Does the US control the sea like the UK used to?

[Julie4]

[nightdrot]

Broadly speaking the answer is "Yes." However, that simple answer misses a more nuanced reality.

First, it has more to do than with what nation has the most number of warships. That honor, at the moment, actually goes to the People's Republic of China. However, until recently that was irrelevant. The Chinese navy having been for decades - indeed through most of the Cold War - little more than a large coastal defense force.

Rather what matters is the kinds of warships that each nation possesses. Essential to naval dominance are aircraft carriers, submarines and various guided missile cruisers. Not only in terms of the numbers of these warships, but of their technological sophistication.

Until recently, the United States had the overall edge both in terms of numbers and in terms of ship types and their technological sophistication. This was true during the Cold War. Although the Soviet navy was built up to some degree, it never really equaled the American navy in numbers or ship-types.

This allowed the United States to develop a navy - augmented still further by the British and French navies to some degree - designed to serve as a "blue water force." That is as a force designed to keep the sea lanes open and to effectively oppose any other naval power.

In fact, that is true even now. True, the Chinese navy - and to a lesser extent Russian navy.- have been built up. Ship numbers are higher - again, the Chinese navy is actually now larger than the American navy measured in absolute numbers - and the types that have been built are designed to contest American naval dominance.

However, even with that, the American navy remains dominant. This because the Chinese and Russian navies are being designed not to obtain naval dominance, but rather simply to negate American naval dominance.

In the Russian case, its' navy is not unlike the pre-WWI German navy. In effect, a "luxury" navy. Russia is essentially a landlocked country with all the raw materials and food supplies it needs for its' economy - as well as foreign trade - being accessible overland. So long as the Russian coasts are safe - which given Russian land based assets they are - the Russian navy is free to challenge USA naval dominance without seeking to secure Russian naval dominance.

China is a bit more complicated. China is looking not only at coastal defense, but at obtaining control of Taiwan and negating American strategic dominance in the Far East by severing the supply lines between Australia and New Zealand in the south Pacific and Japan and South Korea in the north.

To that end, China, while not strictly speaking seeking naval dominance at a global level, is seeking dominance at a local and regional level. In effect, leaving the United States a free hand everywhere but in those areas that are in proximity to China's primary regional interests.

For the time being, the Americans - again supported to some extent by the British and French navies - retain an overall naval dominance at a global level. The challenges it faces being regional. Pitting the United States as a maritime power against Russia and China as "continental" powers.

[Julie4]

Sorry to answer so late but I am sick and starting to heal a little now.

I don't have much to add, but indeed the US Navy is still superior to the Chinese Navy in terms of tonnage and technological sophistication. I am sure that the Chinese leaders know that their Navy cannot compete with the US Navy.

However, I find it interesting how much China has evolved on the maritime issue. Around the 15th century, China had turned its back on maritime power for several centuries, and for several years now, the Chinese leaders consider that the biggest mistake in China's history was to have abandoned their maritime power, and since then they are doing everything to regain a navy worthy of the name.

Besides, I think that China has another problem, it is to ensure the supply of food. Because China represents 20 percent of the world population, but it has only 10 percent of the arable land

[nightdrot]

Don't disagree with you. However, as I noted, China does not need complete naval supremacy. It only needs regional dominance. Throw in the USA's global responsibilities and you have a fundamental inequality that helps alleviate China's defects as a naval power.

Of course, this is somewhat academic. As both the USA and China are nuclear powers, it is an open question as to how long it would be before an outright regional naval war would become something much more global and devastating.

Anyhow, so sorry to hear you are feeling a bit under the weather. Get some rest and feel better soon.

[lightbulb27]

you bet your sweet 1$ US Dollar currency it does! 100 Trillion of them!

Without the guns pointed at important decision makers, to use our currency in their systems, we'd be so much more poor and that be bad for the govt and business managing society... so they in effect, would go about blowing up said "IDM's" and replacing them with people that favor them, ya know like Mr. Hussain and Mr. Gadhafi and the such. Whomever they can control. Threats work very well ya know, just having an aircraft carrier hanging around and submarines loaded with missles is quite a motivator.

Now there's desire and there is achievement. China is getting stronger.

[Anonymous]

Yes. Nobody actually had a blue sea navy but the US navy. Sure the Royal navy and French navy have ships but they are few small light ships maybe with about 2-3 small aircraft carriers between them.

