Planck Foundation



Militarism (and its climax war) are two major spills of resources (energy and elements) and also of material and non-material prosperity. Of course militarism employs many people but the cost of militarism is taken out of and that way burdens the market economy. Militarism and war are two negative posts on the balance sheet of each nations and of the world in general, who both nothing actual add to the economic production of the world. Militarism and war are overdue concepts of the past creating major spills of resources (energy and elements), prosperity in both own and targeted nations and global well-being levels. Actual war even destroys economic values and thereby creates on both sides also major losses, destructions and spills. Also on both sided there is non material damage, even of lives of fathers/mothers/children as soldiers and -more and more in today's kind of wars- innocent civilians as 'collateral damage'. More militarism and more war demands more energy and elements, less militarism and war avoid mega spills of energy, resources, prosperity and lives. Governments must actively stimulate the weapon industry to let go the weapon market and to enter the energy market. The current global demand for energy facilities is a huge opportunity to redevelop the military and war focused weapon industry to a peace focused energy facilities industry. Weapon conglomerates are technocrats by heart. Technology and maximal effects focused high skilled groups of companies with splendid political liaisons. The only way to end militarism is by 'converting' the weapon industry to new more attractive (both in volume and technology) markets, by giving them new market opportunities. Armies also must not be brooked down and driven to bankruptcy (for reasons of their tight political connections), but also been redeveloped to unarmed 'making a different' developer in non conflict areas. Integrating National Foreign Affairs, Defense and International Development budgets in to one big national value and technologies advertising 'power' force. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (US ACE) is a very good example of this for the world. The only new people armies must hire are well educated immigrants as nation's liaisons with the rest of the world. Why? Because resources certainly will become more and more scarce in the next years. The first scariness addressing distribution model that will functioning is the open market price mechanism, driving resources (energy and elements) that become scarce to higher price levels and thereby also by price mechanism reduce the demand severe, but at a certain level prices can't rise anymore higher because otherwise nobody can afford to buy the resources anymore. Than the second scariness addressing distribution model will come in place and that's a political system: nations only will supply for these maximal prices the nations with which they have bilateral or multilateral relations. And then military systems and actual use will work strong contra-productive. Make friends, no enemies will be the slogan of national resources focused politics in times of more tighten resources supply or even resources shortage. No nation has the economic resources and political possibilities to rule the whole earth. Also the USA as current superpower cans impossible control the whole world. Controlling the high seas is the most there is to achieve for a global empire. The Spanish has done that in the past, the Dutch has done that in the past, the English has had their time in history and these days the USA rules the high seas. The current world supremacy of the USA is also very much build on the absence of strong global counterpart players than only on USA supremacy. Europe has had her time of supremacy and has learned from it and is to much internally divided to become a superpower, don't have an own army (the first thing a super power old style needs) by its NATO bounding with the USA. Military power has always been and still is based on economic power. There are some severe cracks in the economic power of the USA (weakening own economy, large debts, huge imports, declining exports, lost of dollar supremacy and less US friendly global atmosphere). And Russia for example is quietly building huge economic and geopolitical power worldwide and especial in Europe, Euro Asia, Middle East and even in Africa. Russia has lost its empire end 80's by the oil price drop caused by the oil market supply of the Saudi on request of the USA. Russia hasn't forgotten that, that's still in the books. They send sometimes some airplanes for a trip on the ocean (mainly only during NATO meetings), but the know that nobody ever will be able to oversize the USA military in terms of size and technology. Russia has chosen for a different type of game: economic power based on their actual owned Carbon Reserves. This is a force the USA never will have and a force that will have final weight both economic and military. Therefore the USA would be very smart is they switch very quick from military power to bilateral and multilateral relations, because in times of absolute shortages and maximum resources market prices, the politically driven scariness distributions model will absolutely pass the former brute nations that has used military power excessively. And one nation never will be able to rule the world military, even in times (like now) when the USA controls the high seas worldwide. An actual example: Iran and Venezuela (and maybe also Russia) have made a bilateral agreement that, if one of them will be attacked by an other nation (reed: the USA), the other will immediately stop delivering oil and gas to the attacking nation(s) and this way cutting off the energy supply to the aggressor. A modern version of NATO and Warsaw Pact. But this is fighting 'in new style' without spilling money on weapons and not economic contributing soldiers. Much more cleaner and certainly much more effective. Ask Germany what happens than with military power and nation's economy if that happens: they have faced an identical situation 60 years ago. Military organization and means are the less effective and worst way to act for insuring resources supply in a world with resources supply issues. Military means will become old fashion 20th century old skool type of serving national interest, totally contra-productive in a globalized internet connected world. Some wizzkids can harm a country much more severely than two armies. The globalized 21st century is about building relations between nations. Networking instead of military focused nations are the winners of the 21st century. Military is just a last remaining facet of the dark ages, a waste of resources and economic negative for the nation that operates it. Hawks certainly will lose it from mutual interest between nations exploring diplomats. Diplomacy and bilateral corporation will gain 'market shares' in international politics enormously, military will lose 'market shares' in international politics severely. Gazprom has become much, much more important and powerful than NATO. It's not accidental that the current President of Russia will become CEO of Gazprom after his resigning as President. Politics and Economy are melting more and more together, after this was decades since the Second World War only USA practice. But it's only a winning combination if there are really resources to deliver to the world. The USA had already had two energy connected presidents: George H.W. Bush senior and George W. Bush junior, both from Texas and both have spend almost their complete lifetime in the Texan Oil Industry. But both had the headwind that the USA is running out of resources, so there was no energy to deliver to the world market (and that's what makes national economies to global economic empires). The new wars are pure economic and are not about tanks, but about banks. Not about bombing, but about 'education' (as in: learning obedience lessons to the other nation) by cutting off / pausing own current deliveries to them. You don't make friends with riffles and bombers, and friends are what nations needs in times of PeakOil. Nations that are energy/resources deficit, better very quick 1) stop thinking/making war, 2) work heavily on mutual bilateral development projects and 3) realize new energy generation as soon as possible to make them independent and stop capital leaks and trade deficit increase. Militarism will just out phased by realized effects by smart political leaders, supported by the real peace doves by heart and just easy talking everyone's friend smooth talkers. But real bilateral relations will be the assets of nations in the end of Carbon and after Carbon.

Author: Gijs Graafland

Back to Spills Index

Download the full Global Resources Analysis report in PDF

Planck Foundation