SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (46529)10/15/2010 9:46:13 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 71588
 
I didn't say the cost of the whole navy was... just the need to defend certain far away petroleum trade routes.

Which is

1 - questionable as a subsidy, just like climing potential criminal victims are subsidized by the existence of the police force is questionable.

2 - a rather small cost. Not the cost to be able to guard those routes would be small; but the cost for the ability to generally keep the sea lanes open includes the cost to do the same for petroleum routes, and would still be paid if we did not have to import oil. If anything finding oil in vast quantities on the US mainland would put some small amount of upward pressure on naval spending (not because of increased need, but because of lower pressure on budgets, combined with pre-existing concerns about a shrinking navy).
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News