Hidden Government Plans

snow hope · Post by **snow hope** » 30 Jun 2005, 13:26

I wonder what are the plans that have been put in place by Governments such as US, UK, Russia, China, France etc. regarding PO and it's ramifications?

We know that the Pentagon has plans for all eventualities that can be played out. This is one of the responsibilities they have to American Defense.

Governments and "power" in general provides an environment of potential corruption and cynacism and enables political leadership to put plans in place to protect the few and screw the many, if and when the SHTF. Of this I have no doubt.

I hope I am very wrong, but I have had the following thought. If some of our predictions are correct that the world after PO will only support a couple of billion people, then there is going to be a die-off of about 4 or 5 billion people.

Are there leaders out there who are cynical enough to bring this about before PO hits? Nuclear War? Avian Flu Pandemic? Other catastrophic events?

As I said, I really hope I am wrong, but if it has come into my head...... could it be thought of by cycnics as PO mitigation?

peaky · Post by **peaky** » 30 Jun 2005, 13:45

Well, who knows, apart from the powers that be.

I feel PO will bring enough issues to consider without having to fret over what the government may be thinking of doing as well. If we don't have a clue we can't plan for it and in such a case I don't think I would worry about it.

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 30 Jun 2005, 13:46

I dont think that there are any (implementable) plans. Governments are stuck in the same denial as almost everybody else.

For a full-scale dress rehersal, look at the Soviet collapse. Dmitry Orlov have written a stunning piece further down on this page:

http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4

Winged Energy of Delight · Post by **Winged Energy of Delight** » 30 Jun 2005, 13:51

I agree with Peaky - there is so much about the Peak Oil issue that evades certainty, but at least there are some factors that are probably very likely, and which can be prepared for or mitigated to some extent. Governments are unpredictable at the best of times, so even if they were going to obliterate everyone in a global die-off with nuclear weapons, what could we really do about it, anyway? Surely it is best to think about what acould happen that we *might* be able to alleviate?
I do think though that these hypotheticals can descend into hysteria. I am guilty of the same thing sometimes myself. You foresee potential problems and before you know it, the whole chain of thoughts has escalated into utter armageddon. I think it's best to remain calm and rational and focused. And if you are going to worry about how we will be able to face handling such a world population with depleted means, we should be accepting that the big die-off, should there be one, won't be instigated by governments but by common biological and physiological necessities...namely, hunger and thirst.

Norfolk In Chance · Post by **Norfolk In Chance** » 30 Jun 2005, 15:32

Read Michael. C .Ruppert's 'Crossing the Rubicon'

Its fair to say that the author has one or two chips on his shoulder but he points the reader in the likely direction of the US end game plan.....

CIA, Peak Oil, Wall Street, Drug money, Bin Laden Group, 9/11, computer software, media control, Federal Emergency Plan and much more..

I am not able to verify what I read is true but it paints a set of scenarios that warrant further study.

isenhand · Post by **isenhand** » 01 Jul 2005, 06:41

<<I wonder what are the plans that have been put in place by Governments such as US, UK, Russia, China, France etc. regarding PO and it's ramifications?>>

Whatever the plans are I think we are better off looking to ourselves and working together. If things get bad whatever plans there maybe I?m sure they are for the benefit of the minority (with limited resources can the government plan for the benefit of us all?).

fishertrop · Post by **fishertrop** » 01 Jul 2005, 08:25

I agree with isenhand, we are better off looking after ourselves.

If you keep a low profile, do what you have to to get by, team up with your neighbours and try as much as possible to avoid contact with authorities and avoid doing things that make them come to you then you are probably on to a winner.

My guess is that many UK gov agencies have some form of plans - they might not be called "what to do in the event of Peak oil", more like "detailed plans for handling another fuel protest crisis" but much of it will be the same ends.

It's fair to say the the Uk population can't be relied on to do the right thing, so it's reasonable to expect the gov will used some form of martial law and troops to protect key infrastructure.

Who thinks the distribution of limited food supplies will be done orderly without troops/police? Not me, I can see fighting breaking out in every queue at every supermarket - hell that happens even now!

I very much doubt tho that the gov will have the vision and fortitude to implement the real changes that are needed for the long term benifit, even when the situation becomes clear - I think they'll go on about "kick starting the british econonomy" in the old mould (probably under pressure from big buisness) instead of biting the bullet and tackling the fundamentals.

With regard to the overpopulation of the planet, if you have read The limits to Growth and seen some of the projected decline curves you'll probably have picked up on 2 key things:
1) We probably have to resign ourselves to the fact that bigger numbers than we have ever seen before are going to strave to death on this planet

2) That it will almost certainly occur largely in the poorer parts of the globe

I don't say the latter because I think "we will nuke them" but for far more mundane reasons - we've screwed them on the way up and we'll screw them on the way down.

Many poorer countries have no real idea what they will need to do to survive and we'll use all the dirty tricks in the book to part them from the few valuable things that they do have.

