Naval strategy, naval power: uses & abuses

[Bob's World]

Moderator's Note

I've created this thread after several posts on the 'China tells navy to prepare for combat' veered away to discussing historical and current naval strategy, alongside sharp exchanges on the perception - trying to be diplomatic - of naval power being abused. Yes, notably by the USN.

You need to visit the original thread to gain some context:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ad.php?t=14686

Now back to Bob.

All Navies have this mandate. Right?

The Chinese want so much to be like the US. They aren't, and won't be.

An interesting article. After reading through the thread I did a quick Google search to see what others had written about when the US Navy rose to challenge the British Navy that we had relied upon since the Monroe Doctrine to protect the rise of US power. Interestingly, the article most on point was written by the Chinese...

http://cjip.oxfordjournals.org/content/1/1/83.full

[carl]

...when the US Navy rose to challenge the British Navy that we had relied upon since the Monroe Doctrine to protect the rise of US power.

When did this happen? After the War of 1812 the American Navy never even came close to the Royal Navy until after war between the countries was acknowledged by both sides as being well nigh inconceivable. To my knowledge, after the heavy frigates got bottled up we never challenged the RN.

[Fuchs]

The USN was enlarged to face the RN after 1895.
Pres. Cleveland was fed up with a cool and relaxed UK reply in a Venezuelan-British Guyana border conflict. The British knew that the U.S. had no power in the region for want of a powerful fleet.

About a decade later, the USN was still clearly inferior, but a relevant force as long as the British had to patrol many other waters (especially the North Sea with a battle fleet + Atlantic and Indian Ocean with cruisers).



The thing I don't get is that China has done very well out of America, including and especially use of the world's sea lanes courtesy of the US Navy. If it hadn't been for America, the Chinese middle class/apparatchiks would still be crawling around in the mud with the peasants.

Why mess with a good thing?

Americans and their belief in demand as driver of an economy are really funny at times. It makes no sense from a macroeconomic point of view (the U.S middle class rather has to thank the Chinese for working in part for mere promises of physical returns), but it's really amusing.

The same goes for the American belief in the importance of the USN for world-wide secured shipping on the Oceans. Pirates arise as first real threat to shipping in decades, the USN plays a tiny role in an inefficient multinational countermeasure (basically comparable to Indian efforts) and the Americans still think that it's their and only their navy that keeps global trade possible.

Many people would be surprised if they learned how much % value (not volume or mass) of global trade happens with air freight services, not maritime shipping.

[carl]

Sorry Fuchs, I don't buy that. Strengthening of the Navy had a lot of causes but the need to possibly fight the RN wasn't one of them.

[Fuchs]

It wasn't abut fighting. It was about having a big stick in great power gaming.

Few navies have ever built beautiful and impressive battleships or aircraft carriers during peacetime for risking them in battle. Such ships are meant for impressing foreign leaders and for the occasional bullying of a small power, not for peer2peer slaughtering.

[carl]

It wasn't abut fighting. It was about having a big stick in great power gaming.

Few navies have ever built beautiful and impressive battleships or aircraft carriers during peacetime for risking them in battle. Such ships are meant for impressing foreign leaders and for the occasional bullying of a small power, not for peer2peer slaughtering.

What good is a big stick if people aren't convinced you will use it if the need arises?

Those ships don't get risked in battle very often because big naval fights don't happen very often. When the big fights happen the ships sail into harms way.

[Fuchs]

Who says the people who count (politicians) don't believe that capital ships would be risked in battle?


By the way; capital ship employment has often been very careful.
See WWI sea battles, WW2 Mediterranean battleship employment, Battle of Midway, Russian de facto non-use of its battleships in both World Wars.

[carl]

You carefully employ all your power. It is foolish to do otherwise. It might be more helpful to look at how many of the ships that started the war were still afloat at the end.

[Bob's World]

When did this happen? After the War of 1812 the American Navy never even came close to the Royal Navy until after war between the countries was acknowledged by both sides as being well nigh inconceivable. To my knowledge, after the heavy frigates got bottled up we never challenged the RN.

Read what I wrote. I said "...about when the US Navy rose to challenge the British Navy that we had relied upon since the Monroe Doctrine to protect the rise of US power."

It is a matter of history that the US was able to focus internally to develop a Continental nation and build our global commerce under the protection of the British Navy. Perhaps you place the wrong meaning on the word "challenge"? Not challenge as in head to head battle, we were allies and competitors. But rather challenge for the status as we climbed to "near peer," to "peer" and ultimately to surpass as the premier navy on seas.

China too has benefited from a powerful US Navy as they established themselves on their continent. The Chinese article lays out that it is now their turn to similarly rise to take their place some day in that role as top global naval power, and that the US should see and accept their rise in the same light that the Brits viewed ours.

[Dayuhan]

It is a matter of history that the US was able to focus internally to develop a Continental nation and build our global commerce under the protection of the British Navy.

From whom did the Royal Navy protect our global commerce?

From whom did the US Navy protect Chinese commerce?

I agree with Fuchs that Chinese commerce has not faced any threat requiring American or any other protection.

I'd also point out that China's economic dependence on commodity imports and merchandise exports produces a real vulnerability. If China finds itself in conflict with another party, that party might well decide to strike outside the range of most Chinese military force by interdicting Chinese shipping in the Indian Ocean. If that were to happen the Chinese obviously couldn't depend on the US to protect its commercial interests.

It's really not unreasonable or surprising for China to want an independent capacity to protect its trade if it needs to do so, rather than depending on others, especially when the others are potential rivals.

