North Korea..

[braineclipse]

You mean these nut jobs that haven't started a war since the 19th century? That anyone who is reading beyond the hysterical headlines and lies of the media knows is not building the bomb?

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/03/11/top_ten_media_failures_in_the_iran_war_debate

The West has been saying that Iran is just months away from building the bomb, since 1984. 29 years later, here we are. We paint them as irrational, violent, despite the fact that they have not started a war in almost 300 years (as opposed to us in the rational West, who prefer to start a war every few years it seems).

If they were trying to build a nuke, there is nothing irrational about it either, and both American and Israeli intelligence officials have said likewise. Make a list of countries that the USA has bombed the brick out in the past 60 years. Then make a list of countries that may be considered enemies but which haven't been bombed. Now try to find the common factor amongst the countries in the first list.

I found a great quote the other day. I don't know who its from but I completely agree with the message:

“The myth of religious violence promotes a dichotomy between us in the secular West who are rational and peacemaking, and them, the hordes of violent religious fanatics in the Muslim world. Their violence is religious, and therefore irrational and divisive. Our violence, on the other hand, is rational, peacemaking, and necessary. Regrettably, we find ourselves forced to bomb them into the higher rationality.”

I see much evidence of this in peoples' day to day thoughts here and seemingly amongst our political class as well.

I'm sorry, I don't see what happened 250 years ago, or even 75 years ago as very relevant as a reasoning towards why Iran now can be trusted.

As for your quote, there's probably some truth there. I'd even accept that there's a false dichotomy being presented at least by some. Hopefully you agree that your quote seems to be at least somewhat written for humorous effect?

I happen to think that the secular democratic way of running a country is better than any other system so far tested out. Some of the absolute worst decisions made by (among others) The US were situations where they replaced democratically elected leaders with dictatorial types through military coups or similar because they didn't like who the people of some foreign nation had elected.

I do think there's an inherent conflict between secular democracies and theocracies/dictatorship though. Peaceful coexistence might be possible, with the threat of ultimate destruction if war breaks out, but I don't really see why we in the west should wish to peacefully coexist with tyrannical dictators.

I refer you to the article above for mistruths about the Iranian nuclear programme.

North Korea can state whatever it wants, it isn't going to use its nukes unless the the regime is threatened with destruction. They gain nothing from using it in an attacking sense because Un and his generals will be gone by the next day. It makes sense only as a deterrent vs the USA.

I'm not saying of course that I want any of these countries to get these weapons btw, I've made my distate for nukes clear on here multiple times in the past.

Just how bad is it that North Korea has a deterrent like that against the USA? I think it's pretty fudging awful. They already have a deterrent with Seoul right next to the border, that allows them the freedom to do pretty much as they please within their own borders. I think, internally, quite possibly the worst state humankind has ever produced is allowed to exist because they have that deterrent. That's what's making that entire situation impossible, I would rather not have that other places too.

Iran seems to be moving in a very good direction, the last thing that should happen is to allow their leaders the same deterrent so that they too can hold their own people under the gun should they feel like it down the road.

The thing that really tinkles me off, is the Countries that say its all right for you to have nukes because you agree with us, but you can not because you believe differently then us.

I really dislike this opinion.

The ideas that guide our societies resulted from millennia of philosophers, writers, scientists, priests and other great thinkers working their way towards one of the best things to ever happen to mankind (in my opinion). It wasn't a gradual increase, ideas were lost and found, persecuted and freed, resisted and ultimately spread. Most people in power resisted idea of democracy, human rights and freedom of speech, but somehow those ideas won the day.

The reason those ideas won the day was not just because they were the best. They won the day because they were supported and defended by people with weapons. The US might never have won their freedom if not for the help of the French, little as Americans like to talk about it. Military help that is, guns, cannons, soldiers. That's what's won their freedom against their tyrant. The history in Europe is of course even more complex, but what is clear is that without the military might to defend those ideas we hold so highly against fascism, nazism and communism those ideas would now be no more widespread than they were in the middle ages. No matter how noble the ideas were or how deeply we held them.

That's still the case. What is protecting our ideas isn't just the value of those ideas, but the military power we have to defend them. And by saying that the west should allow dictators and theocrats the same right to have military might as we do you're not only saying that you allow at least some risk to our right to those ideas (small as it might be), but you're willing to allow them to keep the people in those countries under those dictatorial systems. You're willing to have another North Korea, with the unimaginable human suffering that would follow, just so we don't have to be hypocrites about our nuclear weapons stance?

 

[DubaiSpur]

Iraq was developing a nuclear reactor, Osirak, at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Centre. This had been bought from France ( a research-class reactor) and was being assembled in Iraq. It was, as you probably know, bombed by the Israeli air force in 1981, who suspected it was being prepared to produce nukes. However, a whole lot of scientists and engineers have visited the (now abandoned) facility after the attack, and have issued declarations saying that producing weapons-grade plutonium at Osirak would have taken decades, not years, and that Iraqi claims of it being used for peaceful research seemed valid when that was taken into account.

So no, nuclear weapons were something Saddam probably knew he had no hope of getting. And Iraq wasn't a theocracy: Saddam had no time for religion beyond using it when it suited him to head off dissent. Saddam's political views centred around creating a pan-Arab unity to stave off the Islamic fundamentalism emerging from Iran in the wake of the Islamic revolution. He operated on tribal and ethnic divisions, not religious ones, and his regime more closely resembled an authoritarian dictatorship than it did a theocracy.

North Korea removed all references to socialism from their articles of law and their constitution in 2009, and now are likely a totalitarian dictatorship kept in line by a mad personality cult. However, they're definitely not communist.

Just putting some things out there, to contribute to this enlightening discussion.

 

[braineclipse]

Iraq was developing a nuclear reactor, Osirak, at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Centre. This had been bought from France ( a research-class reactor) and was being assembled in Iraq. It was, as you probably know, bombed by the Israeli air force in 1981, who suspected it was being prepared to produce nukes. However, a whole lot of scientists and engineers have visited the (now abandoned) facility after the attack, and have issued declarations saying that producing weapons-grade plutonium at Osirak would have taken decades, not years, and that Iraqi claims of it being used for peaceful research seemed valid when that was taken into account.

So no, nuclear weapons were something Saddam probably knew he had no hope of getting. And Iraq wasn't a theocracy: Saddam had no time for religion beyond using it when it suited him to head off dissent. Saddam's political views centred around creating a pan-Arab unity to stave off the Islamic fundamentalism emerging from Iran in the wake of the Islamic revolution. He operated on tribal and ethnic divisions, not religious ones, and his regime more closely resembled an authoritarian dictatorship than it did a theocracy.

North Korea removed all references to socialism from their articles of law and their constitution in 2009, and now are likely a totalitarian dictatorship kept in line by a mad personality cult. However, they're definitely not communist.

Just putting some things out there, to contribute to this enlightening discussion.

Cheers. I realize that my description of those states as theocratic was probably imprecise (being kind to myself), I suppose I was using the word in a much wider sense than it actually should be. For me a state with a state religion and a dictator that uses that state religion to control the population is pretty much a theocracy, but you're right of course.

As far as the original statement by Scara goes, I think you can replace theocracy with authoritarian dictatorship or totalitarian dictatorship and the statement still stands.

I wasn't aware of the changes in the North Korean constitution either, no more need to qualify them as communist in name

Edit: Were there not attempts by Saddam later to get nuclear weapons? I've heard about this and a quick google search gave some results indicating that they were building facilities up until the Kuwait invasion, but I don't know about the validity of those sources.

 

[Crawley]

Boston marathon bombs.

And you people think we are safe and wouldn't ever get attacked?

Naive in the extreme.

 

[DubaiSpur]

Braineclipse, China is far from an enlightened secular democracy, yet is part of the nuclear weapons club. Russia is one of the two major players despite quite evidently displaying a great antipathy towards allowing liberal democratic values into the country. If this logic of needing the weapons to pursue an enlightened agenda of Western value promotion holds true, then surely Russia and China must be first in line to be disarmed?

But it won't happen, of course, because they are too powerful to be disarmed. And that is the point every non-nuclear country is trying to make. This idea that somehow we are protecting our values by bombing the hell out of countries that disagree with us and using our nukes as a convenient fall-back option when things go awry is a hollow one. Iran, for all its faults, allows for the protection of religions like Christianity, Moro and (perhaps surprisingly) Judaism in its constitution. there are Jews in Iran, and an enlightened middle class who embrace Western values and ideals. Yet, they too want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. In fact, according to the Washington Institute, support for Iranian nuclear weapons development is rife among the middle classes: something like 64 percent of them want Iran to have nuclear weapons.

