Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
(Post 1998192)
There is a lot of reporting currently about the changing energy situation in the US, with the US apparently turning from a depending oil-importer to maybe the world biggest or second-biggest oil exporter in the forseeable future, due to fracking, shale gas and all that (wouldn't have imagined a couple of years ago that this thing advances at such an explosive speed, I definitely underestimated that). After a desillusionising decade with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan having gone wrong and the Arab Spring having turned into a new Islamic winter, I think there is substantial reason to assume that the energy factor will change the American focus in foreign politics and maybe make the US a bit more isolationistic indeed, less eager to get the hot potatoes out of other people's fire, and less willing to military engage itself where the Europeans just sit on their bottoms, especially Germany. I think that the Us could lose interest in the Gold region, it already has lost interest in Europe, and to what degree it will change America's attitude in the Pacific remains to be seen. But being less dependent on foreign energy, will have an effect for sure, leaving international money flow-patterns and trade patterns as the only decisive factors to form foreign policy. Because one dependency the Us will not overcome: the dependence of foreign money flowing into the America debt market. Since all nations currently devalue their currencies to get rid of some debts by expropriating the private sector, the outcome and ultimate effect of this currency war is hard to predict. But it is the next war that will be fought, the prelude is already running. And I think that threat is more dangerous for Australia than a nuke threat by China.
|
Very well put, the potential new energy boon in the US is likely to translate into a more isolationist US stance, certainly the social demand seems to call for it after the global opinion of the US has been soured by the problems faced in Afghanistan and Iraq. Although I don't think America will lock themselves out of the game entirely, after all these shale reserves aren't infinite, and even with oil put to one side, there's other resources that are going to come into demand which are non-renewable, Helium for example, which is going to come into the news more often in the future, as MRI machines struggle to run without it, and other precious metals which will be required for future technology. However, there are certainly ways to do this without resorting to military means and I can see lots of diplomatic trips and aid agreements to African nations in the future. France is already getting on the bandwagon to secure Uranium reserves in Mali, and we're tagging along, probably for a share of the bounty.
However, certainly there will be a greater threat of currency wars than physical wars in the future, those and cyber wars. However at the moment Chinas economy is still too weak to engage in any serious currency competition, which I suspect is why it's steering the US towards trying to match it in military power instead, perhaps hoping to make the US do a Reagan and overspend on military to match the PRCs forces numerically (not that I think the US will do such a thing, not under Barry anyway, they just can't afford it) and then collapse.
It's hard to tell Chinas full intentions, and in a way I admire them for that, because they would make shrewd chess or poker players, their eyes do not betray their intentions and then when you finally figure it out, the plan has already born fruition and it's too late for you.
That is, of course, always assuming that a natural disaster doesn't cause the collapse of the Three Gorges Dam which would destroy Shanghai and set the PRC back by about a decade. As Achilles heels go, that Dam is a pretty big one. |
