Coercive Strategic Effect: Air Power vs. Sea Power

Are air power and sea power comparable in their abilities to produce strategic effects?

Air power and sea power are both fully capable of achieving great strategic effect. However, the strategic usefulness of air power appears to be more limited in scope than sea power.

Air Power Arguments

Robert Pape (1996) provides a useful framework from which to analyze the strategic use of air power. He divides air strategies into four general categories: 1) punishment, 2) risk, 3) denial, and 4) decapitation.

The problem with the punishment theories is that, with the possible exception of nuclear weapons, they do not work. Attempting to punish an enemy population by air bombardment until they demand their own government to stop the war is an unrealized strategy.

Sea Power Arguments

Sea power proponents argue that navies are used best either to attack enemy fleets or to support an operation on the land. In limited war, sea power has more to offer than air power in the strategic role.

Short of going unlimited with an enemy, sea power offers a broad range of strategic assets. Sea power can mount and deliver huge quantities of personnel and material. Only sea power offers the muscle required to remain in a theater for extended time.

Conclusion

Air power and sea power both have important strategic effects, but sea power, used strategically, can win a war, especially a limited war. Sea power is more broad a concept than is air power — it includes not only the ability to operate ships at sea, but the ability to employ air power independent from host nation permission.