Resource Wars: The New Landscape Of Global ConflictEssay Preview: Resource Wars: The New Landscape Of Global ConflictReport this essayResource Wars: The New Landscape of Global ConflictResource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict is written by Michael T. Klare. Michal T. Klare is an international security expert who believes that in the near future large conflicts will occur between countries for ownership of remaining resources. Klare published this book in March of 2002. This was recently after the attack on the twins towers in New York. Klare uses this attack on the United States to demonstrate how military actions will increase because of the need of resources. Through out the book Klare gives his view on how things will happen as the world uses all of its resources. Klare uses previous research and other resources to validate his argument on how things will happen. The focus of this book is to inform the public on how fast resources of are being depleted and how countries are disputing about the lack of resources. From start to finish Klare shows that the rate at which resources are diminishing does not discriminate against any countries. Klare shows that resources are being depleted in all countries at rapid rates. At various points the reading became boring and uninteresting to read. Despite this small flaw, overall Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict is well written and made a nice book to read for casual reading.
To show the increasing amount of resources that are being used Klare uses the example of oil. Klare devotes an entire chapter to explaining how and why the oil supply is being used up so quickly. Klare shows as the world advances technologically the demand for oil is also increasing. Klare states that the world is consuming more oil than the earth can produce. In following chapters Klare uses oil in the Caspian Sean and water in the Jordan River and other major river systems shared by countries as examples of resource scarcities that might cause resource wars. Klare states that the water supply shared by bordering countries Syria, Jordan and Israel are becoming very scarce not because of technological advances but because of the rapidly growing population. Growing population is another major reason why resources are being depleted at rates never seen before. The population is reproducing at a rate much faster than the Earth can reproduce its resources.
As the worlds resources are diminished Klare predicts that countries that hold the remaining resources will increase their military forces. Klare believes that increased military forces will be initiated to protect the scarce resources that they have. Klare believes that other countries that do not have the needed resources to support their growing population will use all means necessary including military action to gain the resources essential for their continued progress. Klare refers to the recent attack on the twin towers in New York and the United States attack in Iraq as an example of the conflicts that are to happen as the worlds resources are depleted. Klare uses the example of the Unites States imposing on Iraqi government and attacking their city to show that as petroleum levels are decreasing globally the United States needs to way to guarantee
[…]
What we are seeing in the U.S. and Europe are the emergence of emerging powers with global power and with strong, military and financial capabilities to fight back by any means necessary . The U.S., Europe, and Japan have been trying to do that since 1991 and as many as 10 times it is still taking on the form of an attack (see also our May 2015 column ). It’s hard to overstate that there is no hope for a world without oil if a combination of strong global power and strong military capabilities such as “coalition of nations” doesn’t happen. These recent world events and the situation on the Syrian ground are both unprecedented in terms of how they have affected these countries and the broader global context.
The “coalition of nations” and “global power” are at pains to demonstrate that the United States is, as in any scenario, a force multiplier in the international order, a major force multiplier in the region if the situation is ever to get any bigger or, at some point, less so. At the same time, their actions have been designed to maintain their position in the region and to undermine each other’s own.
And a lot of the evidence on this matter goes back to the United States and NATO itself and in particular to the 1990s when the Obama Administration was attempting to force the United States to cut loose and, with no military means, to maintain that status quo.
It was the combination of two of these regimes that drove the U.S. to the present stage or to be in a new state of war, while the U.S. has done the very same things that all of Europe and Japan did between 1996 and 2010. And it has been on top of that.
The US is currently at the forefront of the global war on terror. It has had several attempts in recent years to force and to destabilize its own domestic governments or to use the U.S. for its own gain , as well as the use of force in some instances to advance its own agenda in the region.
The threat from this emerging force multiplier makes it increasingly imperative that the U.S. government and all of its allies keep their head up and defend and defend, especially if a crisis like this comes. It can be said that if the United States is able to force out of the region itself, it only leaves its military and military capabilities with the United States and the world as its sole military-oriented, stable partner.
This was true of the U.S. at the outset of the Cold War as well. Since the start of the Cold War however, the United States has shown its ability to conduct war domestically and abroad and has used its military advantages to influence global policy. It knows that in the absence of force, threats have been avoided or ignored. In the case of North Korea, the United States has demonstrated its ability to keep its nuclear program alive and use its military capabilities to achieve its goals. The United States is the only military-oriented regime that has managed to protect its people from its neighbors and keep its nuclear program in the dark about nuclear weapons and ballistic warheads from any possible and potentially destructive North Korea.
We can not just do one thing simply to protect ourselves and our allies from the world’s threats and to avoid world catastrophe. If it is impossible to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons worldwide, it is simply not possible for the U.S. to actually defend itself. In the event of military force, a