Drop the Supersonic Aircraft Ban
wsj.com
wsj.com
If the premise of this article were true, then lifting the ban would be a major legislative priority for the airlines and likely already be lifted.
[0] https://books.google.com/books?id=7E-c6ni5MfYC&pg=PA107&lpg=...
We don't know if the cost/benefit math works out until people are able to try.
Even ignoring differences in sub/supersonic flight (i.e., being unrealistically conservative), doubling my cruise speed to mach 1.5 would've increased fuel consumption by 4x while bringing my total travel time down to around 4 hours. So it'd be (probably significantly more than) 4x the cost just to reduce my travel time by 30%. Again, that's for the "best case" of coast-to-coast travel.
How'd you manage to spend (average) only 45 minutes in the airport on each end? Even pre-TSA, I never managed to go from front door to jetway that fast.
One time as a non-passenger I went through security at BDL two or three times either because of confusion about where to meet someone or just in order to buy food on the other side. The security guards didn't seem to think this was improper.
Then again, I also remember when kids were routinely let into the cockpit, either before takeoff or while cruising.
Air travel used to be almost fun.
Ah well, it seems that those days will never return.
I still remember when I was fortunate enough to failover to a concorde when our 747 was grounded ~20 years ago and got to visit the cockpit in flight. There was a seam between two portions of the cockpit (a little less than an inch wide) that only existed when the plane was supersonic, and it closed tight when not.
Wouldn't have been able to scare a kid into thinking they could get their hand stuck in there if the plane was still on the ground ;)
Of course whether or not in-flight cockpit visits were still allowed, that particular experience wouldn't happen anymore.
I wasn't a kid, but I got to hang out in the cockpit for a good-half hour on a cross-province Air Canada flight long after it was illegal in USA airspace (1990s). The amazing thing, apart from the scenery, was that you could see dozens of other jets in various headings and altitudes.
Apparently in the 1960s to early 1970s, you could buy your ticket on the plane. (I wasn't around to have experienced that.)
However, an hour and a half to get in with TSA "at your service" feels like cutting it really close, and I'm talking about "Smurf" (SMF), not San Francisco or San Jose.
I missed a few flights doing this but pre-9/11 it was definitely possible (but not advisable) to get to a smaller airport 30-45 minutes before departure and make the flight.
On the arrival side, back in the good old days (mid to late 90's?) with no checked luggage I could get from the arrival gate to Hertz #1 club gold rental car pickup (when it was in the terminal A garage) at SJC without breaking stride - probably 5 minutes max from the aircraft door to car door.
Nowadays OAK has been expanded and the security lines are longer (and they have body scanners, which I opt out of, which also then takes longer).
I still remember worrying about how close we cut it, but he'd done it many times and knew how long it would take.
With precheck, most airports aren't much worse, other than the uncertainty of transport in. I've never had precheck take me longer than about 10 minutes in security. So as long as I'm not checking a bag, it's still pretty reasonable to arrive 45min before departure.
"Things are bad here, but the good news is it's worse everywhere else." \s
I like SFO.
Here's a map with travel times: http://www.trulia.com/local/94128/driving:1%7Ctransit:0%7Cpo...
But anyway, I was talking about the entrance.
30 minutes would barely get you from central SF to the airport ramp with a mostly empty 101.
But that's not the problem. Getting parked and a shuttle in will be at least 45 minutes, if you get a shuttle faster than normal.
Taking BART to SFO entrance: check the schedules. You'll be surprised how much of the day it doesn't run at all.
I may have always gotten lucky and when I actually plan the trip I try to go for more like 45min travel-to-airport-time. Just to be sure.
On Thanksgiving or such, the off-ramp from 101 to SFO takes about an hour. That's crazy.
Also, when flying to Sacramento recently I took the Norwegian Air trip from Gatwick to Oakland and then capitol corridor to Sacramento. Didn't even need to get on BART; the airport connector took me to the catwalk to Amtrak.
The only airport in the bay that seems hard to access is San Jose, which has less service anyway.
They kind of have to advertise the worst wait times though because if they say 1 hour non peak and 3 hours peak the times the airport or the traveler gets it wrong the airport will catch the blame.