Why is this the case? After all, if they truly believe we in the West only want to help spread democracy and secularism (things they agree with entirely), why do they still want nuclear weapons?

Because they remember last time. They remember when the democratically elected, secular, moderate, immensely popular Mohammed Mossadegh was overthrown in an MI6-requested coup in 1953 and replaced with Fazlollah Zahedi, a boorish general, because Mossadegh had dared to nationalize the formerly British-owned oil industries in Iran. Fazlollah stood aside for the return of the American and British-backed Shah, who proceeded to hand back the oil industries to the UK and the United States, and to place Mossadegh under house arrest until his death.

They remember the West replacing democracy with tyranny because they felt it suited their interests. To them, the talk of the West needing nuclear weapons to spread 'democratic values' is an utter sham. They know the reality of political endeavor: the West needs nukes to bully the nations that don't have nukes into signing grossly unequal trade and resource treaties, with the threat of forceful retaliation if they refuse.

If Iran attains nukes, they won't be able to be bullied by Israel and the United States, plus whatever European powers still watching the situation with interest. Then, Iran can freely nationalise its own industries and develop on its own terms, without fearing an American invasion or a CIA-backed coup occurring ever again.

Same thing with Pakistan: for much of its history it was a military dictatorship, yet public support for its nuclear programme remains high because they fear outside meddling by the likes of the US and India in their internal affairs. Now that they have nuke,s India is constrained from launching the kind of ambitious land invasions that it did in 1965 and 1971, which has brought about a steady if increasingly tense relationship on the subcontinent.

Sooner or later, the West will be called out on its unequal exploitative practices, and nukes will become the most demanded weapons among even liberal democratic states, as it is the only way they can defend themselves from the otherwise overwhelming nuclear and conventional strength of the likes of NATO and the United States. This will happen regardless of whether there is a theocratic dictatorship or a democratically-elected government in charge, because it is the reality of power politics: the world is an unequal place, and nukes are the only way to make it more equal.

If you had argued for nukes from a realist political standpoint, you would have a firm case. But arguing for the prevention of nuclear proliferation because it apparently helps us 'spread democracy' is an extremely ethnocentric argument.

 

[DubaiSpur]

Boston marathon bombs.

And you people think we are safe and wouldn't ever get attacked?

Naive in the extreme.

Considering that you don't even know if it's some domestic nutjob or a foreign one, that view is naive in the exteme. And what exactly a nuclear warhead does to deter a terrorist, I don't know.

"If you blow yourself up in a crowded mall, we swear by the gods that made you we will nuke your body in retaliation."

 

[Crawley]

Considering that you don't even know if it's some domestic nutjob or a foreign one, that view is naive in the exteme. And what exactly a nuclear warhead does to deter a terrorist, I don't know.

"If you blow yourself up in a crowded mall, we swear by the gods that made you we will nuke your body in retaliation."

Not what said at all. I made the point we are never safe. That's all.

 

[Hootnow]

Not what said at all. I made the point we are never safe. That's all.

What is your point then? Considering that you have previously showed your support for our nukes in this thread, is it not then logical for us to draw you making that comment to your support that nukes or overwhelming military power will somehow help?

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

I for one am pleased that some of the European countries have nukes. I am sure most of those who grew up in the 70's and 80's will agree! Got into a fascinating argument once with a beautiful Irish girl about nukes and how she hated America because they dropped the bomb on Japan. Couldn't make her see the awful truth that the scale of that limited, compared to nukes at the time, destruction probably saved mankind from wiping itself out 20 years later. No doubt in mind at all that had those bombs not been dropped and the horror of what it entailed visualised the East and West would have eventually gone to war and used nukes. Scary scary brick. Was so glad when the wall came down, fudging BIG party! But now the threat is back and it sends shivers down my spine.

 

[Hootnow]

So you agree that nukes at least are important. Worth mentioning that the thread of a nuclear war perhaps was an important part of keeping the cold war "cold". I struggle to use the world cold as I imagine people in Vietnam for example would agree about the cold, I'm sure you get what I'm saying without me explaining any further.

