for strategic ore reserves. Japans industrial growth was stalled due to lack of iron. The US sanctioned trade to slow their progress. Japan threw the first punch.
Quite simple in my book. Do you really want to argue about that?
As for Europe ...
The term "Lebensraum" is a very popular explanation for Hitlers ambitions eastwards. I have a feeling that it's a catchy phrase remembered from history schoolbooks that handle the matter in 1 lesson.
There is much more to it than just expansion, but that would lead off topic.
Point is, Hitlers strategic goal was (like in WWI) to make Germnay <i>self sufficient</i> from foreign trade.
Look at the greatest powers of the 20th centuries: The USA and the Sovjet Union. Both were political entities that had one thing in common. Complete economical self sufficiency.
The point wasnt to prove that wars are NEVER fought purely for resources--we agree that they usually are. The point was to prove that wars are NOT ALWAYS fought over resources, and World War I was held up as an example of one of those times when other reasons came into play.
You can elaborate all you want on how World War II was a war for resources, but it doesn't prove that World War I was also a war for resources.
You're going slightly off topic.
The point wasnt to prove that wars are NEVER fought purely for resources--we agree that they usually are. The point was to prove that wars are NOT ALWAYS fought over resources, and World War I was held up as an example of one of those times when other reasons came into play.
You can elaborate all you want on how World War II was a war for resources, but it doesn't prove that World War I was also a war for resources.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very well, what do <i>you</i> think was the reason for WWI?
And by "reason" I do not ask for the events that started it but the political circumstances that lead to the Great War. I would like to hear your version.