John it appears the latest Russian ship to be sunk by Ukrainian drones. Drones gives the wrong impression of technological sophistication. These were in fact a swarm of remote controlled jet-skis loaded with explosives. The cost was minuscule compared to cost of the ship sunk. If a few remote controlled jet-skis can knock out a sophisticated warship, why are we wasting so much money on them (yes I know this begs the question and the answer is the power and influence of the military-industrial complex).
Ships are still important. The bulk transport by ship is essential for trade of food for "high value" passengers and minerals for high value manufactured products. But I agree ships can go round South Africa with not much extra costs.
I think you're arguing against Smith, but not Paine. She says, "No maritime empires remain". By my reading she is arguing not that we live in a world of maritime empires, but that we're living in a global "maritime order". This is a rules-based system which is powered mostly by mutually beneficial trade. That might be a generous interpretation, but at the least, at no point does she argue that US naval "enforcement" is fundamental to the maritime order. She seems unequivocally opposed to US adventurism. This matters (to me at least) because I found the arguments she makes about dictators and expansion very interesting. She gives a compelling definition of appeasement.
As long as the bulk of trade continues via shipping, there will need to be naval power to protect against piracy and other rogue state actors seeking to exploit supply routes. Piracy was an enormous problem for centuries and don’t think it wouldn’t be again under the right circumstances: you only have to look at what small rebel groups and criminal gangs can accomplish from Somalia, to Thailand, to Yemen even now.
And large states have always, and still do to a currently modest extent, participate in coercion on the high seas: Privateers, Buccaneers were state sanctioned piracy and the CCP would tighten the noose on the South China Sea at the expense of ASEAN nations in a heartbeat.
Missiles don’t but boots on the ground, don’t take out fast-moving RIBs or conduct maritime inspections.
So while new technologies will obviously change strategic planning, some key fundamentals remain unchanged.
And as for the point about the criminal and criminally incompetent Russian Black Sea fleet, the comparison between enclosed waters and
No one thought the Black Sea Fleet was criminally incompetent until it was put to the test. And Ukraine's own navy was wiped out on Day 1 of the current war
My point is that the decline in the importance of maritime power is overestimated. I have provided a brief substantiation which you haven’t directly addressed.
I too think it immoral that the US expends greater resource in the external projection of its power than addressing violence, poverty and inequality internally.
Many analysts and any intelligence service worth its salt were aware of the profound corruption and incompetence of its Black Sea Fleet, and also the strategic perils of operating in a confined theatre of operations such as the Black Sea & Sea of Azov.
I’m not picking a fight, you know I am an avid reader of your work and regularly comment and share. As I say, I think you are erring on the side of overstating the declining importance of seagoing forces. God knows I wish they weren’t so necessary, along with all the other vile instruments of warfare and the ghouls that profit from it.
Can you point to the "many analysts". I did a search on "Black sea fleet incompetent" restricting to pre-war period and all the results said the opposite. Here's the top hit
The sharper version of the question is why a country like the US, that can't even protect its own schoolchildren should worry so much about small-scale robberies on the other side of the world.
John it appears the latest Russian ship to be sunk by Ukrainian drones. Drones gives the wrong impression of technological sophistication. These were in fact a swarm of remote controlled jet-skis loaded with explosives. The cost was minuscule compared to cost of the ship sunk. If a few remote controlled jet-skis can knock out a sophisticated warship, why are we wasting so much money on them (yes I know this begs the question and the answer is the power and influence of the military-industrial complex).
Ships are still important. The bulk transport by ship is essential for trade of food for "high value" passengers and minerals for high value manufactured products. But I agree ships can go round South Africa with not much extra costs.
I think you're arguing against Smith, but not Paine. She says, "No maritime empires remain". By my reading she is arguing not that we live in a world of maritime empires, but that we're living in a global "maritime order". This is a rules-based system which is powered mostly by mutually beneficial trade. That might be a generous interpretation, but at the least, at no point does she argue that US naval "enforcement" is fundamental to the maritime order. She seems unequivocally opposed to US adventurism. This matters (to me at least) because I found the arguments she makes about dictators and expansion very interesting. She gives a compelling definition of appeasement.
As long as the bulk of trade continues via shipping, there will need to be naval power to protect against piracy and other rogue state actors seeking to exploit supply routes. Piracy was an enormous problem for centuries and don’t think it wouldn’t be again under the right circumstances: you only have to look at what small rebel groups and criminal gangs can accomplish from Somalia, to Thailand, to Yemen even now.
And large states have always, and still do to a currently modest extent, participate in coercion on the high seas: Privateers, Buccaneers were state sanctioned piracy and the CCP would tighten the noose on the South China Sea at the expense of ASEAN nations in a heartbeat.
Missiles don’t but boots on the ground, don’t take out fast-moving RIBs or conduct maritime inspections.
So while new technologies will obviously change strategic planning, some key fundamentals remain unchanged.
And as for the point about the criminal and criminally incompetent Russian Black Sea fleet, the comparison between enclosed waters and
open seas is very misleading.
No one thought the Black Sea Fleet was criminally incompetent until it was put to the test. And Ukraine's own navy was wiped out on Day 1 of the current war
https://warontherocks.com/2019/01/the-naval-power-shift-in-the-black-sea/
My point is that the decline in the importance of maritime power is overestimated. I have provided a brief substantiation which you haven’t directly addressed.
I too think it immoral that the US expends greater resource in the external projection of its power than addressing violence, poverty and inequality internally.
Many analysts and any intelligence service worth its salt were aware of the profound corruption and incompetence of its Black Sea Fleet, and also the strategic perils of operating in a confined theatre of operations such as the Black Sea & Sea of Azov.
I’m not picking a fight, you know I am an avid reader of your work and regularly comment and share. As I say, I think you are erring on the side of overstating the declining importance of seagoing forces. God knows I wish they weren’t so necessary, along with all the other vile instruments of warfare and the ghouls that profit from it.
Can you point to the "many analysts". I did a search on "Black sea fleet incompetent" restricting to pre-war period and all the results said the opposite. Here's the top hit
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/01/analysis-russia-to-dominate-the-black-sea-in-case-of-ukraine-conflict/
I discussed pirates here
https://johnquiggin.com/2016/05/02/pirates-militarism-whack-a-mole-173/
The sharper version of the question is why a country like the US, that can't even protect its own schoolchildren should worry so much about small-scale robberies on the other side of the world.