USA Democratic Agenda, 2012-2028

[Enforcer Talen]

Having been disturbed by Peak Oil/Global Warming, here is my take. Criticism welcome. Thanx to Einy for a couple of points.

Without hyperbole, the United States is facing the biggest threat in its history. The War on Terror is not the cause, but the symptom; the Iraq War not the war for Democracy, but a war for energy. At its most basic, the United States, and the world, is at the threshold.
We are approaching two species changing events, either one of which would completely change society as we know it. With both Peak Oil and Global Warming occurring as of 2006, and the repercussions echoing for the next several decades at the minimum, this is the prime issue of the Twenty-First Century.
Forget the War on Terror. Forget the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, the War for Democracy. This is it. This is the War for Survival. The Stern Review Change has stated that a billion may die from famine and drought – and this at only a moderate rise in temperature. The UN Report on Climate Change has stated that it is occurring and is irrevocable.
This is the species changing event. Extinction can be avoided at this point; maintaining the standard of living cannot. Half the animal kingdom may be written off this century; at best, we may save their genetic material. However, most will die. In the same token, Humanity may lose half its numbers and count itself lucky.
In 2007, and in 2008, we look to be doing business as usual. As the weather worsens, the U.S. will set up dikes on the coast lines. As the oil ends, we may involve ourselves in more wars in the futile hope that we can spend trillions of dollars to maintain our standard of living. It won’t happen. It should instead be our goal to use these trillions of dollars to minimize the crash. It will hurt regardless.
The United States has grown in the habit of viewing its forces as easily deployable, that we can become involved in any emergency or deploy to any regional conflict. That idea is ending for two reasons. We simply do not have the capability in either manpower or fuel reserves. The Pentagon has stated our oil use in the military is “unsustainable in the long term”. In addition, various members of the military have come forward and said the military has become broken. We simply cannot deploy at such a breakneck pace, and neither can we move the troops in such a manner.
We have nearly a thousand bases around the world, monitoring, observing, and preparing for theatre operations. We don’t have the capability to sustain them. At best, we should maintain the observation posts and embassies, but it is not in our interest any longer to set up tripwires to await a new war. We don’t have the capability or interest in a new war; on every front, we need to cut back, and focus on survival here at home.
President Bush desires to enlarge the military. This is the last thing we need. We have the largest military budget in the world, and we absolutely should not attempt to fight the rest of the world. Indeed, if we can move the troops back and protect the homeland, there will be many issues that will need to be dealt with. At the very least, many of them will be needed for the public projects to follow. Consider them the new Roman Legions who built roads in times of peace.
If the military is to be maintained, its techniques must be adjusted for insurgency small unit warfare; no one is going to have the energy for conventional warfare. This includes heightening the training of the soldier for basic combat and retraining the Marine for Small Wars. It is a necessity that their leaders become trained in network warfare, as we will not fight mass armies.
In addition, whatever aspects of the budget at home can be cut, should be cut. This includes the War on Drugs; we have neither the resources nor the inclination to jail millions of citizens. At the very least, their labour will be needed. As is right and proper, they should have the right of privacy to do as they will, as long as it is only to themselves.
Taxes will be raised. Extensively. Consider this the biggest Deal since the New Deal – we cannot deficit-spend out way out of this one.
The car culture is over. Indeed, the oil culture itself is over. Extinct. Consider the oil run out; to fight in the Middle East over the scraps would only serve to weaken us, particularly against a rising China. Just by fighting, we would lose time, lives, and treasure we cannot afford. We have taken the lion’s share of the oil; let us leave the field and let the jackals fight over the rest. Domestically, we must go cold turkey. Raising taxes on gasoline until it is unsustainable is the only option, and doing the same to airlines is ideal. Emergency government action is the only reason for either.
We have mentioned public works. This is where their value is shown, on two fronts. The first is transit. The Interstate Highway System is finished. Any effort that went to that must now go into trains; roads to rails, subways to rail tunnels, to every city in the States. There has been mention of a train line to Russia; acts like this are only to be encouraged.
As well, canals have become a vital necessity. It is impossible to move things as cheaply as we did with gasoline; making use of rivers is the next option, and they must be built with all haste. To adapt the loss of oil, we need to make use of alternate energies. Windmill farms would be the first and quickest; nuclear power would follow. Regardless, they need to be built immediately.
All indications suggest we’ll be in the Second Great Depression by this point. Be it the huge deficit spending, the extinction of the oil, automobile, and airline industry, or the environmental destruction of cities, we are going to have an erratic economy. Free college will allow some breathing space for the millions of people without jobs. In particular, we want to focus on alternatives for all the fields that had been destroyed – alternate energy at the foremost. Free health care will allow many to survive who would not. Focusing on rehabilitation over punishment will also give us a boost. We need all the help we can get, plus it is simply the Right Thing to do.
Above all, we need to ensure that, for all the new expansion of government, we maintain the people’s control over the administration. It is vital that both FOIA and the Hatch Act remain in place, for while a decisive leader is vital in this situation, ensuring that he is not being foolhardy is necessary. It will also be essential to end campaign contributions, lobbying, and other ways of de facto bribery of our politicians by monied interests and corporate giants outright. Consolidation of the media by one or two power players is to be avoided like the plague it has demonstrated itself to be.
Finally, it is in the vital interest of the United States that we do everything in our power to ensure a global fight against Global Warming, and deal with the Energy Crisis as quickly as possible. Beyond that, however, foreign affairs are to be avoided; it is going to be a den of vipers for the next several decades, and we cannot afford to try to tame them.