ATL on the other hand....even with TSA pre I can take a full hour.
In fact in some contests these private guards performed 5x better than TSA employees in catching the bad guys/bad items while actually doing it lot faster.
I don't even want to think about trying to get through at a reasonable hour.
Extremely lucky (mistake on person who bought my ticket's end) but it happened.
That is true. If someone had told me about Uber 15 years ago I would have called that person mad. I never thought it was even possible to run a taxi company bypassing all the taxi regulations in place.
But having said that what really matters is the marginal value of time during coast to coast flight. At the moment it takes me on an average 10 hours to travel from SF to NY including the time spending in planning, traveling to airport, NSA bullshit etc. 4 hours is the actual flight time. If it is reduced to 2 hours I don't really benefit much. I still have to spend 8 hours.
I actually find long flights are a good time to catch up on things that don't require me to be online. (Whether work-related or not.)
There's a lot of international travel from the US:
http://travel.trade.gov/view/m-2016-O-001/index.html
Now LAX to Europe becomes easier. NYC to Asia gets much better.
NYC to London wasn't enough of a savings with the Concorde for many people. NYC to Tokyo/Shanghai/Beijing/Sydney/Singapore/Seoul/Mumbai would probably have more value, for example.
Also, LAX to London or Paris is about 10.5 hours. I'd think a market that cuts that to under 5 hours would exist.
So basically my point is this: the FAA has no jurisdiction over the vast majority of those routes.
And very crudely, I think about 20% of the great circle route is over the US and hence in the FAA's jurisdiction. They're already allowed to fly supersonic over much of Northern Canada, and the great circle comes over Hudson Bay and to North Dakota (passing near Winnipeg)—that's the only section outwith the FAA's jurisdiction where they are not already allowed to fly supersonic I believe.
Concorde demand wasn't typically driven by need; it was mostly driven by prestige.
For example, if I have a recording studio under the flight path, do I get more compensation in order to add sound-proofing?
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/preserving-sile... describes "a Natural Sounds Program .. with the aim of protecting and promoting the appreciation of park soundscapes."
> In Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, which have a major naval air station to the west and a large military air training space to the east, park officials take military commanders on a five-day "Wilderness Orientation Overflight Pack Trip" to demonstrate the effects of military jet noise on visitor experience in the parks. Before the program started in the mid-1990s, rangers reported as many as 100 prohibited "low flier" incidents involving military jets every year. Now the number of planes flying less than 3000 feet above the ground surface is a fourth to a fifth of that. Complaints are taken seriously, especially when, as has happened more than once, they're radioed in by irate military commanders riding on jet-spooked pack horses on narrow mountain trails. In that context, human cursing is generally regarded as a natural sound.
How do you charge for that?
> For example, if I have a recording studio under the flight path, do I get more compensation in order to add sound-proofing?
No, but maybe you could sell out and move somewhere without that noise, and someone who is noise-tolerant would happily take your place + the compensation on offer.
It's the same with any sort of pollution - what's the minimum I can pay someone in order to put up a insert smelly, explosive, noisy, etc. factory? Or to put in off-shore windmills which affects peoples' sea views? Or schedule airport takeoffs at 2am?
(I forgot another complication: does the payment go to the landowner or to the resident? Or both?)
Regarding "likely better than a blanket ban", a goal is to develop methods that reduce the effect of the sonic boom "to make overland flight acceptable." This is also better than a blanket ban, and doesn't require a new way to approximate impact costs and manage payments.
You can't put the cart before the horse. You have to get rid of the ban in order to make the whole thing worthwhile.
> Except for Concorde airplanes having flight time before January 1, 1980, no person may operate in the United States, a civil supersonic airplane that does not comply with Stage 2 noise limits of part 36 in effect on October 13, 1977, using applicable trade-off provisions.
Going back to an article from 1973, at http://elr.info/news-analysis/3/10067/faa-promulgates-strict... :
> The policy underlying this regulation puts the burden of establishing the environmental acceptability of supersonic civil aircraft flight on the proponent, rather than on the affected public. However, the FAA has also made available reasonable opportunity for aircraft manufacturers to prove the environmental acceptability of supersonic flight if they are able to control sonic boom research without harmful effects on the public.
