U.S. Discovers Est. $1 Trillion of Minerals in Afghanistan(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
U.S. Discovers Est. $1 Trillion of Minerals in Afghanistan
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html
226 comments
* Saudi Arabia has approximately the same population as Afghanistan, but enjoys a massively better standard of living, a far stronger central government, and operates an effectively modern social safety net.*
IF you're a Saudi elite. Their economy relies on a huge population of foreign-workers that live as indentured serfs, are commonly brutalized, and enjoy no rights. It's also an Islamic absolute monarchy with less political freedom than China.
IF you're a Saudi elite. Their economy relies on a huge population of foreign-workers that live as indentured serfs, are commonly brutalized, and enjoy no rights. It's also an Islamic absolute monarchy with less political freedom than China.
Which alters the equation there in a way that disfavors the Taliban.
I don't think this is true at all. The Taliban have significantly more military skill than the Afghan warlords they've been fighting for the last decade. Consider: if the warlords, after having gotten billions of dollars of aid from the US and tens of thousands of western soldiers helping them, still haven't been able to defeat the Taliban, how large must the disparity be. Plus, the Taliban have a reputation for being less corrupt than the warlords that currently comprise the government. There's a reason Afghanis turn to Taliban-run courts instead of going to the government ones: the justice might be crazy, but it will be impartial.
Before this find, the future of Afghanistan was pretty clear: sooner or later, there was going to be a negotiated settlement with the Taliban, culminating in some sort of power sharing agreement. Given the find, that will still probably happen, but my guess is that the Taliban get more power in the end.
From a western/Chinese companies perspective, who would you rather deal with? Religious fanatics that are honest and maintain order with horrific brutal efficiency? Or obscenely corrupt bumblers who couldn't administer their way out of a paper bag? Extraction industries have plenty of experience dealing with the former in Saudi Arabia. Given the choice, I can't imagine why they'd prefer the later.
I don't think this is true at all. The Taliban have significantly more military skill than the Afghan warlords they've been fighting for the last decade. Consider: if the warlords, after having gotten billions of dollars of aid from the US and tens of thousands of western soldiers helping them, still haven't been able to defeat the Taliban, how large must the disparity be. Plus, the Taliban have a reputation for being less corrupt than the warlords that currently comprise the government. There's a reason Afghanis turn to Taliban-run courts instead of going to the government ones: the justice might be crazy, but it will be impartial.
Before this find, the future of Afghanistan was pretty clear: sooner or later, there was going to be a negotiated settlement with the Taliban, culminating in some sort of power sharing agreement. Given the find, that will still probably happen, but my guess is that the Taliban get more power in the end.
From a western/Chinese companies perspective, who would you rather deal with? Religious fanatics that are honest and maintain order with horrific brutal efficiency? Or obscenely corrupt bumblers who couldn't administer their way out of a paper bag? Extraction industries have plenty of experience dealing with the former in Saudi Arabia. Given the choice, I can't imagine why they'd prefer the later.
if the warlords, after having gotten billions of dollars of aid from the US and tens of thousands of western soldiers helping them, still haven't been able to defeat the Taliban, how large must the disparity be
I don't think that's a fair statement. "Defeating" the Taliban, which are basically an insurgency, in a country twice the size of Germany and filled with mountains and deserts, takes a lot more than military skill or firepower. I think that the military skill is in fact secondary in that battle. The political skill is far more important. As long as the Taliban are effective in convincing local farmers to support them, they'll be there, no matter how skilled the handful of soldiers on the other side.
I don't think that's a fair statement. "Defeating" the Taliban, which are basically an insurgency, in a country twice the size of Germany and filled with mountains and deserts, takes a lot more than military skill or firepower. I think that the military skill is in fact secondary in that battle. The political skill is far more important. As long as the Taliban are effective in convincing local farmers to support them, they'll be there, no matter how skilled the handful of soldiers on the other side.
In a country twice the size of Germany plus another bit of countryside in Pakistan the same size. If the Taliban were able to be 100% contained within the borders of Afghanistan they would have been utterly smashed and destroyed as a movement of any consequence years ago.
Like gjm, I'd also like to know what makes you think this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashtunistan
+
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/Maj...
+
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/Maj...
I understand that regions in Pakistan have offered refuge for the Taliban. What I don't understand is how one could be confident that this has been essential to the survival of the Taliban.
When the Taliban was smashed in the post-9/11 invasion, where do you think Osama bin Laden and the Taliban hierarchy escaped to, to rest & recuperate & reinfiltrate into Afghanistan?
Again, I just don't understand what the evidence is for the claim that Pakistan was key, vs. there being sub-optimal substitute hide-aways in Afghanistan.
In other words, just because I drive a Honda to work doesn't mean that if Honda went out of business I wouldn't be able to get to work. I'd just buy a different (perhaps less reliable) car.
In other words, just because I drive a Honda to work doesn't mean that if Honda went out of business I wouldn't be able to get to work. I'd just buy a different (perhaps less reliable) car.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tora_Bora
What 'sub-optimal' hide-away was available to bin Laden?
What 'sub-optimal' hide-away was available to bin Laden?
How do you know?
Sure, the Taliban have far more political skill than the current warlord government. Which bodes well for their long term prospects.
The Taliban have a lower bar. If they create some violence, then by definition they're succeeding and the government's failing. The government has a much harder job to do.
I don't think this is true at all. There is a tendency amongst westerners to assume that the official government is inherently legitimate. But legitimacy is earned, not granted by the 101st Airborne Division. You are the legitimate government of an area if you have an effective monopoly on the use of force in the area, if you provide vital social services, if you perform dispute resolution, etc. In significant parts of Afghanistan, the Taliban are seen as the legitimate government while the children from Kabul are seen as inept crooks. In those areas, random violence undermines the Taliban's goals: once you've convinced people that you're the legitimate governing authority, you have to keep them satisfied, and random violence makes constituents very unhappy.
The same confusion often erupts when people consider southern Lebanon.
The same confusion often erupts when people consider southern Lebanon.
I certainly didn't say that the government is inherently legitimate -- I was agreeing with you, and the comparison to Lebanon's government is a decent one (although nothing is as ridiculous as the confessional system).
Regarding random violence in the places that the Taliban hold sway.. well ok. But highly specific violence is certainly a part of their toolkit.
Regarding random violence in the places that the Taliban hold sway.. well ok. But highly specific violence is certainly a part of their toolkit.
Fighting the Taliban is very different to fighting the types of armies that modern tactics are designed for,
I can't speak for the US, but from what I have heard from serving UK soldiers the british easily win almost all firefights simply because they are so much better equipped and better trained.
The problem comes when we have to start fighting against unpredictable IED blasts and a sizeable portion of the populous who are willing to give up their own lives to kill relatively small numbers of people.
I can't speak for the US, but from what I have heard from serving UK soldiers the british easily win almost all firefights simply because they are so much better equipped and better trained.
The problem comes when we have to start fighting against unpredictable IED blasts and a sizeable portion of the populous who are willing to give up their own lives to kill relatively small numbers of people.
It's reported in The Times that the problem isn't taking territory, but holding it.
If you can't hold the territory, then surely it wasn't really "taken" to begin with? More like "visited"?
It is probably a symptom of our ill-calibrated tactics that even the lexicon we use to talk about this is illogical.
It is probably a symptom of our ill-calibrated tactics that even the lexicon we use to talk about this is illogical.
I disagree. I think the problem is that in some parts of Afghanistan, the Taliban represent authentic Afghani nationalism whereas the warlord government in Kabul is seen as incompetent quislings. If the populace thinks you're a joke controlled from DC, then it doesn't matter how many American soldiers you have helping you; firefights are irrelevant.
Look, the US has spent upwards of $250 billion in Afghanistan. Afghanistan has a GDP of maybe $21 billion. If we can't bring about a government that the population sees as legitimate after blowing a decade and ten times GDP, maybe we should just accept the fact that our military is not capable of transforming alien societies in the way that we wish it could.
Look, the US has spent upwards of $250 billion in Afghanistan. Afghanistan has a GDP of maybe $21 billion. If we can't bring about a government that the population sees as legitimate after blowing a decade and ten times GDP, maybe we should just accept the fact that our military is not capable of transforming alien societies in the way that we wish it could.
The Taliban have significantly more military skill than the Afghan warlords they've been fighting for the last decade.
A contrary view was posted to HN just yesterday, as I recall.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1427866
When the national population is largely in the thralls of tribal superstition, it's easy for people who share that fanaticism (the Taliban) to gain a kind of superficial control over much of the population, but it's not clear that "religious fanatics" (your term) of the Taliban kind will retain the support of the population over the long term.
A contrary view was posted to HN just yesterday, as I recall.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1427866
When the national population is largely in the thralls of tribal superstition, it's easy for people who share that fanaticism (the Taliban) to gain a kind of superficial control over much of the population, but it's not clear that "religious fanatics" (your term) of the Taliban kind will retain the support of the population over the long term.
Note the distinction between competence of terrorist attacks (especially attacks against targets in the US/Europe) and basic government functions. The fact that the Taliban can't run a suicide bombing operation in NYC to save its life matters a lot less than the fact that lots of people in some parts of Afghanistan prefer taking their disputes to the shadow court system run by the Taliban. The skills you need to be a good jurist have little to do with the skills you need to be a good tactician, and may very well be more significant.
Americans focus on terrorism because everything is always always always about us, no matter what, but the Taliban can and does do many things besides terrorist attacks against western targets. Incompetence in one area does not mean that the institution is incompetent in all areas.
Americans focus on terrorism because everything is always always always about us, no matter what, but the Taliban can and does do many things besides terrorist attacks against western targets. Incompetence in one area does not mean that the institution is incompetent in all areas.
i agree, except that a commodity trader will find a way to get the parties to the table and make everyone money. religious fanaticism and money aren't mutually exclusive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eilat_Ashkelon_Pipeline_Company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eilat_Ashkelon_Pipeline_Company
> if the warlords, after having gotten billions of dollars of aid from the US
I think you made the point. If they completely defeat the Taliban, the aid will cease and they will have to deal with all their problems at the same time they will have no enemy to blame for them.
The only winning solution for them is to keep the Taliban around.
I think you made the point. If they completely defeat the Taliban, the aid will cease and they will have to deal with all their problems at the same time they will have no enemy to blame for them.
The only winning solution for them is to keep the Taliban around.
From a western/Chinese companies perspective, who would you rather deal with?
Companies and governemnts would prefer efficient fanatics until they play host to violent extremists who act to destabilize neighboring regimes and export violence on a large scale in pursuit of political/religious goals. You may view the war in Afghanistan as an exercise in corruption by the military-industrial complex, but it is also a valid application of the theory of forward defense to directly engage these extremists on their own territory and force them to consume their limited resources on self defense instead of using them aggressively. If a deal could be reached with the Taliban that would, with certainty, end their alliance with extremists and the export of violence to the tribal regions of Pakistan and the rest of the world, then that deal would be enthusiastically embraced just as it has been with the Saudis, but such a deal seems unlikely given the current state of the Taliban's ideology and certain ingrained Afghan cultural traits.
