Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Question for those who disliked the comment above: do you disagree that the US Navy largely runs on combustion engines; or do you think that Texas and Louisiana have enough seaborne export bandwidth to support a hot war, on their own, without KSA et. al.; or have I missed a possibility?

(I haven't looked at USN tankers, in an asian context an important question would be: are they even Panamax?

As far as the crude network is concerned, Alberta is more closely connected to Texas than California is.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Elisabeth_Krausmann/pub... )



I don't really believe that anyone disliked it for principled reasons, but I am a bit skeptical of relations with Saudi Arabia as a strategy for keeping Navy ships fueled in a hot war. Could we really expect uninterrupted trade from a country that's quite literally on the other side of the world?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: