Advertisement

Fleet Renewal and Maritime Strategy in the 1980s

  • Robert S. Wood
Part of the St Antony's book series

Abstract

As the United States maritime strategy was developed and articulated in the 1980s, some critics and commentators argued that it was not in fact a military strategy but a programmatic document to justify the 600-ship navy. Moreover, it was asserted, to the degree that the strategy was intended to govern the actual employment of naval forces, it was inconsistent both with nationally approved concepts of operations and war plans and with Alliance commitments.1 Although these charges were not without substance, they failed to grasp the significance of the maritime strategy in shaping national security perspectives and fleet operations.2

Keywords

Nuclear Deterrent Warsaw Pact Central Front Naval Force Strategic Bomber 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    See, for instance, R. Komer, Maritime Strategy or Coalition Defense (Cambridge, Mass., 1984)Google Scholar
  2. J. Beatty, ‘In Harm’s Way’, The Atlantic Monthly (May 1987) pp. 37–53Google Scholar
  3. J. M. Collins, U.S.-Soviet Military Balance, 1980–1985 (Washington, 1985), especially chapters 9, 11, 12, 16Google Scholar
  4. William W. Kaufmann, A Thoroughly Efficient Navy (Washington, DC, 1987)Google Scholar
  5. John J. Mearsheimer, ‘A Strategic Misstep: The Maritime Strategy and Deterrence in Europe’, International Security (Fall 1986) pp. 3–57.Google Scholar
  6. 2.
    For authoritative statements on the maritime strategy, see The Maritime Strategy Supplement to the US Naval Institute Proceedings (January 1986) andGoogle Scholar
  7. Admiral C. A. H. Trost, ‘Looking Beyond the Maritime Strategy’, US Naval Institute Proceedings (January 1987) pp. 13–16.Google Scholar
  8. For a recent comprehensive and sympathetic study, see N. Friedman, The Maritime Strategy of the U.S. Navy: Concepts and Operations (London, 1987).Google Scholar
  9. 3.
    See C. S. Gray, Maritime Strategy, Geopolitics, and the Defense of the West (New York, 1986).Google Scholar
  10. 4.
    See, for instance, J. Mearsheimer, Conventional Deterrence (Ithaca and London, 1983).Google Scholar
  11. 5.
    J. Hattendorf, ‘The Evolution of the U.S. Navy’s Maritime Strategy, 1977–1986’, Naval War College Review (Summer 1988).Google Scholar
  12. 7.
    J. Mearsheimer, Conventional Deterrence and B. Posen, ‘Measuring the European Conventional Balance: Coping with Complexity in Threat Assessment’, International Security (Winter 1984/5) pp. 47–88.Google Scholar
  13. For a critique of this view, see E. A. Cohen, ‘Toward Better Net Assessment: Rethinking the Conventional Balance in Europe’, International Security (Summer 1988).Google Scholar
  14. 8.
    For an examination of the notion of maritime theatres, see Captain Dennis Blair, USN, ‘The Significance of Maritime Theaters’, Naval War College Review (Summer 1988).Google Scholar
  15. 10.
    For varying views on this subject, see N. Polmar, ‘The Soviet Navy: Nuclear War at Sea’, US Naval Institute Proceedings (July 1986) pp. 111–13Google Scholar
  16. Captain L. Brooks, USN, ‘The Nuclear Maritime Strategy’, US Naval Institute Proceedings (April 1987) pp. 33–9Google Scholar
  17. Ronald O’Rourke, Nuclear Escalation, Strategic Anti-Submarine Warfare, and the Navy’s Forward Maritime Strategy, Congressional Research Service (Washington, DC, 27 February 1987)Google Scholar
  18. B. A. Posen, ‘Inadvertent Nuclear War?: Escalation and NATO’s Northern Fleet’, International Security (Fall 1982) pp. 28–54.Google Scholar
  19. 11.
    For an in-depth examination of campaigns in this theatre, see R. S. Wood and J. P. Hanley, Jr, ‘The Maritime Role in the North Atlantic’, Naval War College Review (November–December 1985) pp. 5–18 andGoogle Scholar
  20. Vice Admiral H. C. Mustin, ‘The Role of the Navy and the Marines in the Norwegian Sea’, Naval War College Review (March–April 1986) pp. 2–6.Google Scholar
  21. 12.
    Commander S. V. MacKay, RN, ‘An Allied Reaction’, US Naval Institute, Proceedings (April 1987) pp. 82–9Google Scholar
  22. Lt. Gen. T. Huitfeldt, RNA, NATO’s Northern Security (London, 1976) andGoogle Scholar
  23. ‘The Threat from the North — Defense of Scandinavia’, in NATO’s Sixteen Nations (October 1986) pp. 26–32Google Scholar
  24. R. S. Jordan, ‘The Maritime Strategy and the Atlantic Alliance’, Journal of the Royal United Services Institute for Defense Studies (September 1987) pp. 45–54.Google Scholar
  25. 13.
    For a more detailed examination of the US industrial base and the role of Japan, see R. S. Wood, ‘Conventional Deterrence and the American Industrial Base: Security Challenges for the Nineteen-Nineties’, in Business in the Contemporary World (H. Sawyer, ed.) (Washington, 1988).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© John B. Hattendorf and Robert S. Jordan 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert S. Wood

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations