By Land or by Sea: The US after WWII

[Bootstrap]

REQUEST: Please read the entire article before posting, and discuss the article itself, drawing from what it says. Agree, disagree, or whatever, but please don't make this about your predetermined opinions.

In the Venezuela thread, Soloist is rightly pointing out that the United States, like all other countries, pursues its own interests.

Sarah Paine wrote a very useful article that discusses what America's interests are:

By Land or by Sea

She compares two kinds of countries:

1. Continental powers define strength through territory, armies, and security imperatives.
2. Maritime powers treat the oceans as commons, so all can share them and safely trade. They gain strength through open seas and shared economic opportunity.

For instance, the UK was clearly maritime power at one time:

The United Kingdom became the world’s dominant power not by deploying its army to obliterate rivals but by growing rich from trade and industry while other European countries ruined each other militarily.

This shows the maritime strategy of commerce and coalition building rather than territorial conquest.

In its early years, the United States acted like a continental land power. Expanding westward was central, and we took land from the Indians via forced removal, warfare, and outright seizure. Policies like the Indian Removal Act (1830) and events such as the Trail of Tears were foundational to U.S. territorial growth.

After World War II, the U.S. became the world’s leading maritime power, anchoring open seas, trade, and global institutions.

So what is in America’s interest now?

If Paine is right, America’s interests now align with a maritime strategy, not a continental one. America benefits most when:

• Seas are open and secure, allowing global trade to flow
• Economic growth comes from commerce and innovation, not territorial control
• Alliances and institutions reduce the need for constant military confrontation
• Power is exercised by shaping systems, not dominating neighbors

[Bootstrap]

Let me highlight two quotes about the UK from the historical perspective of this article:

The United Kingdom developed the modern maritime playbook for countering continental powers during the Napoleonic Wars. London became the world’s dominant power not by deploying its army to obliterate rivals but by growing rich from trade and industry while other European countries ruined each other militarily. All continental states had to maintain large armies either to conquer or to avoid being conquered. Often, they organized their economies around the needs of their army, not their merchants. But the United Kingdom, protected on every side by water and by its dominant navy, was less afraid of an invasion. It therefore did not need a large, expensive, potentially coup-generating ground force. It focused on compounding its wealth through commerce, relying on its navy to defend shipping lanes.

Rather than fighting Napoleon’s large military directly, the United Kingdom used its growing wealth to fund and arm Austria, Prussia, Russia, and numerous smaller states, which together pinned down the bulk of Napoleon’s forces on the main front in central or eastern Europe. The British then opened a peripheral theater on the Iberian Peninsula, what Napoleon called his “Spanish ulcer,” which had better sea than land access, so that attrition rates favored them. The cumulative casualties from this and the main front ultimately overextended Napoleon, dooming his military when his adversaries simultaneously ganged up. Virtually every European country suffered extensive war damage, but the British economy emerged unscathed. The same was true for the United States in both world wars.

[Soloist]

She’s missing multiple points in her examples.

1: it was production capability that won wars, not ocean power.
2: Japan was forced by gunboats to switch from a Continental Power to a maritime power. And then we later embargoed their ability to get the resources they needed. This almost directly caused Pearl Harbor.
She links their success to their connection to this, but heavily ignores the reality with Japan being conquered militarily and having no other option.
3: her bias comes through pretty strongly with her comments about tariffs global trade and continuing things basically how they have been and ignores the reality that the global center of production has shifted and with it most of the ocean going commerce.

In other words, the only example she has a strong point on it is the British empire. The Dutch, for instance, were defeated.
The British empire is no longer capable of having the same sort of control. They once did and the war got bad enough for them that they were actually boarding our vessels and taking people off of them by force.
I don’t think that her logic is sound economically wise or militarily accurate.

[Soloist]

Ironically, I think Claude does a better job at tearing apart her article than I did.

**Additional major flaws:**

**4. The “rules-based order” is selective enforcement**

She presents it as universal and fair, but:

- The U.S. invaded Iraq (2003) without UN approval - no consequences
- Israel ignores UN resolutions for decades - we protect them
- NATO bombed Serbia (1999) without UN authorization
- The “rules” only apply to countries the U.S. wants to punish
- Russia and China see this hypocrisy clearly

**She’s describing American hegemony and calling it “rules.”** When we break them, it’s justified. When they do, it’s evil continental aggression.

**5. Ignores the resource curse of “maritime powers”**

Her maritime powers (U.S., Britain) succeeded partly because they had:

- **Domestic resources** - U.S. had oil, coal, iron, food
- **Or controlled resource colonies** - Britain’s empire provided resources

**Modern “maritime” strategy without resources means:**

- Dependence on others for oil (Middle East)
- Dependence on others for rare earths (China - 80%+ of processing)
- Dependence on others for manufacturing inputs

**She treats “maritime trade” as inherently stable, but it requires:**

- Others willing to sell to you
- Those supply lines staying open
- No one else controlling chokepoints

**China controls:** rare earth processing, pharmaceutical ingredients, electronics manufacturing. In her framework, they’re “continental” and weak. In reality, they control critical supply chains.

**6. Nuclear weapons make her entire framework obsolete**

She barely mentions this:

- Continental conquest between nuclear powers is impossible
- The risk of escalation prevents total war
- Therefore the “continental” threat of territorial expansion is LIMITED
- Russia can’t actually reconquer Poland without risking nuclear war
- China can’t invade Taiwan without risking nuclear war

**Her fear-mongering about Russian troops in Paris is absurd.** Nuclear deterrence prevents exactly that scenario. Her framework might have worked in 1815 or 1945, but not in 2025.

**7. The “authoritarian continental” vs. “democratic maritime” is propaganda**

Counter-examples she ignores:

- **Singapore** - maritime, wealthy, authoritarian
- **Ancient Athens** - maritime, democratic, ran an empire through force
- **The U.S.** - democratic, but used continental strategies (Manifest Destiny, Philippines, Iraq/Afghanistan)
- **Switzerland** - landlocked, neutral, democratic, prosperous
- **Victorian Britain** - maritime, but hardly democratic (limited franchise until early 1900s)

**The correlation between geography and government type is weak.** She’s just labeling countries she likes “maritime” and countries she dislikes “continental.”

**8. She ignores successful “continental” strategies**

- **Rome** - continental empire, lasted 1000+ years (if you count Byzantium)
- **Mongols** - continental, conquered more territory than anyone
- **Ottoman Empire** - controlled critical trade routes for 600 years
- **Persian Empire** - continental, prosperous for centuries
- **Han/Tang/Ming China** - continental dynasties, extremely successful

**Her claim that continental powers inevitably collapse from overextension is cherry-picked.** Maritime empires collapse too:

- Portuguese empire - gone
- Spanish empire - gone
- Dutch empire - gone
- British empire - gone
- Athens - defeated by continental Sparta

**9. The “maritime order benefits everyone” claim is false**

She says even China and Russia benefited, but:

- **Structural adjustment** programs devastated developing countries
- **The Washington Consensus** forced privatization that hurt many nations
- **Trade deals** were written by/for Western corporations
- **Russia** in the 1990s followed Western advice and suffered economic collapse
- **Africa** has been plundered through “legitimate” maritime trade for centuries

**Many countries were worse off** in the Western maritime system than they would have been developing independently. The “rising tide lifts all boats” is propaganda.

**10. Sanctions don’t work as well as she claims**

She advocates sanctions as the main tool, but:

- **Cuba** - 60+ years of sanctions, regime still there
- **North Korea** - 70+ years isolated, regime still there
- **Iran** - 40+ years of sanctions, regime still there
- **Russia** - 3 years of “unprecedented” sanctions, economy adapting

**Sanctions cause suffering but rarely change regimes.** They can even strengthen authoritarian control by creating a siege mentality and rallying populations around the flag.

**11. Her “patient strategy” ignores costs**

She says “manage the conflict for generations” like the Cold War:

- **Cost of Cold War** - trillions of dollars, proxy wars killed millions
- **Near misses** - Cuban Missile Crisis almost ended the world
- **Distortions** - massive military spending crowded out domestic investment
- **Blowback** - supporting dictators and jihadists created long-term problems

**She’s casually advocating for decades of confrontation** without acknowledging the enormous costs and risks.

**12. Europe is NOT going to “gang up” on the U.S.**

Her threat in the conclusion:

- Europe depends on U.S. military protection (she admits this elsewhere)
- Europe has NO unified military capability
- Europe is divided politically (she admits Russia exploits this)
- Europe’s economy is stagnant

**The idea that Europe would form an anti-U.S. alliance with China is fantasy.** She’s fear-mongering to support her policy preferences.

**13. She ignores climate and technology changes**

- **Climate change** - will reshape which regions are viable, migration patterns, agricultural zones
- **Technology** - AI, drones, cyber warfare change everything about military power
- **Energy transition** - solar/wind/batteries reduce importance of oil chokepoints
- **Space** - emerging domain that doesn’t fit maritime/continental framework

**Her framework is static, assuming 19th-century logic applies forever.**

**14. The “America First” criticism is partisan hackery**

She’s equating:

- Trump’s rhetoric about Greenland/Canada (mostly bluster)
- With Napoleon’s Continental System or Hitler’s invasions

**This is absurd.** Renegotiating trade deals and making provocative statements is NOT the same as:

- Invading neighbors
- Establishing an empire
- Rejecting international law

**She’s catastrophizing normal great power politics** because she opposes Trump politically.

**Bottom line:**

Your original three critiques are the most devastating, but the article is riddled with:

- Cherry-picked history
- Ignored counter-examples
- Political bias masquerading as analysis
- Outdated framework for modern realities
- Propaganda for continuing failed policies

**She’s a smart historian writing advocacy journalism, not objective analysis.**

[Soloist]

America has 2 critical weaknesses that cannot easily be fixed that underline everything else and are a deep flaw of this global economy she is advocating for.

Pharmaceuticals including precursors are primarily made in China.

Chip production. How many advanced chips do you think the US will have flowing in if China attacks Taiwan?

Oil, rare earth... those are really small potatoes compared to these bigger issues.

[Bootstrap]

Ironically, I think Claude does a better job at tearing apart her article than I did.

Could you please share the instructions you gave Claude to produce that? I suspect you gave it some guidance?

[Soloist]

Ironically, I think Claude does a better job at tearing apart her article than I did.

Could you please share the instructions you gave Claude to produce that? I suspect you gave it some guidance?

I started by asking who the lady was then I asked it to evaluate the article.
Following that I ask it:
What other flaws are in her article?

We had some back-and-forth dialogue about whether her point over France was accurate and some discussion about Japan.

[Bootstrap]

She’s missing multiple points in her examples.

I think a lot of this post — and much of the Claude summary — is basically saying “this framework doesn’t explain everything.” That’s true, but it’s also beside the point. Most of these criticisms are aimed at Paine’s policy conclusions, not her analysis of what America’s most important interests are.

Her central point is pretty simple:

The deepest strategic divide today is between powers that seek security through territorial control and those that seek power by shaping systems.

Arguing that maritime orders are hypocritical, costly, or imperfect doesn’t make them irrelevant. It just means they’re not neutral or altruistic. No country’s interests are neutral or altruistic.

That said, maritime orders do seem to offer more potential for win-win outcomes than systems built primarily on territorial control.

[Bootstrap]

First off, I'm enjoying this. Thanks for engaging!

America has 2 critical weaknesses that cannot easily be fixed that underline everything else and are a deep flaw of this global economy she is advocating for.

Pharmaceuticals including precursors are primarily made in China.

Chip production. How many advanced chips do you think the US will have flowing in if China attacks Taiwan?

Oil, rare earth... those are really small potatoes compared to these bigger issues.

Right, and this is an important point.

Paine is not arguing that the U.S. can’t or shouldn’t manufacture pharmaceuticals or chips domestically. She’s not opposing industrial policy or redundancy.

Her argument is about strategy, not factory locations.

The question she’s asking is whether the U.S. responds to these vulnerabilities by:

• Strengthening and reshaping systems (diversification, allies, redundancy, domestic capacity), or
• Reverting to a territorial, coercive logic of power

COVID taught us that we need resilient supply chains, and that resilience includes domestic production. That lesson is compatible with Paine’s framework. Building redundancy and capacity matters. So does maintaining a focus on system-based power rather than territorial control.

[Soloist]

She’s missing multiple points in her examples.

I think a lot of this post — and much of the Claude summary — is basically saying “this framework doesn’t explain everything.” That’s true, but it’s also beside the point. Most of these criticisms are aimed at Paine’s policy conclusions, not her analysis of what America’s most important interests are.

Her central point is pretty simple:

The deepest strategic divide today is between powers that seek security through territorial control and those that seek power by shaping systems.

Arguing that maritime orders are hypocritical, costly, or imperfect doesn’t make them irrelevant. It just means they’re not neutral or altruistic. No country’s interests are neutral or altruistic.

That said, maritime orders do seem to offer more potential for win-win outcomes than systems built primarily on territorial control.

Here is Claude‘s response

**Her actual central points include:**

1. **Normative claim:** Maritime/system-shaping approaches are BETTER (morally and practically) than territorial control
1. **Prescriptive claim:** The US must maintain the current “rules-based order” or face catastrophic decline
1. **Policy claim:** This means continuing Ukraine funding, confronting China/Russia, maintaining alliances, opposing Trump’s approach
1. **Deterministic claim:** Geography largely determines which approach works, and “continental” powers inevitably fail from overextension

**If her point was just “countries have different strategic approaches,” she could have written:**

“Some countries prioritize territorial control, others prioritize shaping international systems. Both approaches have strengths and weaknesses depending on context.”

**Instead she writes:**

- Continental powers create “wealth-destroying wars”
- They “funnel resources into militaries” and “entrench authoritarian rule”
- They require “a big enemy” and “manufacture security threats”
- Maritime powers focus on “compounding wealth” and “mutually beneficial transactions”
- The US risks becoming “irrelevant” if it abandons maritime strategy

**This is advocacy, not neutral description.**

**The guy defending her is doing what’s called “motte-and-bailey”:**

**Bailey (the controversial position she’s actually arguing):**

- The current US-led order is good and must be preserved
- Russia and China are existential threats requiring generational confrontation
- Trump’s approach will lead to catastrophe
- Maritime strategy is superior to continental strategy

**Motte (the defensible retreat position when criticized):**

- “She’s just saying countries have different strategic approaches”
- “It’s a useful framework for thinking about geopolitics”
- “No framework explains everything”

**When you criticize the bailey, he retreats to the motte.**

**Evidence this isn’t just about “different approaches”:**

Look at her conclusion:

- “Too many Americans have taken the benefits of the maritime order for granted”
- US could become “a shared primary adversary” with “no allies left”
- We’re “squandering” our “moral capital”
- “America First is antagonizing allies everywhere”
- We’re making “blunders” that will “permanently end” our “preeminence”

**This is a polemic against changing current policy, not a neutral observation that countries differ.**

**Your critiques hit what she’s ACTUALLY arguing:**

1. **She claims maritime powers win through trade/production** → You show production has shifted
1. **She claims this is a superior strategy** → You show it’s created vulnerabilities
1. **She uses Japan as proof** → You show Japan was coerced and conquered
1. **She claims sanctions work** → History shows mixed results at best

**The defender is reframing her argument as:**
“Just an interesting way to categorize state behavior”

**But she’s actually arguing:**
“The US must continue current policies or face disaster, and here’s a historical framework that proves it”

**Your critiques matter because they undermine the prescriptive claims she’s making**, not just the descriptive framework.

**So no - her central point is NOT just “countries differ in strategic approaches.”**

**Her central point is:** “The maritime approach is superior, the US must maintain it, and abandoning it risks catastrophe.”

That’s a much stronger and more vulnerable claim - which is why the defender is trying to weaken it into something more defensible.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​