[Soteris]

Actually, that is surprisingly accurate. Not to the same extent, no. But one of the reasons USA can maintain their super power status is because they are using their large navy to project power across the world and protect shipping. Aircraft carriers make the situation a bit different and USA is by no means as wide-reaching as the UK was but its certainly an important aspect of USAs dominance.

[DJB72]

Don't underestimate the Royal Navy. The fleet may be smaller than the American fleet but they were smaller than the Spanish Armada, the Germans in both wars, Napoleon had more ships. The list goes on.

When it comes to Naval Warfare, Britain has almost a thousand years of experience to draw on.

If I needed navy assistance the American fleet wouldn't be my first call

[msc545]

The US certainly attempts to control the sea but it is unclear as to whether or not it actually does. The Chinese and the Russians both have very significant navies and it could be easily argued that they are as much in control of the sea as the United States is.

[monorprise]

The french and the Spanish challenged the British quite a bit too.

[msc545]

Yes you're right I forgot about the British. The British have hundreds and hundreds of years of a very strong navy. I think the Spanish Navy clearly had its day too but maybe not So Much Anymore.

[msc545]

@NathanDavis Parking spots are not strength.

[andreasderjuengere]

Their ships are large - but their seamanship is average at best.

They just don't have the culture to produce a Cook, Nelson, Cochrane, or Drake.

Bullying and posing is not the same as to control something or someone out of skills.

[NamerOfStars]

More so, if anything. A big part of the reason the global economy is possible to the extent it is is the Pax Americana keeping maritime piracy so low.

[Curmudgeon]

Yes, and it has since 1945, really. How much longer this lasts given its current regime, on the other hand...

[Sixgunsound]

US submarines alone control the sea. The stuff we show you is just because we can😁

[Anonymous]

For the most part although the chinese merchant marine fishing fleet kind of does too in a much more ecologically damaging and unchecked by law kind of way.

If there's anyone I wouldn't mind pirates having a go on it'd be them.

[DARKCLOUD1945X]

No, the Democrats Defunded everything police and the armed forces of America we are becoming a suburb of Mainland China

[KostasKouvalis]

Not really. Maybe in the Pacific, but that's really the only place

[LiamJHayden]

Not quite as dominantly, but can inflict far more damage from a far greater distance.

[joeldalton]

The US controls the entire world. Not a single military on the planet could beat it.

[msc545]

Joe, maybe you could explain how it is then that the United States has lost every single War it has been in after World War II through the present time. Okay yeah I will concede that Korea was a draw. But that's it otherwise an unbroken string of losses.

[msc545]

I realize it's supposedly very patriotic to say things like the US never loses Wars and it's the most wonderful country in the world but I think you and I know better Joel.

[joeldalton]

@msc545 Because the US military cares what people think about it. We could have turned every one of those places into parking lots but now everyone’s worried about winning hearts and minds.

[msc545]

You must be joking.

[joeldalton]

@msc545 I’m not. and let’s not forget we subsidize Europe’s militaries.

[msc545]

Subsidizing other people's military is not the same thing as controlling the entire planet. It's just giving them money.

[joeldalton]

@msc545 we subsidize by providing military troops and equipment, dummy.

[msc545]

If you mean the military basis that we build all over the planet in other people's countries I don't think that's to benefit them. I think it's to benefit us.

[joeldalton]

@msc545 So wait, then the US military is dominant in the world, now?

[msc545]

apparently not even though we would like people to think so. We

[msc545]

Want to give the impression of having a lot of control and in the political sense I think we do. In the military sense we do not because history tells us that we don't win Wars at least not since World War II

[joeldalton]

@msc545 Maybe the military should stop trying to be woke and focus on killing people and breaking shit.

[msc545]

I don't care really.

[joeldalton]

@msc545 I know you don't. Which is typical when you realize you're wrong.

[msc545]

I am not wrong, I am tired and busy with work,

[joeldalton]

@msc545 then get off the internet and back to the glory hole.

[Anonymous]

Yes, but in modern terms we really control the skies. Which in modern warfare is more relevant.

[Anonymous]

I don't know but it shouldn't, it shouldn't belong to anyone. Any crime that takes place on the ocean should be the responsibility of the country of wherever the criminal hails from.

[BeMuse]

No it controls the sea much better.

[SnowedIn]

For the most part, yes.

[exitseven]

Yes , but for how much longer is the question.

[Anonymous]

Effectively, the global air space as well.

[msc545]

To some extent that's probably true but it doesn't matter it turns out that Wars aren't won in the air they're won on the ground just like they have been for thousands of years.

[jimmy2]

In Asia yes else where not so much

[MadKez]

No it doesn't