Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Afghan Update
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Around the Globe
Av Week Extra
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Body Armor Blues
Bomb Squad
Brownshoes in Action
Bubbleheads, etc.
Cammo Green
Catch the "Buzz"
Chem-Bio
Civilian Apps
Cloak and Dagger
Commandos
Comms
Contingency Ops
Cops and Robbers
Cyber-warfare
Data Diving
Defense Tech Poll
Dissent Tech
Door Kickers
Drones
DT Administrivia
Eat DT's Dust
Extra! Extra!
Eye on China
Fast Movers
FCS Watch
Fire for Effect
FOS Files
Friday Funnies
Gadgets and Gear
Going Green
Grand Ole Osprey
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
In the Weeds with Eric
Info War
Iraq Diary
Jarhead Jazz
JSF Watch
Just War Theories
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
M4 Monopoly
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Most Wanted
MRAP Edge
Net-Centric
Nukes
Old Skool
Our Shrinking Planet
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Polmar's Perspective
Popular Mechanics
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Robots
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Snipertech
Space
Special Ops
Star Wars
Strategery
Stray Trons
Tactical Development
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
The Defense Biz
The Peoples' Site
The Sunday Paper
The Tanker Tango
The View from Av Week
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
Trimble on the Case
Video Lounge
War Update
Ward'z Wonderz
You can run...

See all Archives
Newsletters

Edited by Christian Lowe | Contact

The Water Wars of 2050

Icebergs melting.jpg

Although wars are often justified under the banners of lofty tenets, they are just as often fought over resources. And as the Associated Press reports today, it's not unthinkable that as global warming changes the resource status quo, conflicts will erupt between peoples competing for those resources.

A few highlights from the article:

"One of the biggest likely areas of conflict is going to be over water," said [retired General Charles] Wald, former deputy commander of U.S. European Command. He pointed to the Middle East and Africa.

The military report's co-author, former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Gordon R. Sullivan, also pointed to sea-level rise floods as potentially destabilizing South Asia countries of Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Vietnam.

Lack of water and food in places already the most volatile will make those regions even more unstable with global warming and "foster the conditions for internal conflicts, extremism and movement toward increased authoritarianism and radical ideologies," states the 63-page military report, issued by the CNA Corp., an Alexandria, Va.-based national security think tank.

Mother Nature's potential WMD sort of raises the bar of imminent threat, doesn't it?

-- Ward

Comments

Lets see here, 80% of the world is covered by water, and only 1/100 is fresh water. Now we count on this water for drinking, agriculture, power, recreation, etc. At last count there were approximately 6.8 billion people in the world. Does this math make sence to you? Something has to give.

Posted by: RJ at November 25, 2007 11:31 PM


I, for one, am going to stock up on bottled water.

Posted by: PhilLeech at April 22, 2007 03:45 AM


I'd just like to point out that by the timeframe indicated, we'll probably have nanotube-based desalinization. At that point, water shortages will be limited to mostly those unable (or prevented as a means of war) to get them.

Posted by: Big D at April 18, 2007 05:19 PM


Um - what b said has weight. The fight in for Israel is as much about water access as it is lost territory.

Water and Soil folks - not much oil right there.

And Israel's plight has always been a microcosm of the bigger picture.


Posted by: RTLM at April 18, 2007 01:36 AM


It's good to see that no one is buying this BS. I can't believe anyone other than the end of the world environmnentalists, accepting this either. Anyone can dream up anything and any scenario, but that doesn't mean it has validity. It really is not worth debunking.

Anyone that makes a prediction about anything specific for more than a few years into the future will be wrong. Some trends are predictable, specifics are not. Anyone that maps the present onto some imaginary future will also be wrong.


Posted by: BT at April 18, 2007 01:01 AM


Wow.
This has to be the biggest pile of puffed-#&$% I have EVER seen come out of someplace posing as an independent think tank. (BTW: isn't this place an adjunct of the Center for Naval Analysis?)
While the 'report' is dressed up in the premise of "IF there is significant climate change what will be the threat to National Security", when you get in to the meat of the document it is clear that the report operates on the premise that what the global warming scaremongers are pushing on the public is true. And it does this by basing the anecdotes and arguments upon a lot of what is either irrelevant, untrue, misrepresented, or very much still in dispute concerning climate science(see the report's Appendix 2).

Debunking this 'report' is easy enough --begin by researching the references listed at the end of the 'report' at climateaudit.org or go to CO2Science.org. (Here's a point to gnaw on until you do: Co2 rise actually does correllate positively with temperature rise: but temperature LEADS Co2, not vice versa.)
This is again, a pathetic 'analysis' especially given the names on the cover sheet. The innumeracy of SOME of the signatories is understandable, but more than one of these guys really should have known better.
Now Google the 'study' title and see how it is being reported- it's depressing.

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at April 17, 2007 09:27 PM


"I dont see a "water war" ever happening, who will fight over something that is free and virtually infinite.?"

If your tap suddenly stopped flowing, I think you'd realize that clean, potable water is anything but.

Water pumping stations and de-salization plants are big, fat, expensive, and complicated pieces of equipment. And once they get busted, the people who depended on them are out of luck until repairs can be made. Wars might not be started over water per se, but maybe we'd be having an easier time winning hearts and minds if we could bring Iraq's municipal services back to pre-invasion levels.

Posted by: J Mac at April 17, 2007 06:24 PM


Wars so have some to do with resources, but because of different views and opinions.

I dont see a "water war" ever happening, who will fight over something that is free and virtually infinite.?

However...a decade ago, who could of predicted that the world as a whole, would be willing to pay $1 for 20 ounces of water...
But still, water is plentiful, and ways of purifing it are only getting better.

besides, no one can even begin to imagine how different the world will be in 43 years.

and (apparently) this general is a douche that has watched Al's movie one to many times.

Posted by: murc at April 17, 2007 06:00 PM


2050? How about a bit earlier.

What are Golan Heights about?

Posted by: b at April 17, 2007 01:22 PM


Post a comment




Remember Me?


Please enter the code as seen in the image below to post your comment.