Act of War?

[cptcav]

Situation: Your country's economy is weak. You need hard currency to survive. Your chief source of hard currency is natural gas and oil. Your main adversary has a strong economy. You have found out that they have negotiated with your customers to restrict the purchase of natural gas. And, they more or less bride (politically and through the sale of high tech military equipment) a major producer of oil to flood the market so that the price of oil plumets. Your economy is crashing fast.

 

Is this an act of war? And, if so, would you go down fighting (i.e. take military action)?

 

Regards,

Mark

[DougRichards]

Some extra questions have to be asked:

 

"You need hard currency to survive": Survive what? Do you mean that you won't be able to feed your people, or do you mean that the possibly corrupt government of which you are a part won't be able to stay in power without oil revenues to maintain control of the military?

 

Is the theoretical government of your country a democracy, theocracy, plutocracy, monarchy (or pseudo-monarchy, like that of North Korea?), single party government or dictatorship? Is the theoretical government of your 'adversary' a democracy, theocracy, plutocracy or dictatorship etc?

 

Are you land-locked?

 

Can you grow enough food to ensure that your people don't starve?

 

Are you in a strategically important position or just in a corner of the world that no-one gives a damn about?

 

Are you a former colony?

 

Can you call on 'powerful friends' for aid?

 

Is your pitiful little country really worth saving, or going to war over, resulting in the death of many of your most productive citizens / subjects, when the end result would be the same?

 

What does your 'adversary' really want to do to you?

 

If you are such a pitiful little country why does your adversary want to be so damn nasty to you in the first place? What have you done, stolen their holy grail or something?

[Luckyorwhat]

Situation: Your country's economy is weak. You need hard currency to survive. Your chief source of hard currency is natural gas and oil. Your main adversary has a strong economy. You have found out that they have negotiated with your customers to restrict the purchase of natural gas. And, they more or less bride (politically and through the sale of high tech military equipment) a major producer of oil to flood the market so that the price of oil plumets. Your economy is crashing fast.

 

Is this an act of war? And, if so, would you go down fighting (i.e. take military action)?

 

Regards,

Mark

 

Of course it is. The 'weak' simply have to do what they previously told the 'strong' they would in such a scenario. Ironically though, the 'strong' economy is spending an astronomical amount of money, and not getting anything in return. Spend that money turning their country to a nuclear/hydrogen economy and really stick it to the 'weak' guy, if they were smart.

 

But LNG tankers mean natural gas is transportable now too, as oil. And the price of oil is not necessarily dependent on supply, it's dependent on stability, and multiple levels of cross-speculation arrive at inflated price. Generally stability is always good, instability always bad.

 

The diversified economy could be hurt by the instability worse than the resource economy, actually. If they don't act militarily, then they lose money and the 'weak' guys make more money.

 

 

Of course in socialist schools the only correct answer will be 'let the UN handle it'.

[Arthur Hubers]

Iraq invading Kuwait?

[DougRichards]

Just remember that, since 1945, there has only been one state that has successfully extended its borders by military conquest, that is 62 years so far.

 

Every other example of apparent conquest, ie the unification of Vietnam, has been the form of a civil war, seeking to reassert what was previously accepted by at least the participants against colonial interests.

 

The Balkans conflicts of the 90s have been more about realignment than conquest, and have been more crimes against humanity rather than wars. Most other wars have been those of division rather than conquest, ie the creation of Bangladesh and the division of Cyprus.

 

So where does this place your little gas rich country?

[George Newbill]

This sounds a bit like Japan/USA in 1940. The Japanese considered it an act of war, the USA did not.

[LeoTanker]

Of course it is. The 'weak' simply have to do what they previously told the 'strong' they would in such a scenario. Ironically though, the 'strong' economy is spending an astronomical amount of money, and not getting anything in return. Spend that money turning their country to a nuclear/hydrogen economy and really stick it to the 'weak' guy, if they were smart.

 

But LNG tankers mean natural gas is transportable now too, as oil. And the price of oil is not necessarily dependent on supply, it's dependent on stability, and multiple levels of cross-speculation arrive at inflated price. Generally stability is always good, instability always bad.

 

The diversified economy could be hurt by the instability worse than the resource economy, actually. If they don't act militarily, then they lose money and the 'weak' guys make more money.

Of course in socialist schools the only correct answer will be 'let the UN handle it'.

 

So Sadam was right in 1990?

[cptcav]

I just brought this up as I am reading a book called "Crusader: Reagan and the Fall of Communism". It appears this is one of the many things that President Reagan implimented to bring down the Soviet government. This was a part of his "denied" economic war on them.

 

In the early 80's, Reagan tried to stop the Russian gas pipeline to Europe. Most of the countries did not want to do so as it was a source of cheap energy. He eventually got them to agree to reduce their commitment to the pipeline, but not fully back out. Later on, an explosion in the pipeline that appeared to be almost the size of a small atomic bomb, set back the program many months. It is believed that the US allowed some software to be acquired by the KGB's technical division that was actually programed to manage pipelines; however, this particular program was designed to sabotage the pipeline thus causing the explosion.

 

Also, the US provided Saudi Arabia with AWAC's and other advanced weapons systems in the early 80's. It is believed that in the mid 1980's when the Saudi's starting flooding the market with extra oil driving down the prices that it was a partial payback for Reagan's support of the kingdom; in addition to hampering the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq War.

 

So, the question is if the Soviets knew this for a fact, do they have cause or is it just another factor in fighting a cold war.

 

And, to carry this forward to present day, there has been incidents of computer espionage and sabotage; such as China's believed participation in hacking into Western government and commercial computer systems, and Russia's supposed computer attack on Estonia. What should the targeted countries do about it? Should they just be content to complain to the UN and try to get better protection? Should they launch counter strikes? Or, should they warn the offending country that they consider it an act of war and continued attacks would find the situation deteriorating to a shooting war? Could public opinion be changed to support such an action?

 

Regards,

Mark

[Jim Martin]

I just brought this up as I am reading a book called "Crusader: Reagan and the Fall of Communism". It appears this is one of the many things that President Reagan implimented to bring down the Soviet government. This was a part of his "denied" economic war on them.

 

In the early 80's, Reagan tried to stop the Russian gas pipeline to Europe. Most of the countries did not want to do so as it was a source of cheap energy. He eventually got them to agree to reduce their commitment to the pipeline, but not fully back out. Later on, an explosion in the pipeline that appeared to be almost the size of a small atomic bomb, set back the program many months. It is believed that the US allowed some software to be acquired by the KGB's technical division that was actually programed to manage pipelines; however, this particular program was designed to sabotage the pipeline thus causing the explosion.

 

 

Act of war or not, I was living in Germany at the time the debate was raging, and I thought the NATO allies' cooperation with the pipeline was an act of base faithlessness.

 

Trading with the enemy.

[cptcav]

In the book it describes another interesting "act of base faithlessness". Apparently, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) had a representative approach the Soviets prior to the 1984 election to see if there was some way that they could work together to stop Reagan from being re-elected. This contact was based supposedly on their mutual fear that Reagan was moving away from detante and promoting an arms race, which could start WWIII.

 

While there is no direct evidence of this event, apparently there are documents in the Soviet archives indicating discussions of this happening.

 

Regards,

Mark

[p620346]

QUOTE "In the early 80's, Reagan tried to stop the Russian gas pipeline to Europe."

 

The US refused to sell the Soviets the computer control systems they needed for their pipeline. Supposedly the KGB then infiltrated an agent into a Canadian software company to steal the necessary computer codes. When the CIA learned of this, they "infected" the stolen code with bugs that raised gas pressures beyond what the pipeline could handle. The result was a rather massive explosion rated at about 3 kilotons.

[Ariete!]

QUOTE "In the early 80's, Reagan tried to stop the Russian gas pipeline to Europe."

 

The US refused to sell the Soviets the computer control systems they needed for their pipeline. Supposedly the KGB then infiltrated an agent into a Canadian software company to steal the necessary computer codes. When the CIA learned of this, they "infected" the stolen code with bugs that raised gas pressures beyond what the pipeline could handle. The result was a rather massive explosion rated at about 3 kilotons.

 

Got a source for that??

 

How did the CIA even find out?

[Jim Martin]

QUOTE "In the early 80's, Reagan tried to stop the Russian gas pipeline to Europe."

 

The US refused to sell the Soviets the computer control systems they needed for their pipeline. Supposedly the KGB then infiltrated an agent into a Canadian software company to steal the necessary computer codes. When the CIA learned of this, they "infected" the stolen code with bugs that raised gas pressures beyond what the pipeline could handle. The result was a rather massive explosion rated at about 3 kilotons.

 

 

*giggle*

[cptcav]

Regarding the technology espionage, while I do not know Ariete!'s source, the book indicates that Reagan was told early that the biggest espionage threat was technology theft (the book "The Sword and the Shield" confirms that technology theft was where the KGB was having the most success). He asked that the CIA figure out a way to hurt the Soviets by using the technology that they steal. In other words, help them acquire flawed technology. So, it looks like there was at least one success story for the CIA on this front.

 

Regards,

Mark

[p620346]

Got a source for that??

 

How did the CIA even find out?

 

Reed, At the Abyss: An Insider's History of the Cold War, (Random House, 2004):

Slade, Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America, (Harvard University Press, 2006):

Edited January 8, 2008 by p620346

[Ariete!]

Thanks.

 

Without buying the book, does Reed offer it as a personal recollection or does he mention some references.

 

Sorry if I sound sceptical; it just sounds too good to be true; if they did do it...what a stunt!!

[p620346]

Thanks.

 

Without buying the book, does Reed offer it as a personal recollection or does he mention some references.

 

Sorry if I sound sceptical; it just sounds too good to be true; if they did do it...what a stunt!!

I had the book via inter-library loan so do not know if it was backed up by references. Inter-library loan is much cheaper than buying books you do not want to keep forever.

[Archie Pellagio]

Just remember that, since 1945, there has only been one state that has successfully extended its borders by military conquest, that is 62 years so far.

