FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39  
40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   >>   >|  
d Japan, will be more conveniently considered in subsequent chapters of this manual. The normal correlation and interdependence of naval and military forces in the armed conflict of national wills is sufficiently illustrated by the foregoing examples. In certain abnormal and exceptional cases each can act and produce the desired effect without the other. In a few extreme cases it is hard to see how either could act at all. If, for instance, Spain and Switzerland were to fall out, how could either attack the other? They have no common frontier, and though Spain has a navy, Switzerland has no seaboard. Cases where naval conflict alone has decided the issue are those of the early wars between England and Holland. Neither could reach the other except across the sea, there was no territorial issue directly involved, and the object of both combatants was to secure a monopoly of maritime commerce. But as territorial issues, and territorial issues involving the sea and affected by it directly or indirectly, are nearly always at stake in great wars, history affords few examples of great international conflicts in which sea power does not enter as a factor, often of supreme importance. It must of course enter as a factor of paramount importance in any war between an insular State and a continental one--as in the war between Russia and Japan--or between two continental States which--as in the war between Spain and the United States--have no common frontier on land. War being the armed conflict of national wills, it is manifest that the opposing wills cannot in cases such as these be brought into armed conflict unless one State or the other is in a position to operate on the sea. The first move in such a conflict must of necessity be made, by one belligerent or the other, on the sea. This involves the conception of "the command of the sea," and as this is the fundamental conception of naval warfare as such, our analysis of naval warfare must begin with an exposition of what is meant by the command of the sea. CHAPTER II THE COMMAND OF THE SEA We have seen that when two States go to war the primary object of each is to subdue and if possible to destroy the armed forces of the other. Until that is done either completely, or to such an extent as to induce the defeated belligerent to submit, the conflict of wills cannot be determined, and the two States cannot return to those normal relations, involving no violence o
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39  
40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

conflict

 

States

 

territorial

 
Switzerland
 

object

 
directly
 

warfare

 

conception

 
frontier
 
common

command

 

belligerent

 
importance
 
continental
 
factor
 

examples

 

national

 

normal

 

forces

 
issues

involving

 
manifest
 

insular

 

United

 

position

 

brought

 
opposing
 
Russia
 

paramount

 

destroy


subdue

 

primary

 

completely

 

extent

 

relations

 

violence

 

return

 
determined
 

induce

 

defeated


submit
 

involves

 
fundamental
 
analysis
 
necessity
 

COMMAND

 

CHAPTER

 
exposition
 
operate
 

secure