How did ideas about warfare change as theorists made the leap from war on land to fighting on the seas or in the air?
Hegemony is said to be working best on sea that it does on land. From time immemorial, the naval power has been the form through which the international hegemonic authority has overwhelmingly manifested itself to the powers of the world. During the early ages, this is however believed not to have happened now, the power which a country have to command while in the sea, even though this cannot be disputed locally, is not open to contention. The naval enthusiasts have always said that mankind is currently living in very uninteresting moments. The work which was written by Julian treatise which deals with the naval power. She helps to illuminate the main reason why the raw naval power which several countries had could not give them the maritime security which they needed to remain safe. This was mainly during the First World War. Corbett argues that when they would have used all that they had properly, then all would have been well for them.
There are a number of ways through which the ideas of wars have changed. The leap which have always been there that involved fighting on land to fighting on sea or air has also changed. Some of the ideas which have been put forth are that the challenges which are facing the nascent naval power are that the strategic culture of the people in most cases is always not a reflection of the material factors. It is also not amenable to the quick and easy changes that occur in the day to day life of man.
It is always argued that the acquirement of the naval capabilities is always insufficient to develop a maritime outlook. This is believed to be the first problem or difficulty that arises when a person wants to acquire a maritime mindset. A good example can be seen with the Soviet Union who was deeply affected by the history of the continental expansion as well as of the threats which were coming from other land powers that extended from the Napoleon to the Nazis who were in Germany. Julian says that it is not only USSR but some other countires too had the same problem. This therefore made the soviet leaders not to think of their naval forces as tools through which they would use to project and open the seas and the power which they had in the sea. This in the end limited their navy to only supporting the roles which were done in the land operations. Ten years after the Second World War, Moscow managed to constrain the range of the navy to the coastal operations. This was successfully done by the land based aircraft.
Another factor which affected the way in which the naval power and the way in which they fought on land and air is the geopolitical position or condition in which a state is in. this means the situation which is found in the borders. The situation on a country’s land borders to a larger extent impacts the strategic culture. This however is not the only determinant in this area. The stability of land border can always be used as a strategic condition for a country to change the strategic culture which is found in a given state. Things like the domestic impediments which a country faces helps to shape the mindset of the country that is involved. It should be known that the strategic culture of any state is not epiphenomenon of the structural and the international realities.
The strategic culture of a nation cannot be imported. This is the third maxim in the theory which is proposed by Julian. She says that when foreign doctrine and technology are introduced into a country, it rarely results into the same doctrine being used as the owner had wanted it to be used. When this is put into easily understandable language means that a continental power can be having a navy but lack the world view which can make it turn into a sea power. The ideological, cultural as well as the historical factors play a very important function in determining how the acquired knowledge is used. Two countries which have naval technology will use it differently. One of the states might decide to defeat the hostile navy or even leap to very distance bases. Some may even decide to obtain the command of the commons while others may look for control of its own littoral. This will deny the hostile navy access to some fleets.
The ideas of the warfare can be said to have changed greatly. Several countries have come up with ways through which they can use to subdue their neighbours. The devised means always ensure that they were better placed as compared to their neighbouring countries. This is because the maritime insurgency which is experienced by several countries is not a simple problem which can just be solved on its own. Maritime issues are a mixture of the grey area. This term is used to mean that there are a mix of conflicts and criminal activities which include smuggling, illegal fishing, illegal migration, and many more. These are what is called disorder at sea. This therefore is some of the ways through which warfare has changed. A lot has happened and a lot more changes are anticipated to happen.
Bibliography
Corbett, Julian. "Some Principles of Maritime Strategy, Mineola." (2004): 91-94.
Corbett, Julian S. Principles of maritime strategy. Courier Dover Publications, 2012.
Tzu, Sun. "The Art of War. Translated by Samuel B. Griffith." New York: Oxford University (1963): 65.
Clausewitz, Carl von. "On War. Translated by Michael Howard and Peter Paret." Princeton, NJ (1976).
Weigley, Russell Frank. The American way of war: a history of United States military strategy and policy. Indiana University Press, 1977.
