I don't doubt there are some benefits to our "global supremacy of the oceans" but you are admitting you have no evidence that the benefits of our supremacy outweigh the costs of maintaining it.
For example, you could pack duffle bags full of 100 dollar bills and burn them in your fireplace to warm your home during the winter. You could point to the inarguable fact that such an action does produce some benefits, however, you could not rationally argue that the benefits gained by your actions outweigh the costs.
The Navy has a budget of around $160 billion. (Keep in mind that includes a lot more than just ships etc) In terms of global trade conducted on the oceans, are you going to argue it is less than $160 billion, or that we get less than a $160 billion benefit from ensuring the safety of trading routes?
So if our "global supremacy of the oceans" is indeed the best example you can come up with to justify the expense of maintaining the size of our military, and you admit that there is no proof that the benefits of this policy outweigh the costs, then I have to point out that you're failing to defend this policy as being a rational course of action.
The simple fact is this. We are better off conforming the world to our worldview than going along for the ride as some other country molds the world into their worldview.
And I have never argued that we need to "maintain the size of our military", I said from the start we can make a lot of cuts in the military and be fine...but your argument (and the title of the thread) is to disband the military...you are arguing against a point that no one ever argued in favor of.
Logically, if China were to shut down all shipping in their region (much less the entire hemisphere), the Chinese economy would suffer, and potentially collapse, as a result of pursuing that policy.
Unless they shut down all shipping lanes except for their own traffic...imagine this scenario, almost all of the oil that Japan needs gets shipped past India, and then up along the coast. The Chinese could easily decide such shipments will stop, and it would devastate Japan.
While I certainly wouldn't claim that pursuing irrational policies detrimental to the country in which the policy originated is beyond the scope of what's possible (we certainly do it), I have not seen, and you have not offered, any information to suggest such an event is likely to take place. Simply put, China would stand to lose far more than it would gain, therefore, I do not see such an example as being a realistic concern.
That is because you are missing the point, and thinking that a country would simply eliminate all shipping in their "sector." That wouldn't happen, what is far more likely is that certain shipping would cut off, or the flow of oil cut off etc...
Look at Russia, they turned off the gas pipelines to Eastern Europe...even though they hurt themselves by not being able to sell that gas.
Like the Gulf of Tonkin incident?
Clearly there was more at play in that instance than simply dominating the oceans.
Your statement was that "the smallest crisis could cripple global trade", so I offered piracy as a small crisis. If we both agree that piracy amounts to a small crisis, and we agree that piracy does not pose a threat to global trade, then your statement would seem to be based more on rhetoric than fact.
I don't really view piracy as a crisis.. I am thinking more a long the lines of a North Korea artillery barrage on some disputed islands...in reality, a pretty meaningless crisis, but suddenly if the US Navy cannot show up in a show of force because China blocks the whole area, it can spiral out of control a lot more quickly.
By your own admission, the US unilaterally protects the shipping lanes of the world making it safe for countries like Russia and China to conduct global trade across the oceans.
Yes..and global trade is ultimately good for everyone.
It would stand to reason that, knowing the US has taken it upon itself to provide this service at no charge to other nations,
Don't pretend we do it at "no charge." We don't send a bill to your government, but we are far better able to basically insert our culture into other nations, get far better political leverage, and better a better negotiating position when we pursue free trade agreements and things of that nature.
nations like China and Russia do not have to spend their own money doing the same job.
Therefore, their military expenditures can go towards accomplishing missions which the US government is not already doing free of charge, missions which could, in all likelihood, run counter to US interests, which results in increased costs and risks to the US. Hence my claim that such US policies are counterproductive.
They could, and probably will do these things...but they will do them anyway, and it serves us no better purpose to pretend that their dominance of the seas is better for us than our own.