Thought Experiment: Warfare in a warm, energy-starved world

Continuing the theme of "ultra-heavy Sunday", I'm considering a grim possible future outcome of the energy crisis. This, I admit, is inspired by the Discovery Channel special on global energy consumption: Powering the Future. This is going to be a lazy, "for-fun" analysis - don't expect numbers or a lot of research.

Imagine a world where energy costs have become a high, and possibly primary, cost of input. Imagine further that the economic and environmental stresses have led to shooting wars over remaining energy resources in the Middle East, the Arctic Ocean, the East China Sea, and the Niger delta. The conflict has also made deployment of a number of large-scale solar power arrays (photovoltaic or concentrated solar) and wind farms prohibitive, as their geographic and technical requirements mean they are particularly vulnerable to attack.



So, in this scenario, the primary strategic goals of the belligerents is to eliminate the energy-producing capabilities of their opponents. Also, assume that the Arctic ice cap has melted, opening up the Northwest passage, as well as changing the boundaries for littoral warfare across the globe.

Under such a situation, how would munitions and combat systems look? With power at such a premium, which technologies and weapons would be more favored, and which prohibitive? Would some high-energy technologies survive in a niche fashion because of its efficacy in wreaking even more damage to an opposing energy grid? (I was going to exclude cyberwarfare, but its energy requirements for conflict between two large economies might make it prohibitive except as a deterrent.)

Some conjectures:

(1) Submarine warfare will become more important. Detection systems to prevent short-range strikes using short-range rockets would be incredibly energy intensive.

(2) Space-based systems could become practically abandoned. In addition to vulnerability to a nuclear detonation in the Van Allen belts, the energy required to launch and maintain the systems might cause some belligerents to refocus their efforts on platforms that provide regional situational awareness and more energy-effective destructive capacity. (No "Rods from God" or "death rays".)

(3) Kinetic and small-scale chemical explosives will remain the weapons of choice. The problems associated with energy consumption in metallurgy to produce the kinetic devices will be less than the requirements for armoring against such attacks. Depleted uranium shells will be widely used. Bunkers will become popular, and efforts may be made to move certain power generating facilities deep underground.

(4) Nuclear power will nearly die out, then return slowly. Most existing facilities are highly exposed and positioned on peninsulas or islands on rivers. However, subterranean nuclear facilities will be constructed, provided that there remains effective water delivery and removal systems. (This may favor nations with geography that facilitates subterranean aqueducts.)

(5) Electronic warfare weapons will practically die out. Energy-intensive detection systems would be prohibitive anyway. A nuclear blast doesn't count, since most of the damage will be thermal and mechanical anyway.

(6) Democracies will not survive in their current form. Our current form of democracy has characteristics of periodic engagement separated by periods of self-distraction, greatly facilitated by devices that utilize increasing amounts of energy. With less energy for these electronic "bread and circuses", society will undergo a fundamental shift. Either mass riots, or fascist institutions and ideology, will undermine democratic foundations. This will no doubt lead to a more protracted war, as well as increased probability of conflict between historic allies and countries with shared traditions of democracy.