Are Traditional Concepts of Maritime Strategy Still Relevant in the 21st Century?
The Relevance of Traditional Concepts of Maritime Strategy in the Twenty-First Century
The nature of maritime warfare is in a near constant state of evolution and has most recently been reshaped by technological developments, globalization, and the rise of non-state actors. This paper examines the resulting debates regarding the continued relevance of “traditional” concepts of maritime strategy, particularly those established by figures such as Alfred Thayer Mahan and Sir Julian Corbett. These traditional ideas were produced in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as an answer to state-centric conflict and large-scale naval battles. However they now seem to be disconnected from the realities of contemporary conflicts which increasingly involves modern elements such as insurgencies and cyber warfare.
This paper argues that even with these recent changes, the core principles of maritime strategy, sea control, power projection, and the protection of maritime trade, remain relevant. This paper will explore the relevance of traditional maritime strategy by examining its foundational principles, the impact of modern technological and geopolitical shifts, and how navies have adapted to new forms of conflict.
Alfred Mahan’s seminal work on “sea power” was first published in 1890 (Mehan, 2011). His theories emphasized the critical role of naval superiority which would enable a nation to dominate international trade routes and leverage this control to dominate global politics (Speller, 2022). Sir Julian Corbett published his theories is 1911 (Corbett, 2008). His theories highlight the importance of cooperation between naval and land forces and the strategic use of maritime power as a subset of national strategy. This emphasis on broader strategic objectives that recognises the limitations of naval power offers a contrast to Mahan’s focus of decisive battles (Strachan, 2013). These theories have shaped naval thinking for over a century however are they still applicable in today’s geopolitical context?
Command of the sea is the first topic to be discussed in every naval strategy debate. Command of the sea “is one of those ringing phrases that dominates the imagination but confuses the intellect,” according to naval historian Geoffrey Till (Till, 2013). while Mahan is often given credit for the concept, practically every prominent naval scholar has written on it. The objective of sea power and the establishment of sea command, according to Mahan, is “the possession of that overbearing power on the sea which drives the enemy’s flag from it or allows it to appear only as a fugitive.” (Mehan, 2011). He provides historical examples of how certain nations have achieved the command of the sea, demonstrating that complete command is hardly ever achievable. Corbett also argued as early as 1911 that it was the use of the sea rather than its possession that was important (Corbett, 2008). So, the idea of command of the sea needs to be viewed theoretically, like Clausewitz’s analogies between the idealized and theoretical forms of warfare and the realities of war (Armstrong, 2015). This inability to achieve command has led to the development of the notions of “sea control” and its counterpart, “sea denial” as more practical strategic goals.
Sea denial describes a situation where a naval force effectively stops an enemy from using a particular region for its own objectives. While the denying force may not necessarily have complete control over the region, this tactic focuses on restricting the enemy’s freedom of movement in the marine domain, which reduces their operational effectiveness (Miller, 2006).
Sea control refers to the ability of a naval force to exercise freedom of action in a maritime area, allowing it to use the sea for its purposes while denying its use to adversaries. Sea control is important as it enables power projection, littoral operations and maintaining a presence which is required for influencing events on land and shaping the operating environment.
In regions such as the South China Sea, control over key maritime areas is still critical for projecting power and securing national interests. The rise of China as a naval power, as demonstrated by China’s militarization of artificial islands (Seidel, 2024) and its claims over the South China Sea (Speller, 2022), has led to renewed interest on these concepts. Similarly, Russia’s renewed assertiveness along its maritime frontiers highlights the importance of denying adversaries access to strategic waters, especially in the context of great power competition (Speller, 2022). While the principles of control and denial remain relevant, the methods employed to achieve them have evolved, influenced by modern technologies such as drones, and cyber capabilities.
