Will The End Of Oil See The End Of My Town?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Don't the more apocalyptic "Road Warrior"-style scenarios require that the drop-off in oil availability be precipitous? Why won't oil get more rare and expensive over a period of 20 years, thus allowing time for people to adjust? Some of these scenarios seem to assume that it happens virtually overnight, like people are happily filling up their SUVs on Monday and starving in a medieval wasteland by Friday.

It isn't going to be as bad as starving in a medieval wasteland. It will, however, be bad.

Valdemar already answered the why of how this can go.

For the best example of what it may resemble, I suggest Red Victory: A History of the Russian Civil War -- Or, as the blurb puts it "Battles, epidemics, mass starvation and executions afflicted the Soviet Union from 1918-1921 during the Red Army's clash with the anti-communist Whites."

Society won't break down totally like in Mad Max. Technological civilization won't end. It will simply suffer immensely, and go through the kinds of chaotic extremes which have only been see a very few times by a modern society, one of them being Russia in the 1918 - 1921 period (and rather longer afterward, if we want to be technical).

The best way to imagine it--the governments will function, some factories will continue to operate, the armies will still be intact--but thousands of people will be die in the major cities every week, who knows how many will simply vanish of epidemic and famine elsewhere, and it will simply be ignored. As there was nothing that the leadership could do even if they cared. In trying to implement solutions, they will fight wars, which will kill even more people. Because the only way to implement solutions will be authoritarianism, opposition will spread and civil wars can easily start, in which millions more people will be killed by the disruption they cause, mass executions, concentration camps, etc.

By the time it's done in any particular country, industry will be set back 30 or 40 years, millions or tens of millions of people will be dead, society will have massive sociological scarring from the events which will last for a long, long time; there will probably be authoritarian governments in power; and there will be a legacy of concentration camps, forced labour on a truly immense scale (rivalling the Nazis and Gulags, easily, as we'll simply need to do it to get things done in the described environment), and summary execution of political opponents for the survivors to deal with.

That is what the worst case scenario looks like.

Can we avoid it? Yes.

But right now we're not doing anything to avoid it, so it'll happen by default.

And time is running out.

[Lisa]

In regards to hydrogen fuel cells I don't see them being any more dangerous then the natural gas and propane cars of today. And it can't be any worse then the american ford pinto....

I do have a question, I have an oil furnace (burns dyed diesel), does anyone know of the viability of burning biodiesel in it?

[Darth Wong]

In regards to hydrogen fuel cells I don't see them being any more dangerous then the natural gas and propane cars of today. And it can't be any worse then the american ford pinto....

I do have a question, I have an oil furnace (burns dyed diesel), does anyone know of the viability of burning biodiesel in it?

The viability of biodiesel is limited by the need to grow the necessary crops. The "burning" part is easy.

[Admiral Valdemar]

In regards to hydrogen fuel cells I don't see them being any more dangerous then the natural gas and propane cars of today. And it can't be any worse then the american ford pinto....

I do have a question, I have an oil furnace (burns dyed diesel), does anyone know of the viability of burning biodiesel in it?

Hydrogen is a bitch to contain. It makes metal brittle unless it's well made stainless steel, and even then you need a far larger tank than you'd need for the equivalent in petroleum spirits. Hydrogen is invisible when burnt, meaning if you get a leak in your system near a charging point, you then have no idea where a potential explosion could happen. Hydrogen is 10 times more likely to burn and 20 times more explosive than ordinary gasoline and has a far lower energy content. Even if you somehow replace every garage on Earth with hydrogen friendly ones that also produce (somehow) all their supplies via PV cells or wind turbines, you've got to contend with the wee problem of there simply not being a lot of platinum on Earth. On top of that, what platinum does exist is 80% situated in South Africa, you know, that bastion of political stability.

The price won't go down on these models either, since the souped up 7-series BM with a hydrogen stack costs as much as a Ferrari or Aston Martin. The life of your average stack is also pitiful, at around 200 hours use or 12,000 miles a year doing an average of 60 mph. Hydrogen cannot be used for aircraft either, although fuel-cell powered light planes are in the pipeline. The only fuels with energy density good enough for gas turbines is kerosene or their renewable organic equivalent, be it from corn/soya, cellulosic stock or algae. To cap it off, hydrogen is simply a big sucker of energy, wasting what energy you can make from your renewables by breaking the bonds within H2O, only for you to later do the reverse to get that electricity back at drastically reduced efficiency. That may be worth it if H2 was even a decent storage medium, but frankly, it sucks and there's a reason no automobile company is pushing it anymore. Silly as Mad Max's beefy V8 in a world where petrol is a rare prized liquid is, at least he wasn't using hydrogen.

