There has been much written about the fall of the Roman Empire in the West. Not everyone agrees on what and when this actually was, but it certainly happened. The "fall" as it were, occurred in 476 AD with the deposition of the last Roman Emperor Augustulus.
Pat Buchanan touched upon the subject of decline with respect to the end of the British Empire. His theory was that the loss of their empire was directly related to their involvement in the Second World War. If only they had stayed out, the British Empire would exist today.
Buchanan believes that America made a mistake in going into Iraq. It would parallel what happened to the English. The parallels can be found as such, but is that the real reason we are in trouble today? Can such a small inconsequential war be so damaging as all that?
It could if it were political damage only. Military and economically, it was inconsequential.
The Iraq war didn't do America in. It was the oil. In my opinion, America's troubles began when it stopped producing its own energy. Once it started importing oil from the Middle East, it also started importing trouble with terrorism. America is funding its civilizational enemies while at the same time, weakening itself. All of this long preceded the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It all seemed to happen in a short time. By 1970, molten-salt nuclear reactor technology was a practical option. Also, by 1970, the US had begun to withdraw from Vietnam. By 1970, Richard Nixon was president. Nixon would be forced from office by 1974, as the retrograde, anti-progress, anti-nuke, left-wing was on the rise.
By 1979, radical Islam had taken over in Iran, abetted by the weakness of a feckless left-wing US president--- Jimmy Carter. Malaise had overtaken America. An energy crisis combined with a hostage crisis had undone Carter and brought Reagan to the Presidency. But no solution to the energy crisis was at hand even though a solution was under both leaders very noses---molten-salt nuclear energy developed by 1970.
If molten salt reactors had been produced, Three Mile Island wouldn't have mattered. As a matter of fact, it vindicated Weinberg's concerns about solid-fueled water-cooled reactor technology. But, instead of reaching that conclusion, nuclear energy itself was called into question. That unfortunate development was just another link in the chain of civilizational decay that continues to this very day.
In 2001, America's homeland was attacked from the West's ancient enemies in the Middle East. They were aided and abetted by oil money from imports of Middle Eastern Oil.
Now, in 2012, President Obama is walking in Jimmy Carter's footsteps. As Carter did, he is trying to replace fossil fuels with wind and solar energy. As Carter did, he is showing weakness towards the Middle East. As Jimmy Carter did, he is trying to appease an enemy that cannot be appeased. It would seem that a new Reagan should arise. Is Romney that man?
Reagan's emphasis was on the Soviet Union. If Romney's is on Russia, he will be making a very big mistake. Russia is not the problem. America's failure to embrace nuclear energy in the form of molten-salt nuclear reactor technology could lead it to continue with policies that cannot maintain a political consensus long enough to weather the challenge from the Middle East. Fusion technology may not arrive soon enough. Wind and Solar cannot bridge the gap. Oil production cannot compete economically with cheap oil from the Persian Gulf. Only nuclear energy has the potential to do this. But this option is continually shunned.
Romney is promising to heal the economy. Let's hope that if elected, he can come through. America can then regain its strength and truly move forward. I believe that he had better not ignore molten-salt technology, nor any other technology that may solve the energy problem. Molten-salt techology is proven. The others are potential. The path is clear, but will he take it? Obama won't.
No comments:
Post a Comment