[brianeyci]

I don't know. America is still a stabilizing force in the world. There's still the North Korea issue, the Taiwan issue and the Israel issue. Those are likely never to go away.

I am still optimistic (or naive?) that America can play a part in world affairs. Even if Kim Jong-Il has no gas for his tanks (like he has any gas now, ha), even if Taiwan can defend itself, even if Israel has nuclear weapons, I still think the US should maintain the capability to maintain world order. Isolation is not the answer, it wasn't in WWII and it won't be in peak oil. At the very least that means force projection, and carrier battlegroups.

[Lonestar]

I am still optimistic (or naive?) that America can play a part in world affairs. Even if Kim Jong-Il has no gas for his tanks (like he has any gas now, ha), even if Taiwan can defend itself, even if Israel has nuclear weapons, I still think the US should maintain the capability to maintain world order. Isolation is not the answer, it wasn't in WWII and it won't be in peak oil. At the very least that means force projection, and carrier battlegroups.

Win lose or draw, the USN can still function with the problems that Peak Oil causes. The fleet would no doubt be signifigantly reduced, as would our airpower, but the end result is the same: A "Crapload"(that's the technical term) of nuclear-powered surface combatants, something that the United States is unique in having a lot of expierience with.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Win lose or draw, the USN can still function with the problems that Peak Oil causes. The fleet would no doubt be signifigantly reduced, as would our airpower, but the end result is the same: A "Crapload"(that's the technical term) of nuclear-powered surface combatants, something that the United States is unique in having a lot of expierience with.

This still assumes an awful lot. Firstly, that the USA exists post-peak. There are concerns that many areas consisting of several states, will secede from the union and go it alone, amid desperate measures from the Feds to keep everyone running smoothly. It's not like there aren't people out there who want to form their own standalone complexes within the US. The south will definitely object to such totalitarian rules from Washington to steer through the end of the oil age.

Then there is the fact that the US economy is not going to be buying you any nuclear toys anytime soon, if ever again. What do these sailors get paid with? The US military is having funding issues as it is, despite such a massive budget and a great deal of what nuclear fuel is available (in fact, all of it) will be going to global 2nd to 4th generation nuclear plants to off-set declines in NG and coal reserves. If the US economy collapses, which it's going to do from the housing boom anyway, then the last thing on the agenda will be newer nuclear ships. The costs of running the fleet today will be enormous and many will be scrapped, which also costs a lot of money and energy unless simply scuttled.

A littoral fleet to defend the homeland will be doable, but without an army and a much more limited air force, the navy alone cannot really do much but bully certain powers, which has proven ineffective over the last decade anyway. The world doesn't fear the US military machine like it did, why would it in the future when it has personnel and funding issues? That the best reactors today use uranium for weaponry proliferation is no coincidence. No one wants thorium reactors, because no one can get The Bomb from such reactors and so no one will fund them. Breeder reactors, if proven viable on a decent scale despite issues with 3rd and 4th gen. designs, will only further enable proliferation. If everyone has nukes, then a conventional military is less than useless. Imagine the problems we're having with Iran multiplied a hundred-fold.

Of course, you could devote what limited energy the US has left to beefing up the military again (assume people go to it because it provides where others can't). That just means resources are devoted to the military, rather than the homeland, which means even more civil unrest in a nation reeling from the psychological loss of "the American Dream" and the physical loss of even basic lifestyle goods of the early 21st century. An unhappy people is an irrational people, and this will be worldwide.

