Naval Power, Diplomacy, and Their Continued Geostrategic Importance

It follows then as certain as that night succeeds the day, that without a decisive naval force we can do nothing definitive, and with it everything honourable and glorious.
— General George Washington to Marquis de Lafayette, 15 November 1781

.  .  .

The geostrategic importance of naval power has been indisputable for millennia, and it remains so today. Naval power was decisive in the Peloponnesian War, the American Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars, the Russo-Japanese War, World War II, and many other conflicts. Short of conflict lies diplomacy. A strong navy facilitates naval diplomacy, which in turn facilitates peace and prosperity. In fact, naval diplomacy is the United States Navy’s primary role. Through strength in preparation, a powerful navy allows the federal government to pursue its interests through nonviolent means. Should diplomacy fail, the Navy’s mission becomes the achievement of victory at war.

The most famous book on the importance of sea power is Alfred Thayer Mahan’s Influence of Seapower Upon History, published in 1890. The significance of Mahan’s treatise cannot be overstated. It was translated into numerous languages and directly influenced many world leaders, including Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt understood naval power’s significance to such an extent that he promoted the United States’ Great White Fleet, enabling the maritime projection of American influence around the world. The time-tested relevance of naval diplomacy is well summed-up in the United States’ Naval Doctine Publication 1: “Unlike other elements of military power, naval diplomacy allows the United States to influence events with greater freedom of action than options requiring a persistent presence ashore.”

Today’s United States Navy remains great and powerful. From nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers to satellites and drones, the United States Navy projects American influence throughout the globe. In most cases, diplomats and politicians are able to capitalize on our naval strength and nonviolently project American influence. In the event their diplomacy fails, the United States Navy stands by, ready to project lawful violence.

To be sure, land strength is also important. But projecting influence on land is significantly more costly, risky, and strategically treacherous. A warship twelve miles off a country’s shoreline, while threatening, is less offensive than soldiers occupying sovereign territory.

Maintaining a forward presence requires naval logistical supply chains. Deployed warships require periodic replenishment for parts, food, personnel, and, except for submarines, fuel. Replenishment necessitates the guarding of maritime supply routes. As such, a country’s navy must be large enough not only to place ships in faraway locations but also to establish and defend its maritime lines of communication.

Significant complexity is involved in maintaining a strong naval presence. Mahan wrote of six conditions required for sea power: geographical position, serviceability of coastlines, extent of territory, population size, character of people, and character of government. All six remain as necessary today as they were in Mahan’s time. Consider the complexity required to engineer, furnish with labor, and operate a nuclear-powered ship. America’s intellectual and industrial heft must design and produce effective warships. The country’s education system must develop enlisted and officer candidates who are capable of understanding the mathematics, physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, mechanics, and electrics inherent in nuclear propulsion operations. Service schools must tailor training to job-specific needs. And graduate-level service schools must train knowledgeable officers on higher-level operational and strategic concepts.

A modern-day nuclear submarine is more complex than a space shuttle. Submarines operate nuclear reactors in diverse and sometimes hostile environments, create their own drinking water and breathable air, project power asea and ashore, carry out reconnaissance missions, and conduct mine warfare. Ballistic missile submarines also serve an essential strategic-deterrent role and are considered the lone survivable asset of the nation’s nuclear triad. Submarines are also limited by space and thus must be operated by crews less than 1/30th the size of aircraft carriers. Submarine personnel, therefore, must be trained and proficient in a wide variety of maintenance, operational, and administrative tasks. Similar levels of complexity exist on all naval warships.

Of note, naval power facilitates the safe transport of raw materials, intermediate goods, and final goods throughout the world. America’s global naval presence prevents pirates and foreign powers from interrupting civilian supply chains. According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, more than 80 percent of worldwide goods are transported by sea. The World Economic Forum places the value at 90 percent. I will explore this topic in more detail in a future article on national wealth, but for now, suffice it to say that freedom of the seas is fundamental to the global economy.

In addition to the safeguarding of civilian supply chains, naval strength is needed to protect military replenishment. The amount of materiel that can fit on a ship is vastly more than that on an airplane. Maritime materiel supply lines are cheaper and faster than non-maritime lines, and the geostrategic relevance of this is obvious. Naval power and land power both hinge on freedom of the seas. As such, diplomatic effectiveness also hinges on freedom of the seas.

As a submarine officer, the strength of American diplomacy makes my job safer and more effective. If diplomatic mechanisms, such as those employed by USAID, can non-violently project American influence abroad, then a submarine does not need to project that influence violently. Diplomacy is cheaper, more effective, and more humanitarian than military violence. This is another way of saying that diplomacy and naval power go hand-in-hand. They are complementary. It is in the interest of the entirety of the American population to fully invest in the strength of American diplomacy and naval power.

. . .

Miles Garrett has touched all longitudes and all northern latitudes. He is a small business owner, a submarine officer, and the author of Executive Leadership: A Warfighter’s Perspective.