Who thinks that we won't see ship loads of grain (powered by oil which was taken by force) leaving countries suffering mass starvation and sailing to the west so we can enjoy some kind of semi-decent life while the majority of the world suffer and die, which is not unlike it is today.

By the time the west realises that we can survive on much less AND that we have some kind of moral duty not to kill the rest of the world, it won't matter, cos huge swiathes of the populations in 2nd and 3rd would countries will have already died off.

I don't expect them to just starve quietly, I expect lots of conflict, but here too I expect them to both suffer shockingly at the hands of western weapons and to also kill each other, hastening their collective decline - while all teh time we keep pulling food and resources out of their countries by all available means.

Perhaps when many of passed away, the west will recolonise many of the countries effected, enslave the remaining population to produce food and goods for export, again.

I have to say I do not find such an outcome unlikely in any way, quite the reverse. How sad that we will have come to this

isenhand · Post by **isenhand** » 01 Jul 2005, 08:39

<<team up with your neighbours >>

A bit more than just neighbours, I think we should look at the possibility of such groups also linking up together. Forming a network where each group can help and support the others as and when needed.

murpen · Post by **murpen** » 01 Jul 2005, 10:58

isenhand wrote: A bit more than just neighbours, I think we should look at the possibility of such groups also linking up together. Forming a network where each group can help and support the others as and when needed.

Sounds a bit like a Friendly society (but maybe without the ceremony

)

kevincarter · Post by **kevincarter** » 04 Jul 2005, 17:52

I think some minorities, like a few guys in the government may have some plans, but not the government as a whole or a party as a whole, just a group inside a group.

The danger is there, specially in third world countires where the protocol to launch nuclear or biological weapons can get kind of "flexible" with PO, once the first mass destruction weapon is used everybody will want to join in.

And I am not saying the first world can't be the first to trigger such a thing.

Many poorer countries have no real idea what they will need to do to survive and we'll use all the dirty tricks in the book to part them from the few valuable things that they do have.

The thing is that many poor countries do know how to farm without chemicals or tractors, only the rich have cars or motorbikes and many people use electricity at home just for lighting. They'll have it somehow easier for us, as they know what is to live without a thing.

isenhand · Post by **isenhand** » 05 Jul 2005, 06:22

murpen wrote: Sounds a bit like a Friendly society (but maybe without the ceremony )

Yes, something like that. What I had envisioned was a network of self-sufficient communities that were self- sufficient in the sense they produced their own electricity, food etc and managed their own waste but they also had additional capacity that was of befits to other communities. For example, one community could have a medical doctor and another have an expert in wind turbines. Each committee could share there experts with the other. That way you could go beyond self- sufficiency and have a high standard of living yet still be in balance with the world.

fishertrop · Post by **fishertrop** » 05 Jul 2005, 08:40

kevincarter wrote:The thing is that many poor countries do know how to farm without chemicals or tractors, only the rich have cars or motorbikes and many people use electricity at home just for lighting. They'll have it somehow easier for us, as they know what is to live without a thing.

I agree that many of these people have skills that we don't, but will likely need, but I do not think this will really help them in the long run, because:
1) Many of them live in areas that are pounded by drought and no one can help them manage water or irrigation (the west could help, but we won't)
2) Their govs will force them into producing whatever goods the west insists on - even if they could sustain themselevs thru farming they won't get the chance, they'll be moved into factories or onto land producing crops for export

The sad fact is that most 2nd and 3rd world suffering is either directly as a result of western globalisation or is not helped by us (in the form of aid) because it's in our interets to do nothing.

I think Asia and esp Africa will suffer a lot LOT more post-peak, even tho they got close to zero out of the upslope they'll def get a share of the pain on the down slope.

isenhand · Post by **isenhand** » 05 Jul 2005, 08:48

We have a socioeconomic system that relies on growth and the movement of debt. In such a system it is necessary for people to be kept in debt and for scarcity to be maintained. Part of the result of that is the debt that is accumulated in the 3rd world and the poverty that we have. The West wont aid the 3rd world because it can?t and even needs to maintain the current situation. This is partly why G8 won?t make any significant impact on poverty; they don?t get to the cause of the problem. We will need some major changes in the way we do things before we can even begin to make any really change to the situation in the 3rd world.

DamianB · Post by **DamianB** » 05 Jul 2005, 15:06

2) Their govs will force them into producing whatever goods the west insists on - even if they could sustain themselevs thru farming they won't get the chance, they'll be moved into factories or onto land producing crops for export.

I don't think that this will happen for much longer as the fuel costs to transport those goods to the west becomes prohibitive.

fishertrop · Post by **fishertrop** » 05 Jul 2005, 16:01

DamianB wrote: I don't think that this will happen for much longer as the fuel costs to transport those goods to the west becomes prohibitive.

I wish I shared your optimism