WILD CARDS - The Power Surge: Energy, Opportunity, and the Battle for America's Future - page 184

war. Atomic weapons, the argument goes, have made war between
major powers unthinkable. 10 A century ago, national leaders could at
least delude themselves into foreseeing speedy and relatively painless
victory against other great powers. But their contemporary counter-
parts cannot. It is too easy for the losing side in a conl ict to launch a
dozen or two nuclear bombs against its adversary, delivering a devas-
tating blow even in defeat. h is logic of deterrence, theorists argue, is
inescapable: it is an automatic consequence of the atomic bomb and,
together with economic interdependence, has banished military conl ict
between great powers for good.
Whether people acknowledge it or not, this optimism undergirds
much thinking on all sides of today's bat les over the future of American
energy. h e logic of energy can change dramatically in war—and the
shadow of possible future conl ict, however remote, can shape thinking
in peacetime too. 11 Global energy markets could well collapse, or at least
fracture, if two major powers came to blows; this has certainly been
the pat ern for commodities trade during past wars among major pow-
ers. In that world, the geography of energy production would suddenly
become far more important. North American self-sui ciency, whether
resulting from increased production, constrained oil consumption, or
a mix of both, would become far more valuable. h is could come into
stark contrast with Chinese dependence on imports, all facilitated by
sea lanes kept open by U.S. naval power. Chinese dependence on U.S.
exports, whether of coal or natural gas, would also redound to the
American benei t.
Resurgent fears of great power conl ict might also shape current
thinking in subtler ways. Climate change might not receive as much
at ention as it currently does if the United States and China were locked
in a second Cold War, though if Cold War experience is any guide, its
importance might actually rise as the two parties fought for interna-
tional reputation. At a minimum, optimism about global cooperation
to deal with climate change would surely wane.
So, are Americans and energy analysts correct to be as sanguine as
most of them are about the possibility of future conl ict with China?
Most of the arguments being made today are the same as those made
a hundred years ago; for the same reasons, they might turn out to be