Companies and governemnts would prefer efficient fanatics until they play host to violent extremists who act to destabilize neighboring regimes and export violence on a large scale in pursuit of political/religious goals. You may view the war in Afghanistan as an exercise in corruption by the military-industrial complex, but it is also a valid application of the theory of forward defense to directly engage these extremists on their own territory and force them to consume their limited resources on self defense instead of using them aggressively. If a deal could be reached with the Taliban that would, with certainty, end their alliance with extremists and the export of violence to the tribal regions of Pakistan and the rest of the world, then that deal would be enthusiastically embraced just as it has been with the Saudis, but such a deal seems unlikely given the current state of the Taliban's ideology and certain ingrained Afghan cultural traits.
The Taliban have significantly more military skill than the Afghan warlords they've been fighting for the last decade.
Documentation? Plus what does "war lord" mean in this context?
As I understand it, the Taliban would simply represent one faction of rural lords and clerics within Afghanistan. The former-northern alliance was simply another with the groups distinguished a bit by ideology but mostly by the Taliban being comprised of the dominant peshtoon ethnicity.
I mean, both the Northern Alliance (war lords presently making up the Afghan state) and the Taliban were groups origianly brought into existence by CIA interventions in the 1980s. Each faction becomes more or less corrupt, makes one or another alliance depending on the shift tides of war.
The Taliban would have the same difficulty controlling the entire country that the US and its allies currently have
Documentation? Plus what does "war lord" mean in this context?
As I understand it, the Taliban would simply represent one faction of rural lords and clerics within Afghanistan. The former-northern alliance was simply another with the groups distinguished a bit by ideology but mostly by the Taliban being comprised of the dominant peshtoon ethnicity.
I mean, both the Northern Alliance (war lords presently making up the Afghan state) and the Taliban were groups origianly brought into existence by CIA interventions in the 1980s. Each faction becomes more or less corrupt, makes one or another alliance depending on the shift tides of war.
The Taliban would have the same difficulty controlling the entire country that the US and its allies currently have
"Apart from foreign corporations, which are agnostic to which regime controls the country, nobody has a stake in the Congo."
Corporations are going to prefer regimes that enforce the rule of law. The Congo's primary problem (from a business standpoint) is it's lack of stability. If legal matters are not handled in a predictable way, then it's impossible for to do business in a predictable way.
While I agree that it seems like a positive development, what worries me is that Afghanistan already has a huge problem with government corruption (bribes, graft, etc). This will only make that problem worse. However, even businesses that could benefit their economy in the long run will tolerate some level of graft as long as the rule of law is enforced in a predictable manner.
Corporations are going to prefer regimes that enforce the rule of law. The Congo's primary problem (from a business standpoint) is it's lack of stability. If legal matters are not handled in a predictable way, then it's impossible for to do business in a predictable way.
While I agree that it seems like a positive development, what worries me is that Afghanistan already has a huge problem with government corruption (bribes, graft, etc). This will only make that problem worse. However, even businesses that could benefit their economy in the long run will tolerate some level of graft as long as the rule of law is enforced in a predictable manner.
The tl;dr version being: You can't have stable governments and institutions without having a viable economy underpinning the whole thing. In this respect, this find is very good, and will encourage outside investment.
It's good that Afghanistan has a resource potentially more valuable than the drug trade and its inputs.
It's good that Afghanistan has a resource potentially more valuable than the drug trade and its inputs.
The title of the article's a little misleading. The US discovered some treasure maps with a big red 'X marks the spot' that the Soviets made in the 80's
from the second page -
In 2004, American geologists, sent to Afghanistan as part of a broader reconstruction effort, stumbled across an intriguing series of old charts and data at the library of the Afghan Geological Survey in Kabul that hinted at major mineral deposits in the country. They soon learned that the data had been collected by Soviet mining experts during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, but cast aside when the Soviets withdrew in 1989.
from the second page -
In 2004, American geologists, sent to Afghanistan as part of a broader reconstruction effort, stumbled across an intriguing series of old charts and data at the library of the Afghan Geological Survey in Kabul that hinted at major mineral deposits in the country. They soon learned that the data had been collected by Soviet mining experts during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, but cast aside when the Soviets withdrew in 1989.
The Soviets did preliminary mapping. The Chinese "private" sector did more detailed charts, which were undoubtedly intercepted by NATO intelligence in country.
I must embarrassingly say that you're wholly correct, the United States was rather late to arrive at this party.
I must embarrassingly say that you're wholly correct, the United States was rather late to arrive at this party.
Yup, here's an article dating from 2009
http://www.sananews.com.pk/english/2009/03/08/chinas-thirst-...
China's already built roads to the area, and US soldiers are protecting the Chinese construction effort
China's already built roads to the area, and US soldiers are protecting the Chinese construction effort
Nice thing about those roads, as long as we secure them, we own them.
By that logic we own all of europe.
Yeah man. Maybe you should zoom out on Google Maps and see who lives nearby, especially anyone who might have (say) the world's largest standing army, and then come back and explain how it's a wise idea for the US Army to start seizing Chinese assets in Afghanistan ..
Sorry for the snarky tone but seriously, it's this kind of ridiculous macho attitude that got the US into so much trouble in the first place.
Sorry for the snarky tone but seriously, it's this kind of ridiculous macho attitude that got the US into so much trouble in the first place.
My comment was not simple machismo.
The United States has no need to seize any assets. We simply stop defending the roads, at which point the insurgents will begin seizing any convoy that attempts to get through.
My statement was not one of opinion. It was one of fact. If the Chinese do not behave as the United States wants on those stretches of highway, the highways will cease to be accessible to the Chinese.
The United States has no need to seize any assets. We simply stop defending the roads, at which point the insurgents will begin seizing any convoy that attempts to get through.
My statement was not one of opinion. It was one of fact. If the Chinese do not behave as the United States wants on those stretches of highway, the highways will cease to be accessible to the Chinese.
> If the Chinese do not behave as the United States wants on those stretches of highway, the highways will cease to be accessible to the Chinese.
China never "behaves" as the US wants. Where have you been for the past 50 years?
Furthermore, the direct beneficiary of Chinese mineral wealth is you, the US Citizen. Who do you think produces a majority of the goods you consume as well as finances the majority of your government's debt?
US and Chinese interests are inexorably linked - which is probably why the US Army is protecting Chinese infrastructure.
Step into the 21st century and let go of your borderline racist delusions like "If the Chinese do not behave..." - or what? The US will launch another proxy war and lose just like in Vietnam and Korea? The powers that be in both hemispheres have realized that there are better strategies to wealth, and they have been implementing them efficiently.
China never "behaves" as the US wants. Where have you been for the past 50 years?
Furthermore, the direct beneficiary of Chinese mineral wealth is you, the US Citizen. Who do you think produces a majority of the goods you consume as well as finances the majority of your government's debt?
US and Chinese interests are inexorably linked - which is probably why the US Army is protecting Chinese infrastructure.
Step into the 21st century and let go of your borderline racist delusions like "If the Chinese do not behave..." - or what? The US will launch another proxy war and lose just like in Vietnam and Korea? The powers that be in both hemispheres have realized that there are better strategies to wealth, and they have been implementing them efficiently.
Why would they forget about such a thing?
The world has a severe shortage of opiate-based pain killers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid#Global_shortage_of_poppy...
Opium poppies grow well in Afghanistan and farmers already know how to cultivate and prepare it for shipping in large quantities.
Potential mineral riches are spiffy and all, but it seems foolish to toss money at projects which require large-scale construction and worker training when an existing high-demand product already exists to productively employ the populace.
These folks don't yet have infrastructure capable of large-scale mineral extraction. Why not build upon useful agricultural exports and start from there?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid#Global_shortage_of_poppy...
Opium poppies grow well in Afghanistan and farmers already know how to cultivate and prepare it for shipping in large quantities.
Potential mineral riches are spiffy and all, but it seems foolish to toss money at projects which require large-scale construction and worker training when an existing high-demand product already exists to productively employ the populace.
These folks don't yet have infrastructure capable of large-scale mineral extraction. Why not build upon useful agricultural exports and start from there?
"but it seems foolish to toss money at projects which require large-scale construction and worker training"
I understand your argument to not abandon the poppies, but do you really think "foolish" is the right word to describe pursuing vast amounts of minerals that are in high demand? It's literally digging money out of the ground. Wouldn't the large-scale construction and worker training be funded by the profits from the minerals?
I understand your argument to not abandon the poppies, but do you really think "foolish" is the right word to describe pursuing vast amounts of minerals that are in high demand? It's literally digging money out of the ground. Wouldn't the large-scale construction and worker training be funded by the profits from the minerals?
You're right. 'Foolish' was a poor choice of word.
When pairing mineral resources with a chaotic government like Afghanistan's, I can't help but picture kleptocratic scenarios like Nigeria, Congo or the like and that's what brings 'foolish' to mind.
If mining started there today we would certainly enjoy the fruits of the labour, but I'm not sure the people would see anything from it. A few other posters have mentioned 'The Resource Curse' and I think Afghanistan would end up more like Congo than Norway if minerals were extracted in quantity from their soil.
I think starting with agricultural exports and building slowly from there would provide a more stable economic foundation.
When pairing mineral resources with a chaotic government like Afghanistan's, I can't help but picture kleptocratic scenarios like Nigeria, Congo or the like and that's what brings 'foolish' to mind.
If mining started there today we would certainly enjoy the fruits of the labour, but I'm not sure the people would see anything from it. A few other posters have mentioned 'The Resource Curse' and I think Afghanistan would end up more like Congo than Norway if minerals were extracted in quantity from their soil.
I think starting with agricultural exports and building slowly from there would provide a more stable economic foundation.
I agree, we need more iPads, dammit!
Agriculture may be wise in the short term, but as soon as the pathways are elucidated we will be able to produce synthetic opioids through recombinant DNA synthesis.
Have you seen the oxometer plugin for Firefox?
This story is pretty weak. What they apparently have are a bunch of anomalies from extremely coarse geophysical surveys. Aerial surveys even! That's about four steps from having deposits, in the same way that having a bunch of startup ideas is about four steps away from an exit. Each of those steps results in major winnowing.
The next logical phase of exploration would be having geologists hiking and driving around on these prospects to try to understand the specific geology of each. If things look good then maybe a program of surface level geophysical surveys, which are far more precise than aerial surveys (though still pretty fuzzy). Finally some (very expensive) exploratory drilling, then a lot more drilling to establish with some certainty the size of the deposit. Now you have a mineable property.
By the way, at every step you need a bunch of skilled people on location who currently have plenty of work opportunities in non-war zones.
Sure, there are almost certainly good mines to be found since it's a huge country and mineral exploration has been on hold for thirty years and was pretty spotty before then. But saying that aerial geophysics surveys confirm this is pretty funny.
EDIT: It looks like some ground geophysical surveys have been done as well. But no drilling as far as I can tell from the story.
