Previous Message

The article doesn't actually directly say we've lost the capacity to fight oceanic warfare. It talks about how we've lost maritime trade. And it talks about the current peacetime situation.

What it doesn't address is any comparison of naval abilities. There is currently no other nation other than China which has any sort of global navy that rivals ours. In war, "business rules" of maritime trade go out the window. We have the capacity to seize control of maritime trade. It doesn't matter which foreign cartels control what, as long as our navy can compell them in time of war to do our bidding. That, we still retain the ability to do.

That China supplies all their shipping simply makes it all "more interesting." Presumably, if we're having a "big war," it's with China. We will then destroy China's ship yards. We will also then begin destroying China's navy. Outside of a "zone" within the first island chain, we will seize control of international shipping. China will no longer be supplying anything to anybody. All shipping capacities become "fixed" to whatever the rest of the world can supply. Our logistics and these cartels now have a reduced inventory of available ships, and limited ability to increase that. China--if our attacks go right--has almost no remaining ability. (And if our attacks go wrong, we have a nuclear exchange. Tell me how much this article means then...)

If you understand that war is about destruction, and you read this article with the mindset of how to "f" it all up, and force it to work for you, you won't despair quite as much.

Still, anything we can do during peacetime to improve our situation would obviously be great. I am personally very hopeful that we get South Korea building destroyers for us, and Finland and Canada building icebreakers.