The problem appears to be that airplane manufacturers cannot meet the existing noise level, so instead want the FAA to say what higher level is allowed. This places the cost and responsibility on the government rather than the manufacturers. So of course the manufacturers would like to shift that expense to someone else.
What about 1 per day? 10 per day? 100 per day? What are the limits? Who determines the limits? Who bears the burden of dealing with the pollution - sludge or noise - and how are their voices heard?
As I pointed out elsewhere, the existing prohibition does not appear to be a "blanket ban". If your supersonic plane is sufficiently quiet, I believe it is allowed to fly. The problem is that we don't know how to build planes which are that quiet. What's at issue is who pays for figuring out which higher noise levels are acceptable - industry or the government. And industry doesn't like the current government answer.
My house was in the flight path (about a mile from the airport as the plane flies; neighbor across the street? Not so lucky). Unfortunately, the airline went out of business due to the downturn in the economy (pity). So it is possible to internalize it.
[1] It was a charter air service. I was really looking forward to it. Even if it was more expensive than economy, it wasn't as expensive as business or first class. You did have to have very flexible travel schedule to get cheaper flights.
To start, the amount of time spent in airport varies highly by city and airport.
There's room to optimize that time — Global Entry / NEXUS and TSA Precheck for example.
Taking one of the first flights in the morning or last flights at night can also significantly reduce it.
Public charter / executive airports are another. One example is Ultimate Air Shuttle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Air_Shuttle).
> Ultimate Air Shuttle offers various benefits to passengers that some other airlines do not. These services include no baggage fees, no cancellation fees, and the ability to arrive at the airport 15 minutes before scheduled departures.
I'm not saying charter is available and accessible for every route, but there are lots of options out there.
Concorde used to serve a lot more than just the NYC-London/Paris route. It used to serve Bahrain, Rio de Janeiro, Dakar, Caracas, Washington DC, Miami, and Mexico City. Those faded away due to a lack of demand. (Ignoring Dallas and Singapore, as those failed due to restrictions on supersonic flight.)
I'm sure a new design could be a lot more economical. Of course, regular airliners have become a lot more economical as well, so it's a tougher bar to clear.
Concorde was more-or-less viable for BA (though not for AF).
I'm genuinly interested.
Thank you very much.
Why is that?
After fusion becomes commercially viable, and the entire world concerts, we'll still be about as far as neutron-less fusion as we are from fusion right now.
RTGs are designed to survive uncontrolled reentry. I am aware that they are much simpler devices, but we are talking about containment.
There's no way to get the public to accept that though.
A typical commercial jet engine (on a SUBSONIC aircraft) is on the order of 50MW.
Might as well try to power an ocean-going freighter with a hand-held sterling engine.
While increased speed is nice if it can be done efficiently, innovation in aviation needs to remain focused on improving efficiency.
We are afraid of possible feedback loops destabilizing ice sheets much earlier than predicted? Maybe the price should be 5x what it current is?
If emitting CO2 causes unknown massive harm, then it seems sane to figure out a CO2 neutral method to create these liquid fuels that jets require. That would seem very expensive, with current technology.
But I'd suggest putting a bunch of scientists in a room for a while to figure out the environmental impact and define some acceptable limit of yearly pollution. Then raise taxes until we're under the limit. Or something similar.
Of course, then you have a de facto regulatory body, which everyone hates, and thus a new problem.
In theory you set the tax rate to counteract the net negative externalities. It's estimating those externalities that's the source of contention (as you hint at re: feedback loops). So assign ten teams to estimate it and take the median?
Airlines have been very successful at getting special treatment by scaremongering "no more connections for you". Which is certainly a mostly empty threat, because connections will only go down by as much as demand elasticity reacts to the price difference.
There were instances of U2s being asked to change course to stay out of the way of a Concorde.