Cheers for posting, I just skimmed those now, will have to look further into it later on. Instinctively I have a problem believing that the US would just bomb the hell out of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and kill another couple hundred thousand people just because they could.

I think an important point is highlighted, in a single day 100.000 people were killed by the fire bombing of Tokyo. I don't think people are any better off dying in a fire bomb raid than in a nuclear blast.

Maybe you will know better than me, but I remember reading or hearing about the death toll on Japanese forces being crushed by hardened Soviet forces coming east after having beaten the Germans. The death tolls there were higher by far from what I remember than the death tolls from both nuclear blasts. That was the world people found themselves in. I just think those nuclear blasts were a much smaller deal than it's been made out to be and that they made sense at the time. I think more people would have died had they not been used, but again, I will have to read those articles more in detail and look into it a bit further at a later time.



Iraq under Saddam Hussein, I thought it was rather accepted that he was trying to develop nuclear weapons before the invasion of Kuwait at the very least. I don't think you're going to argue that Iraq under Hussein wasn't a theocracy?

I know North Korea is supposedly some kind of atheistic communist state on paper, I don't buy that at all. Birds sang his praise when good ol' Kim was born apparently, he was some kind of superhero and is now their eternal president. Whatever their state is it isn't a state without a religion. Their religion just isn't one of the classical ones. Call it a cult of personality if you want, I think that's too weak a word.

Of course and you've touched very well on the fact that nukes indeed did keep the 'cold' war cold, for NATO and the Soviets at least. Alas, for the rest of us, as you've said, it was a very hot war indeed. Whether we were being invaded by the West or the East or whether either or both were funding separatist/ rebel groups in the 3rd world, or whether they were both working to overthrow leaders, it was unfortunately not so cold.

I think the point thought is that the Americans did the firebombing and then dropped the nuke. Britain firebombed Dresden, we didn't then ask for a couple of nukes to drop on Munich and Frankfurt, we'd already won the war by then. That is essentially the argument. We have so engrained in our psyches that the nukes were needed because otherwise the crazed Japs would have put up such fantastic resistance, hundreds of thousands of Americans and Japanese would have perished in a land invasion. In fact, the evidence seems to suggest that by 1945, the Japanese people, army and leadership knew it was defeated. They didn't need the complete incineration of 2 more cities to realise that. Some more cynical people have suggested that a) the US didn't fully comprehend the power of this new weapon, b) military people, like most military people, wanted to see their new toy in action or c) this was a show of force to who the Americans knew would likely be the next enemy, the people coming in and smashing the Japanese from the West.

Saddam was probably the most secular leader in the area. He may have been a complete and utter scumbag but he ruled through an iron fist, slaughter and dividing his people along tribal and ethnic lines. He didn't have much time for religion in politics or for religious fanatics, which is why I found the American claims before 2003 that he'd worked with Bin laden hilarious. Anyone with more than a passing knowledge of the region would know that both of them wouldn't be able to work with the other. Now, if we're expanding theocracy to include cult of personality, as you've now gone on to do, we may very well come to an agreement that this is what Saddam and the Kims have done. Of the more traditional definition though? I don't think there's any real way you can describe him as a theocrat.

 

[Hootnow]

I for one am pleased that some of the European countries have nukes. I am sure most of those who grew up in the 70's and 80's will agree! Got into a fascinating argument once with a beautiful Irish girl about nukes and how she hated America because they dropped the bomb on Japan. Couldn't make her see the awful truth that the scale of that limited, compared to nukes at the time, destruction probably saved mankind from wiping itself out 20 years later. No doubt in mind at all that had those bombs not been dropped and the horror of what it entailed visualised the East and West would have eventually gone to war and used nukes. Scary scary brick. Was so glad when the wall came down, fudging BIG party! But now the threat is back and it sends shivers down my spine.

Rookie error, should have agreed with everything she said.

 

[Baleforce]

in my experience Irish girls like a spirited discussion

 

[braineclipse]

I do enjoy being put in my place by people much more knowledgeable than myself, so I'll keep going

When was the last time the west replaced a democratically elected leader with a tyrant? I already agree that this has been one of the more misguided policies around (slight understatement). It seems to me, possibly somewhat naively, that those days are behind us at this point. I might be wrong though.