 

Every other example of apparent conquest, ie the unification of Vietnam, has been the form of a civil war, seeking to reassert what was previously accepted by at least the participants against colonial interests.

 

The Balkans conflicts of the 90s have been more about realignment than conquest, and have been more crimes against humanity rather than wars. Most other wars have been those of division rather than conquest, ie the creation of Bangladesh and the division of Cyprus.

 

So where does this place your little gas rich country?

 

Thats a very lawyerish statement

 

And what does success count for? It makes no difference to the legitimacy of the act.

If Iraq held onto kuwait would that make it fair game to have invaded? Would it have made the justification any more legitimate?

And how do you draw a line with "colonial" grievances?

Was Kuwait - Independent in one form or another for over 400 years, fair game for iraq?

 

 

There have been lots of border disputes that resulted in wars and ipso facto territorial extension, and sucessfully so.

China springs to mind instantly - Tibet? India? Maracells?

 

Indonesia got away with East Timor for a quarter of a century with full support of practically every government on the planet. Not to mention West Papua (or are they "colonial" grievances?)

 

The little "colonial interests" disclaimer gets you off a lot though, same with sucessfull, if you get rid of that there are countless examples, many have tried, only some succeeded.

[Brian Kennedy]

One of my Big Important Papers when I was earning my MA in Security Studies (cough) was a postulation for my Information Warfare class: Bad Country X feels threatened by the US for whatever reason. Bad Country X happens to have an enormous, skilled population of computer hackers (work with me here). Bad Country X hacks into Wall Street's computer systems (work with me here some more) and causes a stock-market crash -- wreaking significant economic destruction, wiping out the lifes' savings of hundreds of thousands of people, but injuring or killing nobody.

 

Under the Laws of Just War (which are outdated but everyone still claims to adhere to them), does the US get to declare war? The only similar case I could find in the past were cases involving naval blockades, which were generally _not_ seen to be causii belli. I guess what it boils down to is, if somebody is seriously f*cking up your country's economy on purpose, do you get to start killing them?

[Archie Pellagio]

One interesting thing I've always though would be what if in order to show political disfavour with the US, China (or some other nation) who owns a significant ammount of US debt, bonds etc were to suddenly ditch it, not "crashing' the market, but putting a world of hurt on the economy.

 

That is surely not an "act of war" but definately economic sabotage with a political bent.

 

Where would that fall?

 

"Diplomacy by other means"?

[Ariete!]

Brian Kennedy wrote:

“Bad Country X hacks into Wall Street's computer systems (work with me here some more) and causes a stock-market crash -- wreaking significant economic destruction, wiping out the lifes' savings of hundreds of thousands of people, but injuring or killing nobody.”

 

If enough hacking was done, country X could certainly cause a crash. Unless they were permanently able to disable all back-office systems, though, they would not be able to sabotage the actual ownership of securities and, perhaps with small delays, the payment of coupons and dividends (presumably the US fixes the breaches after the initial shock, is what I’m saying).

 

No one would ‘lose’ their savings until they sold and even that could be subject to internal re-balancing / reparations.

 

Actual losses, once everything is fixed, would be in the range of several Bn, not the hundreds of bns / trillions that would initially ‘appear’.

 

Not fun, though.

 

“does the US get to declare war? [..] I guess what it boils down to is, if somebody is seriously f*cking up your country's economy on purpose, do you get to start killing them?”

 

I would think there could be some intermediate steps / retaliation by other means before shooting hostilities would be considered ‘just’.

 

“The only similar case I could find in the past were cases involving naval blockades, which were generally _not_ seen to be casii belli.”

 

I find that surprising if, by ‘naval blockade’ you mean that country X forcibly prevents country Y’s ships from exiting their territorial waters and/or third-country ships from entering Y’s territorial waters. Are you sure you are not looking at the ‘assumption’ or unilateral view of some former naval superpower?

 

Luke_Yaxley wrote:

“One interesting thing I've always though would be what if in order to show political disfavour with the US, China (or some other nation) who owns a significant amount of US debt, bonds etc were to suddenly ditch it, not "crashing' the market, but putting a world of hurt on the economy. That is surely not an "act of war" but definitely economic sabotage with a political bent.

 

Again, the detail of who sells to whom is crucial here. IF, for the sake of argument, China tomorrow liquidates all its treasuries they have to sell them to someone. The buyer gets treasuries at a great yield. Of course, there would be problems in terms of the UST raising cash, short-term and some poor schmuck who needs to sell his USTs would get nailed but most of the losses would be mark-to-market losses (this causes a problems for banks, insurers, etc. but can be waved away with a magic wand by regulators, in such an emergency).

 

The most grievous economic (actual) loss would accrue to the Chinese themselves.

 

“Where would that fall? "Diplomacy by other means"?“

 

I think it would be difficult to do more than ‘protest’, legally. It’s their stuff. If they want to sell it they can.

 

If the Chinese simply decided to stop buying USTs at all, maybe break the peg to the US$ and be vocal about it, they would probably mess up US capital markets for a protracted period. They would suffer considerably themselves, though (and that’s without considering likely US economic retaliation).