Modern insurgencies and the increasing role of non-state actors in global conflicts are another new challenge to traditional maritime strategy. Insurgent groups often operate in coastal areas or use maritime routes for smuggling and logistics. Groups, such as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), Hezbollah, and Houthi rebels, have demonstrated relatively sophisticated sea denial tactics, including successful attacks on large maritime targets. These groups have used asymmetric tactics to disrupt state naval operations, using missile attacks, small boat raids, and mines (Speller, 2022) as a means of controlling the sea lanes adjacent to their territory, keeping them free of hostile vessels (Asal et al., 2022). By attacking state vessels in their declared “territory” and “policing” access of foreign or non-belligerent vessels an insurgent group can progress a claim to sovereignty and demonstrate its resolve and strength to the internatio9nal community (Kydd and Walter, 2006).
The rise of modern insurgent groups has led many to question whether sea control and power projection are still effective in dealing with such threats. While navies remain critical for securing sea lanes and deterring state adversaries, they must now contend with the threat of “hybrid attacks,” which operate in the grey area between war and peace. Their role in combating non-state actors and insurgencies requires new approaches, such as closer cooperation with coast guards and other maritime agencies and an increasing focus on protecting sea lines of communication, ensuring freedom of navigation in contested waters and focusing on strategic choke points (Miller, 2006).
The technological innovations of the twenty-first century have significantly altered the landscape of naval warfare. The development of unmanned systems, including drones and autonomous submarines, has expanded the capabilities of modern navies, allowing them to project power more effectively while reducing the risks to personnel, additionally, advances in cyber warfare have introduced new threats to maritime security, as naval forces must now contend with cyberattacks that target critical infrastructure, such as satellite communications and navigation systems.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is one of the most interesting new developments for maritime warfare. The Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) relies heavily on artificial intelligence. According to (Schwab, 2017) the 4IR is defined by the use of cutting-edge technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI), robotics, the Internet of Things (IoT), and advanced materials, to develop new systems and procedures that are more intelligent, efficient, and connected. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the creation of computer systems that are capable of learning, solving problems, and making decisions—tasks that typically require human intelligence. Numerous 4IR technologies, like advanced robots and driverless cars, depend on artificial intelligence.
One of the most notable technologies enabled by 4IR are unmanned systems. Unmanned systems are held up as the future of naval warfare (Clark and Walton, 2019). The US Department of Defence, for instance, predicts that autonomous and semi-autonomous unmanned systems will be able to detect, track, recognize, target, counter, and engage targets at sea, in the air, as well as land either individually or in cooperation. However, there are still a lot of technical obstacles to overcome, and even though unmanned autonomous technology is spreading quickly, the practical barriers are still very high (Bowers and Kirchberger, 2021). These difficulties do not imply that unmanned systems are useless, relatively cheap and primitive examples have been deployed successfully by Ukraine, denying full control of the Black Sea to Russia (Mackintosh, 2024). Rather, the full development of the technology will take time.
Due to “globalization,” the significance of safeguarding marine trade routes has only grown. The strategic significance of the seas in the twenty-first century is demonstrated by the fact that more than 80% of international trade is now carried out by sea, that pipelines are used to distribute resources, and that underwater cables are used to carry internet traffic worldwide (Till, 2013). The requirement for strong and resilient naval forces to safeguard these trade routes and infrastructure continues to be a top priority for superpowers as geopolitical tensions rise, especially in areas like the South China Sea.
To tackle these issues, navies have embraced “post-modern” assignments that prioritize collaboration with allied navies to tackle global issues. Strategies like the United States’ “Co-operative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower,” which calls for international marine alliances to establish a cooperative naval presence frequently referred to as a “1,000 ship navy” the strategy highlights the importance of power projection and maritime security. It aims to enhance global stability and secure freedom of navigation through innovative technologies and a robust strategic sealift capability while countering irregular and transnational threats such as piracy and terrorism. (Conway et al., 2008)
The concept of power projection remains fundamental to maritime strategy. Navies continue to serve as instruments of state power, capable of influencing events on land and at sea. Aircraft carriers, amphibious assault ships, and other naval assets enable states to project force far from their own shores, providing a visible symbol of military strength and deterrence. Power projection also plays a role in diplomacy, as naval forces can be used for humanitarian missions, disaster relief, and other non-combat operations that enhance a state’s global influence. As geopolitical rivalries intensify in regions from the Indo-Pacific to the artic (Brown and Pensack, 2018), the ability to project naval power remains crucial for maintaining a balance of power and deterring potential adversaries (Till, 2013).