The next logical phase of exploration would be having geologists hiking and driving around on these prospects to try to understand the specific geology of each. If things look good then maybe a program of surface level geophysical surveys, which are far more precise than aerial surveys (though still pretty fuzzy). Finally some (very expensive) exploratory drilling, then a lot more drilling to establish with some certainty the size of the deposit. Now you have a mineable property.
By the way, at every step you need a bunch of skilled people on location who currently have plenty of work opportunities in non-war zones.
Sure, there are almost certainly good mines to be found since it's a huge country and mineral exploration has been on hold for thirty years and was pretty spotty before then. But saying that aerial geophysics surveys confirm this is pretty funny.
EDIT: It looks like some ground geophysical surveys have been done as well. But no drilling as far as I can tell from the story.
"Armed with the old Russian charts, the United States Geological Survey began a series of aerial surveys of Afghanistan’s mineral resources in 2006, using advanced gravity and magnetic measuring equipment attached to an old Navy Orion P-3 aircraft that flew over about 70 percent of the country."
Can anyone in the know describe how this works? It sounds interesting.
Can anyone in the know describe how this works? It sounds interesting.
My old man did this work in the Navy (on P-3s) on 'pure science' missions and later on Twin Otters looking for oil. As I understand it they look for slight variations in gravitational pull that represent different densities in the crust of the Earth. The S/N is so bad that even with current computers they couldn't do the analysis on the aircraft. They would have to beam the data to Boston where a room full of computers tackled it.
The main problem the oil industry faces is the density of oil is similar to the density of salt. The only way to tell one from the other is to drill an insanely expensive exploratory well. My dad said half the time they hit salt. Really expensive salt.
The main problem the oil industry faces is the density of oil is similar to the density of salt. The only way to tell one from the other is to drill an insanely expensive exploratory well. My dad said half the time they hit salt. Really expensive salt.
I'm not a geologist either, and apologies if I screw something up in the explanation, but:
My geologist (-in-training) friend tells me that you would actually look for the salt because a geological process/property often causes oil to be found around salt domes.
Salt is less dense than rock around it, so in terms of geological time it will tend to get pushed up relatively fast. As it goes up, it will bend up the layers of rock around it, breaking the lower ones as it goes through them and deforming the ones above. Salt itself is practically impermeable, and so are some layers of rock. Oil, which is fairly light, will flow up and collect in pockets formed against the edge of the salt dome where a layer of impermeable rock has been bent up.
In http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/alhomadhi/Evaporates/Oil%20Traps%2... the pink layer is mostly impermeable, the grey-brown layer is porous and therefore permeable. Oil is trapped against the salt dome in the pockets created by the dome itself.
I understand not every salt dome will have oil around it, but there's only one way to find out. I don't think exploratory wells are that expensive, but of course they aren't exactly cheap either. However, drilling around the domes will still get you better chances than just drilling blindly.
My geologist (-in-training) friend tells me that you would actually look for the salt because a geological process/property often causes oil to be found around salt domes.
Salt is less dense than rock around it, so in terms of geological time it will tend to get pushed up relatively fast. As it goes up, it will bend up the layers of rock around it, breaking the lower ones as it goes through them and deforming the ones above. Salt itself is practically impermeable, and so are some layers of rock. Oil, which is fairly light, will flow up and collect in pockets formed against the edge of the salt dome where a layer of impermeable rock has been bent up.
In http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/alhomadhi/Evaporates/Oil%20Traps%2... the pink layer is mostly impermeable, the grey-brown layer is porous and therefore permeable. Oil is trapped against the salt dome in the pockets created by the dome itself.
I understand not every salt dome will have oil around it, but there's only one way to find out. I don't think exploratory wells are that expensive, but of course they aren't exactly cheap either. However, drilling around the domes will still get you better chances than just drilling blindly.
I think you're right about salt domes and oil. I'm probably wrong about the densities as well. Everything I know was what I picked up from my (non-geologist) father over beers.
I don't think it's the drilling itself as much as it is the in/accessibility of the site. They were usually doing surveys in the Andes or the Amazon river basin. Not exactly friendly territory.
They lost two crews while in South America. Mountains, bad weather and an expensive/tight schedule are a bad combination. He said they could never know where they went down, so they would watch the villages to see where airplane parts hit the markets. Pretty sad stuff.
I don't think it's the drilling itself as much as it is the in/accessibility of the site. They were usually doing surveys in the Andes or the Amazon river basin. Not exactly friendly territory.
They lost two crews while in South America. Mountains, bad weather and an expensive/tight schedule are a bad combination. He said they could never know where they went down, so they would watch the villages to see where airplane parts hit the markets. Pretty sad stuff.
I wonder if this is an area where drone aircraft would be useful?
Likely. This is subject to the usual caveats that come into play when dealing with drone aircraft: availability of technology and cost.
In particular, I doubt it would have been feasible to do this with drones back when mbenjaminsmith's father was working on this (or at least I got the impression this was a fair while ago). And even now, since the primary users of the technology are still military and other government agencies, it's not exactly cheap. Depending on how the company values a life and what are the estimates of risk, it might not happen for a while.
In particular, I doubt it would have been feasible to do this with drones back when mbenjaminsmith's father was working on this (or at least I got the impression this was a fair while ago). And even now, since the primary users of the technology are still military and other government agencies, it's not exactly cheap. Depending on how the company values a life and what are the estimates of risk, it might not happen for a while.
I suspect that the economics will play out much like ROV submersibles. Over the long term, operating and insurance costs will be much less for the drones.
Interesting stuff. I think M.A. Foster used this as a plot device in "Gameplayers of Zan".
Aerial gravity surveys are not particularly new. I've done a ground-based survey, but we were looking for a weak anomaly and the region had strong topography so the results were dubious (the inverse problem is very ill-posed to begin with and the topography doesn't help).
The GRACE satellites are a neat instrument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Recovery_and_Climate_Ex...
The GRACE satellites are a neat instrument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Recovery_and_Climate_Ex...
This reminds me of the guy who dated the somewhat gawky looking girl at high school who ended up blossoming into the most gorgeous young woman you could imagine. Either that, or the US has, behind the scenes, known about this all along.
The Congo is one of the most mineral rich regions in the world, so it's not necessarily a ticket to happily ever after.
It goes by various names: the Resource Curse, Paradox of Plenty, the Dutch Disease, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse
Finding tremendous mineral resources usually encourages corruption, collapses immature democratic institutions, and hollows out the industrial sector of the economy.
Nigeria, Holland, Congo, Venezuela, the story is always the same. The only country which has managed to avoid this situation is Norway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse
Finding tremendous mineral resources usually encourages corruption, collapses immature democratic institutions, and hollows out the industrial sector of the economy.
Nigeria, Holland, Congo, Venezuela, the story is always the same. The only country which has managed to avoid this situation is Norway.
If anyone wants to read about how Norway avoided this: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/99680a04-92a0-11de-b63b-00144feabd...
I've only skimmed the FT article, but isn't the simplest explanation that Norway was a westernized, relatively rich democracy unlike the other examples such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela? Yes, Norway wasn't as rich in 1968 is it is now, but the relative disparity between Norway and the outside countries which wanted to exploit the oil wasn't nearly as great as the other examples.
Thanks. The article was very good. You should submit that as a separate entry.
This is really a good read. You should definitely submit it separately here on HN
> The only country which has managed to avoid this situation is Norway.
And perhaps Britain? But that was before any country had any industrial sector at all, and the Britons used their coal and iron ore to start the original industrial revolution.
And perhaps Britain? But that was before any country had any industrial sector at all, and the Britons used their coal and iron ore to start the original industrial revolution.
White Paper on plans to privatize Iraq's oil industry (dated but an interesting read):
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/185/40...
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/185/40...
Canada? Australia?
Absolutely correct. That's why we (US) need to go ahead and just steal all those minerals, to save the Afghanis from another couple generations of civil war and strife. It would help reduce the US national debt too, a win-win for everyone.
PS - Obama if you're reading this, I'm available for hire as PR consultant or Press Secretary. I'm that good.
PS - Obama if you're reading this, I'm available for hire as PR consultant or Press Secretary. I'm that good.
Read DTrejo's link?
In fact, it's often a ticket to quite the opposite for the natives of the region.
[deleted]
Either way, this is pretty much the worst thing that could have possibly happened to Afghanistan.
Why? Every industrialized country on the planet now has an interest in making Afghanistan an industrialized country so that they can get a piece of that sweet lithium pie. Granted, there are chances for folks to take advantage and Afghanistan to get some generally raw deals, but it's overwhelmingly better than being poor with an economy built primarily on the drug trade.
Afghanistan went from having no chance to a moderate chance. It's no cause for celebration, but it's not necessarily the worst thing in the world either.
Afghanistan went from having no chance to a moderate chance. It's no cause for celebration, but it's not necessarily the worst thing in the world either.
Why? Because of the Resource Curse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse
Most of the supposed reasons behind the "curse" assume that there's an already-functioning economy to wreck. Minerals in Afghanistan aren't going to wreck their nonexistent licit agriculture output. Further, Afghanistan is already in a state of chronic intense conflict, which neutralizes another arm of the "curse".
The presence of vast mineral wealth will encourage the continuation of chronic intense conflict. And as long as said conflict continues, foreign investment will be very limited, which means it will be very difficult to begin large scale mining operations.
If you were a mining engineer, would you want to travel to Afghanistan and spend a year or two setting up a new mine there?
If you were a mining engineer, would you want to travel to Afghanistan and spend a year or two setting up a new mine there?
Conflict in Afghanistan was going to continue until the West left. Would I want to live in Afghanistan to set up a new mine? Depends on how much you paid me. There are already many tens of thousands of private contractors in war zones.
the arabs do well, africans don't, who knows what will happen to the afghans?
the arabs do well
Do they? The Saudi Arabian ruling classes do very well indeed, but how does the average Saudi do? Hint: google "Saudi Arabia inequality" and "Saudi Arabia oppression". It's the resource curse at work.
Do they? The Saudi Arabian ruling classes do very well indeed, but how does the average Saudi do? Hint: google "Saudi Arabia inequality" and "Saudi Arabia oppression". It's the resource curse at work.
How is the lack of resource curse working out in Yemen and Egypt? (nations fortunate enough to be without oil) They are doing even worse. Arab nations with oil do better than arab nations without oil. I'm only arguing against the notion that large mineral resources will always be a catastrophe. Yemen and egypt has about a tenth of Saudi Arabias gdp pr. capita. Saudi arabia, the emirates and kuwait all have welfare states for their citizens who are better off (materially) than egyptians or yemenites. Those (really) poor and oppressed people are guest workers. They were desperately poor before they went to Saudia Arabia, the Saudis merely gave them a marginally better option.
Those (really) poor and oppressed people are guest workers.
That's the official line, anyway. The whole issue of who is a citizen, and who has merely been there for years is part of it.
They were desperately poor before they went to Saudi Arabia, the Saudis merely gave them a marginally better option.
the Saudis gave them what looked like a marginally better option.
