by Mike Adams, NaturalNews

It’s the bubble you’ve probably never heard of: The rare earth bubble. And it’s due to pop in 2012, potentially devastating the industries of western nations that depend on these rare elements.

What industries are those? The automobile industry uses tens of thousands of tons of rare earth elements each year, and advanced military technology depends on these elements, too. Lots of “green” technologies depend on them, including wind turbines, low-energy light bulbs and hybrid car batteries. In fact, much of western civilizationdepends on rare earth elements such as terbium,lanthanum and neodymium.

So what’s the problem with these rare elements? 97 percent of the world’s supply comes from mines in China, and China is prepared to simply stop exporting these strategic elements to the rest of the world by 2012.

If that happens, the western world will be crippled by the collapse of available rare earth elements. Manufacturing of everything from computers and electronics to farm machinery will grind to a halt. Electronics will disappear from the shelves and prices for manufactured goods that depend on these rare elements will skyrocket.

These 17 rare earth elements (REE) — all of which are metals — are strategic resources upon which entire nations are built. In many ways, they are similar to rubber — a resource so valuable and important to the world that many experts call it the “fourth most important natural resource in the world,” right after water, steel and oil. Without rubber, you couldn’t drive your car to work or water your lawn. Many medical technologies would cease to work and virtually all commercial construction would grind to a halt.

Many of the strategic battles fought in World War II were fought, in fact, over control of rubber, most of which now comes through Singapore and its surrounding regions (Malaysia and Indonesia).

Global shortage of Rare Earth Elements coming…

Now, by threatening to cut off the world’s supply of rare earth elements, China appears to be attempting to monopolize this extremely important strategic resource. According to information received by The Independent, by 2012 China may cease all exports of rare earth elements, reserving them for its own economic expansion.

An article in that paper quotes REE expert Jack Lifton as saying, “A real crunch is coming. In America, Britain and elsewhere we have not yet woken up to the fact that there is an urgent need to secure the supply of rare earths from sources outside China.”

And yet virtually no one has heard of this problem! People are familiar with peak oil, global warming, ocean acidification, the national debt and the depletion of fossil water, but very few are aware of the looming crisis in rare metals… upon which much of western civilization rests.

For those who still aren’t convinced this is a big deal, consider this: Without rare earth elements, we would have no iPhones. Yeah, I know. That’s a disaster, huh?

We would have no fiber optic cables, either. No X-ray machines, no car stereos and no high-tech missile guidance systems for the military. And here’s the real kicker: No electric motors.

Demand outstrips supply

The problem with the supply of rare earth elements is that demand has skyrocketed over the last decade from 40,000 tons to 120,000 tons. Meanwhile, China has been cutting its exports. Now, it only exports about 30,000 tons a year — only one-fourth of the demand the world needs.

Read the rest at this link.

from Global Research

China’s completion of an historic natural gas pipeline with Kazakhstan bypassing Russia this week tightens the Asian behemoth’s grip on energy resources needed to fuel a burgeoning economy, a desire also forcing it on a quest for oil and gas wealth in other corners of the globe.

By Fawzia Sheikh

China is not alone in this scramble for energy security. Hungry for oil and gas, world powers like Russia and the United States are also relying on different strategies to grab resource treasures but their efforts have raised questions about conflicts down the road.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration describes China as the second largest energy consumer behind the United States . Taking advantage of the world’s financial crisis, the Asian powerhouse has tapped currency reserves to invest in both Russia and Central Asia , helping to construct power plants and other domestic infrastructure in return for long-term oil and gas supplies, said Ben Montalbano, a senior research analyst at the Washington-based Energy Policy Research Foundation.

Lacking energy reserves, China has been “working hard to lock in” investments in Africa, Central Asia and Venezuela , Montalbano told OilPrice.com. The country has also sought natural gas to satisfy increasing consumption and built many liquefied natural gas receiving terminals over the last year, he added.

“Cut off from African natural resources . . . China ’s growth stops,” warned Peter Pham, director of the Africa Project at the New York-based National Committee on American Foreign Policy and an associate professor at James Madison University in Harrisonburg , Virginia .

This intensive bid for energy, however, has caused friction with the world community. Under an investment strategy in Africa, China “wins over very easily governing elites but doesn’t necessarily win over the populace,” Pham charged.

Chinese state-owned companies tend not to invest in exploration but prefer to offer “inducements,” he said. China’s offer of multibillion-dollar credit facilities to Angola was pivotal for the African nation to get “off the hook” from negotiating with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to meet “serious reform and certain conditions” before the organizations granted such facilities, he argued. China then bought stakes from the Angolan state oil company, he said.