[carl]

The Chinese article lays out that it is now their turn to similarly rise to take their place some day in that role as top global naval power, and that the US should see and accept their rise in the same light that the Brits viewed ours.

That's not how I read the article. The primary point of the article was how the US and Great Britain transformed from enemies that fought wars into the closest of friends. The US Navy didn't start its' real growth until AFTER (I would have bolded that but I don't know how) war between the nations was a near impossibility because of that amity. The article details how the friendship between the nations came to be, both sides showing restraint over the decades. One of the things that did not happen was the British showing restraint in the face of a hostile country making a great big navy.

That is a fundamentally different situation from the one we face now. If anything the article argues that China should not build a big navy and should emulate the 19th century US by concentrating instead on economic growth.

[carl]

Dayuhan:

Both the RN and the USN created and maintained oceans free on any real threat to anybody's commerce. The system they established and maintained made it look as if there wasn't any threat out there. There wasn't any threat out there because if any had started to arise it would have been crushed. The primary purpose of the systems was/is to insure free commerce for all countries that ultimately benefits both countries greatly. It was not to gain short term advantage.

That is what makes China's apparent naval ambitions so scary. There is no real reason for it. The system as it exists benefits everybody and doesn't cost the Chinese anything. Does anybody believe that a repressive police state that runs the biggest espionage operation in the history of the world and for whom pirated intellectual property is a significant part of their GDP, does anybody believe they would set up and run as benign a system as the RN and USN have? I sure as hell don't.

It should be observed that China will have a very hard time getting to be a really important naval power. They don't have a real naval tradition. They aren't an island nation. Their geographic position is lousy. I don't get the "Woe is me. The Chinese are coming and can't be stopped." subtext I sometimes detect in various publications here and there.

[Fuchs]

Sooo... when and how exactly did the USN crush Somali piracy without CNN learning about it?


Sorry, the structure of the USN is suitable for land attack and bullying foreign countries, not for securing maritime trade. The latter would demand modern cruisers - high seas patrol ships / sea control ships. I see a lot of offensive aircraft carriers, nuclear subs and amphibious aircraft carriers instead.


Plus: It's impossible to prove that there would have been any major disruption of maritime trade if there was no USN.
The only case that comes close is the Persian Gulf during the 80's, and I don't recall the USN protecting tankers leaving Iranian harbours against Iraqi Mirage F.1 and their Exocets (keep in mind Iran was the victim of an obvious war of aggression then!). The USS Stark was fine with the Mirage F.1 on such an attack mission until it got misunderstood for a tanker itself.
Meanwhile during the same conflict, USS Ticonderoga displayed USN standards of excellence by grasping an opportunity to claim "self defence" and shoot down an Iranian aircraft. Damn the journalists who knew enough to point out that the supposed F-14 was not a threat to a missile cruiser and damn the bad luck that the F-14 was an airliner on an announced, scheduled flight!



Sorry, if viewed from a neutral stance, the USN is more of a threat, a lingering aggressor, than any valiant protector of maritime trade.
The U.S. has mis-used the 'free maritime trade' idea so often as excuse for entering hostilities and violated it at will so often as well by restricting maritime trade itself that I don't see why a foreigner should buy into the U.S. chest-beating about supposedly providing a great service to mankind by securing maritime trade against threats.



Now from another point of view:
Pretty much every military is first and foremost a bureaucracy. Bureaucracies strive for maximising their size up to the limit of sustainability.
The USN heartily embraces every opportunity to justify its budget (size), and it's obvious that claiming to be the protector of global maritime trade is one such opportunity. One should not buy into such bureaucratic propaganda, though.

The same goes for the forward deploying /patrolling in distant waters. This requires a rotation scheme, and rotation schemes multiply the need for forces. The forward deployment thing was the great bureaucratic moment of creativity in pursuing the biggest possible budget. All this patrolling does not serve the purpose of being able to react quickly or the purpose of suppressing conflicts - it serves the bureaucratic self-interest in an almost ingenious way. It's almost ingenious because with no other scheme on earth the USN could have convinced anyone that it truly needs so many ships, more than half of the world's modern combatant tonnage! The idea is ridiculous, especially since the DoD has a 2nd "D" for "Defense", not a "N" for "Navy" nowadays.

[carl]

Sooo... when and how exactly did the USN crush Somali piracy without CNN learning about it?

I said important threats. And you will notice the success rate of the young gents is down lately. Also, sad to say, the modern USN is a bit hobbled by PC. In the 20s things might have been a little different.



Sorry, the structure of the USN is suitable for land attack and bullying foreign countries, not for securing maritime trade. The latter would demand modern cruisers - high seas patrol ships / sea control ships. I see a lot of offensive aircraft carriers, nuclear subs and amphibious aircraft carriers instead.

So you don't the think the USN's force structure is unsuitable for keeping the oceans free. They have done pretty well over the last 70 years so I think I'll defer to their judgment as to what works. You might note that any threat to sea borne commerce that isn't an act of God comes from people. And people mostly live on land.



Plus: It's impossible to prove that there would have been any major disruption of maritime trade if there was no USN.
The only case that comes close is the Persian Gulf during the 80's, and I don't recall the USN protecting tankers leaving Iranian harbours against Iraqi Mirage F.1 and their Exocets (keep in mind Iran was the victim of an obvious war of aggression then!). The USS Stark was fine with the Mirage F.1 on such an attack mission until it got misunderstood for a tanker itself.
Meanwhile during the same conflict, USS Ticonderoga displayed USN standards of excellence by grasping an opportunity to claim "self defence" and shoot down an Iranian aircraft. Damn the journalists who knew enough to point out that the supposed F-14 was not a threat to a missile cruiser and damn the bad luck that the F-14 was an airliner on an announced, scheduled flight!

