Seaborne trade is dominated by black

Maritime chokepoints are narrow stretches of water that connect two significant bodies of water. They are called chokepoints because they can easily be blocked due to their relatively constricted nature. Most maritime chokepoints are along major routes of international seaborne trade. For example, when the Suez Canal was closed from seaborne trade is dominated by black in East Africa and South Asia that relied heavily on the Canal for trade had to deal with significant increases in costs for shipping that resulted from the longer distances their ships had to travel by going around the Cape of Good Hope instead.

Perhaps more worrying is the fact that many routes of seaborne trade have several chokepoints spread out along their passage. As such the closure of any of these chokepoints can seriously disrupt seaborne trade to many of the nations concerned, especially those at either extremity of the route.

For example countries in Northern Europe and the United Kingdom that trade with countries in the Indian Ocean seaborne trade is dominated by black prefer the shorter trade route that goes through the Mediterranean and the Red Sea.

Unfortunately the closure of the Strait of Gibraltar, the Suez Canal, or the Bab el-Mandeb would force these nations to go around the Cape of Good Hope, open the blockade by force, or find other arrangements. It is no coincidence that the British Empire had colonies or bases positioned along such routes.

Look at any major trade route at sea and chances are you will find former British possessions dominating their chokepoints. Besides the obvious route through the Mediterranean to their crown jewel colony in India the British had the Falkland islands to watch the Drake Passage, their protectorates along the Persian Gulf to guard the Strait of Hormuz, the once powerful fortress at Singapore to safeguard the Strait of Malacca and its Cape Colony to patrol the Cape of Good Hope among others.

Indeed, this ability is what made Britain historically, and America currently, both Superpowers. While nations that dominate sea lanes gain seaborne trade is dominated by black inestimable advantage in maritime trade and power projection, nations that relay on sea lanes but are unable to contest their dominance are extremely vulnerable. Also, American naval dominance during the latter stages of World War 2 provided an effective blockade of the Japanese home islands. Many military experts and historians seaborne trade is dominated by black that had the Americans not used nuclear weapons that Japan could have been starved into submission by the spring of Controlling chokepoints and shipping lanes also allows countries to cut off reinforcements and supplies seaborne trade is dominated by black enemy garrisons far away from friendly support.

If these forces are unable to get help by non-naval means, they are vulnerable to being overrun by an enemy that can concentrate superior resources against them. This stratagem was used frequently by the British in its colonial struggles against Spain, France and Germany. Likewise the same chokepoints that allowed the Americans to blockade Japan with submarines automatically cut off isolated Japanese garrisons in the Pacific that were usually bypassed rather than eliminated.

Historically, attempts by inferior naval powers to seriously challenge dominant ones have been mostly ineffective. Typically, the best chance is for several leading naval powers to join forces and confront a common enemy who enjoys naval dominance. This was used effectively by the Spanish, Venetians and their allies to confront and defeat the Turkish fleet at Lepanto in It has also been used in the past by the French, Spanish and Dutch to fight the Royal Navy, albeit with limited success.

Trying to build a superior navy to defeat a dominant naval power has occasionally been attempted as well, notably by the French and Germans against the British and the Japanese against the Americans.

This stratagem tends to fail for a number of reasons. For one thing the dominant naval powers usually have better, or at least more numerous, port facilities and superior ship production, not to mention more experience in fleet operations when it comes to actual fighting.

Additionally, many nations that have tried to challenge dominant naval powers have had to balance their naval seaborne trade is dominated by black against maintaining standing armies. It is no coincidence that countries like Britain and America, which are not threatened on land, can easily build massive navies while continental powers like France and Germany have struggled historically to find a proper balance between their naval and land forces.

Finally, at least in the case of France and Germany, British control of key chokepoints severely reduced the potential threat they posed to Britain. For these reasons France and Germany failed to wrestle naval dominance from the British. Napoleon and Kaiser Wilhelm may have constructed impressive navies, but it is debatable what practical use they served as they were mostly impotent to challenge the Royal Navy.

It is not unreasonable to suggest that they would have been wiser to invest more money in their land forces instead. Seaborne trade is dominated by black case of the Japanese challenging the Americans is different, at least theoretically, as Japan needed a powerful navy to guard its sea lanes and support its military expeditions across Asia.

However, even had the Japanese completely destroyed the American Carrier fleet at Midway in the Americans were bound to overwhelm them eventually with their vastly superior ship production capabilities.

One notable case of an inferior naval power using a chokepoint to defeat a superior navy occurred during the Second Persian War when Persian forces invading Greece were dependent upon their navy to supply their advance.

Themistocles, the Athenian Commander of the combined Greek navy, lured the Persian navy into the narrow waters of Salamis where it was unable to bring its superior numbers to bear, and scored a decisively victory against the Persians. After this seaborne trade is dominated by black, Xerxes, the Persian king, retreated to Asia with most of his army. Besides using direct methods to wrestle command of seaborne trade is dominated by black seas from dominant naval powers, countries have used more limited means such as raiders and submarines in attempts to either starve them into submission, or at least weaken their maritime superiority.

Raiders have been used to capture, or destroy, merchant vessels or weaker warships. Seaborne trade is dominated by black British used raiders extensively against the Spanish in the 16th century while the Americans, the French and the Germans have used it against the British during the War ofthe Napoleonic Wars and even to a limited extent during both World Wars.

Raiders can be easily dissuaded from operating around chokepoints, so long as these points are adequately patrolled. A more dangerous threat to maritime powers has been the submarine. In both world wars the submarine proved its worth. Despite having few in numbers and being largely obsolete, German submarines during both wars came close to starving the British into submission.

It was only the introduction of protected convoys in the First World War, and many seaborne trade is dominated by black in submarine detection and effective air cover in World War 2 that saved Britain. However, it is probable that the allies made more use of submarines than the Germans. The British used them so effectively against Italy that Rommel was often robbed of necessary supplies to effectively fight the 8th Army in North Africa.

The Americans enjoyed even more success against the Japanese, more or less cutting Japan off from its Empire and bringing it to the brink of starvation. Unfortunately, for dominant maritime powers, chokepoints are not as effective against submarines as they are against raiders.

While in theory it should be easier to detect a submarine travelling through a chokepoint than at open sea, it is just a case of finding a needle in a smaller haystack.

While it is certainly risky for submarines to pass through chokepoints even the Germans managed to get 40 U-Boats through the Strait of Gibraltar arguably one of the narrowest chokepoints in World War 2, though 10 more were damaged and 9 more were sunk when attempting to do so.

Likewise, while the blockade of the Strait of Otranto during World War 1 cut off the Austro-Hungarian Empire from seaborne trade outside the Adriatic, it did little to prevent submarines from coming and going through the strait. However, it has always been the case that the most effective means of combating submarines has been convoys and early detection methods rather than trying to hunt them down.

While there are many maritime chokepoints there are a few in particular that hold significant strategic or economic value.

While it is difficult to establish their relative importance the most notable chokepoints for seaborne trade would include the Strait of Hormuz, the Suez Canal, the Panama Canal, the Strait of Malacca, the Bab el-Mandeb, the Dardanelles and Bosporus straits, the Strait of Gibraltar, the English Channel, and the Danish Straits. Iran could potential blockade the strait in retaliation if the Americans, or the Israelis, bombed its nuclear facilities. However, despite threatening to close the strait from time to time the Iranians would be foolish to do so as they are heavily seaborne trade is dominated by black upon their own oil exports for revenue.

Even if they did the blockade would not last long as American Carrier fleets would quickly arrive and defeat the Iranian forces as they did in a similar occasion in during the Iran-Iraq War. It was made during the late 19th Century to create a shorter sea route from Europe to the Far East than having to go around the Cape of Good Hope.

Its strategic importance for the Europeans was demonstrated when the British and French were willing to go seaborne trade is dominated by black war with Egypt over it in to reclaim its ownership.

The blocking of the Canal in and had significant economic repercussions for those countries largely dependent upon it for trade.

