Thanks, because that's exactly what I was hoping to stay away from in this thread. :thumb:

You are welcome. The debate over global warming is not over but I can use a breather.

Nobody from the left wants to answer my questions posed in post #7?

Question #1: Are environmental and energy issues matters of national security, and if so, which issues?

 

Question #2: If those issues are matters of national security, and actions taken by foreign countries are impacting them and thereby impacting our national security, would we be justified in armed conflict and occupation in order to exercise control over the environmental issues?

 

Friedman would have a field day with that question.

 

1. Of course they are. Take the Persian Gulf oil spill for instance. It caused huge environmental damage and economic damage, plus it was an act of terrorism. No one wants to talk about global warming but the Pentagon has developed contingency scenarios in for climate change to deal with wars over water, food, and other resources. It is in our best national security interests to be energy independent and environmentally sound in our policies.

 

2. I don't know really. If a country decided to send a "dirty bomb" over to contaminate one of our cities then I would say military action is justified. Occupation? Depends on the situation. If, for instance, terrorists hijacked and oil tanker and intentionally caused an oil spill in one of our shores, then I am all for sending some troops and bombs to deal with them. It's really a hard thing to answer. It all depends on who, and how much damage they cause I suppose.

1. Of course they are. Take the Persian Gulf oil spill for instance. It caused huge environmental damage and economic damage, plus it was an act of terrorism. No one wants to talk about global warming but the Pentagon has developed contingency scenarios in for climate change to deal with wars over water, food, and other resources. It is in our best national security interests to be energy independent and environmentally sound in our policies.

 

2. I don't know really. If a country decided to send a "dirty bomb" over to contaminate one of our cities then I would say military action is justified. Occupation? Depends on the situation. If, for instance, terrorists hijacked and oil tanker and intentionally caused an oil spill in one of our shores, then I am all for sending some troops and bombs to deal with them. It's really a hard thing to answer. It all depends on who, and how much damage they cause I suppose.

 

But you certainly could conceive of a situation in which we would be justified in military action and occupation of a foreign sovereign due to their abuse of environmental issues and their effect upon us?

But you certainly could conceive of a situation in which we would be justified in military action and occupation of a foreign sovereign due to their abuse of environmental issues and their effect upon us?

 

I could but it depends on magnitude. I also don't think a major country would attack us in that fashion. There are too many factors to weigh before saying yes or no.

I could but it depends on magnitude. I also don't think a major country would attack us in that fashion. There are too many factors to weigh before saying yes or no.

 

Brazil decides, to heck with the rainforests, we need the space, and embarks upon a national program to deforest the itnerior by 75%. Attack???

Brazil decides, to heck with the rainforests, we need the space, and embarks upon a national program to deforest the itnerior by 75%. Attack???

 

I think Brazil knows enough, to know that we need the Rainforest to breath.

I think Brazil knows enough, to know that we need the Rainforest to breath.

 

They've sure done a job on the rainforests to date.

They've sure done a job on the rainforests to date.

 

Rainforests.

 

Didn't we used to use the word "Jungle"? Whatever happened to that word?

Rainforests.

 

Didn't we used to use the word "Jungle"? Whatever happened to that word?

 

They are two different things.

 

Rainforest-a tropical woodland with an annual rainfall of at least 100 inches (254 centimeters) and marked by lofty broad-leaved evergreen trees forming a continuous canopy —called also tropical rain forest

 

Jungle-n impenetrable thicket or tangled mass of tropical vegetation

I think Brazil knows enough, to know that we need the Rainforest to breath.

Since 1970, they've cut down 17% of the Amazon rainforest since 1970. At current rates of deforestation, 40% of the rain forest will be gone in 20 years.

Since 1970, they've cut down 17% of the Amazon rainforest since 1970. At current rates of deforestation, 40% of the rain forest will be gone in 20 years.

 

 

AAAAAAttttttaaaaaaackkkkkkkkk!!!!!

AAAAAAttttttaaaaaaackkkkkkkkk!!!!!

 

Does this not worry you? The fact that someone is slowly taking away the planets capacity to recycle Co2 into Oxygen is a scarey thing.

Does this not worry you? The fact that someone is slowly taking away the planets capacity to recycle Co2 into Oxygen is a scarey thing.

 

It does scare me; thus my question as to whether it is a matter of national security such that we are justified in military intervention in Brazil in order to prevent them from deforesting.

Does this not worry you? The fact that someone is slowly taking away the planets capacity to recycle Co2 into Oxygen is a scarey thing.

Let's make the problem even worse. Guess how they're getting rid of the trees they cut down? They don't want the trees for lumber; they want the land for cultivation and grazing.