Marina has drawn up some good lines of equivalence with previous hardships of man for what the coming energy crisis will be like. While I'd love to be wrong on this, the idea of mitigation now is long since gone. We're at the point where we're trying to fasten our safety belts as the car rides off the cliff at 100 mph, because there's no way to stop it now given as each day passes, more and more petrol engineers, geologists, geo-physicists and energy consultants believe 2005/06 was the peaking year. We're in the first 12 months of being at peak, the so called undulating plateau, and already you can see price volatility like nothing before, resource stocks rising and political instabilities manifesting as more chaotic for the world economy.

To paraphrase King Leonidas, we're in for one wild decade.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

This entire crisis seems to be parralleling the situation of the world during the 30s and eventually the 40s. Except we don't know about one thing, is their a light at the end of the tunnel?

It's useless speculation, but what if in the next 10 years the true space age were to occur? Going to other planets and star systems say?

We've been visiting other planets, robotically, anyway, for decades. The most we'll see in the next few decades, energy crisis or not, is humans returning to the Moon and paying a visit to Mars, or the closer near-Earth asteroids. There is no magic technological wonder waiting around the corner that will usher in this "true space age" you speak of. We're living in the Space Age right now. Sorry it's not that exciting at the moment, but when the laws of physics have stacked the deck so thoroughly against the would-be space traveller, the first couple of centuries of a space age are going to have to move pretty slowly.

Of course, the magic bullet that would enable inexpensive manned space travel, and putting even a robotic mission a world like Gl 581 would be a compact, affordable, well-over-unity fusion reactor. Which would, incidentally, also solve the coming energy crisis. Except that practical fusion reactors have always been fifty years away, even fifty years ago. And at the rate research has been progressing, they may be fifty years away fifty years from now.

And it's difficult to have a space-fairing civilization without sufficient power on the home planet to drive the industry needed to build the rockets needed to lift all the crap into orbit you need to make a credible effort at space travel. If anything, the coming crisis will likely retard manned space exploration efforts for decades to come, as people will be too busy demanding that governments do something about the fact that energy prices are leaving them broke, cold, hungry, and stranded to want to waste money on such "frivolities" as space exploration.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And it's difficult to have a space-fairing civilization without sufficient power on the home planet to drive the industry needed to build the rockets needed to lift all the crap into orbit you need to make a credible effort at space travel. If anything, the coming crisis will likely retard manned space exploration efforts for decades to come, as people will be too busy demanding that governments do something about the fact that energy prices are leaving them broke, cold, hungry, and stranded to want to waste money on such "frivolities" as space exploration.

It depends on the goals of the leadership. The Soviets were sending multiple space-stations into orbit, building and trying to launch space battlestations, and running a massive multi-location full-fledged civilian and military space programme on numerous fronts.

..And they couldn't provide their people with enough bread and toilet paper.

That may very well be what the whole 1st world looks like for the whole 21st century. The third world will just be a charnel house.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The reason why I've become an anti-capitalist is because I've come to the conclusion that people are too irrational to work in the market. Studying economics always brings you back to the same problem--economics assumes that each person in the economic society is a rational actor. In my view, however, the vast majority of people are anything but.

The best system is corporatism (which has nothing to do with modern corporations) or distributivism if you prefer another term for it. That will probably, hopefully, be what our economy looks like after a survival period under a Soviet-style command economy which will last for some decades.

If we're real lucky we can maybe limp by in a situation resembling what the New Dealers imagined fully implementing in the 1930s if they didn't have the opposition that they historically did.

[CaptHawkeye]

We've been visiting other planets, robotically, anyway, for decades. The most we'll see in the next few decades, energy crisis or not, is humans returning to the Moon and paying a visit to Mars, or the closer near-Earth asteroids. There is no magic technological wonder waiting around the corner that will usher in this "true space age" you speak of.

Bad wording on my part, I should have stated that this device or capability was provided to us by act of Q. Including the intelligence to use it.

