Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

$1 Trillion In Minerals Found In Afghanistan

Posted by timothy on from the troops-home-by-christmas dept.

clustro writes "American geologists working with the Pentagon have discovered deposits of iron, copper, cobalt, gold, and lithium of incredible bounty, amounting to nearly $1 trillion. In fact, the lithium deposits are so vast, an internal Pentagon memo has stated that Afghanistan could become the 'Saudi Arabia of lithium.' The wealth of the deposits completely flattens the current GDP of Afghanistan, estimated at about $12 billion. Mining would completely transform the economy of Afghanistan, which presently is propped up by the opium trade and foreign aid. However, it could take decades for extraction to reach its full potential due to the war, the lack of heavy industry in the country, and a corrupt national government."

12 of 688 comments (clear)

  1. That's Great But... by sonicmerlin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This basically means we're staying in Afghanistan indefinitely. Even worse, in the end the only ones who will benefit are the corporations. The taxpayers and the government will never see any of that money.

    1. Re:That's Great But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This basically means we're staying in Afghanistan indefinitely. Even worse, in the end the only ones who will benefit are the corporations. The taxpayers and the government will never see any of that money.

      Who do you think works for the corporations? Answer: The taxpayers.

      Also, do you think mining is going to be a nonprofit organization? They'll pay taxes to the government.

      This is great news because this could help wipe out Afghanistan's poverty, the actual biggest obstacle to a functioning government.

    2. Re:That's Great But... by Alain+Williams · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who do you think works for the corporations? Answer: The taxpayers.

      Yes, but which taxpayers will benefit: Afghani or USA ones ?

      The wealth should be for the Afghanis, not the western powers who will now try to put in ''development teams'' -- who, in reality, will try to get as much of the profits into western coffers.

    3. Re:That's Great But... by pmontra · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who do you think works for the corporations? Answer: The taxpayers.

      My understanding is that US citizens must pay taxes in the USA even if they work abroad, but that's not the case for every other nationalities. So part of these salaries will go to the USA and part not.

      Also, do you think mining is going to be a nonprofit organization? They'll pay taxes to the government.

      Of which country? Corporations have proven to be very good at paying taxes where they cost them less money. Check this for an example.

      This is great news because this could help wipe out Afghanistan's poverty, the actual biggest obstacle to a functioning government.

      That's exactly what happened everywhere oil or minerals have been discovered around the world. Middle East currently enjoys highest standard of living than the rest of the world thanks to half a century of massive oil extraction. Oh wait...

    4. Re:That's Great But... by couchslug · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Afghanis should get rich, but the wealth extraction requires expertise they don't have (killing each other has been more fun down the centuries).

      Expect leases to go up for bid as in Iraq. This is probably for the best, as competing major nations can buy in rather than fight over the nasty little place.

      Absent international intervention, what we know would happen is that the Taliban would take over and we'd have "rich Taliban". Money wouldn't turn these people into secular freethinkers overnight, they'd just be rich peasants.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    5. Re:That's Great But... by f3rret · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We used to be 'rich peasants' too, we used to be fundamentalists too (Recall the Catholic church in the dark ages and later on various forms of cultural fundamentalism), then we got rich by trade and various forms of mineral wealth.

      Guess what happened then, we turned into a stable democratic society. It stands to reason that any society below a certain wealth/developmental level will tend towards fundamentalism of various kinds and as wealth and developmental level increase in society freedoms starts to emerge.

      It has always bothered me that we in the developed world seem to have this idea that we can 'fix' the world, we seem to have this idea that we can just swoop in to a country which has a culture and history which is radically different from ours and impose our cultural values of 'freedom' on them.
      We used to be brutal and fundamentalist here in the western world and no-one came here to tell us how to live, instead we killed each other and did any number of horrible things and then eventually got tired of doing those things and settled down into what we known as the modern world.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    6. Re:That's Great But... by talcite · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This development may actually be the worst thing possible for the people of Afghanistan.

      The discovery of oil or abundant mineral wealth in many African states has caused severe corruption, wars, and generally speaking, bad times for those citizens. Specifically, Nigeria -> oil -> widespread government corruption and little development of general population. Congo -> diamonds -> civil war that's lasted for decades.

      If those states are any hint of what happens when lots of valuables are discovered in a weakly governed state, then there's going to be trouble in Afghanistan.

    7. Re:That's Great But... by Shin-LaC · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Guess what happened then, we turned into a stable democratic society. It stands to reason that any society below a certain wealth/developmental level will tend towards fundamentalism of various kinds and as wealth and developmental level increase in society freedoms starts to emerge.

      That was Clinton's big idea back when he promoted China's entry into WTO, wasn't it? But what actually happened is that they just got rich, yet they are not any more democratic than before. I think they did get more nationalistic, though, so that's something.

    8. Re:That's Great But... by C0L0PH0N · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "We used to be 'rich peasants' too, we used to be fundamentalists too (Recall the Catholic church in the dark ages and later on various forms of cultural fundamentalism), then we got rich by trade and various forms of mineral wealth.

      Guess what happened then, we turned into a stable democratic society. It stands to reason that any society below a certain wealth/developmental level will tend towards fundamentalism of various kinds and as wealth and developmental level increase in society freedoms starts to emerge."

      You are forgetting Saudi Arabia, made an incredibly wealthy country by any standard due to its recently found oil minerals, yet one of the most repressive fundamentalist regimes on the planet, source of the 9/11 terrorists, and source of the extreme Wahabi sect of Islam which promotes Sharia law in Western countries including the US, and which with Saudi Arabia's wealth, is being paid for world wide. Another Saudi Arabia, under the Taliban, would be frightening.

    9. Re:That's Great But... by Rich0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps it is possible that the following statements can both be true at the same time:

      1. The Chinese are governed by a totalitarian state that oppresses individual freedom and is corrupt, and this isn't right.

      2. The US Government is losing its democratic ideals and suffers from corruption, and this also isn't right.

      This isn't a who-is-better-us-or-them contest. The fact that the US needs reform doesn't mean that China does not.

    10. Re:That's Great But... by Myopic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The UK is "still paying off" debt from WWII, and in fact still has some debts on the books from before the Napoleonic wars.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4757181.stm

      Why? Because despite your not understanding it, the smart people who run the UK government know that it is better to roll over that debt than to pay it off. I won't explain it to you; get an economics textbook.

      So saying that debt will not be paid off in our lifetime is insufficient cause for alarm. I don't know how long your threshold is for when things aren't "fine", but if things can be projected out for two hundred years, I think it's reasonable to say that things are "fine". There MAY BE OTHER very good reasons to be concerned, but you didn't list any of them.

  2. They're never was anyway by Viol8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Afghanistan isn't really a proper country. Its a load of seperate tribal areas with a border drawn around then that really represents where the surrounding countries end rather than where afghanistan starts. Is effectively ungovernable and has been throughout recorded history. The tribes come together against any outside aggressors but as soon as they're gone they turn in on themselves and the inter tribal conflicts start again. I don't expect this to change anytime soon.