For a bit of context, while thinking of some ideas of how to make the Solar Power Satellite program of the 1970s plausible, I figured that it would require the 1970s-era fears of the future to come true, to some extent. It was an idea born out of the energy crisis, of the dual shocks of the 1973 and 1979 oil shortages, the height of the anti-nuclear movement, and the worry that the Earth's fossil fuel supply was finite and would run out within decades. In short, the 1970s was a window in time when renewable energy seemed like the only long-term option (and SPS seemed like the only non-intermittent form of it), because the fossil fuel supply was unreliable, its price was skyrocketing, and its long-term viability was in doubt. And then the oil started flowing again, its price dropped, the energy crisis ended, and the whole thing never went anywhere. So when thinking of ways to prolong the crisis, I came across this bright idea of the time.
At the end of 1973, at the height of the oil embargo, the US was such bad straits from the oil shock, and so angered by it and its other wealthy industrialized allies being submitted to the whims of the "underpopulated, underdeveloped" nations of the Middle East that, as Defense Secretary James Schlesinger told Britain's ambassador in Washington "it might not ... be possible to rule out a more direct application of military force". Secretary of State Henry Kissinger also hinted that they were considering military action, and British Prime Minister Edward Heath was worried enough to order an intelligence estimate of US military intentions. They concluded that the US would likely intend to use two brigades to seize the oilfields in a rapid operation, with one for Saudi Arabia, one for Kuwait, and maybe a third for Abu Dhabi. The committee concluded that the Americans could make quick work of the underdeveloped and undertrained Saudi military, and that the seized oilfields would supply enough oil for it and its allies. But that's where the hard part begins; as after seizing the oil-rich regions the US would likely have to occupy them for ten years while they built up alternative energy sources, a costly operation that would likely force them to reinstate the draft (just coming out of Vietnam, you can imagine how well that would go over). And the US would almost certainly be alone in this war; the UK (as evidenced by the intelligence report) had no interest, and the Western European nations' attitudes to the US supplying Israel during the Yom Kippur War would suggest they wouldn't be either. Their only ally would likely be Iran, which would only last until the Revolution.
Either way, I don't see any way this doesn't end in, well, total disaster, at least in the longer term. And luckily in OTL, all the US did was grin and bear the high oil prices (while Saudi Arabia grew insanely rich off them). But given the relative ease of Phase 1, I also wouldn't put it past the US leadership if say, the embargo lasts longer, or things get bad enough domestically. So, what could have the consequences been if the US had decided to invade Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Abu Dhabi? Would it have indeed made the crisis worse rather than better? And what would be the results in the long term?
At the end of 1973, at the height of the oil embargo, the US was such bad straits from the oil shock, and so angered by it and its other wealthy industrialized allies being submitted to the whims of the "underpopulated, underdeveloped" nations of the Middle East that, as Defense Secretary James Schlesinger told Britain's ambassador in Washington "it might not ... be possible to rule out a more direct application of military force". Secretary of State Henry Kissinger also hinted that they were considering military action, and British Prime Minister Edward Heath was worried enough to order an intelligence estimate of US military intentions. They concluded that the US would likely intend to use two brigades to seize the oilfields in a rapid operation, with one for Saudi Arabia, one for Kuwait, and maybe a third for Abu Dhabi. The committee concluded that the Americans could make quick work of the underdeveloped and undertrained Saudi military, and that the seized oilfields would supply enough oil for it and its allies. But that's where the hard part begins; as after seizing the oil-rich regions the US would likely have to occupy them for ten years while they built up alternative energy sources, a costly operation that would likely force them to reinstate the draft (just coming out of Vietnam, you can imagine how well that would go over). And the US would almost certainly be alone in this war; the UK (as evidenced by the intelligence report) had no interest, and the Western European nations' attitudes to the US supplying Israel during the Yom Kippur War would suggest they wouldn't be either. Their only ally would likely be Iran, which would only last until the Revolution.
Either way, I don't see any way this doesn't end in, well, total disaster, at least in the longer term. And luckily in OTL, all the US did was grin and bear the high oil prices (while Saudi Arabia grew insanely rich off them). But given the relative ease of Phase 1, I also wouldn't put it past the US leadership if say, the embargo lasts longer, or things get bad enough domestically. So, what could have the consequences been if the US had decided to invade Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Abu Dhabi? Would it have indeed made the crisis worse rather than better? And what would be the results in the long term?
Last edited:
