The War on Terror will look like a Kindergarten compared to...

The Wars that eventually will be waged as a result of extreme weather conditions, which will deteriorate the state foundations.
They'll set adrift migrations like never before seen, will be about more basal commodeties than just oil. They might be that as well - but foremost they'll be about food and water.

I purposely avoid the term climate change, as I would not like to see the thread - as so many others - turn into a quarrelling ground of believers in pro or contra.

It's about weather conditions becoming more and more extreme. Everybody can see that. That they will accelerate in their extremety to a point where the conditions for human life cannot be sustained and their effects become irreparble, is more a question of logics than of believes.

It will come gradually, but some places it will come all at a sudden.
Some will be affected at once, others by time.

But be sure every living being on this planet will be affected in one way or another.
Everybody will be affected in multiple ways.
First of all by the wars it will spur. Which won't be about glory.
Most of all it will be about to react or perish.

"In my view, climate change is the most severe problem we are facing today, more serious even than the threat of terrorism."

Said by Sir David King the British PM's chief scientist, who much against his advice published information and concern on the enviromental changes related to climate.

So here we are, spending hundreds of billions, possibly into the trillions on a phony war that really is about securing more wealth for a handful of corporations and their individuals, when we have a much severe threat over our heads not all the money in the world can redeem any from.

Cooperations on government levels would be the only chance.

And money and preparations could reduce, if not the effects - the point of no return might be passed - then the sufferings.

The above snippet is from Global Warming Revealed, but can also be found in this BBC news clip.

But what I would like to discuss is this 22 page document, a special study conducted through the Pentagon department, the Office of Net Assessment, directed by Andrew W. Marshall, 83, with the responsibility of identifying long-term threats to the United States. The US based think-tank called Global Business Network compiled the possibilities of Global Warming on US national security. The study was released to the Pentagon in October of 2003.

*Patience adviced by downloading* PDF format.
Imagining the Unthinkable, An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security

A snippet.

As global and local carrying capacities are reduced, tensions could mount around the
world, leading to two fundamental strategies: defensive and offensive. Nations with
the resources to do so may build virtual fortresses around their countries, preserving
resources for themselves. Less fortunate nations especially those with ancient
enmities with their neighbors, may initiate in struggles for access to food, clean
water, or energy. Unlikely alliances could be formed as defense priorities shift and
the goal is resources for survival rather than religion, ideology, or national honor.

Other hot ATS threads related
Wild Weather Update
Soon to be Worldwide Water Shortage??(recent didcussions from page 6)
Significant Weakening Of Gulf Stream Detected (been running for one-and-a-half year, start on page 7 for recent discussion)
Weird Weather Watch 2006 (another long thread running over 8 pages)

*NOTE for MODS* =>>I deliberately placed this thread in Politics of War, as the main link is a study in national security and a scenario of conflict, that sooner or later will turn into war. Appreciate much if you let it stay there. Thank you!

Whether or not the WOT is phoney or not is open to debate, but not here. You have a point though about the climate change triggering wars that will make the current situation pale in comparison. Not so much nation states but just individuals and smaller groups fighting for a slice of a small pie. The bloodshed would be incredible... The quest for survival will bring out the ruthlessness in all of us, because those unwilling to be ruthless will be put up against the wall.

Or...

The quest for survival will force mankind to reaccess our behaviour towards each other, and realize what's truely important. This is a much better scenario .

Nice work.

FYI - climate change can trigger pandemics because diseases start to migrate too, not just people.

Khunmoom, interesting report, but one of the problems is that natural disasters have a habit of hitting a particular region and the people in it. Severe weather in China has the potential to starve hundreds of millions in a matter of weeks. The same event in the US or Europe would not have the same effect, it would have to be a sustained event over a long period of time as the report suggests.

As for fighting over natural resources, thats been happening for millenia. The problem that we in the Western world face is that much of our food can come from overseas so we should be investing in long term agricultural policies to generate our own food supplies. Water supplies should not be a problem, the Earth is full of it, its just about the cost of diselination plants are prohibative at the moment but water supply should not be an issue. Unlike the Earths early inhabitents we do have the technology to ensure our survival although that does not mean all will survive prolonged extreme weather conditions.