It is indeed impossible to prove a negative. But if you look at history things were pretty chaotic before the RN and USN calmed calmed the oceans down.

I understand the high regard you have for American ideals but even we don't go so far as to protect an enemy's commerce from third party attack. Didn't re-flag some tankers to protect them from Iranian attack? I remember that we did. We cleared some Iranian mines or caught a mine layer too I think.

Always feels good to thump the Americans for a mistake.


Sorry, if viewed from a neutral stance, the USN is more of a threat, a lingering aggressor, than any valiant protector of maritime trade.
The U.S. has mis-used the 'free maritime trade' idea so often as excuse for entering hostilities and violated it at will so often as well by restricting maritime trade itself that I don't see why a foreigner should buy into the U.S. chest-beating about supposedly providing a great service to mankind by securing maritime trade against threats.

Saying you are neutral don't make you neutral. Your attitude has been a common one expressed by anti-Americans since I was a little boy. I still remember seeing "Yankee go home!" painted on walls.


Now from another point of view:
Pretty much every military is first and foremost a bureaucracy. Bureaucracies strive for maximising their size up to the limit of sustainability.
The USN heartily embraces every opportunity to justify its budget (size), and it's obvious that claiming to be the protector of global maritime trade is one such opportunity. One should not buy into such bureaucratic propaganda, though.

The same goes for the forward deploying /patrolling in distant waters. This requires a rotation scheme, and rotation schemes multiply the need for forces. The forward deployment thing was the great bureaucratic moment of creativity in pursuing the biggest possible budget. All this patrolling does not serve the purpose of being able to react quickly or the purpose of suppressing conflicts - it serves the bureaucratic self-interest in an almost ingenious way. It's almost ingenious because with no other scheme on earth the USN could have convinced anyone that it truly needs so many ships, more than half of the world's modern combatant tonnage! The idea is ridiculous, especially since the DoD has a 2nd "D" for "Defense", not a "N" for "Navy" nowadays.

You should probably remember that the USN has waxed and waned in size depending upon the threat. Right now it is on the downward slide. The Navy as an institution probably would like nothing better to be humungous forever but the country hasn't done that.

Forward basing has been used by navies since forever. It is not a newly created bureaucratic stratagem dreamed up by the Navy to further its' interests. Also if I remember correctly some of those big carriers were not rotated home. They were home based abroad, as were some subs. That cuts down on the number of ships needed but makes sure they are in position quick.

The Navy having so high a percentage of the world's combatant tonnage is more a matter of their weakness than our strength. And why shouldn't they be weak? We and the RN having been keeping things in order more or less for the last 200 years or so.

DoD. I always thought the Navy was part of our defenses. I don't see how you could have a Dept. of Defense without a navy part.

[carl]

Many people would be surprised if they learned how much % value (not volume or mass) of global trade happens with air freight services, not maritime shipping.

That not so valuable mass and volume provides:

a. Food to eat.
b. Fuel to run the engines.
c. The raw materials to make those valuable things with.

Pretty important.

[Fuchs]

So you don't the think the USN's force structure is unsuitable for keeping the oceans free. They have done pretty well over the last 70 years so I think I'll defer to their judgment as to what works.

That's an assertion. Prove it.
(Obviously, you can't. That would require parallel universe experiments as evidence, and those don't exist. This, of course, means that the assertion is unfounded.)
I might as well say the UN has kept maritime trade safe. That's about as impossible to prove.



I understand the high regard you have for American ideals but even we don't go so far as to protect an enemy's commerce from third party attack.

Well, this kinda ridicules the whole assertion of protecting global maritime trade even for countries such as China, doesn't it?



Always feels good to thump the Americans for a mistake.

It was no mistake. it was an attempt to murder two Iranian aircrews and went wrong, killing much more and other Iranians instead.



Saying you are neutral don't make you neutral. Your attitude has been a common one expressed by anti-Americans since I was a little boy. I still remember seeing "Yankee go home!" painted on walls.

I'm about as harsh on the Bundeswehr, but the Bundeswehr is less active and thus offers less opportunities for exposing its failures.
Plus the Bundeswehr hasn't such an inflated sense of self-importance.



You should probably remember that the USN has waxed and waned in size depending upon the threat.

That's rather "depending on the degree of DoD and Congress procurement incompetence".



Forward basing has been used by navies since forever. It is not a newly created bureaucratic stratagem dreamed up by the Navy to further its' interests. Also if I remember correctly some of those big carriers were not rotated home. They were home based abroad, as were some subs. That cuts down on the number of ships needed but makes sure they are in position quick.

Even the RN has never based such a large percentage of its ships in distant waters, nor were said waters ever very distant to English crown territories as is for example the Persian Gulf from CONUS.



The Navy having so high a percentage of the world's combatant tonnage is more a matter or their weakness than our strength. And why shouldn't they be weak? We and the RN having been keeping things in order more or less for the last 200 years or so.

I get it, you surely bought into those talking points / myths.


Your whole thinking here is illogical. There's no reason to assume the USN size as fixed, thus no reason to explain its relative size with the other's small size.

The USN is so large because of
- political inertia
- bureaucratic behaviour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget-maximizing_model)

It's much bigger than required for land attack AND bullying AND defeating other navies combined. It's really politics and bureaucratic behaviour that explain its size.




DoD. I always thought the Navy was part of our defenses. I don't see how you could have a Dept. of Defense without a navy part.

I was clearly hinting at the navy not being part of national defense. It's part of national strategic offense, not national defense.



