Archives

"We're going to have a war over water. There's just not going to be enough water around for us to have for us to need to live with and to provide for the natural environment." (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/15/warming.military.ap/index.html)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/Australia_Drought.jpgAP - April 15, 2007

With a nearly countrywide drought now in its fifth year, reservoirs along Australia's central eastern coast are down to 14 percent of capacity, and restrictions on water use are getting tough. A country with the financial and technological means of Australia is already feeling the pinch. What will an non-industrialized country do?

WASHINGTON -- Global warming poses a "serious threat to America's national security" and the U.S. likely will be dragged into fights over water and other shortages, top retired military leaders warn in a new report.

The report says that in the next 30 to 40 years there will be wars over water, increased hunger instability from worsening disease and rising sea levels and global warming-induced refugees. "The chaos that results can be an incubator of civil strife, genocide and the growth of terrorism," the 35-page report predicts.

"Climate change exacerbates already unstable situations," former U.S. Army chief of staff Gordon Sullivan told Associated Press Radio. "Everybody needs to start paying attention to what's going on. I don't think this is a particularly hard sell in the Pentagon. ... We're paying attention to what those security implications are."

Gen. Anthony "Tony" Zinni, President Bush's former Middle East envoy, says in the report: "It's not hard to make the connection between climate change and instability, or climate change and terrorism."

The report was issued by the Alexandria, Virginia-based, national security think-tank The CNA Corporation and was written by six retired admirals and five retired generals. They warn of a future of rampant disease, water shortages and flooding that will make already dicey areas -- such as the Middle East, Asia and Africa -- even worse.

"Weakened and failing governments, with an already thin margin for survival, foster the conditions for internal conflicts, extremism and movement toward increased authoritarianism and radical ideologies," the report says.

"The U.S. will be drawn more frequently into these situations."

[Read More (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/15/warming.military.ap/index.html)] …

___Thanks Larry!

Just a related thought: do you think global warming will alter our diet? I do. Rice and fish could be harder to come by.

Lots of food would be harder to come by.

We'd see a return of foods only for the richest of the rich, and poor staples for the rest. Canada has been seriously discussing and thinking about this issue for years. There was even a CBC made for TV movie called H2O, taking place in the future when water is scarce.

The report was issued by the Alexandria, Virginia-based, national security think-tank The CNA Corporation and was written by six retired admirals and five retired generals.

Not exactly surprising that admirals and generals would see war as the expected outcome. Military tactics using force is their field of expertise. Go to a couple doctors for a second opinion and you’ll find surgeons will recommend "cut" and the radiology docs will vote for radiation. Like any other expert, they stick with what that they know and what they’re good at. (shrug)

Not exactly surprising that admirals and generals would see war as the expected outcome. Military tactics using force is their field of expertise. Go to a couple doctors for a second opinion and you’ll find surgeons will recommend "cut" and the radiology docs will vote for radiation. Like any other expert, they stick with what that they know and what they’re good at. (shrug)

You beat me to it tarabell, my thought was this can only mean more money needed for the military. There will be no peace dividend.:mad:

So let me get this straight: we've already wasted money in Iraq that could have been used to develop alternative fuels and environmentally friendly sustainability but due to the use of carbon-based fuels and environmentally unfriendly gluttony we're going to spend more money on the military fighting for dwindling fuel and natural resources rather than developing alternative fuels and environmentally friendly sustainability?

Hi Tony:

___And I thought we were considered a shining democracy on the worlds stage :ccry:

___Like anywhere else, if the place has oil and we are still hooked up like a Junkie to his pusher, we will be involved. If the place doesn’t, that country will dehydrate itself right out of existence :(

___Good Luck

___Wayne

I'm going to get more political than I normally do.

About five years ago, one editorial said too much military involvement was a substantial factor in the decline of the Roman Empire and the British Empire. I'd love to see North Korea dn Iran pimp slapped, but we are already overextended and need years to recover lost good will. I'll admit to supporting going into Iraq, but thought it was strange to hear some talk about how "easy" the occupation would be. Now we have a surge in the deficit and keeping Social Security and Medicaid solvent for our aging population will just be harder. I hope we can get out of Iraq and be lucky enough to see a non-hostile goverment remain, slowly recover good will from the world, and not let this bleed our resources to the point the US declines in power.

Many folks I've talked to seem to agree that bringing the
troops home and having them spend their time pounding solar
panels into roofs and erecting windfarms, right alongside all
those out of work GM and DCX employees, would be the right
thing to do.
.
_H*

Many folks I've talked to seem to agree that bringing the
troops home and having them spend their time pounding solar
panels into roofs and erecting windfarms, right alongside all
those out of work GM and DCX employees, would be the right
thing to do.
.
_H*

I'm for the bring 'em home half, but I'd rather see the money spent responsibly on the debt, or earning a return on future social security, or returned to us.