You just said how Russia being able to exercise in the Mediterranean was a good example of how the US doesn't control the sea. I noted that the United States in-fact controls Russian access to the Mediterranean. You've made my point stronger by noting how that control renders the whole of the Russian Black Sea Fleet useless from a strategic point of view. Congratulations.
I named
one example of the US navy not controlling the seas. Your explanation does not invalidate that at all, as you yourself show:
You do know what poisoning the well is right? Because saying, "Russia doesn't care about the Mediterranean because it has no vital interests there" and then noting at least one of its major interests before dismissing it in a single sentence is a good example of that. But let's think about this for a moment: does anyone here seriously think the Russians would not overturn Montreux if they could? What's stopping them? Hint: it ain't Turkey.
Firstly, I did not say "Russia doesn't care about the Mediterranean". So you are missing something, I'd say. Secondy, you just undermined your own claim of 'the US navy controls the Mediterrnean": it effectively doesn't. It may seem that way, because there isn't a war where Russia needs to use its 'useless' Black Sea fleet. But indeed, who's to say if Russia, when needed, will oblige the treaty?
I grant the US doesn't maintain an explicit commitment to a two-power standard. But that's kind of irrelevant given that in practice it has a buffer that's somewhat larger than that.
Consider aircraft carriers. The US has 10 aircraft carriers currently in service. This gives it the same number of carriers as the rest of the world combined. And I'm ignoring the fact that the US operates 9 "amphibious assault ships" that are as capable as most other countries carriers. The Wasp class, of which the US has 8, can carry 20 AV-8B Harrier II and displaces 40 000 tonnes (or thereabouts).
Now let's move to submarines... the US has 75 in service all of which are capable boats. I grant that 18 are boomers and can be excluded. Russia has 46 boats. China has 62. So it's not quite a two power standard in submarines. But the reason that Russia has so many boats and such a small surface fleet in relative terms... has to do with the inescapable fact that the Russian surface fleet was not going to survive long. The Soviets knew this and it helps to explain why something like the Kirov-class battle-cruiser exists. Hint: it's fast, doesn't need to refuel and packs an outsized punch. I don't know a huge amount about China boats but I do know that the diesels are fairly short ranged. The Type 039A would be able to operate in the East China Sea and reach just into the Sea of Japan from mainland bases but not that much more.
I could go on but I don't think I need to.
Indeed. You've just confirmed that having the largest single surface fleet does not amount to controlling the seas. Which it did in the 19th century, for the British, that is. That, however, was a quite unique situation.
No, it doesn't. But that doesn't stop the US from operating a fleet that operates all over the damned world. You're also wrong in claiming that the British used the RN to protect their overseas territories. What the British were interested in doing was ensuring that no other European power could stop the flow of trade to Great Britain itself. Not all of which came from the colonies. That explains why the Grand Fleet was so large and everything else was so small. The USN has exactly the same imperative as the RN i.e. to defend the sea lanes. It's less pressing but it's still there.
I don't see how I would be wrong in claiming the British control of the seas protected their overseas territories. That is exactly what their control effectuated. (Which, by the way, is not the same as "the British used the RN to protect their overseas territories".) Not only did the British protect their territories by controlling the seas, it also enabled them to effectively intervene in Russia and China - to name but two examples. And protecting sea lanes is hardly
less pressing in a globalized economy - to the contrary. (By the way,
any NATO fleet basically operates "all over the damned world". Of course, NATO isn't the US navy. Equally interestingly, the British empire didn't need a NATO.)
The Cuban Missile Crisis... is a really good example of US sea control. Operation Anadyr had to be done in secret because the Russians knew that an overt operation would not work. And lo and behold, when the Russians were caught out... it all went to hell and the operation had to be given up. Amusingly, Operation Kama which a sub-operation of Anadyr and involved sending Russian boats to Cuba which was rather more overt than sending merchantmen... failed miserably. The Russian boats were picked up well before they reached Cuba and had to turn back.
Actually, that would be a rather wrong assessment. The Kennedy administration selected the blockade option (instead of an outright invasion or bombing of Cuba), because it was the less dangerous option. The operation did not "have to be given up", Krushchev decided it was not worth escalating the crisis. So, 'control of the seas' was not the key issue here. The point, however, is that the Cuban missile crisis happened, because the USSR was able to send these missiles to Cuba in the first place - undetected. so much for US navy controlling the seas.
Nuclear subs should make it obvious that 'controlling the seas' is no longer a feasible option. Do you wish me to explain further?
Nope. They have the same basic function. "Destroy the other lot". There's a bunch of other stuff they can do now like reduce a country to ruins. Thanks carrier-based aircraft and cruise missiles which is cool, I guess. But rather simpler to do once the enemy fleet is at the bottom of the ocean.[/QUOTE]
Firstly, the function of the Bristish 19th centry surface fleet was never "destroy the other lot". That is of a simplicity unworhty of contemplation. Secondly, reducing a country to ruins is again not the purpose of a 21th century surface fleet. And no, it is not "simple to do" either.
But since you seme to like examples, here's one more: Somali piracy. Run with it.