We're living in the Space Age right now. Sorry it's not that exciting at the moment, but when the laws of physics have stacked the deck so thoroughly against the would-be space traveller, the first couple of centuries of a space age are going to have to move pretty slowly.

I liked to think of the space age as a kind of weak Impieralism for a while. Soon we'll be hitting a modern Dark Age, not in terms of technology or energy but in terms of politics and public actions. When that's over, maybe we'll get lucky and a Second Ren' with occur.

Of course, the magic bullet that would enable inexpensive manned space travel, and putting even a robotic mission a world like Gl 581 would be a compact, affordable, well-over-unity fusion reactor. Which would, incidentally, also solve the coming energy crisis. Except that practical fusion reactors have always been fifty years away, even fifty years ago. And at the rate research has been progressing, they may be fifty years away fifty years from now.

The fuel crisis as it gets worse can inadvertantly help this research though, couldn't it?

And it's difficult to have a space-fairing civilization without sufficient power on the home planet to drive the industry needed to build the rockets needed to lift all the crap into orbit you need to make a credible effort at space travel. If anything, the coming crisis will likely retard manned space exploration efforts for decades to come, as people will be too busy demanding that governments do something about the fact that energy prices are leaving them broke, cold, hungry, and stranded to want to waste money on such "frivolities" as space exploration.

I wonder if the crisis, as it gets worse, will it naturally give way to public acceptance of Nuclear Power? Granted, cars and other vehicles will be screwed for a long time. But will the lights at the house be going out forever?

But damnet, nuclear facilities need to be BUILT, first. And the uranium needs to be produced and transported. We have the ability to do that now, but the Enviornmentalists are stepping on every oppurtunity endlessly screaming CHERNOBYL and THREE MILE ISLAND LOLZORZ!

I wonder how they can convince themselves that their political fearmongering is any differant from opposing screams of "Global warming doesn't exist!" and "our oil supply is endless!" Like the opposition, political rivalry comes before people and lives it seems.

[Darth Wong]

The reason why I've become an anti-capitalist is because I've come to the conclusion that people are too irrational to work in the market. Studying economics always brings you back to the same problem--economics assumes that each person in the economic society is a rational actor. In my view, however, the vast majority of people are anything but.

Indeed. I find that when speaking to defenders of current economic dogma, they retort to every criticism with some variation of "people won't let that happen because it's not in their best interests", as if people have a history of always choosing wisely. This mantra is repeated so often it begins to sound like religious chanting. Have faith in the market, the market knows all, the market is wise, the market is bigger than any of us, the market would never let something really bad happen, etc.

[Ted C]

Indeed. I find that when speaking to defenders of current economic dogma, they retort to every criticism with some variation of "people won't let that happen because it's not in their best interests", as if people have a history of always choosing wisely. This mantra is repeated so often it begins to sound like religious chanting. Have faith in the market, the market knows all, the market is wise, the market is bigger than any of us, the market would never let something really bad happen, etc.

Evidently, the chanters never learned that the market allowed the Great Depression to happen.

[Lord Zentei]

The reason why I've become an anti-capitalist is because I've come to the conclusion that people are too irrational to work in the market. Studying economics always brings you back to the same problem--economics assumes that each person in the economic society is a rational actor. In my view, however, the vast majority of people are anything but.

Indeed. I find that when speaking to defenders of current economic dogma, they retort to every criticism with some variation of "people won't let that happen because it's not in their best interests", as if people have a history of always choosing wisely. This mantra is repeated so often it begins to sound like religious chanting. Have faith in the market, the market knows all, the market is wise, the market is bigger than any of us, the market would never let something really bad happen, etc.

It's too bad that the human capacity for irrationalism also applies to central planners, then. And there, redundancy is less.

Evidently, the chanters never learned that the market allowed the Great Depression to happen.

[Darth Wong]

It's too bad that the human capacity for irrationalism also applies to central planners, then. And there, redundancy is less.

It's not the same kind of irrationalism. You are assuming all kinds of irrationalism are equal, and that's just not the case. A central planner might stick his head in the sand and ignore a long-term problem, but the masses are guaranteed to do it, because they're tiny individuals and don't feel like they can do anything about it anyway, so they might as well live it up.

[Lord Zentei]

It's too bad that the human capacity for irrationalism also applies to central planners, then. And there, redundancy is less.

