[erkose]

I heard something related to this recently. The development of synthetic rubber meant we did not need to control regions with rubber plantation. This was mentioned in association with World War II. Another interesting point discussed was that in order to send secure communication by wire you had to control the land the wire traversed to prevent disruption of the communication. The invention of wireless communication meant that you only had to control the terminals of the communication.

[nitwit005]

It's not exactly like they had to control regions with rubber to have access to it. They could have just paid for it like we do today.

[BurningFrog]

This is also the dumb part of the theories about why the US invaded Iraq for the oil.

[bsamuels]

Until it gets seized by a rival country, at which point the only way you're getting it back is a declaration of war.

[nitwit005]

Assuming there is a single source, and that rival country is completely determined to stop you from getting any of it, instead of selling it to make money as normal?

More commonly they'd just put a tariff in place, which is likely cheaper to pay for than a war and occupation.

[erkose]

I provided context for this, WW2. The Allies were cut off from the natural rubber supply of Southeast Asia at the beginning of the war. You can read more about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_rubber

[nitwit005]

I understood the example, but speaking in generalizations at this point.

I would note that the US struggled to produce rubber in the Phillipines, so they didn't exactly get that out of the occupation: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/philippines/1926-07-...

[burlesona]

If only we had cost-effective synthetic petroleum :/

[erkose]

Optimism: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47638586