Oops, I forgot. Cuba crisis. Unilateral naval embargo (after deploying own nukes to Turkey was apparently totally OK).
Maybe some people have an idea why a so terribly self-contradictory and unreliable global maritime shipping protector ain't no global maritime shipping protector, but a threat to global maritime shipping.
I for one cannot remember so terribly many naval peacetime embargoes that were neither permitted by the UN nor unilaterally staged by the U.S..



Besides; that "anti-Americanism" thing is lame in discussions. Sounds a lot like "the terrorists hate our freedom" BS.
I won't call it an ad hominem attack for being contra a country is not in itself bad (although I'd rather say I'm anti-U.S. policies than anti-American).
After all, certain countries in the world deserve the pushback they receive because they torture, kidnap, assassinate, invade other countries in wars of aggression, bomb other countries at will, support evil dictators, threatened the world with nuclear holocaust for decades ... well, you get the point.

[carl]

That's an assertion. Prove it.
(Obviously, you can't. That would require parallel universe experiments as evidence, and those don't exist. This, of course, means that the assertion is unfounded.)
I might as well say the UN has kept maritime trade safe. That's about as impossible to prove.

No, that wasn't an assertion. It was a comment upon your opinion.


Well, this kinda ridicules the whole assertion of protecting global maritime trade even for countries such as China, doesn't it?

No, it doesn't. It just means it is a normal thing not intervene on behalf of an enemy when a third party attacks it. I pays not be enemies with us, or it has in the past.


It was no mistake. it was an attempt to murder two Iranian aircrews and went wrong, killing much more and other Iranians instead.

That is your opinion. Mine is that it was an attempt at self defense gone awry for a number of reasons, some of them not very good ones.


That's rather "depending on the degree of DoD and Congress procurement incompetence".

The effect is the same.


Even the RN has never based such a large percentage of its ships in distant waters, nor were said waters ever very distant to English crown territories as is for example the Persian Gulf from CONUS.

I don't know the specifics but things were very different then from now. Technology accounts for a lot of that. Geography accounts for a lot more. I'll have to look it up but I think the RN had squadrons and bases in India, the Pacific and Singapore. Those places are pretty far from the British Isles.


I get it, you surely bought into those talking points / myths.

I always do when they make sense to me.



Your whole thinking here is illogical. There's no reason to assume the USN size as fixed, thus no reason to explain its relative size with the other's small size.

The USN is so large because of
- political inertia
- bureaucratic behaviour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget-maximizing_model)

It's much bigger than required for land attack AND bullying AND defeating other navies combined. It's really politics and bureaucratic behaviour that explain its size.

I don't think my thinking is illogical. I think it is perfectly logical. I just think you are wrong.


Oops, I forgot. Cuba crisis. Unilateral naval embargo (after deploying own nukes to Turkey was apparently totally OK).
Maybe some people have an idea why a so terribly self-contradictory and unreliable global maritime shipping protector ain't no global maritime shipping protector, but a threat to global maritime shipping.

We were involved in the cold war at the time. In times of war, we don't permit enemies freedom of the seas. We interfered with Japanese shipping from 1941 to 1945 also. Of course sometimes we don't, the Korean War and the Vietnam conflict being two cases in point.


Besides; that "anti-Americanism" thing is lame in discussions. Sounds a lot like "the terrorists hate our freedom" BS.
I won't call it an ad hominem attack for being contra a country is not in itself bad (although I'd rather say I'm anti-U.S. policies than anti-American).
After all, certain countries in the world deserve the pushback they receive because they torture, kidnap, assassinate, invade other countries in wars of aggression, bomb other countries at will, support evil dictators, threatened the world with nuclear holocaust for decades ... well, you get the point.

Anti-Americanism may be lame but it is real. Go ahead and push. I'll push back. Yes, I get the point. We're evil hypocrites.

I think it useful to look at how some of the countries closest to China view their naval ambitions. They seem a bit suspicious. The Viets haven't purchased submarines because they are afraid of the USN. It is because they are afraid of China's intentions.

[Fuchs]

Have a look at the non-existing air/ship combat capabilities of a F-14 fighter, at the altitude it was supposedly flying at, the straight line it was supposedly flying at, typical air/ship attack patterns, the USS Vincennes' (not Tico, sry) CIWS and then tell me again that was self-defence.
Self-defence in peacetime, of course.

Maybe sometime the Cubans should kill a New Orleans-Rio de Janeiro airliner and claim it was a ship's self-defence against a RC-135. Then we'd see how see how serious and consistent the U.S. is in its idea of what's self-defence and what's not.

I'm seriously fed up with this "bombing a wedding was a F-16's self defence against AK muzzle fire" line of institutionalised lying.

[Entropy]

I'm seriously fed up with this "bombing a wedding was a F-16's self defence against AK muzzle fire" line of institutionalised lying.

That's a pretty bold accusation. You are saying here that these weren't accidents or even negligence but "murder," which the intentional killing of innocents. That means that the people who gave the orders that led to those deaths and/or the people who "pulled the trigger" knew they were murdering. That analysis doesn't match the facts of any of the cases you've cited, Fuchs, but obviously everyone is entitled to their opinion and people can judge for themselves what to think of your accusations and come to their own conclusions. Frankly I'm surprised that someone who has studied conflict and war as much as you have would think that such incidents can only be explained by murder.

As to the roles of the US Navy, it's important to keep in mind that many countries are defensively allied with the US where the US is obligated to militarily defend those countries. For such treaties to be effective, the US must have the credible ability to actually come to the aid of said nations. That requires a strong Navy so that the US can assure sea access to its allies in times of war and crisis to transport troops, supplies, equipment, etc. Without that ability our defensive treaties are greatly diminished in terms of credibility. We have allies in the Middle East, Europe and Asia and guess where our Naval forces are concentrated?

