• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Political outcome of climate change

F

Forwel

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2020
Messages
29
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If climate change becomes devastating in the near future, countries like Russia, China, India may be unable to keep up with the United States and the UK and eventually feel they need to depend on the United States for economic help and become part of their sphere of influence with risking a war with weapons of mass destruction, and the united could say its tragic but had to be done. I've noticed that a lot of people have considered the consequences of climate change for all of humanity, but they never really considered some group or party that might want to take advantage of it or aside from any devastation it may cause it could have tragic political cnseuqneces. What do you think are the possible *political* consequences?

The United States is clearly trying to expand its sphere of influence, and as often is the case it's now just about the why they do it, but how they do it. Usually they find it too risky unless the country is already struggling with economic troubles. Such countries are already unstable and it's not difficult to find a reason to invade such a country or rely on the fact that they need US money. A country like Russia is presently strong enough to go without US aid, and I think if a country like the Russia ended up having a crippled economy due to climate change the United States may even demand nuclear disarmamment in exhcnage for aid.

Santosh Guptout
 
The political outcome of running out of oil and barring a viable replacement will be WWIII.
 
The US is on a path to bankruptcy and has one of the highest debt/gdp ratios among all developed countries. Where are you going to find this bag of money to go around 'saving' other large nations? Russia, India, and China all have much better debt positions than the US.
 
Debt shouldn't matter that much if there is a lot of money coming in every year.
 
DrewPaul said:
The political outcome of running out of oil and barring a viable replacement will be WWIII.
Click to expand...
So the experts say the US has plenty of oil to run it's needs. So war comes and I guess Russian and Chinnese tanks strap wingmills on their tanks.
 
Integrityrespec said:
So the experts say the US has plenty of oil to run it's needs. So war comes and I guess Russian and Chinnese tanks strap wingmills on their tanks.
Click to expand...
For perhaps 30-40 years tops. Its not an unlimited supply and its not being produced. If we don't find a viable replacement countries will fight over the remaining oil.
 
Maybe World War 3 could be possible, but it couldn't be all of a sudden like World War II because of the weapons of mass destruction situation.
 
In light of replacements for oil, oil production per capita peaked back in 1979, 70 pct of human beings continue to live on only a few dollars a day, and the other 30 pct are counting on them to earn and spend more because their own income and ROIs are dependent on increasing sales of goods and services worldwide.

Meanwhile, ave. ecological footprint per capita has been outstripping biocapacity, even to maintain basic needs, while climate change and environmental damage take their toll on biocapacity.

Finally, arms production and deployment worldwide increased thirtyfold the last few decades.
 
With regard to arms production, look at the number of US overseas military bases around the world increased over the past century since World War 1, compared to the overseas bases of other countries, even though the Chinese sphere of influence has become fairly comparable since its sphere of influence extends over a lot of Africa. Most of the US sphere of influence involves military bases, though not near the Russian-Sino sphere of influence or India.
 
Forwel said:
With regard to arms production, look at the number of US overseas military bases around the world increased over the past century since World War 1, compared to the overseas bases of other countries, even though the Chinese sphere of influence has become fairly comparable since its sphere of influence extends over a lot of Africa. Most of the US sphere of influence involves military bases, though not near the Russian-Sino sphere of influence or India.
Click to expand...

The military bases are funded by and protect the international financial system dominated by the dollar. The latter used as a reserve currency is the main source of power of the states.
 
Forwel said:
Debt shouldn't matter that much if there is a lot of money coming in every year.
Click to expand...
If there is alot of money coming in every year, the value of money goes down, i.e inflation. And while some inflation is not bad and always will be a thing, too much inflation leads to prices rising faster than income can keep up. That's bad for any economy.
 
Can some of you guys try to argue something reasonable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom