4 ms·

All war boils down to the ability to access, control or set pricing for a natural resource The perennial Iran/Iraq conflicts originated from disputes about acc

All war boils down to the ability to access, control or set pricing for a natural resource The perennial Iran/Iraq conflicts originated from disputes about access to the Shatt al-Arab River starting in the 16th century - once the industrial revolution hit, then of course oil was the key resource for growth The Overthrow of the Shah then, was based on the requirement to not be beholden to anyone but the west when pricing Oil, to ensure the west had unmitigated control of how the largest oil property set prices. Old school conquest of territory post WWII is considered gauche, so the 21st century approach to resource conflict is to find "other means" to have the same effect of guaranteeing access to someone else's property. I think this extremely rare peaceful period of "orthogonal conflict" that was notably devoid of multiple widespread bloodshed in war (~1975-Today) might actually come to an end in the next few decades as state capitalism crumbles under it's own weight and no coherent alternative exists.

FirmwareBurner 3y ago
TL;DR: throughout history several countries got super wealthy by stealing other countries' shit at gunpoint, which went out of fashion after WW2, and then had to find other avenues for less obvious colonial-like theft, usually involving toppling leaders thorough coups and installing their own puppets in place who would gladly sign off on their country's resources for pennies to large western corporations
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  Bingo Extra points if your colonialism exploits an internecine conflict such that it appears that internal problems of the country, rather than exogenous meddling with state or tribal sovereignty, led to it's failure to govern (reinforcing how "correct" your form of government is)
- tamimio 3y ago
  >usually involving toppling leaders thorough coups and installing their own puppets in place Pretty much yeah, and if that fails, sanctions and economic wars
- labster 3y ago
  > stealing other countries' shit at gunpoint, which went out of fashion after WW2 It didn’t go out of fashion. Industrialization made wars of conquest unprofitable by 1890-1910 or so, and it took the world that long to get a clue. (Russia, notably, still hasn’t figured it out.) If you build one factory, you make money; if you build an army to steal your neighbor’s factory, most likely you both get zero factories.
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    You never start a war to gain some bombed-to-shit factories or barren deserts, you start wars to gain control of valuable land with resources and more easily defensible borders, get control of lucrative trade routes, and gain workers(slaves) and natural resources for your own factories. Of course, it's much easier and cheaper these days to use your intelligence services to stage a coup in that country so that your corporations can get their bananas for free, or, planting fake WMD intelligence at the UN so you can justify going in guns blazing and your corporations can make money through weapons sales, oil extraction, logistics and reconstruction on the back of taxpayers and the intelligence services by running heroin to fund their black ops.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > you start wars to gain control of valuable land with resources and more easily defensible borders, get control of lucrative trade routes, and gain workers(slaves) and natural resources for your own factories In modern warfare, you don’t get these for free. If you’re trying to yoink from a fellow nation-state, you risk your own factories being bombed. If you’re up against a less sophisticated foe, you still sacrifice industrial production and diplomatic goodwill in excess of any base resource gains. It’s cheaper and more fruitful to trade for those goods than it is to steal them. (Coups are no exception. They disrupt the economy and jeopardise the security situation. Much simpler to trade with Tehran than try for a coup that doesn’t result in civil war or blowback.)
    - Kamq 3y ago
      You're forgetting eliminating a potential threat. Which tends to have effects similar to what you've described. Land that isn't near a potential threat can be invested in much more heavily. Borders are easier to defend, etc. But improvement to existing resources tends to be more attractive to those with the most resources already.
enkid 3y ago
The US and UK didn't overthrow the Shah, they helped him stop from being overthrown. If you can't even get the basics of the historical events we're talking about correct, you shouldn't be making broad generalizations about all of history.
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  I said nothing about the US or UK overthrowing the Shah
  - enkid 3y ago
    Then this sentence makes absolutely no sense: "The Overthrow of the Shah then, was based on the requirement to not be beholden to anyone but the west when pricing Oil, to ensure the west had unmitigated control of how the largest oil property set prices."
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    You need to proofread better.
- orwin 3y ago
  They put him in power on 53,they didn't 'stop' him from being overthrown. He failed his first coup and had originally too few local/regional supporters to succeed his second one.
gordian-not 3y ago
All war is about resources except for all the times it isn’t: religion, culture, honor/shame or ideology. Two world wars come to mind
- readthenotes1 3y ago
  One of those was about resources. Alsace-Lorraine may want a few words about the other
  - gordian-not 3y ago
    It depends on which one you refer to because both had some relation to Alsace-Lorraine. However, the first one broke out after a complicated system of alliances together with a non compromising attitude towards nationalism (assasination ultimatum). I file that under ideology and honor. The second one broke out due to a really insane ideology, that although talked about resources, time and time again took resources from the war itself for its death apparatus