I am sure we have the technology to build underground cities and for them to be self sufficient, again it all comes down to cost but it can be done, especially when you think of the amount of money being spent on weapons etc. Imagine the power of hundreds of nuke power stations or natural power sources fuelling such environments. Just one could provide power, heat, water, the means to grow food etc. for millions of people.

I say let Global Warming come! It could be what this planet needs. Humans can afford 10-30% loss in population. I don't mean to sound rude, but humans reproduce like bacteria, especially in developing nations where the concept of birth control or just SELF-Control is taboo. The more the human population grows the more our natural resources become scarce. Global Warming is a harsh solution, but it's Mother Earth's medicine. Let it come I say.

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Water supplies should not be a problem, the Earth is full of it, its just about the cost of diselination plants are prohibative at the moment but water supply should not be an issue. Unlike the Earths early inhabitents we do have the technology to ensure our survival although that does not mean all will survive prolonged extreme weather conditions.

No, they should not. I think a good business would be to tow a iceberg to New York and sell it. As long as there are any. Some day they could all be thawed away.

The problem with water wil not so much be its scarcity as its purity. Warfare and unsound industrial practicies are very polluting. As for diselination it takes up a lot of energy, so sure nuclear technologies will be of core value both to the ability to survive and control whatever commodeties there will be.

Will be a true darwinian battle, I'm afraid. Without ideology, with no mercy.

A scenario by date and event is outlined in the report discussed.

SCENARIO 2010-2030
_________________________________________
*UNITED STATES*
2010: Disagreements with Canada and Mexico over water increase tension.
2012: Flood of refugees to southeast U.S. and Mexico from Caribbean islands.
2015: European migration to United States (mostly wealthy).
2016: Conflict with European countries over fishing rights.
2018: Securing North America, U.S. forms integrated security alliance with Canada and Mexico.
2020: Department of Defense manages borders and refugees from Caribbean and Europe.
2020: Oil prices increase as security of supply is threatened by conflicts in Persian Gulf and Caspian.
2025: Internal struggle in Saudi Arabia brings Chinese and U.S. naval forces to Gulf ,in direct confrontation.
_______________________________________
*EUROPE*
2012: Severe drought and cold push Scandinavian populations southward, push back from EU.
2015: Conflict within the EU over food and water supply leads to skirmishes and strained diplomatic relations.
2018: Russia joins EU, providing energy resources.
2020: Migration from northern countries such as Holland and Germany toward Spain and Italy.
2020: Increasing: skirmishes over water and immigration.
2022: Skirmish between France and Germany over commercial access to Rhine.
2025: EU nears collapse.
2027: Increasing migration to Mediterranean countries such as Algeria, Morocco, Egypt, and Israel.
2030: Nearly 10% of European population moves to a different country.
_________________________________________
*ASIA*
2010: Border skirmishes and conflict in Bangladesh, India, and China, as mass migration occurs toward Burma.
2012: Regional instability leads Japan to develop force projection capability.
2015: Strategic agreement between Japan and Russia for Siberia and Sakhalin energy resources.
2018: China intervenes in Kazakhstan to protect pipelines regularly disrupted by rebels and criminals.
2020: Persistent conflict in South East Asia; Burma, Laos, Vietnam, India, China.
2025: Internal conditions in China deteriorate dramatically leading to civil war and border wars.
2030: Tension growing between China and Japan over Russian energy.

A present day refference is the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict. What is it about? Control of the West Bank and the Golan Heights?

Yes, because of water.

The river Jordan, the once mighty river reduced to a polluted stream, but none the less the only natural water supply of the region.

Khunmoon, dont worry about it its all part of a natural cycle, man is not that important in the big picture at the end of the day. We are not imortals, maybe its just what the earth needs, shake a few of them ticks off its back.

khunmoon - thanks for posting that dateline scenario.



...I often just skim and skip cuz my eyes are bugging me lately. Takes a hammer to make me focus sometimes.

So again, thanks for pulling that info.