That's the official line, anyway. The whole issue of who is a citizen, and who has merely been there for years is part of it.
They were desperately poor before they went to Saudi Arabia, the Saudis merely gave them a marginally better option.
the Saudis gave them what looked like a marginally better option.
"That's the official line, anyway. The whole issue of who is a citizen, and who has merely been there for years is part of it."
It's not a difficult issue at all, you're a citizen if the law says so. No one promised guest workers citizenship and I doubt they expected it. Only westerners subscribe to the novel idea that anyone they let into their countries are also owed a part of it (citizenship, welfare etc.).
"the Saudis gave them what looked like a marginally better option."
There are five million guest workers, a lack of horror stories would be surprising. I'm not convinced coercion to stay is widespread before I see some statistics, if coercion to stay is not widespread then I trust that most of the five million guest workers know what is best for them.
It's not a difficult issue at all, you're a citizen if the law says so. No one promised guest workers citizenship and I doubt they expected it. Only westerners subscribe to the novel idea that anyone they let into their countries are also owed a part of it (citizenship, welfare etc.).
"the Saudis gave them what looked like a marginally better option."
There are five million guest workers, a lack of horror stories would be surprising. I'm not convinced coercion to stay is widespread before I see some statistics, if coercion to stay is not widespread then I trust that most of the five million guest workers know what is best for them.
Nobody is claiming that the Resource Curse explains all possible development outcomes.
"It's overwhelmingly better than being poor with an economy built primarily on the drug trade."
Not necessarily. The U.S. economy was built on drugs when it was starting out. Even today most of our famous colleges are named after drug families.
Not necessarily. The U.S. economy was built on drugs when it was starting out. Even today most of our famous colleges are named after drug families.
It would be interesting to see numbers on just how dependent the early American colonies were on tobacco exports. That's the sort of thing that would tend to be de-emphasized in low-level history textbooks.
I have never heard this. Citation please?
Ah, yes, Notorious M.I.T.
Which famous colleges do you have in mind here?
Which famous colleges do you have in mind here?
Yale, Brown, Duke, Kennedy School, Georgetown, Stanford, etc. Those are just a few I can think of off the top of my head, I'm sure there are at least another twenty.
Stanford made his money in railroads, not necessarily in the most seemly way, but hardly a drug. He did own wineries in Northern CA, but I was under the impression that those came much later. Are they what you were referring to?
According to Wikipedia he owned the largest vineyard in the world.
The only obvious one I can think of is Duke.
LOL. What?? The Puritans were drug mules? What on earth are you talking about?
Tobacco, the triangle trade, opium, weed, etc. Several of the states actually had laws on the books that made it a criminal offense to not grow marijuana.
Yes, but hemp was used in industry to make rope, not smoked. Easy to make sensationalist remarks; a little responsible research takes time and trouble.
Regardless of whether or not it was smoked, industrial hemp is still considered a drug today. IIRC you're actually eligible for the death penalty if you grow enough of it.
I was referring to "Even today most of our famous colleges are named after drug families"
i'm pretty sure the Afghans aren't crying
Calling this the worst thing that could have possibly happened to Afghanistan indicates both a lack of historical knowledge and imagination.
Calling this the worst thing that could have possibly happened to Afghanistan indicates both a lack of historical knowledge and imagination.
Yep, now they can join modern, enlightened, resource-rich nations like Saudi Arabia and the Congo.
Yep, now they can join modern, enlightened, resource-rich nations like Saudi Arabia and the Congo.
The Belgian Congo did very well for itself. It had a very fast growing economy, the resources really helpd. Read about it: http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,866343,00.html The question is whether Afghanistan can find it's Governor Pétillon. My guess is no, because democracy does not produce men like Petlillon.
It would be interesting to see an estimate of how many lives the disappearance of men like him from africa cost. And have you, by the way, been reading mencius moldbug? (http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/08/from-cr...)
Yes
One might say, the Belgians did very well for themselves in the Congo.
That they did - they made money by growing the pie - http://www.paulgraham.com/good.html
Sure, growing the pie, and then eating it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Congo#Colonial_economic...
I don't quite understand how pg's essay applies to the Belgian Congo, is there some specific paragraph you are referring to?
I don't quite understand how pg's essay applies to the Belgian Congo, is there some specific paragraph you are referring to?
You seem to imply that because the Belgians made a profit off the Congo natives that colonialism was bad for the natives. But when you make a profit by growing the pie, the result can be good for both the natives and the colonizers. The material quality of live for Congo natives has declined remarkably since the end of colonialism. As one native puts it: "Even if you go 1,000 kilometers down this river, you won't see a single sign of development. When the whites left, we didn't just stay where we were. We went backwards.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1713275,00.htm... http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1713275,00.htm...
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1713275,00.htm... http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1713275,00.htm...
There is no doubt that, in large parts of Congo, people are worse off than they were ca. 1960. But do you seriously propose a return to colonialism as the solution? Because that is what your governor Pétillon remark seems to say... I don't believe such plan could get major support in Congo atm.
My objection is with the after the fact justification of colonialism. Charity was never an objective of colonial efforts, it would be very naive to think otherwise. The fact that the rapid decolonization (which was by no means the end of foreign intervention in Congolese affairs) did not lead to a stable and prosperous independant state, is no argument in favour of colonization either.
I'm honestly surprised of the upvotes these neo-colonial comments are getting.
My objection is with the after the fact justification of colonialism. Charity was never an objective of colonial efforts, it would be very naive to think otherwise. The fact that the rapid decolonization (which was by no means the end of foreign intervention in Congolese affairs) did not lead to a stable and prosperous independant state, is no argument in favour of colonization either.
I'm honestly surprised of the upvotes these neo-colonial comments are getting.
Most people in Afghanistan would be far better off as citizens of Saudi Arabia. All three of these countries are categorically worse than the US or Europe, but "worse" is not a binary condition.
Given how Saudi Arabia treats non-Arabs in Saudi Arabia, I shudder to think of how horrifically they might abuse Afghanis.
Afghanistan has few mainstream Arabs and very few Africans.
Look to the Philippines if you want an example of what good can eventually come from U.S. occupation of a fractious country. And, unlike the Philippines, Afghanistan is not an archipelago whose thousands of islands practically define the concept of obnoxious-natural-barrier.
The Chinese influence bodes well too. China practices fair and even-handed oppression, rather than trying to exterminate the One True Enemy.
Look to the Philippines if you want an example of what good can eventually come from U.S. occupation of a fractious country. And, unlike the Philippines, Afghanistan is not an archipelago whose thousands of islands practically define the concept of obnoxious-natural-barrier.
The Chinese influence bodes well too. China practices fair and even-handed oppression, rather than trying to exterminate the One True Enemy.
> Afghanistan has few mainstream Arabs and very few Africans.
I don't understand what this has to do with it. Do you mean that absence of Africans and Arabs helps in successfully building up a democracy and mining minerals?
I don't understand what this has to do with it. Do you mean that absence of Africans and Arabs helps in successfully building up a democracy and mining minerals?
It's pretty much a prerequisite.
If you disagree, then say why, don't suppress something you simply don't like. The fact is that few Arab and African cultures have ever seen much industrial success, and then only for short times. Moreover, the best known way of turning a civilized city into a demilitarized zone is to import Arabs or Africans into it, and this has been demonstrated by numerous experiments.
Oh great, you're one of those bold truth tellers who can proudly espouse racism while the rest of us are too PC to recognize the obvious.
Right?
Go read some history. Specifically, all of it regarding the middle east and africa up until the present day. Heck, you can even just look at a map for a few minutes and marvel at how straight the lines are. Maybe you'll reach some more enlightened conclusions about the way things are.
Right?
Go read some history. Specifically, all of it regarding the middle east and africa up until the present day. Heck, you can even just look at a map for a few minutes and marvel at how straight the lines are. Maybe you'll reach some more enlightened conclusions about the way things are.
How much would I have to pay for you to take a job waiting tables in each of (1) Frankfurt, (2) Johannesburg, (3) Harlem, (4) Omaha, and (5) Mecca? While living openly in your native persona.
I bet the answers don't have a lot to do with local rents and food prices. And for Johannesburg and Mecca tend towards infinity.
The way things are is that some people are uncivilized and appear unable to become civilized. This is not racism, just the data as they are. Which is why, in the context of this discussion, Afghanistan need not necessarily turn into the Congo because it did not start out as the Congo, and why the Chinese influence is not so ominous.
I bet the answers don't have a lot to do with local rents and food prices. And for Johannesburg and Mecca tend towards infinity.
The way things are is that some people are uncivilized and appear unable to become civilized. This is not racism, just the data as they are. Which is why, in the context of this discussion, Afghanistan need not necessarily turn into the Congo because it did not start out as the Congo, and why the Chinese influence is not so ominous.
I don't think anyone's going to pay me the salary I expect to wait tables.
I'd much rather live in Harlem than Omaha or Frankfurt. Culture and metropolitanism are far more important to me than the amount of pigment in my immediate neighborhood, and it's very safe these days.
Your definitions of civilized are an opinion. The citizens of Mecca think you're uncivilized for a number of reasons, and I think you're uncivilized for others.
Anyways, I'm just thankful that most people don't think like you do -- I certainly wouldn't want to be lumped into the same category as you for the crime of (presumably) sharing a pigment level. People might conclude it's the natural state of white people to be deliberately ignorant about everything except their own little suburban town in rural America.
I'd much rather live in Harlem than Omaha or Frankfurt. Culture and metropolitanism are far more important to me than the amount of pigment in my immediate neighborhood, and it's very safe these days.
Your definitions of civilized are an opinion. The citizens of Mecca think you're uncivilized for a number of reasons, and I think you're uncivilized for others.
Anyways, I'm just thankful that most people don't think like you do -- I certainly wouldn't want to be lumped into the same category as you for the crime of (presumably) sharing a pigment level. People might conclude it's the natural state of white people to be deliberately ignorant about everything except their own little suburban town in rural America.
It has nothing to do with pigment levels, bigotry, racism, or any other ism. There are cultures who will stone you to death for wearing the wrong clothing, or tear you limb from limb on the spur of the moment for practicing witchcraft. They merely remain violent and barbaric when they get oil or diamonds or whatever; the natural resources do not make them that way. (The claim was that the natural resources were what changed Saudi Arabia and the Congo into violent cesspools.)
What is a mainstream Arab?
[deleted]
It's really too bad there are no counter examples.
Oh, wait.
Oh, wait.
What would the counterexamples be?
Look, I'm sure there are countries that might be able to successfully navigate a resource find like this. They'd probably be places with few internal divisions, a relatively homogeneous population, a history of stable government and well established cultural and legal norms for dividing and sharing power. You know, the kind of place where everyone really really believes that if their candidate loses an election, they will not be dragged out into the street and shot by the other candidate's private militia. Afghanistan fails all those criteria. So, if you can find any examples of a country that fails as badly as Afghanistan does successfully avoiding the resource curse, I'd be real interested in studying it.