Unless the navy intends to acquire resources abroad, it serves little to no purpose. No one cares short of a nuclear exchange. The army isn't there to take control of anything (and China is far better at taking ground than anyone else here for that matter) and air power is like pissing in the wind. Watch how quickly "support our men" turns into "where's my damn electricity?!" when the chips are down.

[K. A. Pital]

Simply, not going to happen.

Want a scenario in case the U.S. economy really faces a Depression?

1) Oligarchs and corporatists lock down in their ranches/islands/estates guarded by massive private securities and don't give a flying shit about the rest of the world.
2) Outside, a nightmarish world ensues - robbery, murder, collapse of energy service.
3) No one will give a damn about any environmental issue until many, many people are dead, pauperized and thrown back in progress for several hundred years.
4) countries betting on atomic power have a greater deal of hope before them; but the United States is not one of them - by contrast to the US, Russia proposed a GOELRO-2 plan to build 26 new nuclear stations to supply Russia - this should drive the energy supply by nuclear to 40-50% until 2020.

The massive economical collapse would likely also cause a global animosity towards US-style capitalism and corporatism due to it's evident cause: self-destruction.

Seriously, the idea that the U.S. leadership will do anything strikes me as odd. Why should they? It's not them who will suffer - it's the citizenry. And no, they don't care which is rather clear.

All those tycoons, rockefellers and HalliBushes don't give a flying fuck about what will happen to the life of Joe Average because of things like global warming and oil runout - as long as they can maintain _their_ status of richie, rentier rulers. Hopeless.

[Admiral Valdemar]

You're talking about the government that just missed out on classing liquid coal as a "bio-fuel" by one vote.

I think the myth that the US will pull through this with superior leadership is well and truly dead.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Of course, you could devote what limited energy the US has left to beefing up the military again (assume people go to it because it provides where others can't). That just means resources are devoted to the military, rather than the homeland, which means even more civil unrest in a nation reeling from the psychological loss of "the American Dream" and the physical loss of even basic lifestyle goods of the early 21st century. An unhappy people is an irrational people, and this will be worldwide.

Unless the navy intends to acquire resources abroad, it serves little to no purpose. No one cares short of a nuclear exchange. The army isn't there to take control of anything (and China is far better at taking ground than anyone else here for that matter) and air power is like pissing in the wind. Watch how quickly "support our men" turns into "where's my damn electricity?!" when the chips are down.

If the emphasis remains on military maitenance, and I suspect it will out of an irrational emphasis on retaining habits of the old status quo, then I as a Canadian am worried, because Canada offers some substantial lebenstraum for a ravenous America with a resource-intensive army to keep up.

This raises another question; is it valuable to consider moving to another country now and get settled in before Peak Oil hits?

[K. A. Pital]

This raises another question; is it valuable to consider moving to another country now and get settled in before Peak Oil hits?

The process (oil decline) will take years - a year or two at most before the consequences may become so dire that you really need to be out of the place. But it would not be in vain to prepare for such a turn of events. Most of the rich people with multi-million assets in various parts of the world already have prepared.

[brianeyci]

What timeframe are we looking at for the "demise" of the USN? 2100?

It seems to me the demise of the USN is like saying cities will disappear because of peak oil. Soldiers would be the last thing governments refuse to pay. And let's say the worst happens and paycheques bounce and the US dollar is worth nothing. What other kind of job gives room and board, and lets you defend your nation? I have faith in good old jingoism.

Plus I disagree that there is no point to a navy except war. Last I checked the US is still a NATO ally, and has obligations as such. So it does to Korea, Israel and so on. I would rather America mantain its naval supremacy than give it away. I still expect to see MEU's and CSG's my entire life. Scaled down, yes, but I don't expect the US to turn into a Latin America country and have its military completely disappear or turn in open revolt.

Recent history has soured many people to "intervention" or American meddling in foreign affairs. But there is a middle ground between invasion like Iraq and never involving one's self in foreign affairs again.

[TithonusSyndrome]

This raises another question; is it valuable to consider moving to another country now and get settled in before Peak Oil hits?

The process (oil decline) will take years - a year or two at most before the consequences may become so dire that you really need to be out of the place. But it would not be in vain to prepare for such a turn of events. Most of the rich people with multi-million assets in various parts of the world already have prepared.

The value of preparation isn't lost on me, it's fairly obvious to anyone with a functioning brain who has kept abreast of Peak Oil. I want to know if the threat of American invasion is enough to make me seriously consider moving to another continent.

[Lonestar]

This still assumes an awful lot. Firstly, that the USA exists post-peak. There are concerns that many areas consisting of several states, will secede from the union and go it alone, amid desperate measures from the Feds to keep everyone running smoothly. It's not like there aren't people out there who want to form their own standalone complexes within the US. The south will definitely object to such totalitarian rules from Washington to steer through the end of the oil age.

Maybe, maybe not. Many such states bitch and moan about other Federal regulations, but when the money stops arriving they fall in line. If we get to the point of widespread civil insurrection and organized secession movements, then it's going to be worse in a lot of other countries. Even in a lot of other first world countries. Not to toot America's horn, but without our participation in NATO I question the stability and safety of Europe(as in, there may be fightin').

Then there is the fact that the US economy is not going to be buying you any nuclear toys anytime soon, if ever again. What do these sailors get paid with? The US military is having funding issues as it is, despite such a massive budget

Because we are trying to fight a war with as little impact on the civilian populace as possible. If the situation will really be as bad as some folks here think, then there will be a widespread "tightening of belts" and the economy will be steered for the duration of the emergancy, like during WW2. Shady contracting jobs will be reduced(which isn't to say it didn't happen in WW2 as well, just that with a lot more government "hands-on" there's less a chance of slippage).

So if the government doesn't want to expand the military, they'll have to pay a lot more money for support and security contractors. In addition, we probably will not be throwing money down the pit that is kown as Iraq.

Incidently, if everyone is rationing, odds are the individual serviceman will be as well, which includes pay.

and a great deal of what nuclear fuel is available (in fact, all of it) will be going to global 2nd to 4th generation nuclear plants to off-set declines in NG and coal reserves.

I question that nuclear fuel is that scarce. The Straight Dope makes the claim that:

The uranium in little more than three square miles of Chattanooga shale contains as much energy as all the U.S. oil reserves known in his day.

which would seem to say to me that we have enough fuel on ahnd, one way or another, to support a strong(er than everyone else) navy.

If the US economy collapses, which it's going to do from the housing boom anyway, then the last thing on the agenda will be newer nuclear ships.

If the USA wants to maintain even the illusion of "Impossible to attack conventionally" it will have to maintain a well equipped Navy. The Navy will not be on the bottem of the ladder for defense-related funds. That would probably be the air force.

The costs of running the fleet today will be enormous and many will be scrapped, which also costs a lot of money and energy unless simply scuttled.

Which is why I said "The Fleet would no doubt be signifigantly reduced." But the goal isn't to have the largest navy in the world, or even the second largest: It's to have the most capable one(if we intend to continue or expedite gunboat diplomacy) or one powerful enough to deter an attack on our coast. The U.S.A. has, far and away, the most expierience with nuclear surface ships, which in a steered economy/DoD will be much more useful.

A littoral fleet to defend the homeland will be doable, but without an army and a much more limited air force, the navy alone cannot really do much but bully certain powers, which has proven ineffective over the last decade anyway. The world doesn't fear the US military machine like it did, why would it in the future when it has personnel and funding issues?

Again, if the disaster is as big as you and others claim, the political will to do something other than outsourcing everything will suddenly show up. In any event, I foresee the USN being used in a Gunboat role, and America's Foriegn policy resembling that of the lat 19th/early 20th century...with an emphasis on the Western Hemisphere rather than elsewhere.

That the best reactors today use uranium for weaponry proliferation is no coincidence. No one wants thorium reactors, because no one can get The Bomb from such reactors and so no one will fund them. Breeder reactors, if proven viable on a decent scale despite issues with 3rd and 4th gen. designs, will only further enable proliferation. If everyone has nukes, then a conventional military is less than useless. Imagine the problems we're having with Iran multiplied a hundred-fold.

*shrug* we'll still have a big ole nuclear weapons stockpile and the goal here is national survival, not conquest.

Of course, you could devote what limited energy the US has left to beefing up the military again (assume people go to it because it provides where others can't). That just means resources are devoted to the military, rather than the homeland, which means even more civil unrest in a nation reeling from the psychological loss of "the American Dream" and the physical loss of even basic lifestyle goods of the early 21st century. An unhappy people is an irrational people, and this will be worldwide.

Yep. But, as I said, the goal here is not to go overseas on adventures, the goal is to maintain national survival. If we want to prevent external attacks we will need a powerful Navy. Not as powerful as what the uSN was once, but we can still pull off being the most powerful in this hemisphere and providing security for our coasts.

Unless the navy intends to acquire resources abroad, it serves little to no purpose. No one cares short of a nuclear exchange. The army isn't there to take control of anything (and China is far better at taking ground than anyone else here for that matter) and air power is like pissing in the wind. Watch how quickly "support our men" turns into "where's my damn electricity?!" when the chips are down.

That's kinda my point. If we reach the point where the USN has to sit in port while, say, watching China attempt an Invasion of Taiwan(yeah yeah...not something I'm expecting but it's an example) the monies for a capable navy will come up. We can have a powerful navy at the expense of the other services, Hell we did for most of our country's history.

[K. A. Pital]

Soldiers would be the last thing governments refuse to pay.

Apparently the collapse of the Soviet Union went by unnoticed, just as the collapse or decline of many other states.

Plus I disagree that there is no point to a navy except war.

There's really none.

Last I checked the US is still a NATO ally, and has obligations as such.

Why would it give a flying fuck in post-oil world, and what exactly is NATO worth? NATO itself is a strategic blunder, a large, unwieldy and useless structure created long ago on the basis of anti-Soviet paranoia and nowadays serving no clear purpose except a target for animosity from developing states like China, Russia, India.
Would those obligations not go down the shitter in case of an economic crisis? Of course they would! The first thing during the decline of the USSR was the "dropping" of it's allies, the removal of forces which supported the secular regime in Afghanistan...

I would rather America mantain its naval supremacy than give it away.

Most of the ships eat so much oil and money that Baby Hitler cried when Baby Tirpitz went out from the port. Think about this in a world of oil decline. Huge hulking ships, useless for coastal defense and wasting the last remains of the US resouces? A real good idea right there. Nuclear ships are the only viable force, and even there you have to think about the rationality.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I'm going to say, anything discussed here is really quite the piece of speculative future-history. I may be totally off base in saying the US will become unstable and cut back on its military, or it could be a third option that no one in a million years would expect. We really don't know. What I like about these threads is that you get to see a multitude of potential plans that could in some way come about.

Ultimately, at the end the deciding factor is the people and if they choose to panic and grab what's left of a dying resource rather than play it safe and voluntarily give up an impossible lifestyle to conserve, well, that's their funeral.

For America, I see a more isolationist stance with a smaller military that is simply used to safeguard any assets abroad, rather than play global cop which we see most people hate anyway. Of course, the US has been playing this energy cop role for a time now and that's really all the US military is at the end of the day. The big stick to ensure the US way of life remains, so as long as people see that as being viable, exist so will the military machine.

[K. A. Pital]

The particular traits of the crisis are hardly predictable.

But the US lashing out at the world with the remains of it's military to ensure it being the global hegemon will be harder and harder as it really starts feeling the energy drain.

[TithonusSyndrome]

It'll never be hard for them to reach Canada, unfortunately for me. If life carries on for me but I simply have to endure a different-looking map when I wake up in the morning, that'd be acceptable, but if not then I want to consider moving to some of the other countries that have ample farmland and great nuclear ambitions as suggested here.

[Admiral Valdemar]

It's feeling that in Iraq now. The cost per unit for energy has shot up. And output has hardly increased in Iraq, if anything, it's at an all time low. That there may be a massive amount of oil in the ground changes nothing. There will always be oil.

I just wonder how the administration will take into account the clusterfuck that is Iraq when applying the plan to future stakes at securing fossil fuel deposits.

[brianeyci]

I would not compare the demise of the USSR with the demise of America. Rather, I would compare with an empire with more cultural similarity, and geographic isolation like America -- the British Empire. Today the UK still has one of the most powerful navies in the world. Trade happened before oil, and it will happen after oil's gone. America will need to protect its trade routes like any other nation. This is the job of a blue water navy.

NAFTA already forbids either side from hoarding resources to the other's detriment. What will happen is a whole bunch of wrangling about what constitutes a "subsidy" and if worst comes to worst Canada gives in and ships oil over. Besides, as already stated, the oil tycoons and corporate fatcats don't care about the common man. So Canada could just appease the American nobility, keep them happy and they won't order an invasion of Canada to help out their poor starving oil hungry masses. It's not a pleasant thought, Canada having a far higher standard of living than the US akin to Barb Wire, but I see that as far more possible than an actual invasion.

[aerius]

NAFTA already forbids either side from hoarding resources to the other's detriment.

Do you honestly think the US will give a flying fuck about NAFTA, the UN, the WTO, and all that other shit when the chips are down?

[brianeyci]

NAFTA already forbids either side from hoarding resources to the other's detriment.

Do you honestly think the US will give a flying fuck about NAFTA, the UN, the WTO, and all that other shit when the chips are down?

No. But why should they invade when they have a perfectly legal, expedient way to steal everything. And why wouldn't Canada simply give in rather than risk American invasion if it comes to that.

Besides. We stopped them before and burned their White House .

[K. A. Pital]

Besides, as already stated, the oil tycoons and corporate fatcats don't care about the common man. So Canada could just appease the American nobility, keep them happy and they won't order an invasion of Canada to help out their poor starving oil hungry masses

Indeed such a turn of events look possible. After all the US has been operating in that fashion for some time. Saudis a prime example of the success of appeasement with resources.

Rather, I would compare with an empire with more cultural similarity, and geographic isolation like America -- the British Empire. Today the UK still has one of the most powerful navies in the world. Trade happened before oil, and it will happen after oil's gone. America will need to protect its trade routes like any other nation. This is the job of a blue water navy.

Hmm... point. Though, if you compare it to the British Empire, you will have to take into account one little factor. There will not be any America to pump up money into the falling giant which was the British Empire. There will not be the option to wait ten years with people on rationing until some other, more powerful country gives you enough money to maintain your super-navy. It will be the fall of a hegemon whom _no one_ would give a helping hand for the simple fact that no one would give a shit, and no one would be really able to do it... This is why I compared the fall of the USSR to the fall of US. Because no one will (and no one will be able to) help or care.

[Admiral Valdemar]

With the British, I might add. We'll be too busy beating the Norwegians up to come to your aid this time.

[Lonestar]

For America, I see a more isolationist stance with a smaller military that is simply used to safeguard any assets abroad, rather than play global cop which we see most people hate anyway. Of course, the US has been playing this energy cop role for a time now and that's really all the US military is at the end of the day. The big stick to ensure the US way of life remains, so as long as people see that as being viable, exist so will the military machine.

I think that's what I've been trying to say. We(The USA) can maintain a powerful navy outside of fossil fuels, and it will be mostly used for, at most, throwing our weight around in this hemisphere and deterring any conventional on American soil. That's it.

[brianeyci]

The thing is, the USN could maintain a tenth of its capability and still kick everybody's ass in open water. Hell, if they had one CSG with good morale and combat ready, I would still bet on the USN fighting the rest of the world combined. There will always be isolationist candidates, but looking through American history since when did isolationism prevail, not in WWI, not in WWII, not even now. At the very least throughout my lifetime, I expect at least four CSG's, one in the Atlantic, one in the Pacific, and two more at home rotated in and out. Where the USN will have DD(x) and maybe CV(x) in the time frame we're talking about, other nations will have... nothing.

As for the shipbreaking issue. There's ways around it besides scuttling. They could send dead carriers to be broken up by kids with chainsaws. That's what's being done with merchant shipbreaking now. Morally reprehensible, but if it comes to that the US won't bankrupt its remaining resources getting rid of 90% of its navy. It'll just scuttle, or send the shit out to India.

[aerius]

No. But why should they invade when they have a perfectly legal, expedient way to steal everything. And why wouldn't Canada simply give in rather than risk American invasion if it comes to that.

One word. Iraq. They were already getting Iraqi oil for a steal, but they just had to go and invade anyway.

Moving to the next issue, problem is can we just afford to give in, and the answer to that is likely no. If you think the US will be happy with a million barrels a day in imports from us, and leave us with as much oil as we need, you're on crack. The US will want every last barrel, we can't give them every last barrel and still expect our country to exist. At some point we will have to draw the line, they will laugh and roll the tanks into Alberta and take oil by force, and there ain't a damn thing we or anyone else can do about it. The choice ends up being pretty simple, give in to their demands and slowly starve to death, or go down fighting and slowly starve to death. That is unless we somehow end up with a really progressive and reasonable government in power in the US, and frankly I ain't holding my breath on that one.

[brianeyci]

Well then let's hope for the American military-industrial complex to be destroyed, and the federal army to wither away, and the national guard refusing to fight in a foreign war.

We could always do scorched earth. That kind of infrastructure can't be built overnight and American "decapitation" strikes or precision bombing can't stop that. Invade and nobody gets it or keep it the same and you get a little.