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