{"id":22389,"date":"2015-09-09T15:00:10","date_gmt":"2015-09-09T05:00:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=22389"},"modified":"2015-09-07T13:33:38","modified_gmt":"2015-09-07T03:33:38","slug":"the-future-of-maritime-conflict-a-response-to-hugh-white","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/the-future-of-maritime-conflict-a-response-to-hugh-white\/","title":{"rendered":"The future of maritime conflict\u2014a response to Hugh White"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/a><\/p>\n Hugh White\u2019s equally \u2018spirited\u2019 response<\/a> to my critique<\/a> raises several questions in my mind. Unsurprisingly, I differ with him on several points. I accept\u2014and have said elsewhere\u2014that, unlike on land, the defence has no inherent advantage over the offence.<\/p>\n But, Hugh\u2019s point that \u2018the defence must succeed all the time\u2019 is over-stated. It may be true enough in revolutionary and insurgency theory, but, in the context that we\u2019re discussing, what the defence needs to do is succeed enough to achieve the aim required. As Hugh has recognised, there may be a price to be paid, but there always has been a price and, in war, there always will be. What we have to be sure is that the end justifies the means.<\/p>\n Furthermore, while any defence force has to manage a tension between the need for current readiness and investment in the future, it also has to manage a tension between specialisation and flexibility. The difficulty with specialisation along the capability lines proposed by Hugh over many years is that it\u2019s an invitation to an asymmetric response. For example, I don\u2019t disagree with the need for better fuel stockpiling on a national level, but I think that such stockpiling to support denial operations reflects the sort of makeshift solution required when one has been side-stepped by the adversary. How long can one continue either operationally or nationally before the stockpiles are exhausted?<\/p>\n I think that the problem with Hugh\u2019s decrying the ability to conduct sea control would be made clearer if we substitute \u2018sea transport\u2019 for \u2018sea control\u2019. Do we really think that in a future conflict, sea transport won\u2019t be required for both operational purposes and national ones?<\/p>\n