In other words, there's a whole new cost and technology center. Modern naval warfare was unimaginable in 1920. The fact that "there is a boat involved" is not sufficient justification.
>Global power projection has always been the focus of the US Navy since its inception.
The US Navy was founded in 1794. So no.
>North Carolina and Iowa are far from each other separated by mountains.
Iowa is on the Mississippi, the Chicago Portage exists, the Erie canal exists, etc. I was quoting the author who had studied the issue: you should give your opponents more credit than that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Act_of_1794
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-War
A Mahanian would argue that sea power endures regardless of the technological limitations of the contemporary weapon delivery mechanism, i.e. shell, aircraft, torpedo, or missile. The USS Langley (first US aircraft carrier) dates to 1921 and Billy Mitchel sank the SMS Ostfriesland in the same year, the first sinking of a major warship by aircraft. Of course, submarines had already came close to starving Britian in WWI. These are all the elements of "modern naval warfare."
Naval battles are fought by aircraft carried on ships.
Modern naval warfare is still about global power projected by ships. That hasn't changed since 1920. Global power projection has always been the focus of the US Navy since its inception.
North Carolina and Iowa are far from each other separated by mountains. Until the advent of giant cargo airships, it will always be cheaper to move bulk goods by sea.