It's not the same kind of irrationalism. You are assuming all kinds of irrationalism are equal, and that's just not the case. A central planner might stick his head in the sand and ignore a long-term problem, but the masses are guaranteed to do it, because they're tiny individuals and don't feel like they can do anything about it anyway, so they might as well live it up.

And the central planner has less in the way of information about the needs and wishes of the populace, and less incentive to do right by the public in the absence of negative feedback. (Hence the importance of democracy, even if the average voter is a moron. As an aside, consider the relative qualities of design at Three Mile Island versus Chernobyl, for instance).

Less negative feedback is bad, because central planners are guaranteed to fuck up if it does not touch them directly. Consumers are not guaranteed to do so. With captialism, the negative feedback is continious, and applied to each service seperately, as opposed to a once-in-four-years phenomenon with a package deal.

[Starglider]

Evidently, the chanters never learned that the market allowed the Great Depression to happen.

<LIBERTARIAN EXTREMIST>But don't you see, all these examples of market failure happened because of government regulation/lack of transparency/democrats/my favourite conspiracy! They wouldn't have happened if it had been a truly free market! When we have a minarchy/anarchy and a truly free market we will have utopia!</LIBERTARIAN EXTREMIST>

Amusing enough,

<COMMUNIST>But don't you see, all these examples of socialist failure happened because of incomplete revolution/evil westerners/zionists/my favourite conspiracy! They wouldn't have happened if it had been a truly communist state! When we finally eliminate the capitalist oppressors and have true communism we will have utpoia!</COMMUNIST>

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat and wrong. Economics is an extremely complex problem yet there are plenty of extremists on all sides who desperately want it to be simple, with a one-paragraph solution that neatly fits into their ideology. They are of course all wrong.

[Darth Raptor]

What is the self-correcting market with its constant and evenly-distributed negative feedback doing to mitigate, let alone solve, long-term problems like these? And this isn't a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely curious.

[Starglider]

What is the self-correcting market with its constant and evenly-distributed negative feedback doing to mitigate, let alone solve, long-term problems like these? And this isn't a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely curious.

Ultra-libertarian dogma is that futures markets will take care of long term planning. The ultimate expression of this is idea futures, which I have personally witnessed numerous ultra-libertarians verbally jacking off to. To quote from their summary;

Our policy-makers and media rely too much on the "expert" advice of a self-interested insider's club of pundits and big-shot academics. These pundits are rewarded too much for telling good stories, and for supporting each other, rather than for being "right". Instead, let us create betting markets on most controversial questions, and treat the current market odds as our best expert consensus. The real experts (maybe you), would then be rewarded for their contributions, while clueless pundits would learn to stay away. You should have a free-speech right to bet on political questions in policy markets, and we could even base a new form of government on idea futures.

[Darth Raptor]

I know capitalism advocates have a propensity to wave their hands and assure us that everything will be fine. I'm looking for something a little more concrete than that, if they have anything.

[Lord Zentei]

I know capitalism advocates have a propensity to wave their hands and assure us that everything will be fine. I'm looking for something a little more concrete than that, if they have anything.

Well, there's Nuclear, for one thing. Unfortunately there are barriers to that, at least in the US which have much to do with regulation.

Hydrogen cars would work in tandem with that.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And the central planner has less in the way of information about the needs and wishes of the populace, and less incentive to do right by the public in the absence of negative feedback. (Hence the importance of democracy, even if the average voter is a moron. As an aside, consider the relative qualities of design at Three Mile Island versus Chernobyl, for instance).

Less negative feedback is bad, because central planners are guaranteed to fuck up if it does not touch them directly. Consumers are not guaranteed to do so. With captialism, the negative feedback is continious, and applied to each service seperately, as opposed to a once-in-four-years phenomenon with a package deal.

Command economics are necessary for emergency situations. They are not ideal in other situations, but they are necessary in emergency situations. We won WW2 with a command economy. I'm sorry, but that's just a fact. The government took over essentially control of all aspects of the US economy to direct the war effort.

Since this crisis is potentially of an even greater magnitude, it is only rational to assume that at the very least we will be implementing a command economy for the duration of the emergency. Which could be decades. Furthermore, vast social disruption did not exist in WW2, where it would exist here--which will encourage authoritarianism, which is more likely to guarantee a command economy.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Ultra-libertarian dogma is that futures markets will take care of long term planning. The ultimate expression of this is idea futures, which I have personally witnessed numerous ultra-libertarians verbally jacking off to. To quote from their summary;

I remember the retarded efforts of the Bush administration to set up something similar about the War on Terror.