China, moreover, has helped the Khartoum government to evade United Nations sanctions by assisting in the building of at least three weapons factories in Sudan , he said.

Not to be outdone, Russia has returned to Africa in “considerable force” pursuing natural resources in part to recover its “great power status,” said Pham. Russian firms are trying to “lock in partnerships” with resource producers to form, for example, the “stream of a natural gas OPEC,” he said.

Russia holds the world’s largest natural gas reserves and the eighth largest oil reserves, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Next year, its federal budget will be nearly 50 percent derived from oil and gas exports, emphasizing a reliance on gas exports to “feed the budget,” Montalbano of the Energy Policy Research Foundation told OilPrice.com. To some extent, China and Russia have worked together in the oil and gas domain. Earlier this year, China announced a $25-billion loan to Russian firms in return for a 20-year supply of crude oil.

Russia is not the “behemoth of financial reserves” it was two years ago and has a “fairly weak” banking system and industry, Montalbano maintained. While the country is discussing certain projects with Iran and potentially with Iraq , it is mainly concerned with opening up huge Arctic gas fields because its existing fields are declining, he noted.

Russia and other northern countries have increasingly turned to the melting Arctic but the region is “still up for delineation,” said Boyko Nitzov, director of the Eurasia Energy Center at the Atlantic Council in Washington . “The Arctic is still fairly off limits for large-scale production of oil and gas” and difficult to access especially during the winter, Nitzov explained.

For American oil companies, an over-reliance on the Middle East for energy needs has shifted its attention to Africa, a major energy supplier over the last several years edging out the Persian Gulf in energy imports to the United States , Pham explained. U.S. firms tend to forge production-sharing agreements or explore resource development, but lack carte blanche in their pursuit of oil riches in places like Africa due to U.S. government sanctions and public pressure, he said. This puts the United States at “a slight disadvantage” relative to Russia and China , he added.

Competition for energy assets will probably not lead to open conflict but rather to increasing political tension, predicted Africa expert Pham. Leading African organizations, Europe and the United States never recognized Guinea ’s military coup last year, which led to a subsequent massacre of opposition members. Yet China signed a deal with the military junta, risking a perception as a “rogue operator in the single-minded pursuit of resources,” he warned.

Although Russia and China, meanwhile, have both benefited from joint oil and gas investments, making conflict doubtful in the forseeable future, “10, 20 years down the road, who knows,” Montalbano added.

Fawzia Sheikh of OilPrice.com who focus on Fossil Fuels, Alternative Energy, Metals, and Geopolitics. To find out more visit their website at: http://www.oilprice.com

Hat Tip to Dprogram

from Genesis Communications Network

In a recent stunning disclosure, the Department of Homeland Security admitted that the US power infrastructure was wide open to cyber terrorism. (1)

This admission confirms what many observers have long believed, that even foreign governments and groups hostile to the United States realize just how fragile and antiquated our electric grid is. In fact, much of the recent data was made public by a Chinese researcher who relied on unclassified information available to the public to show how cyber-terrorists could sabotage the grid.

The researcher, Mr. Wang and colleagues at the Dalian University of Technology in China, showed how cyber terrorists could access a low-priority network within regional or national networks and force a ‘cascading failure’, or a domino effect, causing one network after another to overload and eventually collapse.

This type of cascading failure is precisely what happened in Brazil last week, when heavy rains and wind brought down power plants, which led to an overload on the remaining system and failures which left 60 million people in the dark. This same failure is commonly believed to be the cause of the Northeast Blackout of 2003, when millions of Americans on the East Coast and the Midwest were left in total dark for hours, and in some cases, days.

Most reporters believe neither the 2003 blackout in the US or the most recent outage in Brazil were directly related to terrorism, but Mr. Wang’s report and that by others, including the Wall Street Journal, have revealed for the first time that hackers from China and Russia have already breached the electric grid and may have left behind ‘Trojan horses’, programs which act like computer viruses and could remain dormant, until activated and attacking the system.

This type of attack has already been used in Australia where more than 200,000 gallons of sewage were released into city streets.

The Obama administration believes the solution is $200 million of more funding, but skeptics claim the problem is far greater, and cite the fact that much of our national electric grid uses hardware that is more than 60 years old and could just as easily be brought down with primitive explosives.

Other experts have indicated that threats to the grid go far beyond what a few terrorists might accomplish. Former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich pointed out in a recent speech that a nuclear weapon detonated in the atmosphere above the US could act as an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) device, destroying the electrical circuitry that powers every computer in the city. He cites the ‘Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack’ from April 2008.

