Battle for Sea Control US Strategy in War

Advantage at Sea: Control and Denial

Sea control and sea denial are strategic concepts in naval warfare. Sea control refers to the ability to use the sea for one's own purposes, such as conducting operations, or denying the enemy the same capability in a specified area for a given period. Sea denial, on the other hand, has for its goal the prevention of an adversary from using the sea for its operations, without necessarily seeking to use it or control it oneself. Both strategies are important in maritime operations, especially as belligerents, regardless of their strength or weakness, can use whatever naval capabilities they possess to achieve their strategic objectives.

Sea control involves establishing dominance over maritime areas for the sake of having one's own freedom of action and for being able to restrict the enemy's movements. As Vego (2015) points out, it was disunity that kept the Christian military from “strategically exploiting the victory” at Lepanto in 1571 (p. 1). Dominance depends upon all parts working together in unison and alignment towards a specific, defined object. This concept is essential for power projection: a military cannot secure sea lines of communication, or support land operations for example without it. During World War II, the Allied forces achieved sea control in the Atlantic, necessary from a strategic point of view for the success of operations like D-Day (Advantage at Sea, 2020).

Sea denial is the disruption of an adversary's ability to use the sea for its operations. This strategy is typically used by weaker naval powers to counter stronger adversaries by making the maritime environment hostile and unpredictable. For example, during the Falklands War, the Argentine Navy used sea denial tactics to challenge the British Navy's control, with submarines and aircraft threatening British ships (Vego, 2008). Prior to that, the British Navy had enjoyed control because its strategy wedded military with mercantile strength (Till, 2018). Argentina disrupted that unity and dominance.

Both strong and weak belligerents can use sea control and sea denial to their advantage, but their methods and objectives may differ. Stronger naval powers are likely to go for sea control for the sake of having strategic mobility and power projection. The United States Navy, for example, uses a strategy of sea control to maintain its global presence and secure international trade routes. With control of critical chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz, the U.S. can protect its interests and those of its allies (Advantage at Sea, 2020).

In conflict scenarios, sea control allows for sustained operations and the ability to launch amphibious assaults, as seen in the Gulf War where the U.S. Navy helped to enforce a maritime blockade and supported ground operations (Vego, 2008). Weaker naval powers or non-state actors lack the capability to achieve sea control, and thus resort to sea denial, using asymmetric tactics like mines, submarines, and fast attack craft, to harass and disrupt superior naval forces. Iran uses a sea denial strategy in the Persian Gulf with swarms of small boats, mines, and anti-ship missiles that constantly threaten U.S. and allied naval vessels (Advantage at Sea, 2020). During the Iran-Iraq War, the Tanker War phase saw both nations attempting to deny each other the use of the Gulf for oil exports by targeting commercial shipping, which just goes to show how sea denial can be used in a regional conflict with major effect (Vego, 2008).