In conclusion, despite the modern developments changing the dynamics of conflict and the global security environment, the fundamental principles of maritime strategy are still relevant in the twenty-first century. Modern naval doctrine is still based on the fundamental ideas established by strategic theorists such as Mahan and Corbett, who emphasized the importance of power projection, sea control, and the defence of maritime trade routes. These underlying concepts are just as important now as they were last century.
Over 80% of world trade by volume is carried out through maritime channels because of ongoing globalization demonstrating the strategic significance and ongoing relevance of maritime trade route protection. Strong naval forces that can effectively counter both conventional state-based threats and emerging ones such as terrorism, cyberwarfare, and piracy are essential given how dependent we are on these routes for both national security and economic stability.
Technological developments pose both opportunities and challenges in the maritime conflict environment. Unmanned systems and artificial intelligence are examples of technology that can improve naval capabilities but also present supplementary threats that navies must engage with. Geopolitical conflicts in areas such as the Arctic and the South China Sea emphasize the necessity for flexible approaches that can react to rapidly changing circumstances.
Ultimately, maritime strategy needs to be able retain its fundamental objectives while being able to adapt to changing circumstances. The future of maritime strategy depends on the successful integration of old-style principles with modern innovations so that navies can effectively safeguard the vital arteries of global commerce in an ever increasingly interconnected and contested world.
References
Armstrong B (2015) D – All of The Above: Connecting 21st Century Naval Doctrine to Strategy. Infinity Journal 4(4): 13–17.
Asal V, Hastings J V. and Rethemeyer K (2022) Maritime Insurgency. Terrorism and Political Violence 34(6). Routledge: 1102–1124.
Bowers I and Kirchberger S (2021) Not so disruptive after all: The 4IR, navies and the search for sea control. Journal of Strategic Studies 44(4). Routledge: 613–636.
Brown A and Pensack M (2018) The NSA’s Role in a Climate-Changed World: Spying on Nonprofits, Fishing Boats, and the North Pole. Available at: https://theintercept.com/2018/08/15/nsa-snowden-documents-climate-change/ (accessed 10 October 2024).
Mackintosh T (2024) Ukraine war: Kyiv Says Seven Dead as Drone Attack Sinks Russian Ship. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68477318 (accessed 15 October 2024).
Clark B and Walton AT (2019) Taking Back the Seas: Transforming the U.S. Surface Fleet for Decision-Centric Warfare. Available at: https://csbaonline.org/research/publications/taking-back-the-seas-transforming-the-u.s-surface-fleet-for-decision-centric-warfare (accessed 27 October 2024).
Conway JT, Roughead G and Allen TW (2008) A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower. Naval War College Review 61(1).
Corbett J (2008) Some Principles Of Maritime Strategy. In: Strategic Studies. Routledge, pp. 132–244.
Kydd AH and Walter BF (2006) The Strategies of Terrorism. International Security 31(1): 49–80.
Mehan AT (2011) The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660-1783. Read Books Ltd.
Miller M. H (2006) Aspirational Concepts and Their Impact on Classical Maritime Theories. Australian Defence Force Journal 171: 96–107.
Schwab K (2017) The Fourth Industrial Revolution. London: Penguin Books.
Seidel J (2024) Satellite Photos Reveal Beijing’s Huge Plan for South China Sea. Available at: https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/satellite-photos-reveal-beijings-huge-plan-for-south-china-sea/news-story/852318580feb12552073e602a69d811d (accessed 26 October 2024).
Speller I (2022) Modern Maritime Strategy and Naval Warfare. In: Routledge Handbook of Maritime Security. Routledge, pp. 49–61.
Strachan H (2013) The Meaning of Strategy: Historical Perspectives. In: The Direction of War. Cambridge University Press, pp. 26–45.
Till G (2013) Seapower: A Guide for the Twenty-First Century. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.