I think Fuch's is right to a certain extent that during peacetime the "sea lanes" are open by default because it's usually in everyone's interest to keep them open. But we don't live in a perfect world, the world isn't always peaceful, and the US economy depends on global trade. As a result, the US is not about to simply assume that commerce will never be interdicted (even if we had no defense alliances).

[Fuchs]

Entropy, a F-14 is no threat to a cruiser, shooting it down is thus no self-defence, still trying to shoot it down equals trying to kill the pilots and since that happened without a state of war or similar it's an attempt to murder them.
One might discuss the difference between murder and manslaughter in this case, but that's about it.


About the repeated bombing of civilian concentrations with the "muzzle flash, self defence" excuse: There's no way how counter-attacking is safer than flying away with afterburner. Thus it was no self-defence. Furthermore, those pilots can be expected to know that no 57 mm AAA was with any degree of likeliness the source of the muzzle flashes, and anything below that (basically only 23mm, 14.5mm, 12.7mm or 7.62mm) is pretty much ineffective unless the aircraft was really, really low. In that case, attacking would again be the least safe path of action.


The U.S. military has a pattern of using wrong "self-defense" claims as an excuse for when trigger happiness went wrong or when it was eager to kill at the fringe of the ROE. I know that it's not the only military with this defect; others have reacted similarly in Afghanistan and Iraq, even the Bundeswehr. It's a discipline and leadership issue.


But we don't live in a perfect world, the world isn't always peaceful, and the US economy depends on global trade.

Well, guess which nations did the most in terms of aggressions since the invention of the UN.

[Ken White]

... still trying to shoot it down equals trying to kill the pilots and since that happened without a state of war or similar it's an attempt to murder them.
One might discuss the difference between murder and manslaughter in this case, but that's about it.As was said above you're entitled to your opinion. I'm sure some agree with you. I for one do not...

Negligent homicide, yes. Manslaughter or murder, no. That's not a semantic quibble, it's the difference between the right of self defense inherent to any military or naval element and an intentional and deliberate criminal act -- which that shoot down was not.
The U.S. military has a pattern of using wrong "self-defense" claims as an excuse for when trigger happiness went wrong or when it was eager to kill at the fringe of the ROE...The latter is quite rare, the former quite prevalent -- we are in fact trigger happy. And we are in fact suckered into firing on occasion by those astute enough to play on that as that penchant for trigger happiness is well known. We know it too. We do not feel a need to apologize for it. Self defense may be alien to Europe nowadays, it is not to us. :wry:
Well, guess which nations did the most in terms of aggressions since the invention of the UN.France and the UK? :D

Or Pakistan . Egypt didn't do too bad... ;)

[Dayuhan]

Well, guess which nations did the most in terms of aggressions since the invention of the UN.

Whoever has the greatest capacity for intervention will always do the most intervening, UN or no UN.

[Entropy]

I don't really have much to add to what Ken said.

[Fuchs]

You really need to check out the meaning of "self-defense", for to you guys it seems to mean something like "we are allowed to kill you if we can make up an excuse".



To be acquitted of any kind of physical harm-related crime (such as assault and battery and homicide) using the self-defense justification, one must prove legal provocation, meaning that one must prove that he was in a position in which not using self-defense would most likely lead to death or serious injuries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_defense


In Runyan, the court stated "When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justiciable."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_%28United_States%29

Can't see how the airliner did assault the Vincennes violently.


In Cross v. State, 370 P.2d 371 (Wyo 1962) the Court found that the Due Process of Law clause in the state constitution guaranteed "the inherent and inalienable right to protect property."
However, when an assailant ceases to be a threat (...), the defense of justification will fail if the defending party presses on to attack or to punish beyond imposing physical restraint.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_self-defense#Legal_status_of_self-defense


The muzzle flashes ceased to be a threat seconds after being seen. The aircraft had to return for so-called "self defence".



While the definitions vary from state to state, the general rule makes an important distinction between the use of non-deadly and deadly force. A person may use non-deadly force to prevent imminent injury, however a person may not use deadly force unless that person is in reasonable fear of serious injury or death.

Identifying an aircraft flying high and straight as F-14 (a 100% fighter without ground attack capability beyond 20mm strafing in that version) does in no way create a reasonable fear on part of the Vincennes bridge crew.

It goes son:

Some states also include a duty to retreat (exceptions include Louisiana and Florida: see castle doctrine), when deadly force may only be used if the person is unable to safely retreat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_%28United_States%29


You guys need to bend the definition of self-defense even beyond definitions from the U.S. in order to excuse the kills. Don't expect any foreigner to buy into this if he's got a critical mind and respect for human lives.

On the other hand; you guys had it comfortable for 20+ years buying into the propaganda excuse of the own team. Who am I to expect that I could break through the cognitive dissonance with some petty forum posts?

Just be alerted at the fact that there are wildly different interpretations for what the U.S. military does, and said expectations have good reasons.

[wm]

You really need to check out the meaning of "self-defense", for to you guys it seems to mean something like "we are allowed to kill you if we can make up an excuse".

Fuchs,


The citations used in your discussion of self defense apply to "domestic" law, or laws governing the interactions between individuals, in various USA jurisdictions, not to international law, or laws governing the interactions between nations or their agents.

In traditional just war theory, actions normally considered to be homicides are justified by appeal to a domestic analogy, not a domestic identity. Your points about self defense might have more impact were they drawn from international law or law of land warfare cases rather than those dealing with domestic homicides in the USA.

