> 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.
How does the US preserve its dominance? By being at war all the time? Do strategic necessities exist only during wartime?
> Since the US has no plausible enemies that threaten it in this way, it has
> no strategic necessities. It has only strategic conveniences.
How does the US retain its allies?
> 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.
How about North Korea's nukes and missiles, actual and potential? Do nukes have any strategic value? What is so special about nukes? :-)
> 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.)
And Japan?
> 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.
You are not fighting wars all the time. You can't use blockades and bombardments or the threats thereof all the time. You need a whole range of weapons and instruments appropriate to each stage on the ladder of escalation.
Ulhas