Don't understimate demographics. Todd goes back to 17th century trends that explain a lot of things. energy is superimposed on this - i.e. it has created new geopolitical stakes, but these do not eclipse the underlying social changes. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Re demographics, my take on it is that the demographics of Malthus' day are totally different from those we see in technologically advanced societies, particularly car-mobile and internet-enabled societies.
But then I haven't read enough to know what has been written - by greater intellects than mine - about that.
My simplistic view is that for thousands of years we had a society that was decentralised but disconnected: we are now at the zenith of a society that is centralised and connected; and that we are seeing the rapid emergence of a society that is decentralised but connected.
Within such a networked society will be created "value" - by which I mean "money's worth" rather than money - an order of magnitude greater than hitherto.
The consequences of this emergence will include the end of "middlemen"/intermediation; "profit" and "loss" and double entry book-keeping; debt and interest etc etc
And I believe this will happen: indeed HAS to happen, within a generation. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
As far as I know, the US has several thousand warheads - a few hundred should suffice. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Actually, it's not possible to rule out that some are already in the US. It's a total fuck situation: the US are toast wrt the Pak nuke. They've been for 10 years now, they just pretend it's fine and Pervez is an ally because they can't acknowledge they're fucked.
And now, AQ Khan is somewhere in Iran or SA, disseminating the blueprints everywhere. Each one of the United Arab Emirates will have its nuclear crown family jewels in 15 years, and the US still expect they can stay on top of the oil. Dream on... Pierre
And I would be amazed if the US (and every country with a serious intelligence service) hasn't bought or otherwise got exact knowledge of where the nukes are. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
So it's not suitcase (noone, the smallest ever made still take a huge back pack). But it can definitely go in the trunk of a SUV, the tyres will make it (take away the aerodynamic envelope). And you can still drive it to ... no wait, they want to eliminate surface trafic within miles of capitol hill, no shit, what are they afraid of ?
So it's pretty easy to keep at least a few of them moving around all the time in ordinary looking ordnance trucks. Any country on a permanent war footage like India-Pak should be expected to do just that. The west does it with subs, Russia restarted it with bombers. The poor guys still do it with a truck (big countries had trailer-launched ICBMs for that purpose at some time).
And there's no such thing as "serious intelligence service". Pierre
I'm not sure that is the case. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
Later devices have relied on some form of explosive compression of a subcritical lump which is assumed to be a necessary technology to build miniaturised weapons.
However take this all with a grain of salt because I'm not a physicist with any real expertise in building these things, and much of the information in public literature is probably misleading. Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
But what do I know, I didn't even read the book, just saw Pierce Brosnan playing the Russian agent in the movie. Oye, vatos, dees English sink todos mi ships, chinga sus madres, so escuche: el fleet es ahora refloated, OK? — The War Nerd
