Mackinder or mahan

Whichever nation controlled Eastern Europe would control the Heartland the core of Eurasia ; subsequently this nation would then control the World Island all of Europe and Asia ; and finally, would dominate the world. Simply, whoever conquered the seas would control the world. Both have proven true throughout history, but not at the same time with the same nation.

Mackinder or mahan

Geopolitics - Wikipedia

Hire Writer The United States of America is a clear example of a major power that uses its naval capacity to adhere to Mahayana logic, that reflects his tridents and six principle conditions that are still existent today. At that time, Eastern Europe was of a favorable strategic geographic area, lying on the brink of the western and eastern world.

It had an abundance of rich resources key to state superiority. However, in the modern era, geographic importance is not as fundamental to a successful nation as Dally and Total Mackenzie failed to recognize the importance that lies outside the heartland, which consists of the Riemann and Offshore Islands.

Mackinder or mahan

To conform to Mackenzie, would be to say that the US is a mere island that is dependent on situations and outcomes that occur in Eastern Europe. In fact, it is the opposite scenario if applied contemporaries. Nicholas Sparkman, a strategies, argued against Mackenzie, by stating that the Americas have the resources and power in which to prevent states inside the heartland from achieving the traditionally adhered, world dominant status.

Woolworth states that since the collapse of the Soviet Union, a unpopular world has been dominated by US power, which generates an additional claim that Mackenzie really is irrelevant in contemporary geopolitics.

Despite other elements are equal or even greater to sustain and improve national power, the Mackinder or mahan late 19th century logic of sea power, is still existent in contemporary power domination.

Mahayana theory consists of two tridents, discussed by James R Holmes The first of his tridents, logic, governs strategic and geopolitical ideas relating to sea power. There is a tripartite element that consists commercially in the sense of obtaining wealth, politically for naming national power, and militarily for allowing access to these resources and maintaining these routes while upholding and reinforcing an authoritative stance, which is a clear purpose regarding the nation of the United States.

His second trident, grammar, provides the rules of preparing for warfare and naval readiness. It consists martially and operational in nature, through production and overseas markets and bases. The grammar of combat is out-dated, providing that the last fleet engagement was at the Elite Gulf in An interesting discussion made by Holmes and Yeshiva addresses the questionable issue about the United States needing to have high-end ships and criticizes the mindset in which the nation has regarding contemporary geopolitics and outcomes for the future of naval warfare.

Amman used six principles that primarily affect a nations ability to become a powerful sea power: The United States is a clear exemplification of how these principles are applied successful in order to maintain, and increase their unpopular dominance.

Because the countries contours consist of vast coastlines and occupy hundreds of military bases overseas, its position s essential to naval dominance. This concern has clearly been erased through the abundance of bases around Europe.

By using the overseas military bases, such as the base in Bahrain, it creates assistance in trade through the Malice Straight, which is a huge chock point in the shipping industry and is favorable to piracy. To be militarily active in a position such as this, allows for United States integration into international assistance and gives the power to deter hostile forces at sea.

By having the multitude of bases, it allows the US Navy to address any situation at any time, regardless of its geographical position. In favor of the United States, the ports on the east, west and Gulf coats receive relatively good climates and are all generally rich in resources.

This allows for easy access, which results in the high use of the capabilities and use of resources available to the nation. An example of how rich the resources are, consist of million barrels of oil and billion cubic feet of gas pockets still available off the west coast of the United States as discussed by Emerson et al From this accessibility and richness, the United States clearly adheres to the second principle Amman expects from a dominant sea power.

It also uses its vast Atlantic coast to interact with the European and African continents. Amman emphasizes that active military personnel are key to a nations ability to act when necessary, and therefore is a highly important factor.

With the use of statistics from CNN 1the United States population of million people is a vital component of this principle, but a rather more significant one is the focus on the 1.

The high amount of personnel on active duty, stresses the interest and importance the United States has around the world. Competing nations such as China and India, who have a much higher population than the United States are becoming increasingly threatening.

However, the United States has one of the highest amounts of military expenditure, utilizing 4. With this high amount of spending, it allows the United States to adhere to what Amman believed to be the most important factor regarding population.The Return of Mahan, Mackinder, and Spykman Russia and Germany are signed on to Beijing’s project.

They are both cooperating as well as investing in the “One Belt, One Road” project (OBOR) announced in . Who is more useful for understanding contemporary Geopolitics: Mackinder or Mahan? Use a major power to illustrate your points.

The Return of Mahan, Mackinder, and Spykman | SFPPR

In the current century that we live, the world is becoming a smaller place from the effects of technology and globalisation. In the modern era, geopolitics is very similar to traditional thought, which is why these theorists, in particular Mahan, are arguably still applicable to contemporary geopolitics.

The ideologies that are held together by Mackinder and his concept of the ‘Heartland Theory’ are out-dated and irrelevant to contemporary geopolitics. "The Geographical Pivot of History" is an article submitted by Halford John Mackinder in to the Royal Geographical Society that advances his heartland theory.

[1] [2] [3] In this article, Mackinder extended the scope of geopolitical analysis to encompass the entire globe. Scholars pit Mahan’s advocacy for sea power against Mackinder’s insights into the benefits of land power and soon the real genius of both is lost.

(For examples, see Dodds and Sidaway , and Colls , as cited in Dodds and Sidaway , and Holmes and Yoshihara 25, ). In the modern era, geopolitics is very similar to rotational thought, which is why these theorists, in particular Amman, are arguably still applicable to contemporary geopolitics.

Mackinder and Mahan: The Chinese Geopolitics in South Asia – Focus on Findings