I don't think the West needs nukes to spread democracy, but the nukes are going nowhere and we're keeping them. I see no realistic way to put the cat back in the bag again and I accept that.

I just think that dictators ALSO having nukes severely restricts the possibility for a change towards democracy within that country. It allows a tyrant to hold the world hostage as we're forced to sit by and allow them to commit atrocities within their borders. China and Russia obviously can't be disarmed, but part of the point is that neither can Pakistan, or North Korea. And probably neither could Iran if they did get the bomb.

During the Libyan revolution the talk was that Gadaffi's military force was so strong that a NATO intervention was needed to help the rebelling population succeed. What if Gadaffi had access to nuclear weapons? What if NATO couldn't quite trust to push Gadaffi up against the wall fearing that he could unleash said weapons either on the west, on neighboring countries or even on the people within his own country? (avoiding the "his own people" phrasing on purpose)

Would he just be allowed to crush that rebellion and go about his business? We know of course that crushing uprisings and jailing political dissidents isn't something we could dream of stopping in China. Such is life. We equally probably can't do anything in North Korea, that's (in my opinion) way more unfortunate. Do we want more dictatorships going the way of North Korea, with the freedom to do what they want within their own borders. Or do we want more dictatorships going the way of Libya, where at least some intervention is possible should the situation call for it?

I'm not quite sure what to say about the polls you mention, I'm not entirely sure they're relevant to the points I'm trying to make. I did know the main points of the history you brought up and yes I do think the leaders in the west that made those decisions have a lot to answer for.

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

Rookie error, should have agreed with everything she said.

Her accent was quite strong, I couldn't understand a lot of what she said! And the only boom boom I got with her was a conversation about nuclear holocaust. Man I was soooooo lame back then!

 

[Craig_J]

Cameron's excuse is truly laughable. Nuclear missiles notwithstanding, I struggle to see a North Korean armored division sailing 5500 miles and staging an amphibious landing in Budleigh Salterton.

As for the nukes NK possesses, unless our interception plan is to shoot our own nukes at their incoming ones, I fail to see what Trident will do to them.

Exactly. It costs us loads and is pretty pointless having it. The only reason nations like this look for nukes is because the USA have a strong history off killing of leaders they don't like. A democratically leader in Iran was ousted by the USA (with UK involvment) because they wern't American friendly. The USA then replaced them with a King who was brutal and oppresive. Now Iran are suspicous of USA and call them enemys. Aswell as that Iran's leader states quite rightly why should be have to beg at the doors of the USA like dogs to start our nuclear programme? Why must we do this when American stations run all day and all night and we have to ask them for permission when ours is at only the beggining? This causes more tension and more desperation for these weapons. Probably because they think The World Police are going to come along and say "No you're doing it wrong. We'll show you the correct way. The American way." again.

North Korea on the other hand probably look at the CIA involvment in SOuth America when they were trying to take down Che Guvera. The US got involved, as per usual, in matters that didn't concern them. Now communist (so called communist) nations like North Korea keep their boarders closed and only let you in if they're able to monitor you at all times because they're paranoid. They probably take into account the US are the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons aswell then think "Well the US have 12,000, why can't we have just one?".

This song has never been more appropriate:

[video=youtube;IhnUgAaea4M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhnUgAaea4M[/video]

 

[braineclipse]

Of course and you've touched very well on the fact that nukes indeed did keep the 'cold' war cold, for NATO and the Soviets at least. Alas, for the rest of us, as you've said, it was a very hot war indeed. Whether we were being invaded by the West or the East or whether either or both were funding separatist/ rebel groups in the 3rd world, or whether they were both working to overthrow leaders, it was unfortunately not so cold.

I think the point thought is that the Americans did the firebombing and then dropped the nuke. Britain firebombed Dresden, we didn't then ask for a couple of nukes to drop on Munich and Frankfurt, we'd already won the war by then. That is essentially the argument. We have so engrained in our psyches that the nukes were needed because otherwise the crazed Japs would have put up such fantastic resistance, hundreds of thousands of Americans and Japanese would have perished in a land invasion. In fact, the evidence seems to suggest that by 1945, the Japanese people, army and leadership knew it was defeated. They didn't need the complete incineration of 2 more cities to realise that. Some more cynical people have suggested that a) the US didn't fully comprehend the power of this new weapon, b) military people, like most military people, wanted to see their new toy in action or c) this was a show of force to who the Americans knew would likely be the next enemy, the people coming in and smashing the Japanese from the West.