I can't answer that specific case, but in general it's pretty simple, especially if you're comparing cars and planes: when you drive yourself in a car, you're not only transporting yourself and luggage, you're also taking a 3000-pound hunk of steel. On a plane, it's just you and some bags. You can pack a bunch of people and their crap into an aluminum tube when you give them sardine-sized seats. You get big economies of scale when you do things at larger sizes. And with an airplane, you don't have to take windy, indirect routes and stop at stoplights.
With trains, it's not so clear-cut: trains are generally more efficient than road-going vehicles, because they have lower friction (steel on steel rather than rubber on asphalt), less acceleration/deceleration (no stoplights), and economies of scale (lots of people can fit into a train). One possible problem is the tracks don't go the best route, as they have to conform to both local geography and also history, and tracks are expensive to build (airplanes go directly between airports and the only infrastructure they need is the airports, nothing in between).
Google Maps is ridiculously slow where I am so I'm not going to try finding the driving time between Berlin and Munich, but I'm guessing it's around 3-4 hours? Why a plane might be cheaper (I'm taking your word for it) probably comes down to differences in regulation between airlines and trains in Germany. I agree, it shouldn't be that way; trains should generally be cheaper. Here in the US, trains are generally terrible. Amtrak is actually OK in the northeast corridor, but outside that it mostly sucks: it's very slow, and typically very expensive compared to airfare. The trains frequently don't even have WiFi (outside the NE). They're really comfortable, though, I'll give them that. The coach seats are like 1st-class seats on airlines. But there's probably a bunch of reasons for all this: airlines are largely deregulated here in the US, and there's a ton of competition driving prices down. There's only one Amtrak, with zero competition. Amtrak has to rent space on the tracks from freight companies that own the tracks, and their trains take last place on the tracks (yep, freight gets priority here over passenger rail!). And their trains are generally horribly slow, since we don't have anything resembling high-speed rail, so they're not too attractive to anyone that values their time: no one really wants to spend 3 days (not exaggerating) on a train trip that they can do in 4 hours by airplane.
The competition thing alone is probably one big reason you're seeing that different in Germany. Government-owned agencies just cannot compete against private industry in most cases. When there's no competition and it's nearly impossible to get fired, that leads to an organizational culture which is bloated, ineffective, and overly expensive. I don't know if it's this bad in Germany, but here in the US, if you work at a government agency and need to just buy an office chair, it can take almost a year. Private companies don't work that way because they'd go out of business if they did.
NASA is working on this - both the sound and the fuel use.
Truss-braced wing configuration, hybrid-electric and all-electric are among the other contenders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Qualitive_variation_of_cd...
force_of_drag = .5 * mass_density * (velocity^2) * coefficient_drag * area.
As that coefficient starts tapering off after transonic drag decreases velocity squared is there to ramp up the drag.
In practice it might be a bit more complicated.
EDIT: indeed here we can see that Concorde had lift to drag ratio of only 7.5 at Mach 2, while Boeing 747 has 17.7 at Mach 0.9 or so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift-to-drag_ratio
You really think modern aircraft manufacturers are surprised by the fuel consumption (or any other performance characteristic) of their aircraft prior to them actually being built?
"BA said a 747 cost $100,000 to fly each way across the atlantic in wages, fuel, maintenace etc, before fixed costs. At the same time Concorde was costing $120,000".
Having read in the past the various Concorde threads on pprune.org, one view was that it was killed of by Airbus who didn't want to keep on supporting it as the manufacturer so helped get rid of the certificate of airworthiness. see this url http://www.concorde-spirit-tours.com/concorde.htm for at least one view.
EDIT: Actually, ~5.4 times worse if you take into account the 1.2x difference in cost.
http://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/information/about-ba/fle...
http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/fleet/historical/b747-100....
(Well, more like the 0.01%. Aereon's proposed price is $110 million for a 12 passenger supersonic aircraft. It's only Mach 1.6, while Concorde was over Mach 2. If you have to ask about operating cost, you can't afford it.)
still, it's also "fractional" 1% anyway, 1% doesn't get you in a private plane. Evidence that we live in the time of oligarchs, they call the fast plane they want to get noise approval for BOOM
and BTW, for those thinking about it, even when you "own" it, the cost of every flight is much more than 1st class tickets.
