Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday June 06 2019, @02:16AM   Printer-friendly
from the Just-how-many-Earths-are-there? dept.

Phys.org:

The United States says it will take "unprecedented actions" to ensure the supply of strategic elements and rare earths, as China mulls possible export controls for materials that are critical to modern technology.
...
In December 2017, Trump called on the Department of Commerce and other US agencies to develop new sources of critical materials to reduce vulnerabilities to supply disruptions, especially from foreign sources.

The US report calls for improving supplies "through investment and trade with America's allies," while streamlining the issuance of permits for mining in the United States, including on federal lands.

It also lists a plan to improve mapping and data collection to promote domestic exploration.

And to think only a few short decades ago we were going to war for oil...


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 06 2019, @11:30AM (2 children)

    by khallow (3766) on Thursday June 06 2019, @11:30AM (#852172) Journal
    Why call it a war in the first place? If we're going to ask such questions, we might as well start with the basics. I can't help but notice the absence of war from the war.
  • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Thursday June 06 2019, @11:54AM (1 child)

    by PiMuNu (3823) on Thursday June 06 2019, @11:54AM (#852177)

    Fair point. GGP should have said "excercise coercive foreign policy" or some such rather than "war".

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday June 06 2019, @12:10PM

      by khallow (3766) on Thursday June 06 2019, @12:10PM (#852181) Journal

      "excercise coercive foreign policy"

      Which would have been much more accurate, particularly, since the thread started by talking about actual wars rather than metaphorical ones.

      Of course, one could come up with a less euphemistic approach, such as "US bullying" or the like and still be reasonably accurate. But calling this a "war" as of the bullets-flying, people-dying sort, when mostly it's modest economic sanctions and big mouths talking off the record, is a bit of nonsense.