I am reminded of the story that in Bavaria, der Fhn may be used as a defense in a homicide case. Should one have allowed that defense to the leaders of the Third Reich during the Nrnberg trials? By parity of reasoning from your examples, it seems so.

[Fuchs]

Dunno what's "Fhn", but international law (which is not universally respected in this forum) is about states.

The IIRC rather customary maritime laws are hardly legalising killing pilots of a plane that didn't even open fire, for otherwise there would be massacres over all seas all the time.


One of the ever-astonishing things in discussions with anglophone people about military stuff is how wrong it is to just assume that they apply basic human decency a, respect and civility when it comes to foreigner's lives.
The whole idea that the shootdown of an airliner or even only the shootdown of a harmless fighter in peacetime could be justified is totally ridiculous.

Those officers were intent on killing foreigners in wartime without any legal justification, period.
The bomber pilots over AFG who bombed civilians 'due to muzzle flashes' were intent on killing and jumped on a flimsy excuse for killing.

Besides; half of the people whom I've met discussing these events and claiming self-defence for the U.S. troops readily dismissed any legal argument whenever it pleased them in other cases.

Now I could write a lot of much more harsh comments, but those events are old and by now everyone who hasn't a plank on his eye should know that those were gross mixtures of incompetence, lack of discipline and lack of respect for human lives.

[Ken White]

You guys need to bend the definition of self-defense even beyond definitions from the U.S. in order to excuse the kills. Don't expect any foreigner to buy into this if he's got a critical mind and respect for human lives.Understood and accepted. We fully respect their right to differ as a result of living in significantly different environments

One problem with the Wiki is that it is reflective of the small 'l' liberal position on self defense which was promulgated in an effort to let government take care of us. The majority of Americans IMO subscribe to the attitude that government proves repeatedly that it cannot and will not do that and so most have adopted an attitude that is supportive of the newer definition described in this 2005 news article (LINK) (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155303,00.html). Note two things; "Thirdly, persons attacked in any place outside the home where they have a legal right to be may also use force to defend themselves" and that the predictions of frivolous deaths the gun control folks foresaw have been proven not even remotely true. Most in the US view the issue differently than does much of the world and we're aware of that. :wry:
On the other hand; you guys had it comfortable for 20+ years buying into the propaganda excuse of the own team. Who am I to expect that I could break through the cognitive dissonance with some petty forum posts?That's the good question.

Oh and it's more like 200+ years... ;)
Just be alerted at the fact that there are wildly different interpretations for what the U.S. military does, and said expectations have good reasons.Yep. Bias is an amazing thing -- it works both ways. Isn't that weird...:D

ADDED:
but those events are old and by now everyone who hasn't a plank on his eye should know that those were gross mixtures of incompetence, lack of discipline and lack of respect for human lives.No planks but while one can acknowledge the broad accuracy of your statement, one need not -- indeed many Americans will not -- agree with your proscription and the restraint you seem to desire. In the end, self defense is in the mind and eye of the defender at issue at the time of an incident. Everyone does not always apply sound judgement and impeccable logic in a sterile setting...

[carl]

Fuchs:

The muzzle flash incident to which you refer happened in 2002 I believe. The rules have probably changed quite a bit since then so I suspect that exact type of thing could not happen again. Does that mean the airplanes don't kill the wrong people still? Nope. It just means that precise sequence of events won't happen again.

There was no way to know whether an Iranian F-14 could attack a surface ship with something bigger than 20mm in 1988. We hadn't been supporting those aircraft for years and the Iranians could have modified them how they pleased. Prudence probably would have dictated assuming that they had modified the airplane to give it an ability to attack surface ships. Of the many mistakes that resulted in that airliner and its' passengers being killed, assuming that an Iranian F-14 might be able to badly hurt a ship wasn't one of them.

[Fuchs]

What exactly is your value system if you bring forward a If in doubt we kill and ask later and that's OK defence?!?

[Sigaba]

It wasn't abut fighting. It was about having a big stick in great power gaming.

Few navies have ever built beautiful and impressive battleships or aircraft carriers during peacetime for risking them in battle. Such ships are meant for impressing foreign leaders and for the occasional bullying of a small power, not for peer2peer slaughtering.
As you say:

That's an assertion. Prove it.

And by proof, I mean archival evidence or historical works based upon archival evidence that shows naval planners had no intention of using battleships and aircraft carriers to conduct operations against opposing fleets.

[Fuchs]

I don't have much time today.

For starters, read up on the German Risikoflotte/risk fleet theory/strategy and the RN's "spit & polish" school of officers and their lack of emphasis on battleworthiness. Then think about the Soviet Fleet of the mid/late Cold War.

These are the most obvious cases.

[Ken White]

What exactly is your value system if you bring forward a If in doubt we kill and ask later and that's OK defence?!?Obviously not identical to yours. I suspect many Americans but certainly not all would agree with me and I suspect many Europeans but not all would agree with you. I think that means that neither position is wrong, just that they differ.

I have no objection to that and do not believe I have a right or duty to correct those who differ with me. I can and will tell them I differ if asked or prompted but I cannot and will not berate them as e.g. 'excessively self righteous,' superciliously judgmental,' 'moralistic naggers,' 'spineless cretins' or 'metrosexual inconsequentials' because I do not know them or know any of those conditions to be accurate with respect to them (and even if any did apply to someone, they'd almost certainly not apply to many or all...). Just because something isn't done the way I'd do it is not a sign that it is wrong, immoral or illogical.