Idea Futures are true insanity. They're the ultimate popularity contest--the ideas which will "win" in them are the ideas that people like the most, since they'll have no other particular reason for investing (and no possible desire to do any research into the subject when it's irrelevant which one they support, as long as they support a winner) and then a winner will start to steamroll and everyone will pile on to make sure they have a safe bet.

[Lord Zentei]

Command economics are necessary for emergency situations. They are not ideal in other situations, but they are necessary in emergency situations. We won WW2 with a command economy. I'm sorry, but that's just a fact. The government took over essentially control of all aspects of the US economy to direct the war effort.

Command economies are neccesary for public goods, I'll agree to that much. "Emergency situations" are rather more nebulous.

Since this crisis is potentially of an even greater magnitude, it is only rational to assume that at the very least we will be implementing a command economy for the duration of the emergency. Which could be decades.

Sounds like the open ended "War on Terror". Sorry, not convinced. The economy cannot be a command economy in perpetuity, since such economies are less efficient than markets, and you will need economically efficient solutions to the energy problem.

Furthermore, vast social disruption did not exist in WW2, where it would exist here--which will encourage authoritarianism, which is more likely to guarantee a command economy.

I'm not sure where you are going here; this is an argument that the command economy is going to be more politically sustainable than otherwise, yes?

[Admiral Valdemar]

I would call you a fool if you thought the futures market would foresee this problem and set in motion plans to counter what is in essence a physical inevitability. The market doesn't want to hear it in any way, shape or form. The market deems it necessary to lie to the masses of nervous investors who, at the drop of a hat, will dictate whether the world prospers or goes bust again. When you have people who own trillions of dollars of global capital suddenly find out that, logically, the economic model we've been following since the dawn of trade and industry is doomed to fail, no matter what technology comes to the fray, then you encounter meltdown, my friend.

What is the saying that best captures this scenario? Ignorance is bliss. If the commentators on Bloomberg, CNBC and the WSJ and FT say things will be okay because one Big Oil CEO reckons more oil will be on tap very soon, pushing prices down to forty bucks again, then that is what they'll believe.

But it won't. And neither the capitalists nor the communists have the foresight to acknowledge such issues. The Russians fell into this trap long ago when Reaganomics forced them to pump as much oil and gas as they could just to try and keep up with the NATO side. Before you can say perestroika, they fell and with them their whole ideology. Embrace capitalism, comrade, and you shall know a world never before within your grasp. Only, comrade, do not expect us to have any better planning for a rainy day, because we rely on ever expanding growth for ever more and this whole house of cards is balanced by people who don't think more than six months and several billion dollars ahead.

What this sad, anomalous period of human history will say to future historians, is that humanity cannot be trusted with precious resources nor, indeed, can it be expected to maintain a rational head when so much material wealth is on the table. The world's greatest democracy extols the virtues of peace and democracy, and with its second face, helps prop up the most despicable regimes known to man whose only friendship bond consists of a black sludge that two-hundred million years ago, was once a giant reptile. If awards could be handed out for greed and gross hypocrisy, the powers of today would shit on our ancient predecessors from a great height. So much opportunity for many squandered so quickly on so few.

Tell this to the people, and you'll get a brick wall of denial to counter any fundie of another religious faith. We all worship oil, and we all shall mourn its death. But most of all, the majority - the uninformed 99 out of 100 - shall actively deny this end until their faith is shattered along with the world they thought, was what they'd be retiring in and their kids growing up in.

[Starglider]

The ultimate expression of this is idea futures, which I have personally witnessed numerous ultra-libertarians verbally jacking off to.

Idea Futures are true insanity.

The concept has a vague appeal to me, basically because it's superficially clever in a game-theoretic sense. But I have yet to hear any a proposal for implementing it that isn't a ludicrous farce as a serious decision-making system. It's another of those 'might work if you could utterly ignore basic human psychology ideas', which are in plentiful supply at both extremes of the (economic) ideological spectrum.

They're the ultimate popularity contest--the ideas which will "win" in them are the ideas that people like the most, since they'll have no other particular reason for investing (and no possible desire to do any research into the subject when it's irrelevant which one they support, as long as they support a winner) and then a winner will start to steamroll and everyone will pile on to make sure they have a safe bet.