...But imo - Many of these scenarios don't wash simply because they are incomplete. imo - we are coming into a "convergence of catastrophes," some of which will neutralize others. Ie., plagues will kill huge segments of various populations, and lessen the uptake on essential but scarce resources like water, food and energy.

...It's the transition period that's gonna be a killa.

Sofi, you're right there's no guaranties for these scenarios, they might be completely wrong or it might turn out much worse. There's no limit to how bad it can get.

One thing is for sure, the causes for whatever will happen are spun into contexts of lies directed by governments and instructed by their corporate fond raisers. The media is at their hand, so it will be very hard for average people to look through.

That the spin already has begun is not hard to convince most people on ATS about - but to those outside it's quite different.

Found an article on the scientific spin the Bush administration is conducting. It's mainly about control, to omit unwanted information and to twist those that can't be left out.

A snippet about the NASA scientist James Hansen, who was forbidden to talk.

"Hundreds of major scientific studies [and] local field reports are being called into question for non-scientific reasons," such as when their findings contradict federal policy or corporate-business interests, Ruch told Tierramerica.

The Bush administration's clumsy attempts to suppress the science explaining climate change and global warming are the best known.

In September 2002, political appointees, including former oil company lobbyists, removed a section on global warming from the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) annual report.

In June 2003, demands for extensive changes in a global warming portion of an EPA report forced the federal agency to remove the entire section.

And then, at the end of last year, government officials ordered NASA expert Hansen to remove data from the Internet stating that 2005 could be the warmest year on record.

Hansen was soon proven correct and he went to the media in January to talk about the many attempts to prevent him from speaking about climate change.

"Hansen wasn't allowed to talk to reporters without permission, and permission was denied a number of times," says Tom Devine, legal director at the Government Accountability Project (GAP), a non-governmental group that seeks to protect the public interest by promoting government and corporate transparency.

"And when Hansen was allowed to talk, he was supposed to present the other side [of the issue] or face dire consequences," Devine told Tierramérica. "It's unprecedented intimidation and oppression unlike anything in the 27 years I have been with GAP."

"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future", is attributed Danish nuclear scientist Niels Bohr, I think when asked about his quantum theory, what it could be used for.

It's also the title of following study describing the evolving nature of threats and vulnerabilities associated with biological disasters with animal origins.

Past and present events can serve therefore as one (not the only) guide to
anticipating future biological disasters, as long as one bears the following caveats in mind:

a) threats, especially in the biological realm, which includes such phenomena as rapid mutations of infectious organisms, are dynamic. If future disasters will look very different from those of today, we must be careful not to act like the proverbial generals fighting the last war by preparing responses applicable only to past disasters;

b) in many cases, the sample size of previous events for a particular threat is zero and we cannot rely on the past at all; for instance, no terrorist has ever synthesised a pathogen from scratch, but this does not mean that it will not happen. We must be especially cautious about using similar events as proxies, since the variance of outcomes presaged by indicators that differ only in seemingly minor aspects can be substantial;

c) in using past events, we often place undue emphasis on past observables: that is, we impute causation to those factors which we are able to measure and for which we have data. Since many less tangible aspects of historical cases are not recorded, we can develop false trend models and expectations of future events.

Sofi, there might be something of interest for your Bioweapon thread here. Tomorrow I shall give it a closer look.


[edit on 20-11-2006 by khunmoon]

Originally posted by khunmoon
...following study describing the evolving nature of threats and vulnerabilities associated with biological disasters with animal origins.

Past and present events can serve therefore as one (not the only) guide to
anticipating future biological disasters, as long as one bears the following caveats in mind:

a) threats, especially in the biological realm, which includes such phenomena as rapid mutations of infectious organisms, are dynamic. If future disasters will look very different from those of today, we must be careful not to act like the proverbial generals fighting the last war by preparing responses applicable only to past disasters;

Really good stuff khunmoon.

Thanks.

How do you interpret this statement?

"phenomena as rapid mutations of infectious organisms, are dynamic"


If the phenomenon are dynamic, does that mean the rules change, and the speed/path/biology of mutation is unpredictable?

