Scrutable

lpm wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 3:08 pm There's no global strategic interests in water wars. Why would anyone give a sh.t if Sudan invades Ethiopia to control a river?

We established entire countries to control our oil. We die if they stop delivering. We can't abandon our puppet rulers in Saudi etc to their deserved fate until we've ended our addiction.

I don’t think the British will be involved, I was straying from the title of the thread to talk about wars more generally.

Grumble wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 2:22 pm

Woodchopper wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 2:10 pm

Grumble wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 2:07 pm
No, but a lot of people may be forced to move.

Certainly, but that will probably happen over a long time. What we are seeing in Nigeria and the Sahel is that migrations south by cattle herders are leading to conflict with farmers who are used to using the land and water resources for growing crops. There's a lot of conflict at the village level, but so far not something we'd call a war.

If city populations are forced to move rather than farmers then there will be an intensification of problems

Certainly. Though sea level rises and drought are happening slowly. The migration out of cities affected by both will probably happen at a similar timescale - eg people move out of low lying areas after the third serious flood in fifteen years, or people move out of a drought stricken city because the price of water has got too high.

lpm wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 3:08 pm There's no global strategic interests in water wars. Why would anyone give a sh.t if Sudan invades Ethiopia to control a river?

We established entire countries to control our oil. We die if they stop delivering. We can't abandon our puppet rulers in Saudi etc to their deserved fate until we've ended our addiction.

People might take notice if India and Pakistan started seriously going at it over water though, which is on the cards.

lpm wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 3:08 pm There's no global strategic interests in water wars. Why would anyone give a sh.t if Sudan invades Ethiopia to control a river?

I agree. People fight wars over things that will make them rich. Water is a high volume and low margin industry.

secret squirrel wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 3:13 pm

lpm wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 3:08 pm There's no global strategic interests in water wars. Why would anyone give a sh.t if Sudan invades Ethiopia to control a river?

We established entire countries to control our oil. We die if they stop delivering. We can't abandon our puppet rulers in Saudi etc to their deserved fate until we've ended our addiction.

People might take notice if India and Pakistan started seriously going at it over water though, which is on the cards.

We'll have to see. That article is from February 2019 though.

Sciolus wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 11:20 am Compare and contrast:

• Prime minister sends British expeditionary force to the middle east to overthrow an evil mass-murdering tyrant, with f.ck all of a postwar plan, with the support of parliament, because oil.
• Prime minister sends small detachment of British radar operators to the middle east to help stop oil installation benefical to uk national interest being blown up by other regime at least as bad id not worse. because oil.

EFA

Also , note, “the oil industry” is really the vast state enterprises - aramco, pdvsa, etc. Compared to them the “oil majors” are a couple of tramps with a cup of grease.

Blackcountryboy wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 11:05 am

Grumble wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:18 am

lpm wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 8:26 am The answer isn't to confront the arms industry. It's to end the oil industry.

I doubt that will end conflict, but it will remove some causes. More wars are coming because of global warming, disruption to water supplies will be massive when the ice caps melt off the Himalayas etc.

I wonder when we will have our first Lithium war.

We'll just add it to the water and solve two problems at once*.

*you can interpret that chemically or psychiatrically. Take your pick. The chemistry pun is free.

Woodchopper wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 3:22 pm We'll have to see. That article is from February 2019 though.

This was just the first article on the subject I could find. I got the general idea from a lecture on the long term effects of climate change on geopolitics, which unfortunately I now can't find.

secret squirrel wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 4:12 pm

Woodchopper wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 3:22 pm We'll have to see. That article is from February 2019 though.

This was just the first article on the subject I could find. I got the general idea from a lecture on the long term effects of climate change on geopolitics, which unfortunately I now can't find.

I bet you a million barrels of oil there are similar India vs Pakistan/China water war stories from the 1970s. Maybe from 1947. It's one of the things that stay on the horizon, like fusion power.

lpm wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 4:55 pm

secret squirrel wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2020 4:12 pm This was just the first article on the subject I could find. I got the general idea from a lecture on the long term effects of climate change on geopolitics, which unfortunately I now can't find.

I bet you a million barrels of oil there are similar India vs Pakistan/China water war stories from the 1970s. Maybe from 1947. It's one of the things that stay on the horizon, like fusion power.

The point is that climate change will make the water situation a lot worse, making confrontation between India and Pakistan over water much more likely in the future.

Plus increased urbanisation making different demands on existing water infrastructure - instead of a thousand village boreholes you need something centralised. This leads to conflicts when rivers or aquifers cross borders, for instance.

Water wars seem to be quite a serious prediction for this century. It's perhaps worth remembering that improving water infrastructure was one of the ways Islamic State built its support base in rural communities.