Look, I'm sure there are countries that might be able to successfully navigate a resource find like this. They'd probably be places with few internal divisions, a relatively homogeneous population, a history of stable government and well established cultural and legal norms for dividing and sharing power. You know, the kind of place where everyone really really believes that if their candidate loses an election, they will not be dragged out into the street and shot by the other candidate's private militia. Afghanistan fails all those criteria. So, if you can find any examples of a country that fails as badly as Afghanistan does successfully avoiding the resource curse, I'd be real interested in studying it.
No realistic ones, no.
Do you really expect Afghanistan to turn into Canada or Australia, much less Norway?
Do you really expect Afghanistan to turn into Canada or Australia, much less Norway?
The Economic Hitmen Strike Again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7Fzm1hEiDQ&; (animation)
So, did he also beat her up constantly, repeatedly for a long time?
This seems like a dangerous opportunity for a China-U.S. confrontation.
Interesting you should mention this.
Chinese mining companies have been quietly performing exploratory studies in the north for the past few years. It was the Chinese activity that actually tipped us off that there could be significant copper and lithium deposits.
The Afghan people have repelled every major imperial power including Alexander the Great, the Persian Saffavids, Ghengis Khan, the Moghul Empire, the Russian Empire, the British Empire, and the United Soviet Socialist Republics. As a result, Afghanistan is one of the last remaining pieces of land on the planet that has never been properly surveyed, mapped, or mined.
The ground is untouched. The nation borders China, which has an almost insatiable appetite for minerals. The United States has over one hundred thousand troops present. It is a recipe for a disaster of the highest order.
Chinese mining companies have been quietly performing exploratory studies in the north for the past few years. It was the Chinese activity that actually tipped us off that there could be significant copper and lithium deposits.
The Afghan people have repelled every major imperial power including Alexander the Great, the Persian Saffavids, Ghengis Khan, the Moghul Empire, the Russian Empire, the British Empire, and the United Soviet Socialist Republics. As a result, Afghanistan is one of the last remaining pieces of land on the planet that has never been properly surveyed, mapped, or mined.
The ground is untouched. The nation borders China, which has an almost insatiable appetite for minerals. The United States has over one hundred thousand troops present. It is a recipe for a disaster of the highest order.
Don't you feel like Mutually Assured Destruction rules out a war between China and everyone else? The worst thing that could happen would be Chinese aid to Taliban fighters, or equivalent. China is not going to roll tanks against NATO, because everyone is making waaayyyyy too much money trading with everyone else.
There's just way too much to lose over a trillion bucks (especially since they have 1.6 trillion in US Securities)
It is a member of the WTO and is the world's second
largest trading power behind the US with a total
international trade of US$2.21 trillion – US$1.20
trillion in exports (#1) and US$1.01 trillion in imports (#2).
There's just way too much to lose over a trillion bucks (especially since they have 1.6 trillion in US Securities)
You're absolutely right. It won't be PRC tanks rolling against NATO. It will be proxy warfare, in the manner of the Great Game or the Cold War. Even today, Chinese companies sell a great deal of weaponry to the Taliban and other insurgent groups.
We are looking at a repeat of the US-Soviet conflict, replayed in Central Asia, with stakes unimaginably high.
The mineral deposits are significant in that they are a major catalyst, forcing events to happen over years rather than decades. The minerals will pull in corporations controlled directly by the Chinese state, and our own psuedo-public conglomerates such as Betchel and Halliburton. As a rule, soldiers follow merchants. It is a potentially dangerous situation that is strongly foreshadowed by historical precedent.
There is a reason nearly all Eurasian empires of the past two millennia have found themselves fighting in the Afghan hills.
Afghanistan is not some simple backwater. It sits astride the only viable land passes between Europe, China, and India. It is the natural crossroads of the world, the only unsecured military path into the Punjab, and a major potential trade route between three billion consumers.
Afghanistan is unique because it could be phenomenally wealthy, but as a result, it is simply too dangerous for any one power to allow a rival to control it. The Brits invaded to keep it away from the Russians. The United States sponsered insurgents to keep it away from the Soviets.
The most stable outcome is for no one to possess it, and for the country to remain in ruin. But from time to time, a Great Power tries to seize the area, drawing a response from the other powers. That time may be again be approaching.
We are looking at a repeat of the US-Soviet conflict, replayed in Central Asia, with stakes unimaginably high.
The mineral deposits are significant in that they are a major catalyst, forcing events to happen over years rather than decades. The minerals will pull in corporations controlled directly by the Chinese state, and our own psuedo-public conglomerates such as Betchel and Halliburton. As a rule, soldiers follow merchants. It is a potentially dangerous situation that is strongly foreshadowed by historical precedent.
There is a reason nearly all Eurasian empires of the past two millennia have found themselves fighting in the Afghan hills.
Afghanistan is not some simple backwater. It sits astride the only viable land passes between Europe, China, and India. It is the natural crossroads of the world, the only unsecured military path into the Punjab, and a major potential trade route between three billion consumers.
Afghanistan is unique because it could be phenomenally wealthy, but as a result, it is simply too dangerous for any one power to allow a rival to control it. The Brits invaded to keep it away from the Russians. The United States sponsered insurgents to keep it away from the Soviets.
The most stable outcome is for no one to possess it, and for the country to remain in ruin. But from time to time, a Great Power tries to seize the area, drawing a response from the other powers. That time may be again be approaching.
As a rule, soldiers follow merchants
That struck me as the most important comment regarding this article.
That struck me as the most important comment regarding this article.
The most stable outcome is for no one to possess it, and for the country to remain in ruin. But from time to time, a Great Power tries to seize the area, drawing a response from the other powers. That time may be again be approaching.
The Taliban seem to have the organizational resources to rule a country. Wouldn't a Taliban ascendancy in Afghanistan also be a "stable" outcome in the short term? (There would be concern that their ideology would prevent stability in the long term, given the existence of Israel and secular western industrial powers.)
The Taliban seem to have the organizational resources to rule a country. Wouldn't a Taliban ascendancy in Afghanistan also be a "stable" outcome in the short term? (There would be concern that their ideology would prevent stability in the long term, given the existence of Israel and secular western industrial powers.)
With China and the US MAD applies to virtually any movement. Traditional warfare is out of the question, nuclear weapons are so prevalent in their armed forces that it would quite literally be a world ending conflict (at least from the non-aquatic species over view, as even a minor nuclear conflict is considered capable of seriously disrupting modern civilization).
However non-traditional warfare like the Cold War is similarly completely out of the question. The Cold War dragged on for so long because the USA and USSR were economically independent of each other, they both had mega-quantities of resources and production in their respective regions of control. They couldn't fight outright, but they had enough resources to supply everyone else to do the fighting.
Yet the US-Chinese economies are so intrinsically connected that a war would cause immediate trade embargoes between the countries and would cause an all-out collapse of the respective economies. US desperately relies on Chinese manufacturing for everything from what we wipe our arses with to our knives, computers and even a large part of our ship production (civilian and military production both reside squarely within China's region of control). Similarly China relies wholly on US and European dollars to even have a sustainable economy.
We're not talking $1 trillion in cold hard cash likes some uber-lottery, we're talking a likely payout over the next 50-100+ years. It would be more advantageous for China and the US to team up to extract the resources than to even think about arguing over them.
However non-traditional warfare like the Cold War is similarly completely out of the question. The Cold War dragged on for so long because the USA and USSR were economically independent of each other, they both had mega-quantities of resources and production in their respective regions of control. They couldn't fight outright, but they had enough resources to supply everyone else to do the fighting.
Yet the US-Chinese economies are so intrinsically connected that a war would cause immediate trade embargoes between the countries and would cause an all-out collapse of the respective economies. US desperately relies on Chinese manufacturing for everything from what we wipe our arses with to our knives, computers and even a large part of our ship production (civilian and military production both reside squarely within China's region of control). Similarly China relies wholly on US and European dollars to even have a sustainable economy.
We're not talking $1 trillion in cold hard cash likes some uber-lottery, we're talking a likely payout over the next 50-100+ years. It would be more advantageous for China and the US to team up to extract the resources than to even think about arguing over them.
You are incorrect.
Review the precedent. The argument that economic linkage would prevent warfare was first raised prior to World War I. Global and Continental trade failed to prevent proxy conflict in Africa, the Baltics, and all out conflict across all of Europe. Britain and Germany had a level of trade and codependent exchange far greater that of modern day China and the United States.
Not to mention that the United States and China have fought and are continuing to fight proxy conflict today in the Sudan, northern India, Vietnam, Burma, Thailand, and North Korea.
Your theory has been tested. It is false.
To assume that the United States and China simply cannot engage in warfare is a dangerous delusion. And I assure you, it is not a delusion shared by the Chinese government.
Review the precedent. The argument that economic linkage would prevent warfare was first raised prior to World War I. Global and Continental trade failed to prevent proxy conflict in Africa, the Baltics, and all out conflict across all of Europe. Britain and Germany had a level of trade and codependent exchange far greater that of modern day China and the United States.
Not to mention that the United States and China have fought and are continuing to fight proxy conflict today in the Sudan, northern India, Vietnam, Burma, Thailand, and North Korea.
Your theory has been tested. It is false.
To assume that the United States and China simply cannot engage in warfare is a dangerous delusion. And I assure you, it is not a delusion shared by the Chinese government.
U.S. troops set up bases last month along a dirt track that a Chinese firm is paving as part of a $3 billion project to gain access to the Aynak copper reserves. Some troops made camp outside a compound built for the Chinese road crews, who are about to return from winter break. American forces also have expanded their presence in neighboring Logar province, where the Aynak deposit is.
The U.S. deployment wasn’t intended to protect the Chinese investment - the largest in Afghanistan’s history - but to strangle Taliban infiltration into the capital of Kabul. But if the mission provides the security that a project to revive Afghanistan’s economy needs, the synergy will be welcome.
http://www.sananews.com.pk/english/2009/03/08/chinas-thirst-...
The U.S. deployment wasn’t intended to protect the Chinese investment - the largest in Afghanistan’s history - but to strangle Taliban infiltration into the capital of Kabul. But if the mission provides the security that a project to revive Afghanistan’s economy needs, the synergy will be welcome.
http://www.sananews.com.pk/english/2009/03/08/chinas-thirst-...
Do not count on continued US complicity, especially if the "synergy" is unintentional. Remember that the United States and the Soviet Union did joint surveys for petroleum exploration in the Persian Gulf. It did not exactly herald a period of international cooperation.
More like "Welcome to the G21" for Afghanistan. This could give them the initial footing needed to reestablish their economy.
Reestablish? This would provide enough economic input into the country over the next 5 decades that it could easily establish its own culture into one modelled on the UAE. Dubai is a prime example of a cash-cow city that is now predominantly self-sustaining its countries economy without complete dependency on the regions natural resources.
From the minerals described, it would actually give Afghanistan the potential to be a haven for technology manufacture, which can easily be stepped into full out tech-based economy.