They try to dismiss the idea of a sonic boom as a product of the imagination of a crazy environmentalist. But the sonic boom is a well documented and completely uncontroversial fact.
Then they try to set up a strawman by implying that the main concern is architectural damage and therefore if there is no architectural damage everything would be ok. But there is still the concern of health and quality of life damage to humans. Imagine if you lived by a major airport and you had to hear a sonic boom every couple of minutes.
Then the idea that modern materials and light-weighting would significantly reduce the sonic boom is rather unlikely. A passenger plane will have a limited benefit from lightweighting, because you cannot light-weight the cargo. You will probably get much quieter sonic booms if you have small business jet style planes, but it would still be there. Fighter planes are entirely too small and too expensive to be business jets and they still create quite a noticeable boom.
There has been a lot of research on how to minimize booms. It has not really resulted in anything acceptable. But, hey, if someone makes a supersonic passenger plane with a sonic boom that is too quiet to cause any issues, sure we should change the law.
But to change the law based on stary-eyed belief that the magic of lighweighting will make everything ok is just stupid.
Secondly, reading https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ap..., I have the impression that the FAA already is working towards lifting this ban. Quote (2008):
We anticipate that any future Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued by the FAA affecting the noise operating rules would propose that any future supersonic airplane produce no greater noise impact on a community than a subsonic airplane.
Given that, I expect that, if a manufacturer shows up with a supersonic plane that fits that bill, the FAA almost has to allow it to fly over the US.
> Current research is dedicated toward reducing the impact of sonic booms before they reach the ground, in an effort to make overland flight acceptable. Recent research has produced promising results for low boom intensity, and has renewed interest in developing supersonic civil aircraft that could be considered environmentally acceptable for supersonic flight over land.
I'm at the airport 30 min before departure from a small domestic airport, 1h before departure for a domestic flight from a large airport, and maybe 1.5h, max, before departure for an international flight. For none of them do I expect more than 5 minutes of security.
Unless I'm flying to the US in which case the security charade takes hours.
This is a TSA problem not a general problem with air travel.
By delay you mean standing in line, waiting for the security check? From what I hear the time in security has become worse in later years in the US, what is the reason for that? Less staff at checkpoints? More thurough checks?
The stories from the US now seem to indicate that the long waits are the rule rather than the exception which to me indicates a change from just a few years ago.
What happens is, you design an SST, figure out the noise profile, and are horrified. You pour a ton of research effort into making it quieter. The aero engine industry adopts your awesome quieting technology across the board, subsonic aircraft get much quieter, people's expectations adjust, and for all your effort, your SST is still the noisiest bird in the sky. Because you're this huge outlier, you get a lot of negative regulatory attention, which manifests in the form of flight-path and operating-hour restrictions.
You can make SSTs quieter, but they'll never be the quietest.
This isn't about sonic booms directly, but it's absolutely relevant, SSTs still have to take off and land, and you can't use engines with those giant fans on the front and hope to perform.
The technical solution, if it exists, is to come up with an engine-quieting technology that somehow _only_ works for high-thrust low-bypass SST engines. That will break you out of the loop. AFAIK, no such technology exists.
To give an example - Concorde's 3h flight time from London to New York was perfect, because there were people actually interested in going to US/UK for a day for business and coming back the same night. But Concorde wasn't very popular on longer routes, because if you were going to spend 6 hours on a plane you might as well spend 12 and fly overnight, getting some good sleep, and saving yourself a tonne of money.
As for the longer flights, the 16 hour Los Angeles->Sydney experience is hellish. Depending on the price, I would certainly shell out to get there quicker.
I can live with a cramped seat for 4 hours, plus I get an extra day at home on each end in place of travel time. And I don't end up at a hotel at 10AM waiting for my room to be ready.
That seems optimistic. East coast US to western Europe (which is the 3-4 hr scenario you mention for supersonic flight) you're cutting a get-in-late flight (or a redeye) to an SST leaving in the morning to arrive in the evening. Which isn't gaining a day.
Returning, you can already get a direct flight from Europe that leaves in the AM and arrives early PM. An SST still isn't gaining you a day.
