On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Eubulides wrote:
> What, if anything, has strategic value?
A strategic necessity is anything which, if seized by an enemy under a plausible scenario, could cause you to lose a war you would otherwise win.
Since the US has no plausible enemies that threaten it in this way, it has no strategic necessities. It has only strategic conveniences. Those are defined as things which are nice to have but not worth sacrificing for.
When smaller countries which might plausibly go to war with each other are considered vis a vis each other, lots of things can be considered of strategic value between them. They don't concern us.
Vis a vis the US, for most countries the war would be too short and the outcome to predetermined for oil to matter. The only country I can think of who could plausibly imagine oil as a strategic interest vis a vis the US is the one Ulhas mentioned: China. One can imagine a scenario -- a conventional war over Taiwan -- where control of oil might tip the balance. They are right to worry. (Personally this would seem to me to dictate cultivating a strong alliance with Russia.)
But as Doug points out, even if exercised, this would be a job for the US navy and air force (where we are presently uncontested because China can presently project neither over long distances). Oil tankers are easy to track, and they all have to pass through narrow -- aka "strategic" -- straits on the way to China.
Michael