Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Rat's Nest - Chronicles of Collapse -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SiouxPal who wrote (4382)	7/3/2006 11:54:21 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Respond to of 24235

Jus' kick on back and watch the money blow on in...

To: SiouxPal who wrote (4382)	7/4/2006 1:32:11 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 24235

Preemptive Energy Security: An Aggressive Approach to Meeting America's Requirements [PDF] Lieutenant Colonel Dennis D. Tewksbury, U.S. Army War College Abstract Global competition, declining resources, and domestic demand on resources have placed energy issues at the forefront of daily news. This situation highlights the incredible U.S. appetite for energy and tremendous reliance on foreign energy. The volatile nature of the world oil market not only places our economy at risk but jeopardizes America’s security. The War on Terrorism has strained U. S. relations with many oil-producing states. Rapidly increasing crude oil demands by Asia add new competition for this resource. If foreign producers denied this nation oil, the effects could cripple the U.S. economy and would significantly impact security. The 2002 National Security Strategy acknowledges the importance of the nation’s economy; however, there is no mention of the linkage of energy security and the economy. Until this nation commits to developing alternative forms of energy to gain independence from foreign oil, the United States remains vulnerable to volatile markets, global politics, and possible interventions of non-state players. Current policy limits U.S. action to diplomatic, economic, and information efforts to maintain access to oil. This Strategic Research Project analyzes the need to change the National Security Strategy to advocate the use of military force to guarantee access to foreign oil sources. ... Today, Asia imports 18 million barrels of oil per day, and energy experts predict a 90 percent increase to 35 million bpd by 2025. The United States must find ways to mitigate the effects of the new global demands for oil... A precipitive use of the military could easily trigger an escalation in hostilities, generate a tremendous amount of anti-American sentiment, lead to United Nations’ sanctions, and fracture friendships and alliances. But compared to the economic effects of an oil shortage, such risks are acceptable [emphasis added]... The President must address the issue of energy security by educating the American public about the importance oil with regard to the economy and explaining that we must prepareto use military force to guarantee access to oil. Oil is this nation’s economic lifeblood. The public’s understanding must transcend the anti-capitalistic chants of “no blood for oil” and public distrust of oil corporations. Typically, Americans will only support drastic changes, especially those that affect their daily lives and their budgets, if faced with extreme circumstances. ... Conclusion America’s energy demands have become a primary national security issue. Our economy and way of life depend on various sources of energy, the most important of which is oil. As noted by Boston University Professor Robert Kaufmann, “Overall economic health is directly tied to energy. Almost every U.S. recession has been tied to the cost of oil.”68 The fact that a large portion of imported oil originates from volatile regions of the world should arouse tremendous concern in the national leadership. Disruption of the nation’s access to oil would have a devastating effect on the economy and the security of the United States. As clearly articulated in President Bush’s 2002 National Security Strategy, a healthy economy is a critical component to our nation’s security. Accordingly, the nation’s security strategy must acknowledge the importance of oil to the economy and must specify a policy to guarantee access. Without doubt, we should rely on non-military elements of national power to remedy a potential situation; however, the President, Congress, and military leaders must prepare for a scenario in which military forces deploy to secure oil production facilities. More importantly, the American people, our allies, and potential adversaries need to understand this as well. The most effective vehicle for such a pronouncement is the president’s National Security Strategy. As currently written, the strategy fails to send an appropriate message. The reality of this nation’s energy situation must elevate concerns within the American public to demand a new direction. As suggested by John M. Amiden, “The current world energy situation poses a national threat unparalleled in 225 years.”69 Energy is an essential component of the daily life of this nation. The realistic solution is to eliminate our reliance on oil to avoid further international incidents, reduce environmental pollutions, and lessen the cost of energy for our citizens. The President should demand an immediate reduction in all oil consumption and offer a date to render the nation completely free of foreign oil. A leader with strategic vision and strong leadership must initiate programs for increased conservation and efficiency to curb our wasteful habits while simultaneously developing a comprehensive long-range strategy that capitalizes on technology to achieve energy independence. A national effort on the scale of the Manhattan Project is needed to shift the nation away from oil placing America on a more secure path. Because lessons of the past have not been learned, we are left in a dangerous position that may require us to act preemptively to guarantee access to sources of energy. Our leaders and citizens must fully understand the link between oil, the economy, and national security. They must realize the costs in treasury and blood we are paying for oil. Then they will demand a new strategic direction toward energy independence. Without a change in policy, laws, habits, and attitudes, we will remain chained to oil. (10 March 2006) Thanks to Scot G for bringing to our attention another military document which does not seem to have been seen before outside of military circles. The document includes discussion of M. King Hubbert and peak oil (p. 6). Lt-Col Tewksbury seems remarkably frank, excepting that he steadfastly avoids mentioning the Iraq war, surely at least in part an example of "acting preemptively to guarantee access to sources of energy." Indeed most of his suggestions seem like they might be merely describing current US policy stripped of its euphemisms. The document lists the growing world competition for oil, specifically from India and China, as one of two major threats to US energy security. So given that Iraq may not fulfil Tewksbury's idea of suitable aggressiveness, this does come across as if he is suggesting upping the ante to even more dangerous levels. -AF energybulletin.net

To: SiouxPal who wrote (4382)	8/3/2006 8:28:04 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24235

Metal shortages hinder Army aircraft in Iraq April 13, 2006 By Greg Grant Special to the Times Shortages in U.S. stocks of specialty metals are leading to critical spare parts shortages for Army helicopters flying in Iraq, a top Army aviation general said. Spare parts manufacturers are unduly constrained by the Berry Amendment — it contains the so-called “Buy American” rules for Pentagon purchases — and it is causing critical shortages in the specialty steel that goes into bearings used in helicopters, said Maj. Gen. James Pillsbury, commander of the Army’s Aviation and Missile Command. Pillsbury said shortages in U.S. stocks of other specialty metals, such as titanium, are also leading to supply chain backups. Titanium shortages in the aerospace industry are getting worse and the problems are likely to multiply in the future, Pillsbury said. He advised manufacturers to increase their stocks of specialty metals in anticipation of future spare parts needs for Army helicopters that will be flying in Iraq for years to come. Pillsbury said the metals shortages are causing long production lead times in critical parts, which have sent the total cost of some Army procurement contracts soaring — up to $4.2 million extra a day. Army helicopters in Iraq are flying at an extremely high operating tempo, five times the normal peacetime rate, causing rapid wear on critical parts. Pillsbury’s comments were made to reporters April 11, at the Army Aviation Association of America annual conference, Nashville, Tenn. armytimes.com