Theoretical long haul routes over the Pacific potentially gain you more but now you're potentially sitting in seats for 8+ hours and it's pretty much a guarantee that no carrier is going to offer that sort of flight with cramped seats.
If I was a betting man I'd say the chances of it being approved for commercial airliners isn't all that great, particularly not for the purpose of extending the range of thirsty supersonic jets over open ocean routes already more safely operated by regular passenger aircraft.
I agree that it's an unlikely approval, but probably because of rules around passenger-carrying commercial aircraft engaging in formation flight period, not around the max speed of the aircraft.
FAR 91.111.c: (excerpting mine)
§91.111 Operating near other aircraft.
(c) No person may operate an aircraft, carrying passengers for hire, in formation flight.
Things like the cost and TSA don't apply to these people, they just want to get across the country and back in a single day, and still have time to check on how their minions are operating their interests outside of the NYC - DC region.
At least, that's what I would want if I could affort it :-)
That plane (a turboprop) "only" went about 300 MPH or so (on a longer trip), rather than Mach +, but to get from the Sacramento area to the east bay, you make pretty good time - about 15 to 20 minutes in the air.
I've heard them for years, with periods of daily activity, but never seen one, for by the time I hear the sonic boom they are gone from view.
I don't understand why the military is allowed to do this but nobody else.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/18/supersonic-bre...
https://www.google.dk/search?q=Drop+the+Supersonic+Aircraft+...
My experience is that these types of trips are less about business, and more about glad-handing and greasing wheels.
Those are two things which are difficult to do on Skype.
Yes, you have to pay more but at my stage in life I am willing to trade money for more time.
I'd rather pay double for a flight for a doubling in speed (business speed) than a doubling in comfort (business class.)
A 5 hour flight from NYC to Asia would be amazing!
what happened was a total stagnation in that direction due to lack of demand. they already had to charge a premium for concorde...
Wikipedia says it's simply because of economical reason it was retired: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Retirement
Not every failure is an anti-free-market conspiracy.
So, yes, economics killed the Concorde. But, it was the regulatory environment put in place 30-odd years ago that created those economic conditions.
The economic conditions were created by airlines mismanaging expectations.
But, if it were $800 vs $1200 for a 9-hour vs 4-hour flight (and all else equal), I might be tempted. That would allow a very early departure from DC and still be in Rome for lunch. Currently, the best option is usually an overnight flight, but I never sleep well on those.
The Concorde was only allowed to fly supersonic over water, making many potential flight routes are impossible. The New York to Mexico City route Required it to drop from mach 2 to mach 0.95 while flying over Florida before accelerating back up to mach 2, wasting a huge amount of fuel in the process.
Originally it wasn't even allowed to land in the US, with Congress banning it outright. It wasn't allowed into New York until a year after its introduction.
Sure, the larger issue was that it made too much noise in supersonic flight, maybe you could fix that in a newer aircraft. But with all the regulatory issues Concorde faced in it's lifetime, companies are disidentified from trying.
The whole world changes. No more wars over oil.
Almost all wars used a lot of ideology in the propaganda to motivate the soldiers and workers, but the actual reasons for starting them pretty much always come down to gaining or ensuring control over resources, or realpolitik - incite a conflict that we get some advantage in the global game, so that some strategic oil line doesn't get built, or overthrow their government so that their trade policies are the way we want.
2) Vietnam (Cold War Communism) don't see an oil attachment))
3) Korea (Cold War Communism) don't see an oil attachment))
4) I would argue WW2 Japan and Hitler was an ideology more then a grab for oil. Killing of Polish, Homosexuals, Jews and Russians was not for oil
5) WW1 - http://www.historyhome.co.uk/europe/causeww1.htm Too long to comment on this but it was certainly not about oil
I find the wars for oil in the conspiracy realm. People will say the American Revolution and Civil War was over commodities but I HIGHLY disagree i.e. French Revolution happened over the same ideology.
War fought specifically around oil (Iraq Kuwait) I fail to see other examples. http://www.businessinsider.com/nine-wars-that-were-fought-ov...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_II#Competi...
