• sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 days ago

    True as well, but afaik, Canada has a considerably large amount of proven RE reserves, basically the most after China and Russia.

    My numbers there might be slightly off, but I’d be thinking Central and South America would be primarily getting couped for oil or perhaps farm/pasture land.

    • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      The bottleneck is refining capacity, not ore. A bunch of countries have rare earths, but only China has the factories, skilled workforce and scientists.

      • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        This is also true and very immediately relevant for the near/medium term.

        But, if the US as a state/cabal of rulers is even still at all capable of long term planning, presumably they would realize the near medium and long term… ‘problems’ that could be ‘solved’ by at least starting the process of controlling the territory with the thing they need now and almost certainly will need in the future.

        I mean this is simplifying but think of it like iron in a civilization game. Its a critical strategic resource… very likely ‘worth’ fighting over, unless you are exceedingly competent in many other realms of statecraft.

        • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          There’s no near term solution to the problem.

          Unlike a strategy game where you can just seize a strategic resource and immediately begin using it, in the real world it would be many years or possibly even decades after seizing a territory before they’d be able to actually get any use out of it. Everything from finding workers to developing infrastructure to buying insurance becomes really hard once a territory becomes disputed.

          • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            I agree with all that.

            But we are both, or each, more rational than rabid US Christian Fascists and Neoliberal Zionist/Corporate Fascists.

            As I think is well evidenced by the US’s objectively delusional uh, ‘foreign policy stance’, toward Iran.

            • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              There’s no way to maintain the empire and also preserve access to China’s minerals. They either need to capitulate and negotiate with China (unacceptable because it ends their domination) or they need to start a war to occupy strategic resources (which we both agree won’t work). Their fascism is actually a response to the irreversible decline of their empire, it’s the only choice remaining that doesn’t involve admitting defeat.

              It only delays the inevitable, but it does delay it. This is where the gerontocracy plays a role: it’s rational for an 80+ imperialist to delay the decline of the empire, because when it inevitably implodes they’ll be dead anyway and they hate their children so who cares?