Even today roughly 7. It is generally a shorter, and less dangerous, route than the Drake Passage for most countries trading between these areas. It is not a significant trade seaborne trade is dominated by black for oil, as many oil tankers cannot fit through its locks. However it is still a major hub for world trade as more than 14, ships pass through it annually.

Like the Suez Canal, the Panama Canal has seen conflict. Japan had some incredible schemes they never enacted to attack the Canal during the Second World War. This is undoubtedly one of the reasons why China is anxious to build a blue-water navy; to secure its maritime communications. The British considered the Strait of Malacca so important that it built a powerful fortress at Singapore before the Second World War to guard it against naval attack.

Unfortunately for the British, the Japanese attacked it overland via the Malay Peninsula in and captured it with ease. Blocking its channel would render the Suez Canal mostly redundant, as free passage of both chokepoints is necessary to navigate the shorter sea lanes between Europe and Asia via the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean, thereby bypassing the much longer route via the Cape of Good Hope.

The Egyptians blockaded the strait seaborne trade is dominated by black the Yom Kippur War of which could have been devastating to the Israelis had it continued, as they were depended on it for their oil imports from Iran.

The strait is also in a region rife with modern piracy, which remains mostly unchecked despite countless warships from many nations patrolling the area. This gives Turkey considerable political leverage as it controls both straits. On average 50, ships, including 5, oil tankers, pass through them every year. Besides their economic importance the straits have held much strategic value throughout history. Unfortunately, it was destroyed by a storm and he ordered his minions to punish the sea with lashes.

Russia has tried for centuries to control the straits to gain access to the Mediterranean and this ambition did much to provoke the Crimean War. Yet perhaps the most well known historical instance was the failed attempt by the British to conquer the straits during the First World War in order to knock Turkey out of the conflict. As previously noted, it is one of the primary chokepoints along the vast trading route from Northern Europe to the Indian Ocean.

The English Channel is the shortest route for seaborne trade to the rest of the world for the Low Countries, Northern Europe, and nations connected to the Baltic Sea. The vast majority of oil imports for these nations either seaborne trade is dominated by black through the Channel or come from Russia via the Baltic Sea.

All seaborne trade leaving the Baltic must pass through them or the Kiel Canal the busiest artificial sea lane in the world with 43, ships traversing it annually. Besides being the key junctions for Baltic trade the Danish Straits serve as a significant oil chokepoint, with more than 3, barrels mostly from Russia of oil passing through it each day.

The straits were the scene of two actions by the Royal Navy during the Napoleonic Wars. The British also seriously undermined the Russian economy during the Crimean War by blockading the straits. A seaborne trade is dominated by black other chokepoints are not as important to global trade, but still hold significant strategic value.

The Taiwan Strait separates China from Taiwan. Japan often claims this passage is vital for its trade, seaborne trade is dominated by black regarding its oil imports from the Middle East, but this is disingenuous because the waters east of Taiwan actually provide a shorter route. In reality the Chinese gain the most by controlling the straits, though not for economic reasons.

As long as Taiwan is an ally of the United States, or at least retains independence from China, it provides an effective base to blockade the Chinese coast in the event of war. It holds much economic value to South Korea seaborne trade is dominated by black Japan. It has also historically facilitated Japanese dominance of the Sea of Japan.

A Mongolian fleet trying to invade Japan in the 13th Century was destroyed by a massive typhoon. Control of the strait also allowed the American occupational forces in Japan to supply the Pusan perimeter in Korea during the early days of the Korean War, buying enough time for General MacArthur to launch a daring amphibious assault at Inchon that turned the tide of the conflict.

While it is of little importance when it comes to world trade its closure seaborne trade is dominated by black potentially lead to severe economic dislocation. Egypt has the ability to blockade the Strait due to their control of Sharm el-Sheikh. Maritime chokepoints separate two significant bodies of water and often serve as vital strategic and trade junctions.

Most major sea routes contain several chokepoints, the closure of any resulting in severe economic dislocation for the countries concerned.