I'm thinking that's what it means, which also means we're in deep doodoo from GM organisms and biotech products and byproducts loose in the world - not to mention biological weapons that might have "escaped" the labs...

by soficrow
How do you interpret this statement?

"phenomena as rapid mutations of infectious organisms, are dynamic"

If the phenomenon are dynamic, does that mean the rules change, and the speed/path/biology of mutation is unpredictable?

I think you're right. This world is one big live-lab now, I'm afraid.
They're waiting to observe.

They very well know possible side effects of GMO or enginered vira could take years to show up in humans.

But as several numbered wars already have been declared and studies anyhow show this sweet old world going down the drain by all means, it is ethically justified to do so, to use us all as guinea-pigs.
Just so they can get it right next time, you know.

Sorry, my mood isn't the best today.

As Kuhnmoon and Soficrow have been discussion, I think it's a little difficult to anticipate precise scenarios when dealing with such large scale disasters. When multiple or even just far reaching adverse conditions are impacting hundreds of components of global processes, a thorough systems analysis becomes incredibly difficult even where the principles we thoroughly understand are concerned.

Take the microcosm of a single hurricane. Even when we know the terrain in front of it and have reasonably accurate forecasts of temperatures and barometric pressures they don't necessarily form when or where we expect, move the speed we expect, or take the direction we expect. When you take multiple inputs though: when normally constant factors begin to change, it would become virtually impossible.

Epidemology gets tricky when you can't project population density and movement patterns, when diets, levels of human contact, and other social customs are forced to change, when immune systems are depressed by malnutrition or perhaps bolstered by forced dietary changes, etc etc. When you're looking at just another flu season, except that everyone's malnourished, traveling and thus spending more time outdoors but less time in confined spaces, the poor are eating pigeons, etc, vulnerability, spread, and mutation rates are all considerably affected in hard to project ways.

You can't even necessarily predict where those factors will be though, because when you factor in climate change there's a question of where migrations will tend towards, which major population centers will remain active, what people will be eating, what animals may come into greater proximity with humans, where people might be getting their water, etc etc etc.

In the extremely broad strokes however, I think there are a few initial things we could expect from certain types of changes.

Long-term droughts would result in a push by certain governments to build desalinization plants and new water infrastructure to move the water, affecting the prices of things like cement, metal, etc and putting nations which have them in a great position but under a lot of pressure as well. Military adventurism in places with unproven reserves might be considered by nations less willing to engage in conflict while the 800 pound gorillas would probably go for the proven reserves. Areas sharing rivers would likely see conflict- Arizona and California even would likely quarrel over the Colorado River. Arizona may want Southern California to grow staples rather than citrus and grapes, California might want more water, Arizona may want to raise prices- any number of argreements or stalemates are possible there, and that opens questions about how much power federal governments might seek over their states not only in America but elsewhere. But you can't count on California and Arizona to be the ones who have the problem. Some places will have problems but some places might do better. Some commodities will be affected more than others, some might be favored.

All that can really be counted on is that there will be changes, and when there's blood in the streets, buy property. There will be jockeying for power and position, obviously, and all the little guys can do is get very creative about how to look out for number 1, because you never know just how far people will go to sieze the change for their own benefits- bio weapons, letting some starve, building monopolies- who knows.

This is what Bush once alledgely replied when asked about it.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
All that can really be counted on is that there will be changes, and when there's blood in the streets, buy property. There will be jockeying for power and position, obviously, and all the little guys can do is get very creative about how to look out for number 1, because you never know just how far people will go to sieze the change for their own benefits- bio weapons, letting some starve, building monopolies- who knows.

I can agree on that. And when property becomes the only legal matter left, lawyers will come in power like never before.
As governments might get a hard time keeping up their executive powers in all areas, local lawyers could take over some functions.

The rule of lawyers, a nightmare scenario, that some might claim already is here.

I would like to take outset in a speech that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff gave to the Federalist Society, an organization of right-wing lawyers who spearheaded the legal arguments for granting President George W. Bush authority unbound by any law, including the constitutional rights of Americans.