Readers already know that natural disasters can wreak havoc on our relatively fragile infrastructure, as was the case in New Orleans after Katrina, after the Blizzard of 2006 that dumped 26 inches on New York City, and after floods in north Georgia in September of 2009.

Patriots realize they can’t rely on the government to help them, and those who wait for the government to turn the power back on may sit in the dark for days or longer. In some recent cases of local weather phenomenon it takes weeks before all the power facilities are back on line and lines are connected.

In response to the growing threat, many citizens are turning to alternatives, such as the one offered by an Illinois-based company that sells a solar powered generator. Bill Heid, the CEO of MySolarPowerBackup.com, explained how the solar power generator works. “The solar powered generator harnesses free energy from the sun, stores it and then delivers it cleanly and quietly whenever you need it.”

Unlike traditional gasoline powered generators, the solar powered generator uses entirely free energy from the sun, and emits no fumes and makes no noise. “If you’ve ever used a gas-powered generator, you know how loud they are and how much they smell. That’s hardly a practical solution in a residential situation.”

The solar powered generator has another advantage; it relies on the unlimited, free, and clean power of the sun. This may appeal to many survivalists whose plans rely on traditional gas or diesel powered generators; after all, the long-term availability of fossil fuels in the event of a terrorist attack or natural disaster could be in serious jeopardy. If the electric grid is down for any reason, the pumps at gas stations won’t work and if there is any serious disruption to the electric grid, the entire ‘just in time’ inventory system will fail altogether.

Experts have observed the problems facing the US power grid are likely to remain with us for the foreseeable future. The aging infrastructure, the radical left’s opposition to nuclear power, a growing population and increased electric consumption are driving demand, while fossil fuel prices continue to skyrocket.

Author Armory Loins makes the case in his book, “Brittle Power: Energy Strategy for National Security” (2), that our energy infrastructure is even more susceptible to disruption, by accident or through malice than even imported oil.

Patriots who have established emergency preparedness or survival plans and are counting on their traditional generators may find themselves with an expensive piece of equipment that does nothing but take up room. Bill Heid explains, “A gas powered generator may run out of fuel in as little as a few hours. If you’ve planned ahead maybe you’ve stored extra fuel, and if you’ve taken precautions to prevent it from spoiling, maybe that will buy you a few extra days, but then what? What will your family do when there is no more gasoline?”

It is this growing frequency of blackouts, such as those in Brazil this week, which has driven many consumers to prepare for the worst, while praying that day never comes. Many others are motivated by a desire for true independence, recognizing that without electricity; even the best-prepared family will suffer many hardships that could be avoided.

The rather minor glitch that led to the blackout in the northeast in 2003 disrupted water service, communication, transportation and even contributed to the death of more than a dozen people. Some consumers were without power for days. A few citizens remained calm and confident in their homes, despite the chaos outside, because of their preparations. Last week, some localized wind and rain in Brazil left two countries paralyzed and millions without power. The solutions are complex, costly, and not likely to be solved by governments any time soon.

As Bill Heid of MySolarBackup.com says, “Having a solar powered generator is like having a secret power plant hidden in your home…the unit is portable, easy to setup, and will power your house with an endless supply of electricity for years to come.”

1. “US Reviewing Cyber Threat to Power Grid”, InternetNews.com,
   http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3839241
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittle_Power

by James Dunnigan

American intelligence officials have confirmed what has long been suspected, that the new Chinese J-10 fighter was built using Israeli technology. Russian engineers also admitted that the J-10 had such technology. The J10 looks something like the American F-16, and weighs about the same (19 tons). Like the F-16 the J10 has only one engine. It’s no accident that the J10 resembles the F-16, because Israel apparently sold them technology for their Lavi jet fighter. Israel had abandoned the Lavi project, because of the high cost and availability of cheaper alternatives (buying F-16s and F-15s from the United States.) But the Lavi was meant to be a super F-16, and incorporated a lot of design ideas from the F-16 (which the Israelis were very familiar with, as they used them, and had developed new components for them.) The Chinese denied any Israeli contribution, but Russian engineers say that China had one of the Lavi prototypes. . Pakistan is believed to have provided the Chinese with one of their F-16s for examination. There does appear to be a lot of F-16 technology in the J-10.