From the minerals described, it would actually give Afghanistan the potential to be a haven for technology manufacture, which can easily be stepped into full out tech-based economy.
Dubai self-sustaining would be quite the news to Abu Dhabi.
Here we go, folks! Afghanistan, your smoking craters are about to get a lot bigger and a lot smokier.
I need to read the parent article, but IIRC, the Chinese recently closed a multi-billion dollar deal for a copper mine in Afghanistan. Just one of many projects they are pursuing.
I wonder how much of the U.S.'s war expenses are going to more or less clear the way for Chinese commercial (/state) interests. But I'm not privy to the inside information needed for an informed analysis.
And from another perspective, the war's been fought with money borrowed from China (directly or indirectly), so maybe in a way they're just getting what they paid for (except, the U.S. is still on the hook for repayment).
I wonder how much of the U.S.'s war expenses are going to more or less clear the way for Chinese commercial (/state) interests. But I'm not privy to the inside information needed for an informed analysis.
And from another perspective, the war's been fought with money borrowed from China (directly or indirectly), so maybe in a way they're just getting what they paid for (except, the U.S. is still on the hook for repayment).
Excellent points. Knowing the probable future of actions of the Chinese, there's a strategy the United States can play here. The brief is this:
1. The most dangerous threat to the United States is not the continued rise of China.
2 .The most dangerous threats to American security are non-state actors, particularly terrorist and insurgent networks.
3. It is only a matter of time before these non-state actors develop or steal a nuclear device.
4. The most powerful and organized non-state actors are terrorist networks in Islamic regions.
5.These networks currently target the United States, our dependent nations in Europe, and our outpost in Israel.
6. These networks cannot be destroyed using existing United States and allied intelligence assets.
7. Therefore, the logical alternative is to retarget Islamic anger against a rival nation.
8. Islamic anger is stoked primarily by the United States military presence in the Near East and Central Asia.
9. The United States military positions in this region are overextended and unsustainable.
10. Military actors tend to follow commercial interests.
11. Therefor, the proper strategy is for the United States to execute a controlled retreat to fallback positions within these regions, while simultaneously encouraging Chinese investment.
As we stand down, the Chinese will rush to fill the breach. We can continue to hold the non-negotiable assets in the Near East, while allowing China to take Central Asia.
Simultaneously, the United States launches a concerted psyops campaign across the Muslim world portraying Chinese atrocities against their Islamic subjects in Xinjiang.
The end result is that Muslim anger is partially redirected against China, thus lessening the danger to United States interests, and giving the People's Republic a strong incentive to join us as equal partners in the fight against global terrorism.
1. The most dangerous threat to the United States is not the continued rise of China.
2 .The most dangerous threats to American security are non-state actors, particularly terrorist and insurgent networks.
3. It is only a matter of time before these non-state actors develop or steal a nuclear device.
4. The most powerful and organized non-state actors are terrorist networks in Islamic regions.
5.These networks currently target the United States, our dependent nations in Europe, and our outpost in Israel.
6. These networks cannot be destroyed using existing United States and allied intelligence assets.
7. Therefore, the logical alternative is to retarget Islamic anger against a rival nation.
8. Islamic anger is stoked primarily by the United States military presence in the Near East and Central Asia.
9. The United States military positions in this region are overextended and unsustainable.
10. Military actors tend to follow commercial interests.
11. Therefor, the proper strategy is for the United States to execute a controlled retreat to fallback positions within these regions, while simultaneously encouraging Chinese investment.
As we stand down, the Chinese will rush to fill the breach. We can continue to hold the non-negotiable assets in the Near East, while allowing China to take Central Asia.
Simultaneously, the United States launches a concerted psyops campaign across the Muslim world portraying Chinese atrocities against their Islamic subjects in Xinjiang.
The end result is that Muslim anger is partially redirected against China, thus lessening the danger to United States interests, and giving the People's Republic a strong incentive to join us as equal partners in the fight against global terrorism.
[deleted]
Pure fantasy. And you are completely ignoring probably the #1 source of anti-US hate - their proxy support of Israel. There is no Chinese equivalent, nor is there ever likely to be.
Perhaps, but I think China is alot more low-heat than other (former) industrialized communist countries. They'd much rather tap Africa's copper and lithium mines with no strife or conflict than try to work with the resurgent Taliban.
They figure, let the US quell the beast, then go in and make deals with whatever Afghani government is in power at the moment the US leaves. China doesn't nation-build, it makes deals; which makes it a bit of an aloof superpower.
They figure, let the US quell the beast, then go in and make deals with whatever Afghani government is in power at the moment the US leaves. China doesn't nation-build, it makes deals; which makes it a bit of an aloof superpower.
You bring up a good point. China would never dare a direct confrontation with NATO (or even the US) because of mutually assured destruction. Instead we could potentially see a China-backed Taliban.
The Taliban (on the world stage) is relatively innocuous currently compared to what they could become if they had the backing of China. Of course, aiding an unstable militant group would be risky but, if there's enough money involved, it could happen. (It's not like the CIA hasn't tried the same thing numerous times in the past.)
I think worst case scenario is that we could see a completely Taliban-operated Afghanistan that is heavily backed by China, enough so that China has a controlling interest (so to speak) in Afghanistan's affairs. If Afghanistan were to become a pseudo-vassal state, we could see a US backed Iraq or Israel come into some kind of confrontation with the state, although at that scale we get back to problems presented by nuclear war.
The Taliban (on the world stage) is relatively innocuous currently compared to what they could become if they had the backing of China. Of course, aiding an unstable militant group would be risky but, if there's enough money involved, it could happen. (It's not like the CIA hasn't tried the same thing numerous times in the past.)
I think worst case scenario is that we could see a completely Taliban-operated Afghanistan that is heavily backed by China, enough so that China has a controlling interest (so to speak) in Afghanistan's affairs. If Afghanistan were to become a pseudo-vassal state, we could see a US backed Iraq or Israel come into some kind of confrontation with the state, although at that scale we get back to problems presented by nuclear war.
I think it'd take a lot more than a trillion bucks to make China and the US get into any kind of bullets and bombs dispute. A war with China would cost a LOT more than a trillion bucks.
If China underbids us and we're unable to leverage state power or anything of that nature, I'm sure we'll just lick our wounds and give up. Anything else would be really, really stupid.
If China underbids us and we're unable to leverage state power or anything of that nature, I'm sure we'll just lick our wounds and give up. Anything else would be really, really stupid.
Nations, like people, make stupid mistakes sometimes. Look at the defining wars of the previous century.
Wow, victory was in doubt because the motivation to run a prolonged war over nothing wears out. That's why everyone lost in Afghanistan, it was hard to capture but had little worth capturing. Now that money is at stake, victory from a serious war effort is more likely.
I'm betting $10 on a USA victory now.
I'm betting $10 on a USA victory now.
Developing an entire industry from nothing (and lots of foreign support/investment) will take years. Do US voters mind waiting?
If they don't want to, I'm sure others will swoop in for an opportunity to get mining rights. There's going to be plenty of suitors because the mining terms will probably be very good since Afghanistan's credit rating is so bad. They're not going to have an easy time getting a loan to build up operations, so the terms they'll give others for mining rights will be quite profitable. And yes, things can get unsavory (as we've seen in places like Africa). The market's going to work this out (commodity traders will see to that... dealing in war-torn countries is tricky but they've shown time and time again that they're happy to oblige).
People these days are too hung up on making money fast. A few years to develop and build a profit engine really isn't that much.
People these days are too hung up on making money fast. A few years to develop and build a profit engine really isn't that much.
I wish the money goes to the Afghan people. I wish also if it did, they don't build another Dubai, but focus on teaching children and make a new enlightened generation.
Money will not, and can not, do that. Only culture can do that.
And what does "enlightened" mean, anyway? Does it mean "follows my ideals"?
And what does "enlightened" mean, anyway? Does it mean "follows my ideals"?
That's a good question.
I think at first it meant putting science above superstition, but now I think it means treating all citizens with respect. We're in the civil rights age of enlightenment.
I think at first it meant putting science above superstition, but now I think it means treating all citizens with respect. We're in the civil rights age of enlightenment.
Treating all citizens respectfully and putting science above superstition (read: religion) fundamentally violates the basic principles of a large number of human cultures.
I disagree. I have seen very little in any religion that puts them in direct opposition to science. Rather it's peoples interpretation of both that seems to create so much conflict.
>Only culture can do that
That is an excellent point. It reminds me of the "Money does not motivate developers" articles on here recently.
That is an excellent point. It reminds me of the "Money does not motivate developers" articles on here recently.
If justice were rendered the Afghan people would get a dividend a la Alaska oil and amazing infrastructure to bring forth an Arab/Islamic renaissance on the doorstep of economic giants: China and India.
In our world though, powers will struggle for control of the purse strings. Strong men will rule, aided by the US, the Taliban, both, or more. The mines will become inland islands to themselves as the people get promises of a better life.
Let's hope something along the lines of the former happens - would be world changing.
In our world though, powers will struggle for control of the purse strings. Strong men will rule, aided by the US, the Taliban, both, or more. The mines will become inland islands to themselves as the people get promises of a better life.
Let's hope something along the lines of the former happens - would be world changing.
Yes, I hope so too. The Afghans have been taken advantage of by so many different groups in recent decades. It would be nice if this find ended up helping them build a new more prosperous life...but it's probably wishful thinking.
I'm sure it will go to the Afghan people, but guess who gets to jump to the front of the line to buy it....
No, it won't go to the Afghan people. It will go to a select few warlords and politicians that are savvy enough to realize that by making deals with the right people, they can become oligarchs overnight.
And here I thought the only reason we were in Afghanistan was for the [opium](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Afghanistan_opium_poppy_cu...) and the potentially lucrative [oil pipeline](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline). Now that we've discovered mineral riches, I'm guessing it's time to bring some Haliburton-style capitalism (I mean democracy) to the Afghan people.
It looks like we'll be there for a very long time.
HN does not [support](markdown).
> The idea is that a Markdown-formatted document should be publishable as-is, as plain text, without looking like it’s been marked up with tags or formatting instructions.
http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/
I'd prefer links as footnotes, but using markdown even when it isn't supported isn't so bad.
http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/
I'd prefer links as footnotes, but using markdown even when it isn't supported isn't so bad.
If you want opium, google for "dried poppy pods" and you will get raw, dried opium sent to your door for a reasonable price and in a professional manor. That we are waging a war in Afghanistan to stop the supply of opium when it is so easily available (legally!!!!!!) on the internet is just one more example of how the world is insane.
The thing I don't understand about this is why the US would be prospecting in Afghanistan in the first place. Is there any valid reason why the US should have made this discovery? (Genuine question; I can't think of any reasons.)
Nation building. We (supposedly) learned from our first exercise in Afghanistan that you can't help a people fight off their oppressor then leave them to fend for themselves. Things quickly degrade to where they were with the Taliban as the ruling body. Some believe it is in our interest to build up the nation with a favorable government in place.