I can say categorically that in my case, the "if in doubt, kill" factor reasonably sanely exercised over a number of years allows me to be here and enjoy my curmudgeonly old age. I have no doubt that had I not exercised that prerogative, I would not be here so I certainly have no problems at all with that value system. Recommend it highly, in fact... :wry:

The obvious response to that last is that had the US Government not sent me to exotic travel destinations, that might not be the case. True but they did send me and it is the case. As Dayuhan noted above, "Whoever has the greatest capacity for intervention will always do the most intervening, UN or no UN." We've been intervening for well over 200 years, a good many times (for more than two Centuries) over the objections of at least some in Europe, often of many there and almost never with their unanimous approval. Those interventions or escapades were sometimes to the benefit of many, occasionally to the detriment of others and not always beneficial to ourselves (in fact, quite often, they were not especially so) but it is part of the psyche and no verbiage is likely to alter that. IOW, that's reality; not what should be but what is. Since it is reality, to not espouse the "if in doubt, kill" mantra would be imprudent if not actually immoral as to most Americans, active and effective self defense is a duty, not a terrible chore to be avoided if at all possible. That's unlikely to change much in your lifetime...

As that Ancient Oriental Philosopher once said; "Different strokes..."

[carl]

For starters, read up on the German Risikoflotte/risk fleet theory/strategy and the RN's "spit & polish" school of officers and their lack of emphasis on battleworthiness. Then think about the Soviet Fleet of the mid/late Cold War.

I think you are confusing risikoflotte with a fleet in being. The risk fleet was intended to prevent war from starting. If the war did start, the theory fell flat on its face. It was based mainly on frightening the other guy. It wouldn't work if he didn't get scared. Now that may be considered building cool ships with the intention never to use them, but it was a German theory I believe, not a British, American or Japanese one.

A fleet in being is a tactic to preserve an inferior force so it can have at least some influence on its' stronger opponent. The tactic is hide in port so the superior force will have a hard time getting at you and has to detail forces to watch you if you do come out to die. It is something that is forced upon the inferior navy by circumstance, not by intention. The Germans had to do it in WWII because the war started several years before their navy was ready. Fleet in being doesn't work so good now because of airpower. Boats are a lot easier to find and hit if they are sitting in port.

As far as the RN's "spit and polish", you are confusing the incompetence of a military force that hadn't had any real battles to fight, with strategy. The RN may not have been so ready for battle in WWI but they fought anyway.

The Soviet Cold War fleet was built around submarines. Those always get used. I don't see how you could say their fleet wasn't built to fight.

[Fuchs]

Simple. It was built for deterrence, for looking good in wargames.
The Soviets did not intend to wage WW3.


It wasn't abut fighting. It was about having a big stick in great power gaming.

Few navies have ever built beautiful and impressive battleships or aircraft carriers during peacetime for risking them in battle. Such ships are meant for impressing foreign leaders and for the occasional bullying of a small power, not for peer2peer slaughtering.
(new bold)


The RN of the 1880's and 1890's (spit and polish school era)can hardly have built its battleships for peer2peer fights because there was no peer.
The same goes for the USN. There is no fleet that could oppose more than a fraction of it, thus the USN is mostly for

... impressing foreign leaders and for the occasional bullying of a small power ...

Again; it would look very different and not so land-attack-centric if it was about patrols for securing global maritime trade.
It would have many multi-purpose cruisers for independent action, many sea control ships, much less amphibious capacity, less cruise missiles.

[davidbfpo]

I've created this thread after several posts on the 'China tells navy to prepare for combat' veered away to discussing historical and current naval strategy, alongside sharp exchanges on the perception - trying to be diplomatic - of naval power being abused. Yes, notably by the USN.

You need to visit the original thread to gain some context:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=14686

[carl]

Simple. It was built for deterrence, for looking good in wargames.
The Soviets did not intend to wage WW3.

Nobody intended to wage WWIII. If it had started it would have been a mistake. But if it had started they would have deployed those boats and they would have fought and as such the boats were built to fight. Deterrence doesn't work if you are faking it. Building weapons without the genuine determination to use them if needed isn't deterrence. I'll accept that those boats were built to help deter but that means they were meant to fight.


The RN of the 1880's and 1890's (spit and polish school era)can hardly have built its battleships for peer2peer fights because there was no peer.
The same goes for the USN. There is no fleet that could oppose more than a fraction of it...

The RN and USN that you cite had created a situation whereby they dominated the seas of the world. They did that by fighting. In order to preserve that situation they maintained their dominance by replacing ships, modernizing them and maintaining superiority in naval power. By doing that they kept a peer power from arising. That was the whole point. It worked. But it would not have worked if those ships had not had genuine naval capabilities, i.e. if they had not been able to fight.


Again; it would look very different and not so land-attack-centric if it was about patrols for securing global maritime trade.
It would have many multi-purpose cruisers for independent action, many sea control ships, much less amphibious capacity, less cruise missiles.

And again, I accept the judgment of the USN as to what is needed in preference to yours.

The people who built, manned and paid for these navies said they did so because they might need them in case a fight came up. I think I'll take them at their word and disregard yours.

[Fuchs]

Well, they're incompetent if they need so much hardware for actual fleet actions given the modest non-allied naval power in the world and the more than modest allied naval power in the world.
Even if they did intend this force structure for more purposes than I mentioned; they'd be incompetent in this case. Only incompetents need such a force ratio or spend so much extra wealth of their country on the multiplying the degree of superiority. I don't respect the judgement of incompetents.