FirmwareBurner 3y ago

TL;DR: throughout history several countries got super wealthy by stealing other countries' shit at gunpoint, which went out of fashion after WW2, and then had to find other avenues for less obvious colonial-like theft, usually involving toppling leaders thorough coups and installing their own puppets in place who would gladly sign off on their country's resources for pennies to large western corporations

AndrewKemendo 3y ago
Bingo Extra points if your colonialism exploits an internecine conflict such that it appears that internal problems of the country, rather than exogenous meddling with state or tribal sovereignty, led to it's failure to govern (reinforcing how "correct" your form of government is)
tamimio 3y ago
>usually involving toppling leaders thorough coups and installing their own puppets in place Pretty much yeah, and if that fails, sanctions and economic wars
labster 3y ago
> stealing other countries' shit at gunpoint, which went out of fashion after WW2 It didn’t go out of fashion. Industrialization made wars of conquest unprofitable by 1890-1910 or so, and it took the world that long to get a clue. (Russia, notably, still hasn’t figured it out.) If you build one factory, you make money; if you build an army to steal your neighbor’s factory, most likely you both get zero factories.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  You never start a war to gain some bombed-to-shit factories or barren deserts, you start wars to gain control of valuable land with resources and more easily defensible borders, get control of lucrative trade routes, and gain workers(slaves) and natural resources for your own factories. Of course, it's much easier and cheaper these days to use your intelligence services to stage a coup in that country so that your corporations can get their bananas for free, or, planting fake WMD intelligence at the UN so you can justify going in guns blazing and your corporations can make money through weapons sales, oil extraction, logistics and reconstruction on the back of taxpayers and the intelligence services by running heroin to fund their black ops.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > you start wars to gain control of valuable land with resources and more easily defensible borders, get control of lucrative trade routes, and gain workers(slaves) and natural resources for your own factories In modern warfare, you don’t get these for free. If you’re trying to yoink from a fellow nation-state, you risk your own factories being bombed. If you’re up against a less sophisticated foe, you still sacrifice industrial production and diplomatic goodwill in excess of any base resource gains. It’s cheaper and more fruitful to trade for those goods than it is to steal them. (Coups are no exception. They disrupt the economy and jeopardise the security situation. Much simpler to trade with Tehran than try for a coup that doesn’t result in civil war or blowback.)
  - Kamq 3y ago
    You're forgetting eliminating a potential threat. Which tends to have effects similar to what you've described. Land that isn't near a potential threat can be invested in much more heavily. Borders are easier to defend, etc. But improvement to existing resources tends to be more attractive to those with the most resources already.

enkid 3y ago

The US and UK didn't overthrow the Shah, they helped him stop from being overthrown. If you can't even get the basics of the historical events we're talking about correct, you shouldn't be making broad generalizations about all of history.

AndrewKemendo 3y ago
I said nothing about the US or UK overthrowing the Shah
- enkid 3y ago
  Then this sentence makes absolutely no sense: "The Overthrow of the Shah then, was based on the requirement to not be beholden to anyone but the west when pricing Oil, to ensure the west had unmitigated control of how the largest oil property set prices."
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  You need to proofread better.
orwin 3y ago
They put him in power on 53,they didn't 'stop' him from being overthrown. He failed his first coup and had originally too few local/regional supporters to succeed his second one.

gordian-not 3y ago

All war is about resources except for all the times it isn’t: religion, culture, honor/shame or ideology. Two world wars come to mind

readthenotes1 3y ago
One of those was about resources. Alsace-Lorraine may want a few words about the other
- gordian-not 3y ago
  It depends on which one you refer to because both had some relation to Alsace-Lorraine. However, the first one broke out after a complicated system of alliances together with a non compromising attitude towards nationalism (assasination ultimatum). I file that under ideology and honor. The second one broke out due to a really insane ideology, that although talked about resources, time and time again took resources from the war itself for its death apparatus