Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
You guys should start bulking up your militaries. At best, the US will completely abandon you, and I really don't want to think about worst-case scenario as I live in the US.
The US has ever been a fickle bed fellow.
Already happening, keep up
I think Europe can defend itself, it's not useless most countries have some military
You write "attack you for water/oil" weird. Or did I write the quiet-part worst case out loud?
i dont get this comment, at the hypothetical best case scenario wouldnt abandoning be "better" than attacked for oil? therefore attacked for oil not being the best case scenario?
Europe has very little in the way of oil reserves. Norway has the most at 7 billion barrels. Greenland has 18. Saudi Arabia 267 billion. Venezuela 300 billion. If I was Venezuelan I'd be sweating pretty hard right now.
Venezuelan oil is “dirty” IIRC. Apparently it’s good for bunker fuel (imagine the dirtiest sludge ever used for pushing giant ships around the ocean and you’ve got a good idea of bunker fuel), but requires significantly more refining than Saudi or US crude oil. So yay for Venezuela, but also the US would rather just replace the government with the help of that three-letter agency that shall not be named and deal with someone who went to an Ivy but is “Venezuelan enough”.
Unlikely. The cost/benefit doesn't work for an assault on the EU. Most countries in the EU have to import oil and gas (Norway being a notable exception), which is why cutting off gas from Russia has been such a big deal. The cost of invading wouldn't be offset by the oil gains unless oil got really scarce. A smarter move--if we had a president that didn't give a fuck about our European allies--would be abandoning NATO, stop selling arms to EU members, and then buy oil and gas from Russia at a discount while Russia invades EU countries. (If, say, China didn't beat this entirely hypothetical US president to the punch.) As far as water goes, it would be cheaper to built massive desalination plants than it would be to move water by supertanker.
'Course, climate change is going to render most of this moot in 50 years or so.