Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Please Join Ricochet So We Can Properly Triage the SLOC on a Budget
As you know, we have to get you to join. Here’s your coupon code. Add the word JOIN, 30 days free. Now, let’s figure out how to triage on the sea lanes. Once you join, you can vote for your favorite chokepoints. I figure we can make do with some combination of the following, but we’ll never manage to keep them all. (I’m not nominating any fancy new chokepoints–not sold on the Mozambique Channel, not yet– just the old traditional favorites. Members may nominate their own.)
Strait of Malacca
Strait of Hormuz
Bab el-Mandeb
Panama Canal
Suez Canal
Turkish Straits
Danish Straits
Looks to me like things aren’t going so great with the Bab el-Mandeb. But I figure we can make do with four out of seven. I have the traditional aversion to the northern sea route, but maybe I’m just stuck in the past about how you control the seas. I’m still figuring the Cape of Good Hope takes too long, and we still don’t have unlimited time and money. But maybe you’re seeing better options?
Glorious autarky sounds airy-fairy to me, but I’m always open to a better argument. For sure, the only place I’ll have a hope of a polite one about it is on Ricochet. So please join Ricochet and vote for your favorite four choke points on the SLOC.
Let’s triage together–on a budget.
Published in General
Your list is quite solid. One time or another, I have been through them all.
Don’t forget the Dover Strait and the Greenland Strait.
The Med is loaded with constricted passages. Gibralter, Otranto, Sicily, Messina.
One of my favorites, and subject of a very interesting memory, is the Taiwan Strait – or the Formosa Strait, if you want to keep certain people happy.
Hormuz is probably the big one, now. Very long, tight traffic separation scheme, lunatic littoral state, low visibility and hot.
Giantkiller:
I don’t much want to make them happy, but in the age of triage, we must decide.
Well, assume we must keep control of four. Which other three do you think are the bare minimum?
Well then.
Stick to the trads: choke points on the SLOCs–or this will get messy. We can start a separate thread to detemined which outlets of foreign propaganda must be neutralized given the budget constraints. If you want to work up the list on the member feed, I’ll promote it. We just need to keep the categories clear–for prioritzing and sensible budgeting.
Hormuz
Suez
Turkish Straits
Danish Straits
There’s an implicit argument in your selection. What’s your thought about the ease with which we can do without Malacca? I’m open, don’t get me wrong, but unusual claims require unusual evidence.
The straits I’m concerned with have to do with Ricochet’s finances. There seems to be a strong uptick in urgency about the “join Ricochet” message and I’m hoping things are at least stable. Upgraded to Thatcher membership a while back, sorry I can’t spring for Reagan.
Please do not allow pop-ups or streaming video in the ads however. They drive traffic away.
Malacca is the one you probably can’t really do without.
Panama Canal is probably second, though it looks like there may be a competitor to it sooner or later.
Hormuz is becoming less important by the day, at least to those of us in the US.
The rest are important, but not vital.
Malacca is important – they all are – but worst comes to worst one can go round Indonesia instead. If you close the others you lock the door to ships – no entry or exit at all.
This is definitely so for Hormuz, and the Turkish and Danish straits, and functionally so (given geography) for Suez.
Hope so. Something deeply satisfying in the thought of saying to the ROCN, “We’ve had it with them. Don’t need them anymore All yours. Do what you wish. Don’t send us a postcard. We won’t complain.”
They’re strictly forbidden. If it happens, report it: We’ll get an exorcist on the job.
SLOC? The Schenectady Light Opera Company?
Order of importance : Malacca, Panama, Gibralter, Hormuz. That’s limited to the top four.
I suppose the 5th fleet needs something to restore morale.
Claire,
Sorry but I am a believer in a Grand Naval Strategy always. If you don’t mind the World slipping into chaos and always being subject to extortion than by all means Ocean Laissez-faire.
I prefer an Ocean Full Court Press and I don’t really care what the expense is. Choke all of the choke points. It’s just good foreign policy. Why do you think Putin annexed Crimea and is getting a base in Cyprus? He needs a fleet to go on holiday! Guess again.
Regards,
Jim
It’s interesting that so many were willing to go along with the 4 out of 7 ain’t bad formulation. It’s going to be an interesting century.
Claire,
This is like the Morlocks and the Eloi on the Ocean. If the Eloi think they can just sit back and watch the Morlocks will eat them. Usually, the argument is expense. However, with a fleet I would consider it an investment. You will get enhanced trade along with enhanced influence World Wide. That ought to pay dividends.
Regards,
Jim
The restored Republic of Texas Navy can defend the Yucatán Channel.
Don’t know enough about chokepoints to comment but just upgraded to Margaret Thatcher level to support the cause. Live long and prosper, Ricochet!
I am confused and fascinated by this post and the ensuing discussion.
That’s why I subscribe.
I’m a bit confused about the question, and I think Gibraltar needs to be on the list.
Are we supposed to list the 4 most important straits, currently, for purposes of allocation of naval defensive power? Or are we supposed to list our “favorite” 4 by some other criteria?
For purposes of allocating current naval power, my top 4 are (in order):
Hormuz
Malacca
Suez
Turkish
Mike,
Gun Boat diplomacy in action. Mike you will be chief negotiator. You are not authorized to start a war with Mexico. I’d love it but you are not authorized.
Why do I suspect that there will be cheerleaders on board?
Regards,
Jim
From the OP title I thought we were talking about an impending Rico 3.0, and how we were looking for an emergency fix for controlling all of the extra SLOC
Single Lines Of Code…..
You are correct, sir!
Well, if you choose your favorites by some other criteria, that’s fine, it’s Ricochet. But I’d be concerned if I thought these straits were seen to be important to the US strategic planners because of their “amazing views, or “sentimental value,” or “their seafood, which is the best in the whole damned archipelago.” (Or perhaps that’s the wrong tense: I am concerned that this is how we’re thinking of them.)
I’m sure other Americans are thinking, somewhere, “Bab el-Mandeb, Holy [redacted] that’s a bit of a goatrope,” but there’s something very odd about the coverage from Yemen, isn’t there? In everything I’m reading in the US press, the word “sea lane,” if mentioned at all, is mentioned almost as an afterthought.
Is this situation receiving the same amount of news coverage in the US as it is in France? If not, how do you explain that? Has it become a taboo for Americans to say that they have a strategic interest in of seaborne trade and shipping these days?
I guess I set the game up this way, but I confess I was hoping Ricochet members would jump in and say, “No, the cost of losing any of these would be beyond imagination, and here’s why … ”
That’s what I expected.
Though I suppose I also expect lots of worst-case planning and training for having to make do with fewer. So yes, I’d love to know why, when you envisioned a situation in which you could only control four–those were the ones you chose.
OK, I deserved the comment about “amazing views.” I haven’t been to any of these straits. There is a hill near my house that looks a bit like the Rock of Gibraltar.
The other criterion that I had in mind was historical importance, and on this criterion, I think the Turkish Straits would get the nod, followed by Gibraltar and Malacca.
Here are some further thoughts on the list:
My top 4:
Hormuz: Shutting down this strait would cut off a significant part of the global oil market, sending prices through the roof and probably causing a major, world-wide recession. In addition, of course, it is threatened by a very hostile, dangerous Iran.
Malacca: Controlling this strait is essential to containment of China. China is the greatest potential threat to the existing global order, though I think that the likelihood of a serious Chinese challenge is relatively low. Of course, part of the reason for this low likelihood is control of the Strait of Malacca.
Suez: Same reason as Hormuz, though there is less of a danger because: (1) there is an alternative (though inefficient) route to Europe around the Cape of Good Hope and (2) Egypt is an ally, if a troubled one, so a threat to this strait is unlikely.
Turkish: Controlling these straits is essential to containment of Russia, and losing control would imply a breakdown of NATO. Need I say more?
The others
Bab el-Mandeb: Ranked lower because, while carrying much the same trade as Suez, it is less threatened and much more difficult for anyone else to close. I don’t think that the Yemeni military poses a significant threat at all, and it seems to me that the danger in Yemen is civil war and societal breakdown, not a powerful state that could close the neighboring strait.
Danish: Ranked low because there is no significant threat.
Panama: Ranked low both because there is no significant threat, and because there are alternative (though inefficient) routes both around Cape Horn and across the US (or Canada) by train.
Gibraltar: Ranked low because there is no significant threat.
You seem more sanguine than I am, but maybe you can reassure me. It looks to me like there’s no natural barriers from Ta’izz to the Port of Aden. Iran massively resupplies the Houthis through Port Saleef, so why wouldn’t they have control of Aden soon? Is this, in your view, an exaggerated concern?
Claire, you are awesome. Port Saleef? I’m a pretty good geography buff, but I’ve never heard of the place!
I think more in general principles. It is extremely difficult to project military power across salt water, especially in the face of superior sea and/or air power. We Americans tend to underrate this difficulty, because: (1) we have become so very good at projecting power overseas, and (2) we’ve had air and naval supremacy for about 70 years. Even Hitler and Napoleon, at the height of their power, recoiled from an invasion across the English Channel.
It’s one thing for the Iranians to smuggle arms into Yemen to foment civil insurrection. It’s quite another thing for them to establish the type of artillery, rocket, and/or small naval forces that would be needed to close the strait. Once a conflict broke out, the Iranian forces would be in an impossible supply situation. In addition, any force sufficient to close the strait necessarily presents the type of substantial military target that is much easier for our military to hit, and therefore kill. Insurgents can disappear into the hills with rifles and IED materials, but they can’t do so with artillery, anti-ship rockets, or PT-type boats.
I would think that a Marine Expeditionary Unit would make short work of any force established by the Iranians near the Bab el-Mandeb. Further, I don’t think that there would be major political repercussions to such an action by the US (assuming a real attempt to close the strait).
Hormuz is much more difficult to deal with, both because the Iranians wouldn’t have to project power over salt water, and because responding would involve an actual invasion of Iran itself, which obviously entails a war with major political repercussions worldwide.
Is that enough to help you rest easy and get to the laundry?
Not really. Because when it’s gamed out for Hormuz, the usual assumption is that Iran would clog, not choke, and I assume that would be true here, too. They would be more likely to adopt a strategy of asymptotic sabotage–soft mining and obstruction that could be blamed on pirates. I can imagine low-level, continuous disruption insufficient to close the strait, but sufficient vastly to raise the cost of shipping (security, insurance, and reinsurance for cargo and crew), causing massive market instability. That would be a far more advantageous strategy than a full-on blockade–for exactly the reasons you describe. So I’ll still do the laundry, but still find it odd that this doesn’t seem to be worrying anyone who’s been reporting from Yemen, since it seems an obvious thing to worry about, to me.