as an accountant I find it very difficult to believe that the costs of R&D, necessary tool-up and manufacturing, distribution, etc ad nauseum would cost less than something we've already paid for and are continuing to pay for (ie. the military and the acquisitions already in place). I'm open to correction if you have hard numbers, but this sounds like a from-the-hip simplification. What's more, even if true, such an engineering effort would take decades to finish - hardly a true solution to the current situation.
Furthermore, bin Laden (and most terrorist groups) don't get their money from oil . . . they get it from supporters in the US (who usually believe they're contributing to humanitarian aid organizations), Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere; by control of the drug trade thru Pakistan and elsewhere, and in al Qaeda's case, from bin Laden's personal fortune and his web of businesses in Yemen and throughout the eastern continent of Africa, so such an infrastructure would do nothing to limit the threat of terrorism from those quarters. Part of the allure of terrorism to zealots like bin Laden is its asymmetrical nature; a small investment in $$ can cause damage that is literally millions of times larger.
I'm all for alternative fuel systems, both for 'green' reasons and for national defense reasons; it doesn't make sense to be critically dependent on such a politically volatile region of the world. But the current situation has been decades in the making, and I don't see it changing any time soon. |
