There are but few naval powers, but there are many land powers.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
I do not hesitate to say that the limitation on naval craft between the great naval powers was too high.
In my opinion, any navy less than that which would give us the habitual command of our own coast and seas would be little short of useless.
It's easier for China to assert its maritime power by creating artificial islands in the South China Sea than by defying the U.S. Pacific Fleet with an aircraft carrier.
The United States is a superpower whose influence reaches across oceans and beyond borders.
If you want to go anywhere in modern war, in the air, on the sea, on the land, you must have command of the air.
There is but one nation on the globe from which we have anything serious to apprehend, but that is the most powerful that now exists or ever did exist. I refer to Great Britain.
There are in most states one or two ministers of war, one of whom is the minister of naval affairs.
No doubt that the U.S. is a super-power capable of conquering a relatively small country, but is it able to control it?
The admiral, or commander in chief of a squadron, being frequently invested with a great charge, on which the fate of a kingdom may depend, ought certainly to be possessed of abilities equal to so important a station and so extensive a command.
It was both necessary and desirable for us to be so strong at sea that no Sea Power could attack us without risk, so that we might be free to protect our oversea interests, independently of the influence and the choice of other Sea Powers.