Yes, sir: theoretically, you're right that if you hook all the niche or specialist capability requirements in any domain to any one ally, or any one type of thematic relationship, you lose your sovereignty as a navy. And you can never know what tomorrow's mission will be. No mission tomorrow ever is a reflection of what it was in the past. We've learned to be flexible in how to approach the future. The Gulf War didn't follow the pattern of the Cold War. The war in Yugoslavia and the meltdown in central Europe didn't follow any style of conflict we had seen before. The war on terrorism, name it what you want, has not been something we were taught out of the lessons of World War II or Korea. We always look now to the future with this great uncertainty, so we don't want to create dependencies.
That said, there's a certain degree of dependence required. No nation can go it alone. You need friendships, you need partnerships, and you need really strong relationships. NATO gives us that. Rim of the Pacific...and the Western Pacific Naval Symposium is building those in the deep Pacific. You need bilateral arrangements with your closest allies, who you are wedded to by fate or the gift of geography. We have a continental ally, by the gift of geography, in the United States.
Warfare is so complex. The threats go all the way from nuclear war to cyberwar to the conventional areas of mine warfare and anti-submarine warfare. We do have reliances, and so does every country in this world. Everybody learns to contribute what they are expert in.