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 (46911)11/5/2010 6:19:55 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 71588
 
No. Its not a matter of regions, or of regions being equally valuable. There will always be regions of more or less importance, but the funding is largely to control the sea as a whole (and to project power from the sea, but we where talking about keeping sea lanes open), and would not change much if the relative importance of a particular region or a particular commodity changes.

As I pointed out before -

the general freedom, and preferable even dominance of the seas grand strategy is not based on oil or desire for oil. If we didn't trade in oil, we would still have the same general maritime strategy and need for a large active navy. Even if oil didn't exist we would have the same grand strategy (just relying on ships that use natural gas, or coal, or nuclear power, or some other fuel or energy source).
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