In the end, the J10 did not perform all that well in air combat, so the Chinese have been reconfiguring some of them as a fighter-bomber (the J-10C). This version can carry over four tons of bombs and missiles and has been equipped with a fire control system for delivering missiles and smart bombs. The Chinese designed targeting pod is similar to the Israeli Litening, and they were showing it off as early as 1998. American warplanes use a later version of the Litening. The J10C will have a weapons officer to concentrate on hitting things on the ground. China already has over 90 J10s in service, and Pakistan has some on order.

by Robert K. Wilcox

In the late 1960s, US flyers in Vietnam realized a tragic mistake. Their planners had erred. The dogfight weapons and tactics devised for them had serious problems. Aviators were dying and becoming prisoners of war as a result. In a larger war, control of the skies might have been lost, which would be a national disaster. Today, the decision about America’s newest front-line fighter, the F-22 Raptor, threatens to cause a similar tragedy. We could again lose control of the skies which is a must for victory.

The decision also bears on the heart of the nation’s current economic crises. Just what should taxpayer dollars be used for? A transfer of wealth or the nation’s defense?

Here’s what happened in Vietnam:

Following the Korean War, with air to air missile technology advancing, military experts predicted close-in dogfighting was dead. Adversaries wouldn’t get near enough for turning fights. They’d be shooting missiles at each other from long distances – “beyond visual range” or “BVR”. The air force and navy eliminated dogfight training. The navy even dropped guns, a close-in weapon, from its newest fighter, the F-4 Phantom. But once the war commenced, the folly of such decisions became obvious.

Missiles didn’t work as advertised. Real-time battle revealed flaws in their designs. Crews weren’t trained well enough in their use. Worst, pilots realized they had to get close to determine if the target was friend or foe. To eyeball their target they were forced into a close-in turning fight where missiles, needing certain distances to track, were often out of envelope. In that situation, guns were required.

As a result, the US started losing planes and pilots to simpler, Russian-built Vietnamese MiGs which were good little dogfighters. Vietnam, whose air force was small, didn’t present a major threat. But what if Russia declared war? The Russians had hordes of MiGs. The famous navy “Topgun” school was founded as a secret remedy. Read my book “Scream of Eagles” for the full story. Dogfighting skills had to be relearned, missiles and tactics sharpened. Once up to speed, US pilots again ruled the skies and have done so since.

But now it looks like a similar error is brewing. The F-22 is our latest and best fighter – a new generation plane needed to match some of the startlingly good fighters being fielded by our potential enemies. Our current frontline fighters, the F-15 Eagle, F-16 Viper, and F/A-18 Hornet, are old and vulnerable to the new enemy machines, especially MiGs and Sukois being produced in Russia and supplied to nations like China and North Korea. China also has its own new fighter, the J-10, comparable to our aging fleet. In practice fights the Raptor has slaughtered all opposition. But it’s expensive and being eyed for cutting by the new Obama administration. In addition, war planners are again predicting dogfighting is a thing of the past. Future wars will be guerilla type, like we’ve had largely in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ground troops, precision bombs and robot planes will be adequate, is the thinking – but only if we rule the skies.

In almost every war, we’ve entered unprepared. We tend to dismantle what we’ve learned, thinking peace will now prevail. And then jarringly – after a surprise attack or brazen aggression requiring response – we have to relearn again. Now, because we’ve had such mastery of the skies for so long, we’re again taking things for granted. Our emphasis has been on terrorism. Big land and sea battles have receded in our memory.

But the world is a volatile place. There are potential enemy nations with massive, conventional armies. China is one. If we have to fight them we need control of the skies. Only fighters can assure that. Otherwise precision bombers will be shot down. Land forces will be slaughtered. Even in Iraq and Afghanistan, the ability to call in an air strike often has been the difference between winning or losing, surviving or dying. That wouldn’t be the case if we didn’t own the skies. In today’s world, only the Raptor promises that.

There’s a truism amongst fighter pilots: a better fighter pilot in a lesser plane will always beat a lesser one in a better plane. It honors talent and training which US pilots thrive on. But fighter planes have advanced so much since the Eagle, Viper and Hornet appeared decades ago that even the best pilots in the aging warbirds the administration wants to rely on might have trouble with an enemy’s new or souped-up machine. Only continuing production of the Raptor assures that the truism remains. It is stealthier, faster, more agile and deadlier than anything else in the sky.

Yet the administration, to save money, is moving to cut the fighter’s production as a way to have more taxpayer money to pay for it’s record breaking socialist agenda, including corporate bailouts for bad business decisions, DMV-style health care and free broadband connections for all, and mortgage rescue payments for those who got in over their heads but not those who were responsible with their debt. Isn’t the first duty of government – and some would argue almost the only – defense of the nation? Even if you agree with the socialist agenda, what good does it do if our enemies can defeat us on the battlefield?

©2009 Robert K. Wilcox