Display:
You're correct so long as rational actors remain in power. I'm not sure that some of the potential victors from a Saudi civil war would count as entirely rational a fanatically anti-Western regime could cause massive disruption, if only for a short time.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 at 05:05:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
usually makes you rational real quick - or justifies a campaign à la Afghanistan - a useful precedent in that respect.

We only need to make clear that we will not tolerate failed States. Any other kind of government we can tolerate and deal with rationally - and no compromission.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 at 05:16:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What's the going rate for glow-in-the-dark oil?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 at 05:24:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Who is going to use nukes?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 at 05:35:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm wandering off into crazy fantasy speculation land here, but let's pretend that there was a civil war in Saudi and that I, a committed anti-westerner from a religious cult that considers all and any means justified in battling the decadent west on behalf of my god, seize power. The first question is how do I hold on to power against attack from the West. I'd move nukes into the oil fields and threaten to destroy them if anyone attacks. The Afghanistan solution is not without risks. Hell, if my cult is mad enough I might consider the oil the fundamental cause of the sins in my country and not be too bothered if I destroyed it. This is a rational policy in terms of my world view. I don't even need real nukes: all I have to do is dirty a substantial part of the oil.

I don't know what would come out of a Saudi civil war, but your assumption that it'll have little or no effect on the outside world seems over optimistic.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 at 06:07:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is a rational policy in terms of my world view.

Someone who understands that rational is relative and not =reasonable!

As for your comment, I agree completely. Economic interests aren't on top of everyone's priority list.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 at 06:45:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I understand what you mean better. Yes, civil war is the greatest (and pretty much the only) danger to oil production, but it is rare that it has lasted long enough to really disrupt oil production (witness Algeria, Iran for examples with different outcomes)

My question is - can you have the combination of (i) some fundamentalist having access to the nuclear bomb and (ii) not being in power at the same time.

Because using the nuclear bomb, even within its own country, is a guaranteed trigger for retaliation, whether nuclear or more targetted, against that leader/ship controlling the nukes.

If they are rational enough to have the organisation to actually control a nuke, they will be rational enough to try to keep in power. The "fundamentalist"leaders don't go kill themselves, they send others to do it for their political goals. fundamentalism is really a way to control society and to keep power. The fundamentalist and actual believers don't get close to power, because then they are not pious anymore.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 at 06:47:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
They don't have to intend to use it to put it in place. Then maybe it doesn't take that much to get it used. I realise it's a pretty extreme case.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 at 07:08:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
An extremist in charge of Saudi Arabia would have a lot of disposable cash.  How many loose Soviet nukes are there floating around the former Soviet satellite states?  I had thought there were a lot, and the staff minding them are increasingly hungry, as they are paid less and less regularly.
by guleblanc on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 at 03:58:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Recommended Diaries
Clipping the wings of a judge
by Migeru - Feb 10
56 comments

Sarkozy: Enemies Ahoy!
by afew - Feb 10
33 comments

Hunger March wins PR battle
by DoDo - Feb 9
3 comments

LQD: Unsustainable irrigation
by Melanchthon - Feb 9
1 comment

Romania: protests change government
by DoDo - Feb 8
6 comments

Murdoch - Outsourcing and Hubris
by ceebs - Feb 3
18 comments

Obama wins GOP Primaries (to date)
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 8
9 comments

Bristol Pound
by ChrisCook - Feb 7
14 comments

Recent Diaries
Sarkozy: Enemies Ahoy!
by afew - Feb 10
33 comments

Clipping the wings of a judge
by Migeru - Feb 10
56 comments

LQD: Unsustainable irrigation
by Melanchthon - Feb 9
1 comment

Hunger March wins PR battle
by DoDo - Feb 9
3 comments

Obama wins GOP Primaries (to date)
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 8
9 comments

Romania: protests change government
by DoDo - Feb 8
6 comments

Answers to the Renewable Energy Consultation
by Luis de Sousa - Feb 7

Bristol Pound
by ChrisCook - Feb 7
14 comments

The Imitation Of Germany
by afew - Feb 4
31 comments

Strange Fruit
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 4
14 comments

Murdoch - Outsourcing and Hubris
by ceebs - Feb 3
18 comments

Mismatch with the Natural Gas Market
by Luis de Sousa - Feb 3
22 comments

The Future of Economics
by ARGeezer - Feb 2
191 comments

Desert Island Discs - Helen's distortions
by Helen - Jan 31
48 comments

Gorila
by DoDo - Jan 29
14 comments

Rail News Blogging #7
by DoDo - Jan 29
15 comments

Obama's State Of The Union: LQD
by Crazy Horse - Jan 25
74 comments

Democracy Technology
by gmoke - Jan 24
1 comment

The Hydrogen dream
by Luis de Sousa - Jan 24
49 comments

ET Paris Meet-Up 2012 (2 UPDATE)
by afew - Jan 23
113 comments

More Diaries...
Occasional Series