That said, your example sounds even more retarded than usual. Obviously it isn't going to work if people can make returns based on which idea gets implemented, rather than whether the idea actually works when tested. That's even less useful than polling the whole population on every issue - it's nothing more than a slightly convoluted attempt to replace 'one human, one vote' with 'one dollar, one vote'.

Command economics are necessary for emergency situations.

True, but in practice this isn't a binary issue and anyone who tries to cast it as one is either dishonest or a moron. The US is a mixed economy, currently heavily tilted to the private sector. Most European countries have a larger public sector, via some combination of direct taxation/spending, regulation (including things like pollution credit trading and mandatory pension schemes), public ownership of companies and subsidies. The US is almost certainly going to experience more government intervention and control, as happens in nearly any serious economic depression, but I seriously doubt that it will be a choice between a communist dictatorship and anarchy. Not that you seem to be saying that, but some other posters appear to be taking it that way.

[Lord Zentei]

I don't know if this is directed at me, or anyone else in particular, but what the heck.

I would call you a fool if you thought the futures market would foresee this problem and set in motion plans to counter what is in essence a physical inevitability.

You mean, like the shortage of lumber in the UK during the industrial revolution? That too was a "physical inevitability".

The market doesn't want to hear it in any way, shape or form. The market deems it necessary to lie to the masses of nervous investors who, at the drop of a hat, will dictate whether the world prospers or goes bust again.

That is true for individual agents in the market.

When you have people who own trillions of dollars of global capital suddenly find out that, logically, the economic model we've been following since the dawn of trade and industry is doomed to fail, no matter what technology comes to the fray, then you encounter meltdown, my friend.

That seems an unrealistically nihilistic vision. Moreso since nuclear power is not an impossibility, nor will trade and industry cease to be even should it not be continued at current levels.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Command economies are neccesary for public goods, I'll agree to that much. "Emergency situations" are rather more nebulous.

Humans need central control during emergencies. Democracies are irrational in crisis situations. We're behaving like the Athenians in the Peloponnesian War. The Spartans won that conflict because their decision-making was based on the cool deliberations of a collection of old men who had governed farms, fought in battles, and gained the experience of decades, and were entrusted with the survival of a state they had been raised to love since birth. The Athenians let everyone vote, and everyone speak, and they proceeded to do such ludicrous things as, after their population had been devastated by a plague, send a massive and unnecessary expedition to Sicily while the Spartans were still breathing down their necks right at home.

Democracies do not make wise decisions in military situations. Popular opinion was against war even in WW2, and only the dictatorial behaviour of FDR, possibly the most undemocratic President in American history, responsible for the kind of constitutional violations that even Bush would stand in awe of with their blatantness (Trying to PACK the Supreme Court, christ), allowed us to intervene and take on Japan and Nazi Germany.

Sounds like the open ended "War on Terror". Sorry, not convinced. The economy cannot be a command economy in perpetuity, since such economies are less efficient than markets, and you will need economically efficient solutions to the energy problem.

No, we'll need solutions that can be effectively implemented. They will be economic in the sense that non-essential uses will be strictly limited. Once all essentially demands have been met, controls can be relaxed, and innovation into new forms of non-essential energy production can begin. Open-ended? You bet it is.

Comparisons to the war on terror? Get the hell out. This is talking about millions of deaths on American soil being inevitable, not about three thousand people dying and being followed by the pursuit of a couple thousand of tribal lashkars in the Hindu Kush while people go on spending. This is going to be like China putting nukes into downtown San Diego, LA, SF, Sacramento, Portland, Seattle, Los Vegas, Boise, etc, all the cities of the West Coast. Except it'll be spread through the whole country and the crisis will be prolonged as it will be continuous damage over a period of time rather than a single shock and awe event of nuclear proportions.

I'm not sure where you are going here; this is an argument that the command economy is going to be more politically sustainable than otherwise, yes?

It will be politically sustainable because it is necessary, and the government in charge will be interested only in what is necessary. People who disagree on what is necessary will be taken care of, presumably. I don't think it will be communists in the USA, tho'. Integralism is a more likely example, especially as the Latino population increases and gains more political power. There's a strong Chesterton-Belloc thread (Distributivism) in the economic politics of the likes of Pat Buchanan, et. al., also.