Lebensraum?
Lebensraum (German pronunciation: [ˈleːbənsˌʁaʊm] ( listen), "living space") refers to conceptions and policies of a form of settler colonialism connected with agrarianism that existed in Germany from the 1890s to the 1940s. One variant of this policy was supported by the Nazi Party and Nazi Germany.
> In 1937 Japan invaded Manchuria and China proper. Under the guise of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, with slogans as "Asia for the Asians!" Japan sought to remove the Western powers' influence in China and replace it with Japanese domination.[24][25]
The ongoing conflict in China led to a deepening conflict with the U.S., where public opinion was alarmed by events such as the Nanking Massacre and growing Japanese power. Lengthy talks were held between the U.S. and Japan. When Japan moved into the southern part of French Indochina, President Roosevelt chose to freeze all Japanese assets in the U.S. The intended consequence of this was the halt of oil shipments from the U.S. to Japan, which had supplied 80 percent of Japanese oil imports.
1) ISIS is an unforeseen by-product of Bush's Iraq war (and incompetence). 1a) Bush's Iraq war is still a bit recent for us to know the real reasons; there's charges of it being due to Saddam trading Iraqi oil for Euros instead of Dollars, which weakens US hegemony and the power of the petrodollar as the global reserve currency. Even if this wasn't the real cause, setting up a US-friendly regime in a country with significant oil resources is obviously attractive to globalists in the US. 1b) Afghanistan has no oil, but it has significant mineral resources. It also has a strategic location, which is exactly why the Soviets invaded, because they wanted to build a pipeline through it.
2) Vietnam was a proxy war about hegemony. The USA and USSR were fighting a cold war to gain more power globally. Vietnam is next door to China; the US wanted to stop the spread of USSR-friendly (and Maoist-friendly) regimes, and push for US-friendly regimes.
3) Korea was much the same as Vietnam. Also, our new ally Japan is right next door. By defeating Japan and setting up a friendly government there, we now had a strong presence in that region which we wanted to protect. By the 50s, Japan was already a significant and growing trade partner.
4) Japan and Hitler weren't ideology, they were about power and control and resources. Why do you think Hitler invaded the rest of Europe? It wasn't to exterminate people (though some people in his administration took the opportunity to do that, plus that was a convenient way to steal their wealth as Jews tended to be richer), it was to gain control of all the land and resources around them. Go read about "Lebensraum": the Germans had dreams of conquering everything around them, eliminating or enslaving all the people living there, and then colonizing those lands themselves. They thought that before long, they'd have Germans living in the Ukraine or wherever, with each family having several Slavic slaves. The Japanese wanted to take control over the Pacific Rim, just like the Chinese are doing right now to an extent (though, like Germany, Japan wanted to do it the old-fashioned way where you set up an empire by invading the other countries and occupying them and turning their occupants into slaves or people of limited rights).
5) WWI was all about resources: it was a massive land-grab by all the European powers. They all wanted to take over their neighbors and grow their borders and establish control. The US should have just stayed out of it; none of the Europeans were in the right there, except probably the small countries that got bowled over like Belgium.
The American Revolution was about power and money: the colonial aristocrats wanted more power and lower taxes for themselves, and the British government didn't want to give it up because the whole reason you have colonies in the first place is so that the mother country can exploit the resources of the colonial lands. The Civil War was over trade and resources: the agricultural resources of the South were too valuable to allow to secede. Gulf War I was over oil and hegemony: the US didn't want Saddam having too much power in that oil-rich region. The French Revolution (as I understand it) mainly was a class war: the lower classes were sick of the upper classes screwing them over (which is also about resources; in a society where the elites have too much power, they also control all the resources and wealth) so they stuck them all in the guillotine.
Wars are not about ideology; they only appear to be because the ideology is inseparably intertwined in the competing nations' leadership, and allies tend to have similar ideologies (e.g. US and Australian and UK ideology are very similar and compatible, however these nations also have historical and ethnic reasons for being allies, which also led to them having similar ideologies).
There is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Causes_of_wars
and some of those seem fairly thorough, like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_War_of_1812
But most wars don't really get this treatment.