I got to this and decided it wasn’t worth any effort to read further.
“Imagine if a few powerful states built an “Iron Dome” over the world’s oceans — a vast network of armed naval barriers designed to control the seas and intercept vessels deemed a threat. “
In the 19th century it was called the Royal Navy, and for much of the 20th it was called the United States Navy. They insured free passage and free trade for all nations, while suppressing piracy and (in the case of the RN) slavery.
That’s true; though the U.S. came to the anti-slavery patrol work with a lot more reluctance, and much less force structure (or local bases). I think the amount of actual interdiction done off West Africa was about 95% the work of the Royal Navy.
The British Empire gets a lot of heat these days; but this must always be remembered as one of its great glories, long after the stones of Westminster have crumbled to dust.
This reads like whistling in the dark. Other nations are developing capabilities so we shouldn’t join the race. Sounds like advocating going into the rough part of town unarmed to me.
Their concern seems very selective. Or merely misinformed. As though China and Russia have not been actively pursuing space-based weapons for decades. But of course they think Trump is more dangerous than Xi or Putin.
To them he is. The whole Ploughshares thing has been a Western-disarmament-only commie propaganda effort by Western fifth-columnists and fellow travelers since the early Cold War days. The intended beneficiary then was the Soviet Union but the CCP has long since picked up the franchise.
As Messrs Ortega and Ctrot35 correctly note the “freedom of the seas” idea, as well as its implementation have been the relatively recent project of the overwhelmingly powerful Western navies, particularly the USN since WW2.
The Ploughsharians are correct that powerful navies have enforced blockades in times past. But, up until the recent moves of this sort by the PRC in the South and East China Seas, these were all instances of hemming in aggressor nations. The Brits blockaded Napoleon and the Spanish back in the day and the Kaiser and Hitler more recently. The USN blockaded the Confederacy back in the day, the Japanese during WW2 and, more recently, the Russians anent Cuba in late 1962. We manifestly still have the wherewithal to blockade the PRC nautically should it be so foolish as to provoke us militarily.
The Ploughsharians, as has been ever their historical wont, seem concerned that the US is about to acquire the power to also hem in the aggressive PRC in space as well as on Earth. They are correct about what is afoot, but, as with the seas, space blockade will be a measure taken only as necessary to counter unprovoked aggression. As during the Cold War anent nuclear weapons, the Ploughsharians seem fated to fail in their efforts to make the world safe for Marxist aggression.
I got to this and decided it wasn’t worth any effort to read further.
“Imagine if a few powerful states built an “Iron Dome” over the world’s oceans — a vast network of armed naval barriers designed to control the seas and intercept vessels deemed a threat. “
In the 19th century it was called the Royal Navy, and for much of the 20th it was called the United States Navy. They insured free passage and free trade for all nations, while suppressing piracy and (in the case of the RN) slavery.
“…. and (in the case of the RN) slavery.”
No need to make the exception, the US Navy was deeply involved in anti slavery patrols as early as 1808.
That’s true; though the U.S. came to the anti-slavery patrol work with a lot more reluctance, and much less force structure (or local bases). I think the amount of actual interdiction done off West Africa was about 95% the work of the Royal Navy.
The British Empire gets a lot of heat these days; but this must always be remembered as one of its great glories, long after the stones of Westminster have crumbled to dust.
“The lessons of history are clear: when weapons are used to control access, many actors no longer have any access at all.”
Yes.
This reads like whistling in the dark. Other nations are developing capabilities so we shouldn’t join the race. Sounds like advocating going into the rough part of town unarmed to me.
I suspect they receive funding from the Chicoms. Leftist agitprop.
Their concern seems very selective. Or merely misinformed. As though China and Russia have not been actively pursuing space-based weapons for decades. But of course they think Trump is more dangerous than Xi or Putin.
To them he is. The whole Ploughshares thing has been a Western-disarmament-only commie propaganda effort by Western fifth-columnists and fellow travelers since the early Cold War days. The intended beneficiary then was the Soviet Union but the CCP has long since picked up the franchise.
As Messrs Ortega and Ctrot35 correctly note the “freedom of the seas” idea, as well as its implementation have been the relatively recent project of the overwhelmingly powerful Western navies, particularly the USN since WW2.
The Ploughsharians are correct that powerful navies have enforced blockades in times past. But, up until the recent moves of this sort by the PRC in the South and East China Seas, these were all instances of hemming in aggressor nations. The Brits blockaded Napoleon and the Spanish back in the day and the Kaiser and Hitler more recently. The USN blockaded the Confederacy back in the day, the Japanese during WW2 and, more recently, the Russians anent Cuba in late 1962. We manifestly still have the wherewithal to blockade the PRC nautically should it be so foolish as to provoke us militarily.
The Ploughsharians, as has been ever their historical wont, seem concerned that the US is about to acquire the power to also hem in the aggressive PRC in space as well as on Earth. They are correct about what is afoot, but, as with the seas, space blockade will be a measure taken only as necessary to counter unprovoked aggression. As during the Cold War anent nuclear weapons, the Ploughsharians seem fated to fail in their efforts to make the world safe for Marxist aggression.