Saddam was probably the most secular leader in the area. He may have been a complete and utter scumbag but he ruled through an iron fist, slaughter and dividing his people along tribal and ethnic lines. He didn't have much time for religion in politics or for religious fanatics, which is why I found the American claims before 2003 that he'd worked with Bin laden hilarious. Anyone with more than a passing knowledge of the region would know that both of them wouldn't be able to work with the other. Now, if we're expanding theocracy to include cult of personality, as you've now gone on to do, we may very well come to an agreement that this is what Saddam and the Kims have done. Of the more traditional definition though? I don't think there's any real way you can describe him as a theocrat.

I still think the outcome of the cold war would have been a lot worse if not for the presence of nuclear weapons, but I suppose I have no real way of knowing that for sure.

I've already conceded to Dubai that I've used a too wide definition of the term theocrat above, I shouldn't have used the word in that way, but I still think the statement made by Scara is just as right with dictator instead of theocrat.

Will get back to you on the nuclear end to the war thing.

 

[DubaiSpur]

Not what said at all. I made the point we are never safe. That's all.

Fair enough.

 

[Craig_J]

I think the point thought is that the Americans did the firebombing and then dropped the nuke. Britain firebombed Dresden, we didn't then ask for a couple of nukes to drop on Munich and Frankfurt, we'd already won the war by then. That is essentially the argument. We have so engrained in our psyches that the nukes were needed because otherwise the crazed Japs would have put up such fantastic resistance, hundreds of thousands of Americans and Japanese would have perished in a land invasion. In fact, the evidence seems to suggest that by 1945, the Japanese people, army and leadership knew it was defeated. They didn't need the complete incineration of 2 more cities to realise that. Some more cynical people have suggested that a) the US didn't fully comprehend the power of this new weapon, b) military people, like most military people, wanted to see their new toy in action or c) this was a show of force to who the Americans knew would likely be the next enemy, the people coming in and smashing the Japanese from the West.

Think it was a combination of B and C. They wanted to test it out to see just how much damage it could cause, turns out quite alot. Enough to ruin the lifes of people born long after the second world war aswell. They also wanted a demonstration of power. The most sickening aspect of all though is they dropped one then they dropped another.

They already knew the powers of it. They'd done enough tests. At the first ever test witnesses say everyone was shocked at the power of it. People say some just stood in shock, unable to believe what they'd seen. Others laughed. And others burst into tears knowing what they'd made.

 

[braineclipse]

...nations like North Korea keep their boarders closed and only let you in if they're able to monitor you at all times because they're paranoid.

As they should be!

Tyrannical, mass murdering torturers who let their own people starve by the millions while they subject them to utter misery and subjugation as they destroy the economy of their country whilst threatening neighboring countries should at the very fudging least have to be paranoid. Excuse me while I play the world's smallest violin as I contemplate the misery of their paranoia.

If Kim and his compatriots were walking around sleep deprived with constant ulcers and schizophrenia from the excessive stress their paranoia is causing them it would still not even be enough to even register on the "what these bastards actually deserve" scale.

 

[Craig_J]

As they should be!

Tyrannical, mass murdering torturers who let their own people starve by the millions while they subject them to utter misery and subjugation as they destroy the economy of their country whilst threatening neighboring countries should at the very fudging least have to be paranoid. Excuse me while I play the world's smallest violin as I contemplate the misery of their paranoia.

If Kim and his compatriots were walking around sleep deprived with constant ulcers and schizophrenia from the excessive stress their paranoia is causing them it would still not even be enough to even register on the "what these bastards actually deserve" scale.

I'm not supporting them at all. Yeah they're awful. They're letting people die. They've been doing so for years. They probably are the most tyrancial and disgusting regime I've ever known in my life time.

But what good does getting them worked up do? If them having nuclear weapons is such a problem why the hell didn't people see this years ago? America go around policing the world yet they haven't even thought for a second about stepping into North Korea. Probably because they see the lack of resources and the oil companies decide it's not worth it what so ever.