And no, GWB's administration didn't invent this ideology. Neither did PNAC, or any of the other conspiracy-nut targets. This kind of thing has been going on for thousands of years.
And no, GWB's administration didn't invent this ideology. Neither did PNAC, or any of the other conspiracy-nut targets. This kind of thing has been going on for thousands of years.
Did you read the article? The discovery was accidental. There were charts secreted away by Afghan geologists during the Taliban years.
In 2004, American geologists, sent to Afghanistan as part of a broader reconstruction effort, stumbled across an intriguing series of old charts and data at the library of the Afghan Geological Survey in Kabul that hinted at major mineral deposits in the country. They soon learned that the data had been collected by Soviet mining experts during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, but cast aside when the Soviets withdrew in 1989.
In 2004, American geologists, sent to Afghanistan as part of a broader reconstruction effort, stumbled across an intriguing series of old charts and data at the library of the Afghan Geological Survey in Kabul that hinted at major mineral deposits in the country. They soon learned that the data had been collected by Soviet mining experts during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, but cast aside when the Soviets withdrew in 1989.
Heh… caught out. Thanks for doing my reading for me ;).
[deleted]
We look for large valuable resources in order to help democracy. (I'm only half-joking, I think there are both sinister and non-sinister reasons why this may occur, which is why it makes it hard to discern true motives.)
Profit, certainly. They have control over the country and its' government; so they can take advantage of the resources.
Only in an extremely naive world would you get downvoted for this. Is HN becoming a less enlightened place? Do we truly believe that we went to Afghanistan solely for the terrorists??
Less enlightened? HN sadly has never been very politically enlightened when it comes to America and geo-politics.
Edit: And I think that's because HN has a heavy American user base, and I don't think Americans get very good news (or are even very interested in the complexities of modern geo-politics). Good or bad, I think that's a fair assessment. So what you get are a lot of: "America is in Afghanistan and Iraq for altruistic reasons that have nothing to do with the resources under these people's feet."
Edit: And I think that's because HN has a heavy American user base, and I don't think Americans get very good news (or are even very interested in the complexities of modern geo-politics). Good or bad, I think that's a fair assessment. So what you get are a lot of: "America is in Afghanistan and Iraq for altruistic reasons that have nothing to do with the resources under these people's feet."
> and I don't think Americans get very good news (or are even interested...)
What a stupid thing to say. Do you think that Americans who visit HN are prone to bouts of Fox News watching? Do you think Google News or bbc.co.uk is censored here?
> HN sadly has never been very politically enlightened when it comes to America and geo-politics.
This thread in particular shows great enlightenment on geo-politics. Just read the top comments.
What a stupid thing to say. Do you think that Americans who visit HN are prone to bouts of Fox News watching? Do you think Google News or bbc.co.uk is censored here?
> HN sadly has never been very politically enlightened when it comes to America and geo-politics.
This thread in particular shows great enlightenment on geo-politics. Just read the top comments.
For what purpose do you believe we went into Afghanistan?
For their opium?
[Edit: Afghanistan, not Iraq.]
For their opium?
[Edit: Afghanistan, not Iraq.]
It is a pretty strategic location on the Silk Road, that's for sure.
Which in an era where silk and the like goods travel by container ship means...?
... OK, if not for the instability it would be useful for pipelines, but what else? (Serious question.)
... OK, if not for the instability it would be useful for pipelines, but what else? (Serious question.)
Firstly, because we had a valid pretext for war (Taliban et al). But very important too is the fact that wars are profitable. And not from a resource standpoint; war production itself (e.g. weapons manufacturers, engineering firms to rebuild, etc) is highly lucrative and there certainly were agents lobbying on behalf of those companies, and pivoting themselves to be in a position to provide services "in the event of a conflict". That resources were actually discovered during occupation is just icing on the cake.
I wonder what is the exact date of the discovery of valuable minerals in Afghanistan. Do they look for minerals while at war?
We'll never be able to exit now. Gulf oil and Afghan lithium. Screwed either way.
Is it just me, or is anyone else tired of perpetual war?
Is it just me, or is anyone else tired of perpetual war?
Bolivia had better watch out for falling lithium prices.
When a government depends on resources for their revenue, they are setting themselves up for failure when prices fall.
Norway could have been in a similar situation with oil, but they avoided it:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/99680a04-92a0-11de-b63b-00144feabd...
Hopefully Bolivia learns something from Norway and this does not happen to them (Venezuela definitely didn't take a hint).
Similarly, if Afghanistan does not set itself up well, it could have the same resource dependency problem.
When a government depends on resources for their revenue, they are setting themselves up for failure when prices fall.
Norway could have been in a similar situation with oil, but they avoided it:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/99680a04-92a0-11de-b63b-00144feabd...
Hopefully Bolivia learns something from Norway and this does not happen to them (Venezuela definitely didn't take a hint).
Similarly, if Afghanistan does not set itself up well, it could have the same resource dependency problem.
[deleted]
East Afghanistan Trading Company. Est 2010.
[Like the East India Trading Company led to 150 years of British rule, I just hope history does not repeat itself.]
[Like the East India Trading Company led to 150 years of British rule, I just hope history does not repeat itself.]
As much as I would like to consider the outlook that US can possibly improve Afghanistan as an industrialized nation, create jobs, increase GDP and whatnot... it just boils down to historical autonomy. Afghanistan, no matter how many years they are at war and political turmoil, does not want any outside entity breathing down their throats no matter how "benevolent" their intentions are. If the US only came in as an economy-oriented entity instead of a war-figure, then the story might change.
This is not going to be a good example, but unless you give consent, do you want some overwhelming authority barging into your household saying that they struck gold while you and your significant other are having a disagreement (and that you've been doing this and resolving for a while)?
But then again, who am I to steer things like these? Government contractors make up a good percentage of our economy, technology included.
This is not going to be a good example, but unless you give consent, do you want some overwhelming authority barging into your household saying that they struck gold while you and your significant other are having a disagreement (and that you've been doing this and resolving for a while)?
But then again, who am I to steer things like these? Government contractors make up a good percentage of our economy, technology included.
Okay, anybody on this thread who think the Taliban is a good thing in any degree for Afghanistan has no idea what they are talking about. They have almost completely destroyed that beautiful country.
The Taliban are a dangerous element, they always have been, but they were created largely by the US.
You often get such radicalized elements is because of aggressive external pressure. Just as the Taliban was a response to the USSR, you have numerous Palestinian groups who are just as adamant.
You often get such radicalized elements is because of aggressive external pressure. Just as the Taliban was a response to the USSR, you have numerous Palestinian groups who are just as adamant.
No, The U.S. Didn’t Just ‘Discover’ a $1T Afghan Motherlode
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1430125
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1430125
Straight from the almost too good to be true department.
I guess I'll stick my neck out, point to the political discussion and ask "what does this have to do with hacker news?". If you want politics, reddit has plenty. If you want a nice discussion site, you can't have politics.
Geology?
[deleted]
I hope 80% of the returns are invested back in Afghanistan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
This might actually not be good for Afghanistan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease
What manufacturing sector? These people eat dirt today.
An economy doesn't have to be currently developed to be susceptible. The same phenomenon could prevent development too, e.g. Nigeria
By the numbers, Nigeria is far better off than Afghanistan.
Life expectancy in Nigeria is 47. In Afghanistan it's 44.
Nigeria has 3% adult HIV seroprevalence. Afghanistan, 0.01%.
18.8% of Nigerians die before reaching five years old, and 23.5% of Afghans.
Nigeria's HDI is 0.511, putting it at rank #158 out of 182 countries. Afghanistan's is 0.352, #181.
Which numbers are you looking at? Nigeria looks better off, but not far better off.
Nigeria has 3% adult HIV seroprevalence. Afghanistan, 0.01%.
18.8% of Nigerians die before reaching five years old, and 23.5% of Afghans.
Nigeria's HDI is 0.511, putting it at rank #158 out of 182 countries. Afghanistan's is 0.352, #181.
Which numbers are you looking at? Nigeria looks better off, but not far better off.
So they are proposing we trade Oil dependency to Lithium dependency.
But there are HUGE deposits of Lithium in the USA.
You know who owns the rights to them? Canadian corporations.
They refuse to mine them because it's not economically beneficial (yet) they want the price to go up.
But there are HUGE deposits of Lithium in the USA.
You know who owns the rights to them? Canadian corporations.
They refuse to mine them because it's not economically beneficial (yet) they want the price to go up.
Or, more likely, a combination of oil and lithium, since it looks unlikely that purely electric cars are going to make it in the next decade or two.
[deleted]
A trillion dollars? Really? What a round figure. Wait a minute ... that reminds me of something that I read recently. Now, what was it? Oh yeah, it was this observation by Vijay Prashad over at CounterPunch.
http://counterpunch.org/prashad06112010.html
"On May 30, at 10:06am, the United States exchequer turned over its trillionth dollar to the U. S. armed forces for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A trillion dollars is a lot of money. As my friends at the National Priorities Project put it, if I made a $1 million a year, it would take me a million years to earn a trillion dollars. The U. S. government expended the same amount in nine years, fighting two wars. So what did our trillion tax dollars buy?"
Alan Greenspan: “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil” (The Age of Turbulence, 2007, p. 463).
Me: “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Afghanistan war is largely about gas and mineral wealth” (My unpublished international bestselling debut, 2011, p. 231).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline
http://counterpunch.org/prashad06112010.html
"On May 30, at 10:06am, the United States exchequer turned over its trillionth dollar to the U. S. armed forces for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A trillion dollars is a lot of money. As my friends at the National Priorities Project put it, if I made a $1 million a year, it would take me a million years to earn a trillion dollars. The U. S. government expended the same amount in nine years, fighting two wars. So what did our trillion tax dollars buy?"
Alan Greenspan: “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil” (The Age of Turbulence, 2007, p. 463).
Me: “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Afghanistan war is largely about gas and mineral wealth” (My unpublished international bestselling debut, 2011, p. 231).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline
I'll file this story under "nuke, pillage, plunder."
While I'm not for war of any kind, and least we seem to have a semi-legitimate reason to be over there now. However, if there was trillions of dollars of valuable minerals, one could venture to guess we knew about those a while ago.
While I'm not for war of any kind, and least we seem to have a semi-legitimate reason to be over there now. However, if there was trillions of dollars of valuable minerals, one could venture to guess we knew about those a while ago.
The thing is alttab, aren't we meant to have gone past that stage in our historical development? You know, plundering and pillaging and what-not. The problem is that any legitimate exploitation of this mineral wealth is delegitimatized (God help me, does that word even exist?) somewhat by the manner in which the wealth was found to exist. It'd be great if Afghanistan became the California of Central Asia but I'm not going to be holding my breath for that eventuality.
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise at the down-votes.