So either they're incompetent or the purpose of such a huge navy (and historical precedents) was not to wage major wars against other fleets, but
* impress foreign leaders
* bullying (land attack mostly)


It's hard to come up with a calculation that compares fiscal costs of different forms of major war fighting and still comes to the conclusion that the immensely expensive carrier groups and amphibious forces are more cost-efficient than other forms of assisting allies. Amphibious forces, for example, are at most counterattack forces in a strategic (alliance) defence.


There is of course another explanation, and I'm disappointed that nobody brought this one yet.
We could also explain large navies with an uncontrolled, accidental development and a lot of institutional inertia.
That would kinda lead to the "Niiskanen's bureaucrat" concept, of course.

[Entropy]

Fuchs,

Just a little advice - if you're going to make accusations of incompetence, you probably should back that up, document those claims and make specific arguments instead of providing vague assertions. It sounds like you might have an interesting criticism, but I really have no idea what your actual argument is.

Also, you've yet to respond to what I wrote earlier about the purpose of the US Navy in relation to US defensive commitments. Thanks.

[carl]

Fuchs:

This whole thing boils down to Fuchs judgment of what prudent, responsible, proficient navies should be doing vs. what navies that have historically proven to be prudent, responsible and proficient think they should do.

I vote for the navies.

[Fuchs]

Fuchs,

Just a little advice - if you're going to make accusations of incompetence, you probably should back that up, document those claims and make specific arguments instead of providing vague assertions. It sounds like you might have an interesting criticism, but I really have no idea what your actual argument is.

Also, you've yet to respond to what I wrote earlier about the purpose of the US Navy in relation to US defensive commitments. Thanks.

Another advice: Read more carefully.

I do not say they are incompetent. I say they'd be incompetent if they did what he thinks they did.

Plus I see no need to reply to your point about commitments, for we seem to be in agreement.


As to the roles of the US Navy, it's important to keep in mind that many countries are defensively allied with the US where the US is obligated to militarily defend those countries. For such treaties to be effective, the US must have the credible ability to actually come to the aid of said nations. That requires a strong Navy so that the US can assure sea access to its allies in times of war and crisis to transport troops, supplies, equipment, etc.

Such ships are meant for impressing foreign leaders and for the occasional bullying of a small power, not for peer2peer slaughtering.

The point of these alliance relationships is to prevent an attack on these countries. The point is not to win once they're under attack.


Besides; prepositioned material and airlift of troops are a quicker and cheaper method of reinforcing said allies than cruising with more than a dozen battlegroups on the seven seas with never more than one or two MEU in range for an as timely reserve (and they would likely wait till many more CVBGs are in the area before they'd actually dare to close in with Taiwan, for example.).

Again; the size and all is impressive, but the forces would look very different if they were really about waging major wars. Congress politics (including legalised bribery) and bureaucratic dynamics are the real drivers, not actual preparations for war.

[Entropy]

The point of these alliance relationships is to prevent an attack on these countries. The point is not to win once they're under attack.

Well no. A credible deterrent requires a credible capability. If a potential enemy thinks your forces are only for "wargames" or for "impressing foreign leaders" then, by definition, your forces aren't a credible threat and therefore aren't a credible deterrent. If the enemy believes your force cannot "win once under attack" then there is no credibility. Credibility is dependent on capability. There are a lot of Navies like that - they have platforms that mostly sit pierside, depend on foreign contractors for maintenance, and operate with poorly trained crews that don't practice war-fighting skills. The US Navy isn't one of those navies.

Now, maybe you can argue the force structure is wrong or whatever, but there probably isn't another Navy in the world that's underway practicing actual wartime tasks as much as the US Navy.


Besides; prepositioned material and airlift of troops are a quicker and cheaper method of reinforcing said allies than cruising with more than a dozen battlegroups on the seven seas with never more than one or two MEU in range for an as timely reserve (and they would likely wait till many more CVBGs are in the area before they'd actually dare to close in with Taiwan, for example.).

Naturally you preposition when you can, but that's not always possible and it's quite expensive to put all the stuff you'd need in every single country one is allied with - that's why the US uses prepositioned, preloaded ships with the equipment on board.

Secondly, you need some redundancy with CVBG's and other assets because part of the fleet is going to be in the yard and then you have the problem of geography necessitating an atlantic and a pacific fleet.



Again; the size and all is impressive, but the forces would look very different if they were really about waging major wars.

Ok, I'll bite - what would a Navy that was "really about waging major wars" actually look like?


Congress politics (including legalised bribery) and bureaucratic dynamics are the real drivers, not actual preparations for war.

Well, of course Congressional politics is a problem, but it is one of many and probably not as negatively determinative as you suggest.

[Sigaba]

That's an assertion. Prove it.


I don't have much time today.
Fuchs--

At your convenience, please do provide historiographically credible sources as evidence to support your broad generalizations about modern naval history.

To be clear, the specific interpretation you offered follows.
It wasn't abut fighting. It was about having a big stick in great power gaming.

Few navies have ever built beautiful and impressive battleships or aircraft carriers during peacetime for risking them in battle. Such ships are meant for impressing foreign leaders and for the occasional bullying of a small power, not for peer2peer slaughtering.IMO, your argument requires you to provide evidence that the overwhelming majority of naval building programs and concurrent planning were for show, not fighting.


Nobody intended to wage WWIII.
Carl--

With respect, I disagree. The Maritime Strategy--along with its plans to build a "600 ship fleet"--reflected the U.S. Navy's intention to fight a global war against the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies.

[carl]

With respect, I disagree. The Maritime Strategy--along with its plans to build a "600 ship fleet"--reflected the U.S. Navy's intention to fight a global war against the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies.

Maybe it would be more accurate to say nobody wanted WWIII to start.