...the focus of Chertoff’s warning was that the United States is under growing pressure from legal scholars and the world community to comply with international law, especially on war crimes and humane treatment of detainees in the “war on terror.”

“The fact is, whether we like it or not, international law is increasingly entering our domestic domain,” Chertoff said.

The culprits, according to Chertoff, include a narrow majority of the justices on the U.S. Supreme Court.
...
Chertoff took aim at these legal protections in explaining why he was delivering a speech warning of the dangers from international law:
“Now you’re scratching your head and you’re asking yourself, why does the Secretary of Homeland Security care about this? Well, in my domain, much of what I do actually intertwines with what happens overseas.”

Like these culprits try to suit international laws for their personal benefits, to which they've already interpretted their national laws, future (marshal) laws will be tailored to outlaw anybody who isn't "fit for the cause".
And who is to write them? Lawyers.

Until a judge comes in, it will be lawyers rule.

In future scenarios of the apocalypse of change, international law might still be around, but is likely to be paid even less attention than now.

“International law is being used as a rhetorical weapon against us,” Chertoff said. “We are constantly portrayed as being on the losing end, and the negative end of international law developments.”

...So he called on the Federalist Society to go on the offensive and “take overseas the same kind of intellectual vigor and intellectual argument that you brought into the United States and into academia” a quarter century ago, when the group began challenging the Warren Court’s “judicial activism,” which included outlawing racial segregation as a violation of the “equal protection” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Precedence, examples of imitation, actual to influence the courts is their agenda.

When lawyers, guns and money, what Chertoff calls "intellectual vigor and intellectual argument", doesn't work, send the Marines. We're already there.

Someone now will think I'm getting off-topic. I don't think so. These are the trends, present day observations. In fact Cherloff's speech is by this date only one week old, and I think it chalks out a very important - and most scary - direction among present trends.

What I mean with trends, I would like everyone to see by taking a look at this very beautiful designed and cleverly laid out website.

It's a very long one - literally. But take a little bit of it now and then.

It's about The United States of America versus the UNITED STATES. What it was supposed to be versus what it actually is. It touch about any topic up in the forums here concerning America and its policies.


American Governance, it is called. www.gemworld.com... Here's a few of the abundance of citations it features.

"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow." -- James Madison, Federalist no. 62, February 27, 1788
----

"Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear." --Harry S Truman

----
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."
Sound familiar? It should.
It is from the second paragraph of the American Declaration of Independence.

A war is about to break out. And there will be plenty to do for lawyers, as it --at least for a start-- will be fought in courts.
It'll be a war counties between, and against shareholders in mineral extraction and lettuce growing, as it will be between states and ultimately nations.

A catastophe of climate waiting just around the corner, proceeding faster than any computer model ever predicted. No, it's not rising sea levels.

It will affect the desert West of America first of all, but it'll have considerable effects on the economy of California and Mid-western states.

It's about water, a water shortage is coming on faster than predicted, more severe than anticipated.

The Future Is Drying Up


The wars of the West shall rage again, this time time not between ranchers and cattlers, but between growing crops and manufactoring. Only think sure, there'll be no winners, everybody living there, dependent on the area for an outcome, is set to be losers.



It's coming on quicker than you know. Same news bulletin had this one as well.

South Struggles to Cope With Drought


Instead of having troops on a foreign shore, fighting for oil, you should have them home fighting to secure your water.

Ups... yeah, don't forget this ...Nafta is about water, more likely than it is about currency and super highways. Those Mexicans want their share of water too; when they aint got any left, they'll come running for water, and not just jobs and social benefits

The Nation's Freshwater Supplies Can No Longer Quench its Thirst


Much of US Could See a Water Shortage



Yeah, you have to recycle in closer and closer loops, when there is no clear mountain stream or well clean enough you can get your water from. Some day we'll all carry a gadget that will recycle our own pee, so the dependence on outside sources is minimized.



You know, the water waste problem is not a dripping crank or running toilets, it's our lifestyle build so to speak, on a consealed fundament to the underground which hinders rain and melt water to seep down but instead to run off to the nearest waterway which then in turn will overflow and you get uncontrolable floodings.

That's where the REAL Waste of Water is.