From the article:
"An internal _Pentagon_ memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,”"
and
"“There is stunning potential here,” Gen. David H. Petraeus, _commander of the United States Central Command_, said in an interview on Saturday."
and
"“No one has tested that law; no one knows how it will stand up in a fight between the central government and the provinces,” observed Paul A. Brinkley, deputy undersecretary of defense for business and leader of the _Pentagon_ team that discovered the deposits"
and
"The _Pentagon_ task force has already started trying to help the Afghans set up a system to deal with mineral development."
and
"Soon, the _Pentagon_ business development task force brought in teams of American mining experts to validate the survey’s findings, and then briefed Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Mr. Karzai."
If someone points out that the US Pentagon has discovered riches under the soil of a foreign country its troops are waging a war in I'll certainly point out how much that war effort has cost and is costing each and every person in the States.
From the article:
"An internal _Pentagon_ memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,”"
and
"“There is stunning potential here,” Gen. David H. Petraeus, _commander of the United States Central Command_, said in an interview on Saturday."
and
"“No one has tested that law; no one knows how it will stand up in a fight between the central government and the provinces,” observed Paul A. Brinkley, deputy undersecretary of defense for business and leader of the _Pentagon_ team that discovered the deposits"
and
"The _Pentagon_ task force has already started trying to help the Afghans set up a system to deal with mineral development."
and
"Soon, the _Pentagon_ business development task force brought in teams of American mining experts to validate the survey’s findings, and then briefed Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Mr. Karzai."
If someone points out that the US Pentagon has discovered riches under the soil of a foreign country its troops are waging a war in I'll certainly point out how much that war effort has cost and is costing each and every person in the States.
Now we'll have enough Lithium to power our future electric cars - without buying it from China!
Awesome, now the US can power our gas/oil-based cars with Iraq and our electric battery-powered cars with Afghanistan.
(regarding the supposedly huge lithium find there)
(regarding the supposedly huge lithium find there)
Seriously - the first thing I thought of was InfoWars getting a hold of this and saying:
"The US planned 9/11 in order to invade Afghanistan to get at it's vast mineral resources - especially lithium and copper to power the future of energy - just like oil in the Middle East!!" - Alex Jones in Parody
"The US planned 9/11 in order to invade Afghanistan to get at it's vast mineral resources - especially lithium and copper to power the future of energy - just like oil in the Middle East!!" - Alex Jones in Parody
[deleted]
[deleted]
Now that these wars are paying off, what's the timeframe for invading Iran? Let's face it, we all know some secret CIA operation has been drawing up detailed plans, running simulations, and playing war games with Iran for years. Now that we flank them on left and right, all they need is the right Administration. 15 years is my guess. 10 if there's a major terrorist attack that can be tied to Iran.
Not-quite-on-topic fact: the military has contingency plans for everything, including a Canadian invasion of the United States. The plans are drawn up, periodically reviewed, and constantly wargamed. By and large they mean nothing, but some day some of them may end up useful.
Fun fact: This was my dad's job in the Marine Corps for awhile. He's still bitter about the invasion of Grenada, since he's convinced it would have gone much more easily if they followed the contingency plan he drew up rather than handling it the way they did.
Fun fact: This was my dad's job in the Marine Corps for awhile. He's still bitter about the invasion of Grenada, since he's convinced it would have gone much more easily if they followed the contingency plan he drew up rather than handling it the way they did.
> the military has contingency plans for everything, including a Canadian invasion of the United States.
I don't think I'm the only one who hopes someone will FOI that if and when its secrecy expires.
(Disclaimer: I've little to no idea on how secrecy and disclosure of documents works in the U.S. military.)
I don't think I'm the only one who hopes someone will FOI that if and when its secrecy expires.
(Disclaimer: I've little to no idea on how secrecy and disclosure of documents works in the U.S. military.)
Chances are, by the time any of the plans are declassified it'll be because it's completely irrelevant to the current situation, which will be a very long time from now.
If you're truly curious, Wikipedia has an article on War Plan Red: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
If you're truly curious, Wikipedia has an article on War Plan Red: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
Given that Iran can easily cripple the world economy by scuttling some ships and blocking the Straits of Hormuz, I don't think we'll see any such attack.
The Strait is 33 miles / 54 kilometers wide at it's most narrow point, I'm hard pressed to imagine that the navigable part of it is narrow enough to close that way.
I've always heard that Iran's plans would involve the usual tools like missiles, mines, small boats, etc., all of which have obvious counters. I'm not saying it would be a cakewalk, and not even considering how things would change when they go nuclear, but "easily" doesn't strike me as accurate.
There's also the minor detail that they import over open water 1/2 of their petroleum distillates, a naval war in that area would bring their economy to a near halt. Drop a few bombs on their only refinery (I've read they have only one, but whatever the number, it's small enough for us and their neighbors to take out) and their country reverts to a pre-industrialized state with mass starvation.
Iran is exquisitely vulnerable, which is certainly one of their reasons for pursuing the bomb (and one reason they might continue even after a regime change).
I've always heard that Iran's plans would involve the usual tools like missiles, mines, small boats, etc., all of which have obvious counters. I'm not saying it would be a cakewalk, and not even considering how things would change when they go nuclear, but "easily" doesn't strike me as accurate.
There's also the minor detail that they import over open water 1/2 of their petroleum distillates, a naval war in that area would bring their economy to a near halt. Drop a few bombs on their only refinery (I've read they have only one, but whatever the number, it's small enough for us and their neighbors to take out) and their country reverts to a pre-industrialized state with mass starvation.
Iran is exquisitely vulnerable, which is certainly one of their reasons for pursuing the bomb (and one reason they might continue even after a regime change).
The Strait is 33 miles / 54 kilometers wide at it's most narrow point, I'm hard pressed to imagine that the navigable part of it is narrow enough to close that way.
True, but the actual channel through which supertankers navigate is only 6 miles wide (two miles for each direction of traffic with a two mile gutter to separate). The rest of the channel at that point is either within Iranian territorial waters or too shallow for supertankers to safely transit.
I've always heard that Iran's plans would involve the usual tools like missiles, mines, small boats, etc., all of which have obvious counters. I'm not saying it would be a cakewalk, and not even considering how things would change when they go nuclear, but "easily" doesn't strike me as accurate.
Oh, I very much agree with you. I'm sure Iran would follow through on all those options before they did something as difficult to undo as scuttling tankers to block the Strait.
There's also the minor detail that they import over open water 1/2 of their petroleum distillates, a naval war in that area would bring their economy to a near halt. Drop a few bombs on their only refinery (I've read they have only one, but whatever the number, it's small enough for us and their neighbors to take out) and their country reverts to a pre-industrialized state with mass starvation.
Yeah, that would be awful for them. But given the low elasticity for gasoline consumption, cutting off 40% of daily oil flow would be an economic disaster for us. Businesses would grind to a halt as tens of millions of people would no longer be able to afford to go to work. For starters.
Iran is exquisitely vulnerable, which is certainly one of their reasons for pursuing the bomb (and one reason they might continue even after a regime change).
Absolutely. But the entire industrialized world is also vulnerable. And if we start a conflict and do take out Iran's sole refinery while blockading them to prevent them from getting refined products, they will have every incentive to block the Strait. Right?
True, but the actual channel through which supertankers navigate is only 6 miles wide (two miles for each direction of traffic with a two mile gutter to separate). The rest of the channel at that point is either within Iranian territorial waters or too shallow for supertankers to safely transit.
I've always heard that Iran's plans would involve the usual tools like missiles, mines, small boats, etc., all of which have obvious counters. I'm not saying it would be a cakewalk, and not even considering how things would change when they go nuclear, but "easily" doesn't strike me as accurate.
Oh, I very much agree with you. I'm sure Iran would follow through on all those options before they did something as difficult to undo as scuttling tankers to block the Strait.
There's also the minor detail that they import over open water 1/2 of their petroleum distillates, a naval war in that area would bring their economy to a near halt. Drop a few bombs on their only refinery (I've read they have only one, but whatever the number, it's small enough for us and their neighbors to take out) and their country reverts to a pre-industrialized state with mass starvation.
Yeah, that would be awful for them. But given the low elasticity for gasoline consumption, cutting off 40% of daily oil flow would be an economic disaster for us. Businesses would grind to a halt as tens of millions of people would no longer be able to afford to go to work. For starters.
Iran is exquisitely vulnerable, which is certainly one of their reasons for pursuing the bomb (and one reason they might continue even after a regime change).
Absolutely. But the entire industrialized world is also vulnerable. And if we start a conflict and do take out Iran's sole refinery while blockading them to prevent them from getting refined products, they will have every incentive to block the Strait. Right?
They'd have to be quick--it would take time for them to scuttle those ships, and they wouldn't go unnoticed since we almost always have a carrier battle group in the Gulf anyway (plus, who can really keep a secret anyway?). The US Navy continually operates to protect freedom of navigation--they'd prevent any scuttling operations there by any means necessary, considering the stakes.
Um, Iranian supertankers transit the Strait every day. If one of them stopped and went boom, how exactly would the US Navy stop it? Does the Navy have a remote supertanker hull sealing technology that we don't know about? I mean, once the explosion happens and the boat begins to sink, what practical steps do you think the Navy can take at that point?
Would one supertanker really do it? Because once the first one goes, you'd have a pretty rapid response before they can get others anywhere near.
Probably not, but I'd guess even one supertanker would be more effective than one might expect. We're talking about vessels that are nearly half a kilometer long. Note that the tankers transiting the Strait have very limited maneuverability; it is difficult to turn on a dime when you're carrying half a million tons of cargo. Moreover, tanker captains are a very conservative lot: they will be reluctant to make a transit even if there is room if there are not sufficient margins of error for fear of further jamming the channel.
Somebody would surely find a way to spin that into an act of war, clear out the scuttled ships, and invade Iran.
I don't think Iran would do that unless there was already an invasion of Iran underway. And while it might be possible to clear the scuttled ships, it would be extremely difficult and take months, if not years. That would be months or years in which oil supply from not only Iran but Iraq, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia would be choked off. That would be crippling to the world economy.
Just wondering -- wouldn't a couple (or a couple dozen) of well-placed explosive charges disintegrate the ships into small enough pieces and clear the way? Can you expand on the difficulties? It doesn't seem to a layman like it'd be that challenging or take that long. (Then again, I realize little does.)
Since there appears to be no stable economy in Afghanistan that is feasible to build, maintain, and defend, the Taliban's supporters have an incentive to invest, and its recruits have incentive to join up. Ambivalent forces in Afghanistan that might help thwart the Taliban are disincentivized to do so, because there's no path to victory, and they'd be subject to reprisals when the effort failed.
Vast mineral resources could change that. Saudi Arabia has approximately the same population as Afghanistan, but enjoys a massively better standard of living, a far stronger central government, and operates an effectively modern social safety net. If mineral investment can set that trend in motion in Afghanistan, the state may have an actual path to stability. Which alters the equation there in a way that disfavors the Taliban.
Everyone seems to be citing the case of the Congo. But the Congo isn't essentially occupied by the rest of Western Civilization. Apart from foreign corporations, which are agnostic to which regime controls the country, nobody has a stake in the Congo. That's not the case in Afghanistan.
This seems like a positive development.