S. A. Shelley: Supposing that North America can overcome Canadian obstinacy to expanding energy and mineral production, there is another big problem (Fig. 1). All the energy and minerals must go by sea to supply all “allied” states. As noted in a prior blog (Our World of Navies: The Return of Privateers), the U.S. Navy, and all allied navies combined in their current state are too small to effectively protect those sea routes.

In naval circles it is noted that one good submarine outside the Malacca Straits could cut oil flows to China and effectively kill that economy in the matter of a few months (China and the “Malacca Dilemma”). Looking at the trade routes in Fig. 1, it can similarly be said that putting one good submarine south of Alaska, or south of Iceland, could kill the economies of Europe, Japan and Australia. Without sufficient investment in naval assets and shipping capacity, the allied nations will be vulnerable. North America will be OK for energy and most minerals, but the rest of the world will once more be dependent upon the goodwill of antagonistic states for the free flow of such materials.

It’s not just military ships or militarized drones that could cause problems; it’s the fact that the bulk of the world’s merchant fleet is now controlled by antagonists (Break China’s Grip on Shipping with the Multilateral Maritime Alliance). Instead of sinking ships, an adversary could simply reroute them at will. I applauded the administration’s plan to place a surcharge on foreign flagged vessels trading into ports  (Trump administration announces fees on Chinese ships docking at U.S. ports).  But the follow through seems to be lacking (Trump’s Plan to Revive U.S. Shipping Stumbles) with cobra effects rampant.

There is also the disconnect between the merchant marine and the US Navy. One might even characterize it as a complete destruction of a traditional and useful relationship: “A perfect storm of failed maritime policy, bureaucratic inertia, and regulatory overreach over the past decade has hollowed out our merchant marine, leaving warships without crews and supply lines in peril.” (Mariner Crisis Goes Unsolved) In times past, all the way back to the Revolutionary War and before, the bulk of naval crew came from merchant mariners. While technical professionalism is necessary for the whizz bang toys on modern naval ships, the bulk of sailing can still be handled by persons with competent sea legs.

There has also been a push to disband NOAA. I wonder why? I suspect that most bureaucrats and politicos have no understanding of the true value of NOAA. NOAA vessels are amongst the quietest (“stealthiest”) in the world and they sail continually dragging sonar in all sorts of areas mapping the sea floor. This is critical information for preparing accurate navigation charts for the US navy to use. If there are no NOAA ships, the US Navy will need to either rely upon commercial map makers or establish a new command inside the navy. Another cobra rears its head.

In order for NAEA and NAMA to be effective the sea problem will need to be fixed. It will require politicians who know that there is more to the oceans than just beach front property and places to park wind turbines: It will also require populations to understand the critical role of shipping and the need for maritime security. The world never thanks naval architects (The World Never Thanks Naval Architects), but maybe the world will eventually recognize their value.

Vive l’Alberta Libre