Jamee Adams

I was not so much surprised by the idea of human powers fighting against one another for more territory or control, however, I was surprised about the way in which geography was mentioned and defined in this context. I thought it was interesting that in the beginning of this article the author mentioned that in the past it was thought that "geography determines destiny" and that this was a problem to be solved. People had ships and travel was possible, but it seems that trade really opened up when humans began to actually manipulate the geography that they were born into. The example of the United States building the Panama Canal and "transforming the meaning of geography" by creating a new land feature that had never existed, and may never have existed without human intervention, was an interesting way of thinking about the history of trade and power in my opinion.

Rayn Allen

This week I thought the Greek fire was the most interesting thing from the readings. It’s of interesting how they were able to discover a solution that would burn and couldn’t be put out with water and then were able to come up with a method to effectively spread it onto enemy ships so it would do the most damage. However, it is sad that they used these methods in the first place. I’m kind of curious how long these fires would burn since they couldn’t be put out by water and also how it affected the organisms living in the water beneath a war site.

Frigyes (Mano) Barkovics

For this week’s Surprise Statement, I would like to start out with a quote from John F. Kennedy that explains my reflection on the Sea Change ‘Asia’s Cauldron,’ by Robert D. Kaplan. “Events of October 1962 (Cuban Missile Crisis) indicated, as they had all through history, that control of the sea means security. Control of the sea mean peace. Control of the seas can mean victory. The United States must control the seas if it is to protect your security...” As President Kennedy explained having a power over territories of the sea not only means security but also wealth which essentially ties in with controlling key global merchant sea routes. During our lecture, we learned that transporting goods using cargo ships is still the most efficient and affordable way to haul cargo from one continent to another, but if a route can be significantly shortened then it becomes even more crucial due to cutting time. This is exactly what happened when the U.S. defeated the Spanish and constructed the Panama Canal which gave them power to essentially control all the Traffic between the Pacific and Atlantic. This was of course beneficial for everyone since ships no longer had to go around the tip of South America but it’s a serious responsibility on who is in control. The South China Sea faces a very similar problem where China is trying to take control of it from the nearby less powerful countries to dominate SCA and use it for their advantage. But, because our civilizations have changed in the past couple of centuries raging a war is not a solution anymore (Like with the Panama Canal) to take control of it, therefore China is approaching it from a different angle, called “Finlandize”. The idea here is that a powerful country; China, strongly influences the policies of smaller neighboring countries that also own chunks of the sea (such as Taiwan, Malaysia and the Philippines), while allowing it to keep its independence and its own political system.

Signe Bergman

I was surprised by some practices mentioned in the readings. It is strange and comical to imagine Mesopotamians inflating animal skins to be used in rafts. I was also surprised to read that Vikings were “no more violent than their contemporaries,” and that slavery was so common in European sea trade. The excerpt of a satirical piece describing a man experiencing the humiliation and rape commonly forced upon slaves was shocking.

Marisa Borreggine

My surprise concerning this weeks readings were a bit more of a realization; I never really made the connection between profitable systems in the ocean and our global economy. I knew that drilling and recreation/tourism were a huge part of American/Global economies, but I never thought of this in terms of long-term consequences-if the ocean goes, so does a lot of our jobs and economy (and not just us). It makes total sense to me that organizations are popping up to protect the ocean economy now and long-term, and these constitute yet another thing I've learned about the ocean I think everyone should know about and be concerned about. The connection between our oceans and economies around the world is a logical one, but I think more people should have this on their mind, and maybe that will make them more concerned about the health of our oceans (put their money on the table, and that really opens people's eyes).

Lisa Burk

I thought that these short insights and the book review flowed into one another, discussing the Greek fire, gunpowder, and the influence on the progression of empires. I also found it hard to invest in the South China Sea compared to the soviet union. I am not personally interested in the history of development of civilizations through geography, though I do understand the significance. I also do not often dive into politics, but the quote "if you left the China sea issue to the experts and the elites of the region, the various disputes would have a better chance of being solved than if you involve large populations in a democratic process, comprised as they are by their emotions", followed by, "at the end of the day its not about passionate well meaning talk" stuck out to me. I see the value in this, and it makes me think of our own government proceedings. though the Greek fire is exciting and I would like to know more, I was not aware that gunpowder was made prior to guns themselves. I am more interested in hearing about the specifics of these methods and weaponry as it is indeed exciting, similar so what the author in the last reading had implied as to focus more on the horrors.

Frances Eshom-Arzadon

In the New York Times article on ‘Asia’s Cauldron,’ by Robert D. Kaplan, I thought it surprising that he thought there would be a shift from the United States to China, despite their military lacking. His attitude and opinion that “American dominance” will pass was also surprising. In general, I thought the author of the article and Kaplan had a different kind of take on the subject and I can’t say I agree with it, or really like their views.

Kate Griffin

What was most interesting to me in this week's reading was the development of knowledge in relation to tools and other inventions such as weapons and boats. For example in ship-to-ship encounters, the brilliance of the Egyptians using grapnels to hoist over the mast of an opponent ship in order to capsize it. Additionally, the early and almost innate knowledge of what one's city has to offer in trade to other cities as leverage to remain independent is fascinating.

Alyssa Scott

I found the origin and etymology of gunpowder to be quite ironic. According to the webpage, gunpowder was discovered by Taoist alchemists, who described the powder to be dangerous and that when heating the substance "smoke [and flames] result,so that their hands and faces have been burnt, and even the whole house burned down". Alchemists at the time called the powder "fire medicine", or "huoyao / 火藥" - which is continued to be used to act as "a reminder of its heritage as a side result in the search for longevity increasing drugs". The irony lies in idea that in search for such life-giving drug, they created a substance which has led to the unfortunate deaths of many people.

Karissa Shutt

It’s interesting to see all of the names for Greek fire- some a little comical in English. “Sea fire” seemed appropriate for the Byzantine Emperor Anastasius I, who used sulfur combustions. Out of all the compounds that were suggested or hypothesized to be the possible makeup of Greek fire, this was fought with on the ocean, from the ocean.

Anna Sulc

What intrigued me the most about this week's readings were the way ethics vary over time and between cultures. In the Law of Naval Operations, the authors pay great attention to consistently reminding the reader of the ethics of warfare in attempts to maintain "civilized war" and reproach that certain cultures, for example, accept terror as a legitimate weapon. This contrast in ethics concerning naval warfare in various cultures or even the existence of such rigid rules in each culture concerning large scale international conflict surprised me and intrigued me as these have clearly developed over the course of time: greek fire would have been an unacceptable weapon in todays time (because of the suffering it caused) but was widely used in Antiquity and even considered a prized weapon. It has also lead me to ask the question: what naval ethics did the Greeks have? Were there any? When was it decided to write an official set of rules to guide battles? Finally, who and  how does one determine what is too much and what is acceptable in a conflict that in itself consists of death and suffering?

Byron Walker

This week, in regard to the topic of ocean commerce, economics, and law, the thing that stuck out to me most and surprised me was the extent to which laws are enforced and maintained, or rather they way that they are not. It strikes me as incredibly strange the way that disagreements can persist between who owns a particular patch of ocean. even between nations that get along rather well like the US and Canada. What is the actual effect of having overlapping claims such as in the South China Sea? I was also surprised about the way that old treaties and agreements like the old law of the sea have remained in effect. The changing environments like the northern ocean being more open have the potential to change some of the enforcement in favor of financial gain, which strikes me as immoral. I am particularly intrigued by the way nations respect and respond to the open ocean that no one owns.